Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

Regional Trial Court
BRANCH 16, MANILA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Complainant

-versus- Criminal Case 18-03883-86

For: Qualified Theft

HAZEL LYN R. MATIAS,

Accused.
_______________________________________________________

COMMENT

The Accused HAZEL LYN R. MATIAS, by counsel and to this

Honorable Court, opposes the private prosecution’s “Motion for
Issuance of Hold Departure Order”, dated July 23, 2019, a copy of
which was received by his undersigned counsel on July , 2019 , and
which has been set by the private prosecutor for hearing on July 26,
2019 at 8:30 AM , thus:

1. The motion for hold-departure order (HDO) is premised on the

argument that the accused being charged with a serious offense might
leave the country to evade criminal liability.

2. There is no proof, other than the bare allegations in the motion

for HDO, that the accused would abscond pendente lite or that she is
a flight risk or that she is a person of bad and notorious moral character
or that he is a recidivist or a repeat offender or has been convicted of
any crime.

3. The allegation in the motion for issuance of HDO that the

accused is charged with a serious offense for an innocuous amount of
P22,308.00 is most unfair and unsupported by evidence, tantamount
to a predisposed judgment that she is indeed guilty of the said crime
even before she can present her defense in court.

4. Thus, the motion for HDO fails to state that the accused exhibited
any manifestation of being a flight risk. Coaxially, the records of this
Honorable Court would show that the accused has always been
present in every scheduled hearing from the inception of this case.
5. The accused has already submitted herself to the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court with provisional liberty under bail of which
conditions already suffice her attendance and foregoes the extreme
effect of an HDO.

6. Furthermore, to give due course to the motion for HDO would be

a violation of accused’s constitutional right to travel. A citizen’s
constitutional right to travel and constitutional due process prevail in
terms of the hierarchy of constitutional and legal significance over and
as against a simple and routine motion for HDO.

7. Finally, it will be noted that the motion for issuance of HDO is not
signed, endorsed and conformed to by the Public Prosecutor, who,
under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, represents the State and
controls and directs the entirety of the management of the instant
criminal case, for which reason the said motion must be denied outright
and must be deemed as a mere scrap of paper and an unauthorized
and improper pleading that has been filed without a proper locus
standi. ON THIS PROCEDURAL BASIS ALONE, THE SAID MOTION
DOES NOT DESERVE THE OFFICIAL ATTENTION OF THE
HONORABLE COURT, with all due respect to the private prosecutor.

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that the private prosecution’s motion
for hold-departure order be DENIED, for lack of merit and for being an
unauthorized and improper pleading.

Further, the accused respectfully prays for such and other reliefs
as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.

Quezon City for Manila

ATTY. JOHNBER AFAGA

Counsel for the Accused

Copy Furnished:

Office of the Public Prosecutor of Manila

Christian Fernandez
14 Jupiter St. cor Asteroid St.,
Bel-Air 1, Makati City 1200

EXPLANATION
 A copy hereof is served on opposing counsel via registered
mail due to the lack of field staff of undersigned co-counsel at this time.

ATTY. JOHNBER AFAGA