September 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > September 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 182644 : September 15, 2010] ROBERTO G. BRILLANTE V. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN AND HON. JUSTICES GODOFREDO L. LEGASPI, EFREN N. DELA CRUZ AND NORBERTO Y. GERALDEZ :
[G.R. No. 182644 : September 15, 2010]
ROBERTO G. BRILLANTE V. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN AND HON. JUSTICES GODOFREDO L. LEGASPI, EFREN N. DELA CRUZ AND NORBERTO Y. GERALDEZ
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 September 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 182644*(Roberto G. Brillante v. Hon. Sandiganbayan and Hon. Justices Godofredo L. Legaspi, Efren N. dela Cruz and Norberto Y. Geraldez).
This case delineates fair criticisms as an acceptable form of free speech from undue assault to the integrity of courts.
The Office of the Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan a criminal information for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019[1] against Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay,[2] Makati Gity Administrator Nicanor V. Santiago, City Treasure]- Luz Yamane, Head of the General Services Department Ernesto A. Aspillaga, Li Yee Shing, Jason Li, and Vivian M. Edurise.[3]
The case fell by raffle to the Sandiganbayan's Third Division composed of respondents justices Godofredo L. Legaspi (now retired), Efren N. dela Cruz, and Norberto Y: Geraldez (deceased). On October 30, 2006 the Third Division dismissed the case for lack of probable cause. Dismayed, complainant Roberto Brillante called a press conference on November 3, 2006 and distributed a four-page document entitled '''Statement on the Sandiganbayan Resolution" He said in the statement that the Third Division abruptly dismissed the case upon the intense lobbying of Sandiganbayan Justice Diosdado M. Peralta[4] and that bribe money had passed. Queried at his press conference, Brillante plainly hinted that the Justices of the Third Division received P10 million each for the dismissal of the action.[5]
Because Brillante's accusations received wide media publicity, on November 7, 2006 the Third Division issued a resolution, requiring him to show cause why he should not be cited for indirect contempt for the statements he gave to the press. At the contempt hearings, several reporters[6] testified to what Brillante said orally and in writing at his November 3, 2006 press conference. The Third Division also read the transcript of the tape recording of the same.
Believing that the Third Division was violating his rights to due process in the course of the hearing, Brillante filed a petition for certiorari with this Court,[7] assailing the denial of his motion for inhibition of the Justices involved and charging irregularity in the conduct of the contempt proceedings. But the Court dismissed the petition in a resolution dated March 12, 2007 on the ground that Brillante failed to show that the Third Division had gravely abused its discretion in hearing the contempt charge against him.
At the resumption of hearing in the contempt case, Brillante testified that he never categorically stated that each of the Third Division Justices received P10 million for the dismissal of the case against Binay, et al. He claimed that he never intended to malign the Sandiganbayan or impede the administration of justice. He argued that his statements constituted fair criticisms. Lastly, he claimed that assuming his statements would ordinarily be contemptuous, he cannot be cited in contempt since there was no pending case when he made those statements.
On September 24, 2007 the Sandiganbayan's Third Division issued a decision, finding Brillante guilty of indirect contempt and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six months and a fine of P30,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Brillante appealed from that resolution to this Court.
Issues presented to the Court
1. Whether or not Brillante's statements are fair criticisms within the ambit of the constitutionally protected freedom of speech and expression; and
2. Whether or not the proceedings violated his right to due process.
One. Judges and justices must as a rule exercise restraint and extraordinary patience in dealing with criticisms hurled against them.[8] The guarantees of free speech and, more importantly, official accountability and transparency demands such response. Still, the courts should never hesitate to protect itself from unfounded, if not mischievous, accusations that put the courts of justice into ill repute and shame.
Here, the claim of Brillante that his written and verbal statements constitute fair criticisms against the Sandiganbayan and the Justices of the Third Division is hard to swallow. He plainly said that the Justices of the Third Division dismissed the case against Binay, et al because of intense lobbying by one of their colleagues, a Senior Justice. And although he did not categorically say that the Justices dismissed the case in exchange for P10 million each, this could be clearly inferred from his whole message. Brillante even added that the Justices busied themselves with counting the money they got instead of reading the case records.
Here are the material portions of his press release:[9]
And here are the material portions of the transcript of the press conference;[10]
Still, Brillante failed to substantiate his above statements., Taken together, they tend to bring the Sandiganbayan and the Justices of the Third Division into disrespect. They also gravely scandalize the whole of the judiciary, making the citation for indirect contempt proper to preserve its dignity.'[11]
Brillante's statement defies the acceptable standards of fair criticism[12] and tends to create distrust in the Sandiganbayan and destroy the confidence of the people in the anti-graft court. Free speech is not a license to undermine the authority of the court to administer justice, neither is it a shield to protect persons who has shown distrust in our judicial system.
Brillante cannot invoke the dismissal of the criminal case against Binay, et al as resulting in the Sandiganhayan's loss of authority to cite him, as complainant in the case, for contempt. It is by now settled that post-litigation criticism can still be the subject of contempt proceedings when, as in this case, the statements subjected the Sandiganbayan to public ridicule.[13]
Lastly, Brillante points out that his subject was not directed at the Sandiganbayan but only at the Justices of the Third Division. This, however. is a poor excuse. The Sandiganbayan that hears and adjudicates cases essentially consists of its incumbent Justices. The malicious charges against its Justices smeared the whole institution. Indeed, this Court has held that the principle of judicial independence which the power of contempt seeks to preserve includes both individual judicial independence (those of the judges and justices) and institutional independence.[14]
Two. Brillante's claim of violation of due process stems from the fact that the Third Division Justices did not inhibit themselves from hearing the contempt case, depriving him of his right to the cold neutrality of a judge. He also assails certain irregularities in the proceedings. But these issues have already been sufficiently addressed and resolved by this Court in Brillante v. Legaspi, et al (G.R.176365). There is no need to revisit these issues for they have already been settled with finality.'[15]
Considering that this is Brillante's first offense, the Court holds that the imposition of a fine and a reduction of the penalty of imprisonment from six months to one month will satisfy the demands of justice.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Decision of the Sandiganbayan dated September 24, 2007 with the modification that the penalty of imprisonment included in it be reduced from six months to one month and served at the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology Regional Office-National Capital Region, Cradle Compound, Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City under the direct responsibility of its Regional Director.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 182644*(Roberto G. Brillante v. Hon. Sandiganbayan and Hon. Justices Godofredo L. Legaspi, Efren N. dela Cruz and Norberto Y. Geraldez).
This case delineates fair criticisms as an acceptable form of free speech from undue assault to the integrity of courts.
The Facts and the Case
The Office of the Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan a criminal information for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019[1] against Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay,[2] Makati Gity Administrator Nicanor V. Santiago, City Treasure]- Luz Yamane, Head of the General Services Department Ernesto A. Aspillaga, Li Yee Shing, Jason Li, and Vivian M. Edurise.[3]
The case fell by raffle to the Sandiganbayan's Third Division composed of respondents justices Godofredo L. Legaspi (now retired), Efren N. dela Cruz, and Norberto Y: Geraldez (deceased). On October 30, 2006 the Third Division dismissed the case for lack of probable cause. Dismayed, complainant Roberto Brillante called a press conference on November 3, 2006 and distributed a four-page document entitled '''Statement on the Sandiganbayan Resolution" He said in the statement that the Third Division abruptly dismissed the case upon the intense lobbying of Sandiganbayan Justice Diosdado M. Peralta[4] and that bribe money had passed. Queried at his press conference, Brillante plainly hinted that the Justices of the Third Division received P10 million each for the dismissal of the action.[5]
Because Brillante's accusations received wide media publicity, on November 7, 2006 the Third Division issued a resolution, requiring him to show cause why he should not be cited for indirect contempt for the statements he gave to the press. At the contempt hearings, several reporters[6] testified to what Brillante said orally and in writing at his November 3, 2006 press conference. The Third Division also read the transcript of the tape recording of the same.
Believing that the Third Division was violating his rights to due process in the course of the hearing, Brillante filed a petition for certiorari with this Court,[7] assailing the denial of his motion for inhibition of the Justices involved and charging irregularity in the conduct of the contempt proceedings. But the Court dismissed the petition in a resolution dated March 12, 2007 on the ground that Brillante failed to show that the Third Division had gravely abused its discretion in hearing the contempt charge against him.
At the resumption of hearing in the contempt case, Brillante testified that he never categorically stated that each of the Third Division Justices received P10 million for the dismissal of the case against Binay, et al. He claimed that he never intended to malign the Sandiganbayan or impede the administration of justice. He argued that his statements constituted fair criticisms. Lastly, he claimed that assuming his statements would ordinarily be contemptuous, he cannot be cited in contempt since there was no pending case when he made those statements.
On September 24, 2007 the Sandiganbayan's Third Division issued a decision, finding Brillante guilty of indirect contempt and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six months and a fine of P30,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Brillante appealed from that resolution to this Court.
Issues presented to the Court
The issues presented are:
1. Whether or not Brillante's statements are fair criticisms within the ambit of the constitutionally protected freedom of speech and expression; and
2. Whether or not the proceedings violated his right to due process.
The Court's Rulings
One. Judges and justices must as a rule exercise restraint and extraordinary patience in dealing with criticisms hurled against them.[8] The guarantees of free speech and, more importantly, official accountability and transparency demands such response. Still, the courts should never hesitate to protect itself from unfounded, if not mischievous, accusations that put the courts of justice into ill repute and shame.
Here, the claim of Brillante that his written and verbal statements constitute fair criticisms against the Sandiganbayan and the Justices of the Third Division is hard to swallow. He plainly said that the Justices of the Third Division dismissed the case against Binay, et al because of intense lobbying by one of their colleagues, a Senior Justice. And although he did not categorically say that the Justices dismissed the case in exchange for P10 million each, this could be clearly inferred from his whole message. Brillante even added that the Justices busied themselves with counting the money they got instead of reading the case records.
Here are the material portions of his press release:[9]
This question will lead us in the Campaign for Public Accountability to a new level of struggle. And this struggle will be against the scoundrels in robes who continue to erode our faith in the judiciary. The continuing erosion of this faith is precisely driven by the likes of Justices Legaspi, Dela Cruz and Geraldez through their legally flawed and immoral resolutions favoring only the rich and the powerful at the expense of justice.
If they did all these, then they must be awarded with the highest honor for performing official functions over and above their call of duty during their private moments and rest period.
If Justices Legaspi, De la Cruz and Geraldez did not do all these, yet arrive at this condemnable resolution, then there must be other considerations for their questionable actions.
This is another P30 million peso question to many lawyers and Makati taxpayers. Have they been reached by the reported P100 million lobby money allegedly flowing from Mayor Binay?
xxxx
But miracles of all miracles, the Third Division dismissed the case with extreme haste on October 30, through the alleged intense lobbying of Sandiganbayan Justice Diosdado M. Peralta of the First Division without resolving the two (2) pending motions, one of which is set for hearing at 2:00 PM, November 2, 2006. Justice Peralta is the brother of Vissia Marie Peralta-AIdon, Binay's Personnel Chief at the City Hall and a co-conspirator in the P113 million Ghost Employees anomaly.
To Justice Peralta, I urge you; stop the shameful and unscrupulous act of lawyering for Mayor Binay and inhibit yourself from any and all cases in the Sandiganbayan involving your "client" Binay.
xxx
It is for this reason that we must bring the grave abuse of power and discretion, immoral conduct and the injustices committed by Justices GODOFREDO L. LEGASPI, EFREN N. DELA CRUZ and NORBERTO Y. GERALDEZ and DIOSDAPQ M. PERALTA against the people of Makati and our taxpayers. (Italics supplied)
And here are the material portions of the transcript of the press conference;[10]
Male Voice I [identified as Brillante]:
"But miracles of all miracles, the Third division dismissed the case with extreme haste on October 30, through the alleged intense lobbying of one Sandiganbayan Justice Diosdado M. Peralta of the First Division without first resolving the two (2) pending motions, one of which is set for hearing at 2:00 PM, November 2, Justice Peralta, by the way, is the brother of Vissia Marie Peralta-Aldon, who is the Personnel Chief of the City Hall, who is co-conspirator in the P113 million Ghost Employees anomaly. So, it is understandable why Justice Peralta will move heaven and earth including the payment of P10 million for every Justice in the third division just to have Binav acquitted prematurely."
XXX X
Female Voice II
"Sir direkiaJim mo rawnajnakusahan mo rung tatlong Justices na tuman&gap ng pera?"
Male Voice I:
"Anu pa? Di ba vun ang ibig sabihin natin dito? Kasi yung di nagagawa ng ginagawa nila rito, ipapahamak mo ang iyong propesyon o career mo kung Hindi malaki ang halaga na nakataya dito.'''
Female Voice:
"Magkano ba?
Ten million per Justice?"
Male Voice I:
"Ten million each according to our information."
xxxx Male Voice I:
"Naglalaway sila sa pagbibitang ng pera. Yun ang nangyari nung Sabado't Linggo. Hindi sa pagbabasa ng COA sa gabi." (Italics and underscoring supplied)
Still, Brillante failed to substantiate his above statements., Taken together, they tend to bring the Sandiganbayan and the Justices of the Third Division into disrespect. They also gravely scandalize the whole of the judiciary, making the citation for indirect contempt proper to preserve its dignity.'[11]
Brillante's statement defies the acceptable standards of fair criticism[12] and tends to create distrust in the Sandiganbayan and destroy the confidence of the people in the anti-graft court. Free speech is not a license to undermine the authority of the court to administer justice, neither is it a shield to protect persons who has shown distrust in our judicial system.
Brillante cannot invoke the dismissal of the criminal case against Binay, et al as resulting in the Sandiganhayan's loss of authority to cite him, as complainant in the case, for contempt. It is by now settled that post-litigation criticism can still be the subject of contempt proceedings when, as in this case, the statements subjected the Sandiganbayan to public ridicule.[13]
Lastly, Brillante points out that his subject was not directed at the Sandiganbayan but only at the Justices of the Third Division. This, however. is a poor excuse. The Sandiganbayan that hears and adjudicates cases essentially consists of its incumbent Justices. The malicious charges against its Justices smeared the whole institution. Indeed, this Court has held that the principle of judicial independence which the power of contempt seeks to preserve includes both individual judicial independence (those of the judges and justices) and institutional independence.[14]
Two. Brillante's claim of violation of due process stems from the fact that the Third Division Justices did not inhibit themselves from hearing the contempt case, depriving him of his right to the cold neutrality of a judge. He also assails certain irregularities in the proceedings. But these issues have already been sufficiently addressed and resolved by this Court in Brillante v. Legaspi, et al (G.R.176365). There is no need to revisit these issues for they have already been settled with finality.'[15]
Considering that this is Brillante's first offense, the Court holds that the imposition of a fine and a reduction of the penalty of imprisonment from six months to one month will satisfy the demands of justice.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Decision of the Sandiganbayan dated September 24, 2007 with the modification that the penalty of imprisonment included in it be reduced from six months to one month and served at the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology Regional Office-National Capital Region, Cradle Compound, Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City under the direct responsibility of its Regional Director.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LU1SA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LU1SA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
* J. Nachura, no part- J. Velasco, Jr., additional member, per Special Order "No. 883 dated September 1, 2010; J. Peralta, no part. J. Del Castillo, additional member, per raffle dated September 15, 2010; J. Mendoza, no part. J. Bersamin, additional member, per Special Order No. 886 dated September 1, 2010.
[1] Otherwise known a5 the "Anti-Graft end Corrupt Practices Act.'''
[2] "Now, Vice-President of the Republic uf the Philippines.
[3] Docketed as SB-06-CRM-0472.
[4] Now a member of this Court.
[5] Sandiganbayan rollo, pp. 466-4-70
[6] Michael Punongbayan of the Philippine Star, Lloyd Caliwan of the Philippine Chronicle, Alvin Murcia, People's Journal Tonight, Alex Aghe. Police Files Tonite, Jocelyn R. Uy of the Philippine Daily Inquirer and Ted Failon of DZMM
[7] Docketed as G.R. 176365, raffled to the First Division of this Court. s Bildnerv.
[8] Bildner v. Ilusorio, G.R. No. 157334, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 378, 393.
[9 ] Rollo, pp. 99-102.
[10] Supra note 5, at 465-473.
[11] People v, Godoy,312 Phil. 977, 1012-1013(1995).
[12] Fair criticism is differentiated from defamation in People v. Godoy, id. at 1018, thus: "(1) Criticism deals only with such things as invite public attention or call for public comment. (2) Criticism never attacks the individual but only his -work. In every case the attack is on a man's acts, or on some thing, and not upon the man himself. A true critic never indulges in personalities. (3) True criticism never imputes or insinuates dishonorable motives, unless justice absolutely requires it, and then only on the clearest proofs. (4) The critic never takes advantage of the occasion to gratify private malice, or to attain any other, object beyond the fair discussion of matters of public interest, and the judicious guidance of the public taste." (Emphasis supplied)
[13] Id. at 1019.
[14] In the Matter of the Allegations contained in the Columns of Mr. Amado P. Macasaet published in Malaya dated September 18, 19, 20 and 21, 2007, A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC, August 8. 2008, 561 SCRA 395, 436.
[15] See Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 167330. September 18, 2009, 600 SCRA. 413, 446.
