February 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 176389 : February 15, 2011]
ANTONIO LEJANO V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND G.R. NO. 176864 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, ANTONIO LEJANO, MICHAEL A. GATCHALIAN, HOSPICIO FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, PETER ESTRADA AND GERARDO BIONG
"G.R. No. 176389 (Antonio Lejano v. People of the Philippines); and G.R. No. 176864 (People of the Philippines v. Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada and Gerardo Biong).:
REVISED RESOLUTION
In its Resolution of January 18, 2011, the Court directed Mr. Lauro G. Vizconde and Atty. Ferdinand S. Topacio to substantiate their publicized claims that the Court had been paid to acquit the accused in this case and that Justice Antonio Carpio, a member of the Court, worked on his colleagues to ensure such acquittal. As for Mr. Dante La. Jimenez, the Court directed him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for uttering expletives against the Justices of the Court in a television interview on account of their decision in the case.
Mr. Vizconde does not deny the statements that the Court attributes to him:When asked to give his comment regarding the decision, Mr. Lauro Vizconde claimed that the Supreme Court was certainly bought that was why it declared the accused innocent. A journalist asked him, "Sino po 'yung mga sinasabi niyong ahm, ginapang po?" Mr. Vizconde answered, "Eh walang iba kung 'di si Justice Carpio, eh talaga namang sinabi sa akin ng isang Justice diyan x x x Sigurado 'ko kung hindi nagkabayaran, hindi magkakaganito �yung kaso ko." Even before the decision came out, Mr. Vizconde has mentioned that Justice Carpio was "talagang binabraso itong kasamahan sa justice para paboran siya in favor of the Webb."
It is clear from the above that, even before the Court's decision came out, Mr. Vizconde already heralded in public that Justice Carpio had been exerting pressure on the other Justices to acquit accused Hubert Webb. Mr. Vizconde publicly reiterated this alleged manipulation after the decision came out. The implication is that the Justices who voted for acquittal succumbed to Justice Carpio's pressure. In addition, Mr. Vizconde claims that the votes of the Justices had been bought.
Mr. Vizconde's above statements to the media are extremely serious. He accuses the Court of being crooked and corrupt. Yet, when called to substantiate his accusations, all he can say is that it would not be proper "at this time" to reveal to the Court the identities of his unimpeachable informants. But this is like saying, "You are crooks but let me not prove it to you considering that it is not yet time for me to tell the truth." :
But Mr. Vizconde is being unfair to the Court whom he charges with acquitting Webb and the others for money. There is no better time for him to present proof of his accusations than today, not two, three, or five years later when the events he cites would have been drowned by stupor, when time shall have eroded its freshness and clarity. Putting off a fight is the excuse of cowards or those who have nothing to show and refuse to admit they had been wrong. They love to shout their accusations on the rooftops who would not go down to stand for what they utter. They claim allegiance to the truth but would not defend it.
Here, the Court sat as a neutral judge that weighed the evidence of the prosecution and the defense after taking into account the previous findings of the trial court and the divided views of the Court of Appeals. After it had taken a position, the Court took pains to support the same with long and detailed explanation, backed by specific evidence that it cited from the record. The Court does not of course expect everyone to agree with its decision. Dissenters can openly disagree with it. But the rule of law demands obedience to such decision and respect for the institution that handed it down. Maligning the Court and its decision is an option of those who seek to bring the Court down. The Court is duty bound to defend itself, using its inherent contempt powers.
That Mr. Vizconde continues to grieve over his failure to get just retribution for the death of his wife and daughters is not, however, lost to the Court. For this reason, the Court is more than willing to stay its hand from meting out to him the full measure of punishment that his actions would otherwise deserve.
It is different in Atty. Topacio's case. Like Mr. Vizconde, Atty. Topacio does not deny the statements that the Court attributes to him in its resolution:
Mr. Ferdinand Topacio of the People's Movement for Justice said in a press interview that three members of the judiciary "were 'privy to the alleged effort's of Carpio to convince fellow justices to vote for the acquittal of Hubert Webb, principal accused in the massacre of Vizconde's wife and daughters on June 30, 1991...that Carpio was the 'point man in marshalling efforts to secure the acquittal of Webb as early as the time when the case was still under review before the Court of Appeals."
Notably, Atty. Topacio did not say at his press interview that the accusations he uttered against Justice Carpio (and impliedly against the Court's majority that the latter supposedly succeeded in persuading) came from Mr. Vizconde. Indeed, the media credited Atty. Topacio with the statement he gave as a representative of the People's Movement for Justice (PMJ). He must, therefore, assume full responsibility for his bare statements and not seek the cover of Mr. Vizconde.
Justice Carpio inhibited himself from the case because he gave testimony at the trial that, at about the time the crime took place, former Senator Freddie Webb called him and said that he was in the United States and helping his son Hubert find work there. It would have been improper for Justice Carpio, therefore, to try to influence his colleagues in the Court regarding the case. Actually, Justice Carpio neither asked nor influenced any of his colleagues to vote for the acquittal of Hubert Webb or any of the accused. But Atty. Topacio, a lawyer and, thus, an officer of the Court, told the media that Justice Carpio did try to influence his colleagues and even served as point man for the accused.
Atty. Topacio said in the joint compliance:
5. The statements attributed to Topacio regarding alleged efforts on the part of Mr. Justice Carpio, given in an interview with the Philippine Daily Inquirer, were based on information related to him by Mr. Lauro Vizconde when Mr. Vizconde sought his advice whether or not to take action on his information. The undersigned told Mr. Vizconde that if what he (Vizconde) was saying regarding Mr. Justice Carpio was indeed true, then we had an obligation�he as a Filipino citizen, and I as both a Filipino and an officer of the Court�to reveal the same so that the Supreme Court may take appropriate action, but that to avoid any suspicion that we were being used by certain groups to discredit the Supreme Court, then we should not give the information in a private conference with numerous members of the media present, but should only reveal it to one media entity;"
Atty. Topacio said a mouthful. First, he admitted that he was conscious of his duty to reveal to the Supreme Court Justice Carpio's supposed misdeed so the Court "may take appropriate action." Yet, he did not abide by that duty. He did not advise Mr. Vizconde to communicate the matter to the Supreme Court directly so it could act on the same.
Second, Atty. Topacio advised Mr. Vizconde to release his damaging accusation, which they were not then prepared to substantiate, to one media entity. As an officer of the Court, Atty. Topacio had a bounden duty to uphold its dignity and authority, not promote distrust in its administration of justice."[1] He ought not to unnecessarily destroy the people's high esteem and regard for the courts, so essential to the proper administration of justice. [2]
Besides, Atty. Topacio claims that what he said to the Inquirer "were based on information related to him by Mr. Lauro Vizconde." But Atty. Topacio himself belies this claim in paragraph 8 of the Joint Compliance where he said that their unimpeachable source gave the information to both Mr. Vizconde and him:
8. Both undersigned [Vizconde and Topacio] reiterate their utmost respect and support for the institution of the Supreme Court, their full faith in the integrity and leadership of Mr. Chief Justice Renato Corona, and states for the record that their pronouncements regarding Mr. Justice Antonio Carpio were made in reliance with the information given to them in confidence by unimpeachable sources. xxx.
Atty. Topacio has to explain to the Court his lack of candor.
In the case of Mr. Dante Jimenez, he avers that he and Mr. Vizconde were among the founders of the organization called Crusade Against Violence which expanded to become Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC). Mr. Jimenez said that he stood by Mr. Vizconde in his quest for justice in the massacre of his wife and daughters and they became like brothers. Mr. Jimenez believed the evidence against the accused in that case was overwhelming.
Apparently, on December 14, 2010 the media covered the residence of Mr. Vizconde in anticipation of the announcement of the Court's verdict on the rape and homicide case involving his wife and daughters. Mr. Jimenez was present to lend support to his friend. Mr. Jimenez claims that when they heard the Court's spokesman announce the acquittal of the accused in the case, a spontaneous outburst of dismay came from Mr. Vizconde, his family, and his supporters, including Mr. Jimenez. They were "totally shocked and devastated," said the latter.
Mr. Jimenez does not deny what the Court's resolution of January 18, 2011 attributes to him:
On the other hand, during a press conference held after the decision was released, Mr. Dante Jimenez, former President of Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC), uttered the following: "Kayong mga P.I. kayo, kayong mga Justices diyan na nakita po namin ang inyong ginawa po dito. Pinatay ninyo ang criminal justice system! Mga P.I. kayo! xxx�
Granting that he was pained to hear the verdict of innocence that the Court announced, Mr. Jimenez was not justified in hurling such obscene invectives against its Justices. He could not say that the outcome was an absolute surprise. The Court of Appeals that decided the case earlier was divided, three-two. Mr. Jimenez knew that the verdict of the Supreme Court could go either way, a conviction or an acquittal. Parenthetically, Mr. Vizconde behaved better than Mr. Jimenez. Mr. Vizconde did not express his anger like a slut.
In fairness, the Court grants that Mr. Vizconde's grieving could mitigate Mr. Jimenez's actuation. But it would not completely excuse him from willfully and publicly badmouthing the members of the Court since it obviously was not such an uncontrollable outburst from the depth of anger and dismay. He does not appear to have lost his sense of balance and reason altogether. No. Mr. Jimenez faced the television camera. He was conscious that he would get some publicity in what he would say. Indeed, he had such a clear idea of what he was going to say that he chose to address the members of the Court directly, saying: "Kayong mga P.I. kayo, kayong mga Justices diyan na nakita po namin ang inyong ginawa po dito. Pinatay ninyo ang criminal justice system! Mga P.I. kayo! x x x"
Mr. Jimenez cannot invoke his right to freedom of speech and expression to justify his foulmouthed remarks against the members of the Court. The Court held in Roxas v. De Zuzuaregui, Jr.[3] that the making of contemptuous statements directed against the Court is not an exercise of free speech, but an abuse of such right. Unwarranted attacks on the dignity of the courts cannot be disguised as free speech, for the exercise of said right cannot be used to impair public respect and confidence in the courts. Thus, "(f)ree expression must not be used as a vehicle to satisfy one's irrational obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade and even destroy this Court and its magistrates."[4]
WHEREFORE, the Court:
1. Strongly ADMONISHES Mr. Lauro Vizconde for publicly stating that the Court had been bought when it acquitted the accused and that Justice Antonio Carpio put pressure on its members to vote for such acquittal when he, Mr. Vizconde, was not prepared to substantiate such statement;
2. FINDS Mr. Dante La. Jimenez guilty of contempt of court for badmouthing the members of the Court and imposes on him the penalty of fine of P100,000.00;and
3. DIRECTS Atty. Ferdinand S. Topacio to show cause within ten (10) days from receipt of this resolution why he should not be held in contempt for publicly stating through the Philippine Daily Inquirer, when he was not ready to substantiate the same with evidence, that three members of the judiciary were privy to "the alleged efforts of [Justice] Carpio to convince fellow justices to vote for the acquittal of Hubert Webb, principal accused in the massacre of Vizconde's wife and daughters on June 30, 1991...that [Justice] Carpio was the 'point man in marshalling efforts to secure the acquittal of Webb as early as the time when the case was still under review before the Court of Appeals."[5]
The Court further Resolved to
(a) CONSIDER as SERVED the resolution dated November 23, 2010 addressed to Atty. Divinagracia S. San Juan of Sobrevi�as Hayudini Navarro & San Juan, 5th Flr. San Luis Terraces, T.M. Kalaw St, Ermita, Manila, which resolution was returned unserved with notations on the letter envelope 'RTS-Moved Out;'
(b) NOTE WITHOUT ACTION the Letter dated February 2, 2011 of Eloysa G. Sicam, For the Firm Ongkiko Manhit Custodio & Acorda Law OFFICES (ocmalaw), Main Office; 4th Flr. CGB Condominium, 101 Aguirre St., Legaspi Village, Makati City 1229, P.O. Box 4039, Philippines, on behalf of their client, Hubert Jeffrey Webb, in view of the [*] action that the Court has taken on Mr. Jimenez and the joint compliance filed by Atty. Topacio and Mr. Vizconde;
(c) DENY for lack of merit the Motion for Leave to File Herein Integrated Second Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Inhibition dated January 8, 2011 filed by private complainant Mr. Vizconde;
(d) DENY the Second Motion for Reconsideration for being a prohibited pleading under Section 2, Rule 52, in relation to Section 2, Rule 56, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended; and
(e) DENY the Motion for Inhibition in view of the finality of the Decision dated December 14, 2010."
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Del Castillo, JJ., no part.
Bersamin, J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Legal and Judicial Ethics, Ernesto L. Pineda, 1999 Ed., p. 113.[2] Re: Conviction of Judge Adoration G. Angeles, RTC, Branch 121, Caloocan City in Crim. Cases Q-97-69655 to 56 for Child Abuse.
[3] G.R. Nos. 152072 and 152104, July 12, 2007, 527 SCRA 446
[4] Id. at 459.
[*] the words "that the Court has taken on" were added.
