September 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > September 2007 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. 07-5-07-CA : September 11, 2007] RE: LETTER OF RICARDO V. QUINTOS FOR INVESTIGATION ON THE ALLEGED UNWARRANTED HASTE AND UNFAIR TREATMENT BEING CONDUCTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IN DISPOSING OF CA G.R. CR HC NO. 02091, ENTITLED "PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JOSE VILLAROSA, ET AL.:
[A.M. No. 07-5-07-CA : September 11, 2007]
RE: LETTER OF RICARDO V. QUINTOS FOR INVESTIGATION ON THE ALLEGED UNWARRANTED HASTE AND UNFAIR TREATMENT BEING CONDUCTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IN DISPOSING OF CA G.R. CR HC NO. 02091, ENTITLED "PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JOSE VILLAROSA, ET AL.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated September 11,2007
"A.M. No. 07-5-07-CA - Re: Letter of Ricardo V. Quintos for Investigation on the Alleged Unwarranted Haste and Unfair Treatment Being Conducted by the Court of Appeals in Disposing of CA G.R. CR HC No. 02091, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Jose Villarosa, et al."
On April 24, 2007, Ricardo V. Quintos (complainant) sent Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno a letter-complaint for "unwarranted haste and unfair treatment being conducted by the Court of Appeals in disposing of CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02091, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Jose Villarosa, et al." pending therein. These acts were done in order to unduly benefit Jose Villarosa, one of the appellants, to the prejudice of the heirs of the victims.
Complainant also stated in his letter-complaint that during the pendency of the appeal, he has been receiving reliable reports that Congresswoman Amelita Villarosa, wife of appellant Jose Villarosa, is boasting in Mindoro that the latter would be acquitted by the Court of Appeals; and that the Court of Appeals "has been bought."
According to complainant, the reports are true considering the following events:
a. The Solicitor General, without filing a motion for extension to file the appellee's brief, hastily filed with the Court of Appeals, on December 4, 2006, a Manifestation recommending the acquittal of appellants Jose Villarosa, Ruben Balaguer, Gelito Bautista, and Mario Tobias despite sufficient evidence which warrants their conviction;
b. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated April 13, 2007 holding that the Solicitor General's Manifestation can be considered in its Decision rendered moot complainant's omnibus motion dated January 26, 2007 to strike out the said Manifestation; and
c. In the same Resolution dated April 13, 2007, ;the appeal was considered submitted for decision. However, upon; complainant's verification, the appeal was raffled off to the 7th Division of the Court of Appeals prior to that date.
On June 12, 2007, the Court En Banc issued a Resolution referring the above letter-complaint to Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes[1] of the Court of Appeals for appropriate action.
In his First Indorsement dated July 26, 2007, Justice Reyes referred the letter-complaint to Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Noel G. Tijam for their comment or appropriate action.
In his Second Indorsement dated August 13, 2007, Justice Cruz forwarded his comment to Acting Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.
For his part, Justice Tijam also sent his comment to Acting Presiding Justice Vasquez on August 3, 2007.
At this point, it is relevant to narrate the factual backdrop of this case.
Appellants Villarosa and six (6) others[2] were convicted of murder by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 81, Quezon City in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-98-75633-34 for the killing of Paul and Michael, complainant's sons, The case is now pending appeal before the Court of Appeals.
On April 21, 2006, the case was raffled off to Justice Edgardo P. Cruz of the 13th Division of the appellate court for the completion of the records. On October 19, 2006, appellants separately filed their briefs.
On December 4, 2006, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Manifestation, in lieu of the appellee's brief, recommending the acquittal of appellants Jose Villarosa, Ruben Balaguer, Gelito Bautista, and Mario Tobias. Then the OSG filed a consolidated brief for the People (appellee) refuting the appellants' brief of these appellants - Ungsod, Matricio, and Hermoso.
Appellant Villarosa filed successive motions to consider the appeal submitted for decision and to re-raffle the case to another justice for study and report.
On December 8, 2006, appellant Villarosa filed a "Manifestation with Motion to Deem Appeals Submitted for Decision" which was noted by the Court of Appeals on January 15, 2007.
On January 26, 2007, complainant and the other heirs of Paul and Michael filed an Omnibus Motion to strike out the OSG's Manifestation recommending the acquittal of appellants Villarosa, Balaguer, Bautista, and Tobias.
On March 8, 2007, appellant Villarosa filed another "Motion to Deem Appeal Submitted for Decision and for Raffle to a Justice for Study and Report." This was noted by the Court of Appeals.
On March 8, 2007, Congresswoman Amelita Calimbas-Villarosa, wife of appellant Villarosa, sent a letter to then Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes seeking intercession for the immediate raffle of the case for decision.
On April 2, 2007, appellant Villarosa filed his third "Motion Reiterating that Appeal be Deemed Submitted for Decision and for Raffle to Justice for Study and Report."
On April 13, 2007, after the parties had filed the required briefs and memoranda, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution granting appellant Villarosa's third motion and considered the appeal submitted for decision. In the same Resolution, the appellate court noted without action the motion of the heirs of the victims to expunge from the records the OSG's Manifestation recommending the acquittal of appellants Villarosa and others.
On April 18, 2007, the case was re-raffled to Justice1 Noel G. Tijam of the 7th Division for decision.
Going back to the comments of Justices Cruz and Tijam - Justice Cruz explains that the completion stage of CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02091 was conducted regularly and in accordance with the 2002 Interim Rules of the Court of Appeals, as amended. He denies that there was "unwarranted haste" and "unfair treatment" that blemished the proceedings. He maintains that there is nothing anomalous "in the OSG making a recommendation for the acquittal of an accused." Being an independent agency, the OSG allows the Solicitor General to recommend the acquittal of an appellant. It was only on April 13, 2007, or almost a year after the case was raffled to him for completion of the records, that the case was considered submitted for decision.
We reviewed the various Resolutions issued by Justice Cruz and found no indication therein that he acted hastily in disposing of the appealed case. In fact, it took Justice Cruz almost one year to complete the records and to consider the case submitted for decision. Neither can we conclude that Justice Cruz treated complainant unfairly.
Justice Tijam, on the other hand, received the records of the case for place before his Division. Thereafter, these were the incidents that took place before his division.
1. On May 28, 2007, complainant filed a motion for inhibition praying that the members of Justice Tijam's Division voluntarily inhibit themselves from further resolving the case. Complainant alleged that during the pendency of the appeal, Congresswoman Amelita Villarosa has been boasting in the entire province of Mindoro that her husband would be acquitted by the Court of Appeals; and that the latter has bought this court, "particularly Justice Noel G. Tijam of the 7th Division" and that "a decision acquitting him is already being prepared or was already made."
During the hearing of the motion for inhibition on June 8, 2007, complainant reiterated his allegations therein and added that "he is only being prudent and vigilant."
On June 28, 2007, Justice Tijam's Division issued a Resolution denying complainant's motion because it was based mainly on mere innuendos.
Justice Tijam further explained:
While Justice Tijam denied the motion for inhibition, such action does not constitute "unfair treatment" against complainant. As explained by Justice Tijam, complainant failed to prove the allegations in his motion; are mere innuendos.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the letter-complaint of Ricardo Quintos against Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Noel G. Tijam for lack of merit."
"A.M. No. 07-5-07-CA - Re: Letter of Ricardo V. Quintos for Investigation on the Alleged Unwarranted Haste and Unfair Treatment Being Conducted by the Court of Appeals in Disposing of CA G.R. CR HC No. 02091, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Jose Villarosa, et al."
On April 24, 2007, Ricardo V. Quintos (complainant) sent Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno a letter-complaint for "unwarranted haste and unfair treatment being conducted by the Court of Appeals in disposing of CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02091, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Jose Villarosa, et al." pending therein. These acts were done in order to unduly benefit Jose Villarosa, one of the appellants, to the prejudice of the heirs of the victims.
Complainant also stated in his letter-complaint that during the pendency of the appeal, he has been receiving reliable reports that Congresswoman Amelita Villarosa, wife of appellant Jose Villarosa, is boasting in Mindoro that the latter would be acquitted by the Court of Appeals; and that the Court of Appeals "has been bought."
According to complainant, the reports are true considering the following events:
a. The Solicitor General, without filing a motion for extension to file the appellee's brief, hastily filed with the Court of Appeals, on December 4, 2006, a Manifestation recommending the acquittal of appellants Jose Villarosa, Ruben Balaguer, Gelito Bautista, and Mario Tobias despite sufficient evidence which warrants their conviction;
b. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated April 13, 2007 holding that the Solicitor General's Manifestation can be considered in its Decision rendered moot complainant's omnibus motion dated January 26, 2007 to strike out the said Manifestation; and
c. In the same Resolution dated April 13, 2007, ;the appeal was considered submitted for decision. However, upon; complainant's verification, the appeal was raffled off to the 7th Division of the Court of Appeals prior to that date.
On June 12, 2007, the Court En Banc issued a Resolution referring the above letter-complaint to Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes[1] of the Court of Appeals for appropriate action.
In his First Indorsement dated July 26, 2007, Justice Reyes referred the letter-complaint to Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Noel G. Tijam for their comment or appropriate action.
In his Second Indorsement dated August 13, 2007, Justice Cruz forwarded his comment to Acting Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.
For his part, Justice Tijam also sent his comment to Acting Presiding Justice Vasquez on August 3, 2007.
At this point, it is relevant to narrate the factual backdrop of this case.
Appellants Villarosa and six (6) others[2] were convicted of murder by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 81, Quezon City in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-98-75633-34 for the killing of Paul and Michael, complainant's sons, The case is now pending appeal before the Court of Appeals.
On April 21, 2006, the case was raffled off to Justice Edgardo P. Cruz of the 13th Division of the appellate court for the completion of the records. On October 19, 2006, appellants separately filed their briefs.
On December 4, 2006, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Manifestation, in lieu of the appellee's brief, recommending the acquittal of appellants Jose Villarosa, Ruben Balaguer, Gelito Bautista, and Mario Tobias. Then the OSG filed a consolidated brief for the People (appellee) refuting the appellants' brief of these appellants - Ungsod, Matricio, and Hermoso.
Appellant Villarosa filed successive motions to consider the appeal submitted for decision and to re-raffle the case to another justice for study and report.
On December 8, 2006, appellant Villarosa filed a "Manifestation with Motion to Deem Appeals Submitted for Decision" which was noted by the Court of Appeals on January 15, 2007.
On January 26, 2007, complainant and the other heirs of Paul and Michael filed an Omnibus Motion to strike out the OSG's Manifestation recommending the acquittal of appellants Villarosa, Balaguer, Bautista, and Tobias.
On March 8, 2007, appellant Villarosa filed another "Motion to Deem Appeal Submitted for Decision and for Raffle to a Justice for Study and Report." This was noted by the Court of Appeals.
On March 8, 2007, Congresswoman Amelita Calimbas-Villarosa, wife of appellant Villarosa, sent a letter to then Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes seeking intercession for the immediate raffle of the case for decision.
On April 2, 2007, appellant Villarosa filed his third "Motion Reiterating that Appeal be Deemed Submitted for Decision and for Raffle to Justice for Study and Report."
On April 13, 2007, after the parties had filed the required briefs and memoranda, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution granting appellant Villarosa's third motion and considered the appeal submitted for decision. In the same Resolution, the appellate court noted without action the motion of the heirs of the victims to expunge from the records the OSG's Manifestation recommending the acquittal of appellants Villarosa and others.
On April 18, 2007, the case was re-raffled to Justice1 Noel G. Tijam of the 7th Division for decision.
Going back to the comments of Justices Cruz and Tijam - Justice Cruz explains that the completion stage of CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02091 was conducted regularly and in accordance with the 2002 Interim Rules of the Court of Appeals, as amended. He denies that there was "unwarranted haste" and "unfair treatment" that blemished the proceedings. He maintains that there is nothing anomalous "in the OSG making a recommendation for the acquittal of an accused." Being an independent agency, the OSG allows the Solicitor General to recommend the acquittal of an appellant. It was only on April 13, 2007, or almost a year after the case was raffled to him for completion of the records, that the case was considered submitted for decision.
We reviewed the various Resolutions issued by Justice Cruz and found no indication therein that he acted hastily in disposing of the appealed case. In fact, it took Justice Cruz almost one year to complete the records and to consider the case submitted for decision. Neither can we conclude that Justice Cruz treated complainant unfairly.
Justice Tijam, on the other hand, received the records of the case for place before his Division. Thereafter, these were the incidents that took place before his division.
1. On May 28, 2007, complainant filed a motion for inhibition praying that the members of Justice Tijam's Division voluntarily inhibit themselves from further resolving the case. Complainant alleged that during the pendency of the appeal, Congresswoman Amelita Villarosa has been boasting in the entire province of Mindoro that her husband would be acquitted by the Court of Appeals; and that the latter has bought this court, "particularly Justice Noel G. Tijam of the 7th Division" and that "a decision acquitting him is already being prepared or was already made."
During the hearing of the motion for inhibition on June 8, 2007, complainant reiterated his allegations therein and added that "he is only being prudent and vigilant."
On June 28, 2007, Justice Tijam's Division issued a Resolution denying complainant's motion because it was based mainly on mere innuendos.
Justice Tijam further explained:
We said (in our Resolution) that to grant the request for inhibition is to send the wrong message that every time a party is displeased with a resolution of a judge or a justice of this Court, he may effectively dislodge him by the simple expedient of a motion requesting for his inhibition, even if the same lacks evidentiary support and is based on pure innuendos. It would also encourage litigants to bring their case from one judge/justice/division to another, every time they feel or suspect that the judge/justice/division will not rule in their favor. We stressed that this action cannot be countenanced since it is, in fact, a form of forum shopping."From the comment of Justice Tijam, we could not discern any taint of "unwarranted haste" and "unfair treatment" on his part. The case is still pending. His Division has not yet rendered a decision. Obviously, he or the members of his Division could not have acted hastily as claimed by complainant.x x x
However, mindful of the Supreme Court's pronouncement that the court's contempt power should be used sparingly [Office of the Court Administrator v. Paderanga, 468 SCRA 21, 34 (2005), citing Sison v. Caoibes, Jr., 429 SCRA 258 (2004)], We merely warned Mr. Quintos to behave prudently and not to impute false, malicious and unfounded accusations or insults to this Court under pain of contempt. We likewise served final warning on both parties that any act to influence, malign or subvert the functions of the Court will be dealt with severely.x x x
My actions on the case would show that there was no undue haste or unfair treatment in the manner I handled the incidents of the appeal after the case was raffled to my office for study and report. Mr. Quintos was heard on his motion for inhibition, and even as the heirs of Michael Quintos failed to submit their Memorandum on time, this Court admitted their Consolidated Comments, treating the same as their Memorandum, and their Supplemental Memorandum, in the interest of substantial justice. The Resolutions of my Division were issued only after considering the submissions of both parties and after consultation among the: members of the Division. The reasons for our dispositions were clearly set out in the Resolutions and supported by the record, the rules and applicable jurisprudence. Furthermore, even when the derogatory and malicious remark in Mr. Quintos' Motion for Inhibition constituted actionable direct contempt of court, We discerningly opted to merely warn him to be more prudent and circumspect in his language.
Mr. Quintos' claim that a decision acquitting appellant Villarosa has been or is being prepared is completely false. My office is not even fully evaluated the case for decision given the delays caused by the motions filed by Mr. Quintos. The falsity of Mr. Quintos' claims is even made more apparent by the fact that the elections were long over, and the purported acquittal has, to date, not been rendered by this Court. Indeed, it is baffling that Mr. Quintos refuses to believe the Villarosas' allegations of innocence and yet accepts their statements of having "bought" this Court as gospel truth.
While my actions on the case are not the subject of Mr. Quintos' request for administrative investigation, please allow me to express my sentiments on Mr. Quintos' doubts on this Court's ability to render an impartial judgment. Like his motion for inhibition, Mr. Quintos' request for administrative investigation is an apparent attempt to coerce and influence this Court in deciding the appeal. As it is, this Court is under threat that if it renders judgment adverse to Mr. Quintos. it would confirm his suspicion that the decision had been "bought." Mr. Quintos' supposed distrust simply cannot be allowed to dictate the outcome of the appeal.
While Justice Tijam denied the motion for inhibition, such action does not constitute "unfair treatment" against complainant. As explained by Justice Tijam, complainant failed to prove the allegations in his motion; are mere innuendos.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the letter-complaint of Ricardo Quintos against Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Noel G. Tijam for lack of merit."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Now Associate Justice of this Court.
[2] Namely, Josue G. Ungsod, Manolito Matricio, Mario Tobias, Ruben Balaguer, Gelito Bautista, and Eduardo Hermoso.
