August 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > August 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 173612 : August 27, 2008] DOMINADOR MALANA AND RODEL TIAGA V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES:
[G.R. No. 173612 : August 27, 2008]
DOMINADOR MALANA AND RODEL TIAGA V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 27 August 2008:
G.R. No. 173612 (Dominador Malana and Rodel Tiaga v. People of the Philippines). � In Motion for Reconsideration dated 10 April 2008, which Atty. Oliver Lozano filed in behalf of petitioners as their counsel, he stated that the ponente �unfairly and unkindly ignored� petitioners� main defenses thereby violating �the time-honored presumption of innocence and the solemn judicial duty to resolve all doubts in favor of the accused,� and that the resulting conviction �constitutes the highest form of rendering unjust verdict.� Atty. Oliver Lozano further alleged in his Amplification of the Motion for Reconsideration dated 14 April 2008 that the ponente �falsely intercalated a fact absolutely not borne by the record or evidence� and charged that the ponente �committed falsification� in the decision in this case.
It appears that the statements of Atty. Oliver Lozano provided the basis for Sherwin C. Olaes�s article in the Daily Tribune issue of 20 April 2008 entitled Lawyer Charges SC Justice for Issuing �Unjust� Ruling. In the said article, Olaes wrote that Atty. Oliver Lozano accused the ponente of having committed �falsification by forced intercalation� in the decision in this case and of having �unjustly and unkindly ignored the strong and valid defenses of the accused and falsely stated that the defense consisted of only denials, uncorroborated alibi, minor matters, and semantics.� Sherwin C. Olaes also quoted Atty. Oliver Lozano as having stated that the decision in this case is the �worst violation of the time-honored presumption of innocence and the solemn judicial duty to resole all doubts in favor of the accused,� that �such oppression resulting in conviction committed by a SC Justice constitutes the highest form of rendering unjust verdict,� and that �(i)t is saddening that the SC, through erring Ponentes that decide cases with inaccurate and emotional expressions that are uncalled for, has diminished its role as �Last Bulwark of Justice�.�
After the Motion for Reconsideration and the Amplification of the Motion for Reconsideration were denied by the Court in a Resolution dated 16 June 2008,[1] Attys. Oliver Lozano and Evangeline Lunio Lozano filed in behalf of petitioners a Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Reconsideration dated 16 July 2008 where they stated that the resolution of the Court was stealthily �written by (the ponente) in order to preempt investigation by the Honorable Court En Banc of Atty. Oliver O. Lozano�s Complaint against him for rendering unjust verdict,� in which the ponente �ignored, misappreciated and misinterpreted the physical facts, evidence and circumstances� and �adhered to his own erroneous interpretations of facts, evidence and Supreme Court rulings in order to convict,� resulting in �a travesty and mockery of justice indicating that all along the accused were deprived of fairplay, due process or cold neutrality reminiscent of the Dimsum Case.�
It appears that said allegations and statements constitute �improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice� as provided in Section 3 (d), Rule 71 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, for which Attys. Oliver Lozano and Evangeline Junio Lozano may be punished for indirect contempt under the aforesaid provision.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Oliver Lozano and Atty. Evangeline Junio Lozano are REQUIRED to explain in writing within ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution why they should not be punished for indirect contempt of court pursuant to Section 4, Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
G.R. No. 173612 (Dominador Malana and Rodel Tiaga v. People of the Philippines). � In Motion for Reconsideration dated 10 April 2008, which Atty. Oliver Lozano filed in behalf of petitioners as their counsel, he stated that the ponente �unfairly and unkindly ignored� petitioners� main defenses thereby violating �the time-honored presumption of innocence and the solemn judicial duty to resolve all doubts in favor of the accused,� and that the resulting conviction �constitutes the highest form of rendering unjust verdict.� Atty. Oliver Lozano further alleged in his Amplification of the Motion for Reconsideration dated 14 April 2008 that the ponente �falsely intercalated a fact absolutely not borne by the record or evidence� and charged that the ponente �committed falsification� in the decision in this case.
It appears that the statements of Atty. Oliver Lozano provided the basis for Sherwin C. Olaes�s article in the Daily Tribune issue of 20 April 2008 entitled Lawyer Charges SC Justice for Issuing �Unjust� Ruling. In the said article, Olaes wrote that Atty. Oliver Lozano accused the ponente of having committed �falsification by forced intercalation� in the decision in this case and of having �unjustly and unkindly ignored the strong and valid defenses of the accused and falsely stated that the defense consisted of only denials, uncorroborated alibi, minor matters, and semantics.� Sherwin C. Olaes also quoted Atty. Oliver Lozano as having stated that the decision in this case is the �worst violation of the time-honored presumption of innocence and the solemn judicial duty to resole all doubts in favor of the accused,� that �such oppression resulting in conviction committed by a SC Justice constitutes the highest form of rendering unjust verdict,� and that �(i)t is saddening that the SC, through erring Ponentes that decide cases with inaccurate and emotional expressions that are uncalled for, has diminished its role as �Last Bulwark of Justice�.�
After the Motion for Reconsideration and the Amplification of the Motion for Reconsideration were denied by the Court in a Resolution dated 16 June 2008,[1] Attys. Oliver Lozano and Evangeline Lunio Lozano filed in behalf of petitioners a Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Reconsideration dated 16 July 2008 where they stated that the resolution of the Court was stealthily �written by (the ponente) in order to preempt investigation by the Honorable Court En Banc of Atty. Oliver O. Lozano�s Complaint against him for rendering unjust verdict,� in which the ponente �ignored, misappreciated and misinterpreted the physical facts, evidence and circumstances� and �adhered to his own erroneous interpretations of facts, evidence and Supreme Court rulings in order to convict,� resulting in �a travesty and mockery of justice indicating that all along the accused were deprived of fairplay, due process or cold neutrality reminiscent of the Dimsum Case.�
It appears that said allegations and statements constitute �improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice� as provided in Section 3 (d), Rule 71 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, for which Attys. Oliver Lozano and Evangeline Junio Lozano may be punished for indirect contempt under the aforesaid provision.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Oliver Lozano and Atty. Evangeline Junio Lozano are REQUIRED to explain in writing within ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution why they should not be punished for indirect contempt of court pursuant to Section 4, Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Id. at 382. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, petitioners� Motion for Reconsideration dated 10 April 2008, together with their Amplification of the Motion for Reconsideration dated 14 April 2008, is DENIED with FINALITY.
