ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 149453.� April 29, 2003]
PEOPLE vs. LACSON
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 29 2003.
G.R. No. 149453 (People of the Philippines , et al. vs. Panfilo M. Lacson.)
Embedded in respondent's April 15, 2003 motion for reconsideration of the April 1, 2003 Resolution of the Court is his motion praying the Court to (1) direct the recusation of Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. and (b) re-assign by raffle the task of preparing the resolution of the Court on respondent's April 15, 2003 motion for reconsideration to another Justice of this Court who had actually participated in the evaluation, deliberation and rendition of the May 28, 2002 Resolution of the Court. The respondent contends that:
VII.�� THIS HONORABLE COURT'S MAJORITY MAY NOT HAVE APPRECIATED THE NEED FOR THE HONORABLE JUSTICE ROMEO CALLEJO'S INHIBITION WHICH IS NOW MORE PRONOUNCED DUE TO HIS PONENCIA OF THE APRIL 1, 2003 RESOLUTION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT WHICH IS ADVERSE TO RESPONDENT. [1] cralaw
and
VIII.� THE CHANGE IN THE COMPOSITION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT AND THE INABILITY OF THE NEWLY APPOINTED JUSTICES TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH PRECEDED THE RENDITION OF THE MAY 28, 2002 RESOLUTION MAY HAVE CAUSED THEM TO MISS IMPORTANT ISSUES UNDERPINNING THE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF SECTION 8, RULE 117 UPON RESPONDENT, THEREBY MISAPPRECIATING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MAINTAINING THIS HONORABLE COURT'S PREVIOUS RULING ON THE MATTER. [2] cralaw
ON THE PROPRIETY AND NEED
FOR THE VOLUNTARY INHIBI-
TION OF JUSTICE CALLEJO, SR.
The respondent, through his original counsel of record and his new co-counsel, [3] cralaw asserts that the voluntary inhibition of Justice Callejo, Sr. is proper and imperative because by his own declaration in the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 65034, his participation in the case may raise suspicion of partiality. The respondent states that "that suspicion has produced loud whispers that this Court had been manipulated by politics in this government in light of the fact that it reversed its unanimous decision of May 28, 2002." The fact that the April 1, 2003 Resolution of the Court was penned by Justice Callejo, Sr. who had not participated in the previous proceedings in this Court and who has a blood relationship with an investigating officer involved in the prosecution of this case raises serious questions that could not have arisen if another member of the Court had penned the said resolution. Whatever considerations that prompted Justice Callejo, Sr. to voluntarily inhibit himself before is now magnified ten-fold as he now participates in this Court of last resort that will finally determine whether the instant case against respondent will proceed and in what manner. The April 1, 2003 Resolution penned by Justice Callejo, Sr. has served to reinforce respondent's belief that Justice Callejo, Sr. is not and will not be able to decide on this case with the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
The Court finds the contention of the respondent without merit.
The respondent admits in his motion for reconsideration that he had already raised the issue in his March 18, 2003 motion for the recusation of Justice Callejo, Sr. The Court in its March 25, 2003 Resolution had already resolved the issue and denied respondent's motion without any dissent. The Court stated therein that:
It must be noted that shortly after his appointment to this Court, Justice Callejo, Sr. informed the Court that while this case was pending in the Court of Appeals, he had inhibited himself therein because he thought that the investigating of the criminal cases involving the Kuratong Balelong killings was being conducted by his nephew-in-law who was under the direct supervision and control of the complainants, then Director General Leandro Mendoza. However, upon his review of the complete records of the case, he sees no need to inhibit himself therein. The Court had deferred to the decision of Justice Callejo, Sr.
During the deliberation on the respondent's motion, Justice Callejo, Sr. assured the Court that he has absolutely no personal interest in the present case, and that he can render justice fairly and in good faith. In his submission to the Court, he said that in his career of almost seventeen (17) years in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, the Court of Appeals in this Court, he has resolved all his cases with absolute impartiality, totally unaffected by extraneous considerations and the personalities involved, basing his decisions solely on the evidence and the applicable laws and jurisprudence. The Court has no reason to doubt the submission of Justice Callejo, Sr.
Citing its resolution in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, et al., [4] cralaw the Court emphasized that:
(3) Voluntary inhibitions are addressed to the sound discretion of the justice concerned. In the present case, the magistrates concerned believe in good faith that, notwithstanding the allegations in the three Motions, they can render justice fairly and in good faith in the present proceedings. The Court does not doubt this.
(4) Being collegiate in nature, the Supreme Court allows greater leeway to its members in applying the rule on inhibition/disqualification. In case of doubts, it defers to the sound judgment of the individual magistrate, believing that all members of the Court are capable of discharging their sacred duty to administer justice without fear or favor. "It is for him alone, therefore, to determine his disqualification."
The records of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 65034 show that when Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero dissented from the majority opinion of the appellate court, a raffle for two additional justices to compose a special division of five justices was conducted by the Raffle Committee and Justice Callejo, Sr. was one of those chosen. At that time, the only pleading filed before the Court of Appeals was the petition for certiorari. There was as yet no comment on the petition by the respondents therein. When Justice Callejo, Sr. went over the petition and its annexes, he discovered that one of the complainants in the Department of Justice was the then Director General Leandro Mendoza, of the PNP who had direct control and supervision over his nephew-in-law, the then Deputy Chief of Intelligence of the PNP. Justice Callejo, Sr. then believed that his nephew-in-law conductive the investigation of the case against the respondent. Based on this impression, Justice Callejo, Sr. inhibited himself in the resolution of said case. In the meantime, Justice Sabino de Leon retired from the Court and Justice Callejo, Sr. was appointed to replace him. Conformably with the policy of the Court, Justice Callejo, Sr. inherited the docket of Justice De Leon, including this case which had a pending motion for reconsideration of the May 28, 2002 Resolution. Justice Callejo, Sr. reviewed the records from the Court of Appeals and of this Court and found out that his nephew-in-law had no involvement at all in the investigation of the case; hence, need not inhibit himself in this case notwithstanding his inhibition in the Court of Appeals. Justice Callejo, Sr. did not volunteer to prepare the draft of the April 1, 2003 Resolution of the Court. It was his duty to do so. There is thus no basis to direct Justice Callejo, Sr. to recuse himself in the deliberation of the respondent's motion for reconsideration and in the preparation of the resolution of the Court on the said motion.
The respondent's allusion of loud whispers caused by a suspicion that this Court or any member of the Court had been manipulated by politics in this government when it resolved to set aside its 28 May 2002 Resolution is downright irresponsible. Not too long ago a distinguished member of the Court said:
Those who wear the black robes are enrolled in a noble mission; become different persons; forfeit their past activities, friends and even relatives; and devote full time, attention and effort to the rather reclusive and exclusive world of decision-making. . [5] cralaw
Quoting Rufus Choate, in part, a judge or justice in administering justice "shall know nothing about the parties, everything about the case. He shall do everything for justice; nothing for himself; nothing for his friend; nothing for his patron; nothing for his sovereign." [6] cralaw All members of the Court acted on and resolved petitioners' motion for reconsideration as well as respondent's motion to recuse Justice Callejo, Sr. in light of their respective study of the records and the relevant laws and rules after due deliberation. It must be stressed that although a member of the Court prepares a draft of a resolution or a decision of the Court, it is not by any means the final decision or resolution of the Court. The procedure in the Court is that all the members of the Court are furnished with copies of the draft for their consideration and study. Any member of the Court may file their separate concurring or dissenting opinions based on their review of the records and study of the case. The members of the Court then deliberate on the said draft resolution/decision, as well as the separate concurring or dissenting opinions of the members of the Court and cast their respective votes thereon. Revisions of the draft may be proposed and agreed upon during the deliberation. Only after all the members of the Court had cast their votes and the requisite number of votes had been determined that a ponente is assigned to prepare the final resolution/decision of the Court. The member of the Court who prepared the draft resolution/decision of the Court may or may not be the ponente of the resolution/decision after its deliberation. It is possible that after the Court's deliberation, the dissenting opinion of a member may turn out to be the majority opinion of the Court. In this case, Justice Callejo, Sr. prepared the draft of the April 1, 2003 Resolution of the Court. The Court, after deliberation, approved the said draft. Justice Callejo, Sr. was thereafter assigned to finalize the resolution of the Court.
ON THE NEED FOR THE ASSIGNMENT
OF ANOTHER PONENTE IN THIS CASE
BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN THE COM-
POSITION OF THE COURT
The respondent avers that a member of the Court who was present during the February 18, 2002 oral arguments should be assigned by raffle to prepare the resolution of the Court of his motion for reconsideration. The new members of the Court, including Justice Callejo, Sr., missed the fine points of the arguments of the parties on February 18, 2002 during the oral argument which has caused prejudice to the respondent. The respondent's fear is marked in the April 1, 2003 Resolution of the Court penned by Justice Callejo, Sr. in which he misconstrued the issues and made erroneous factual findings and assessment of the import of the arguments of the respondent. There is a need for the new members of the Court to inhibit themselves from participating in the deliberation of the respondent's motion for reconsideration and for Justice Callejo, Sr. from preparing the said resolution. Supreme Court Circular No. 99-8-09 of the Court should also apply to En Banc cases to avert the unfairness arising from misinformation or misappreciation of the issues by the members of the Court.
The Court does not agree with the respondent.
Although Justices Conchita Carpio-Morales, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., and Adolfo S. Azcuna were not yet members of the Court during the February 18, 2002 oral arguments before the Court, nonetheless they were not disqualified to participate in the deliberations of the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the May 28, 2002 Resolution of the Court or of the instant motion for reconsideration. Neither is Justice Callejo, Sr. disqualified to prepare the resolution of the Court on the motion for reconsideration of the respondent. When the Court deliberated on petitioners' motion for reconsideration, Justices Conchita Carpio-Morales, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. and Adolf S. Azcuna were already members of the Court.
It bears stressing that transcripts of stenographic notes taken during the February 18, 2002 hearing and oral arguments of the parties are parts of the records of this case. Said transcripts are available to the parties or to any member of the Court. Likewise, Attys. Rene A. V. Saguisag and Felix Carao, Jr. may not yet have been the counsel of the respondent on February 18, 2002 but by reading the said transcripts and the records of this case they are informed of what transpired during the hearing and oral arguments of the parties.
The respondent's reliance on Supreme Court Circular No. 99-8-09 is misplaced. As admitted by the respondent the said circular is applicable only to motions for reconsideration in cases assigned to the Divisions of the Court. For cases assigned to the Court En Banc, the policy of the Court had always been and still is; if the ponente is no longer with the Court, his replacement will act upon the motion for reconsideration of a party and participate in the deliberations thereof. This is the reason why Justice Callejo, Sr. who had replaced retired Justice De Leon, prepared the draft of the April 1, 2003 Resolution of the Court.
As to the substantive issues posed by the respondent relating to his motion for reconsideration, the Court will delve into and consider the same when it resolves the motion for reconsideration of the respondent after the petitioners shall have filed their comment thereon.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the motion of the respondent for the Court to direct the recusation of Justice Callejo, Sr. and reassign by raffle the task of preparing the resolution of the Court of his motion for reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Motion for Reconsideration, p. 87, supra.
[2] cralaw Idem, supra, p. 85.
[3] cralaw During the deliberations of respondent's motion for reconsideration on April 22, 2003, Justice Callejo, Sr. informed the Court, inter alia, that Atty. Felix Carao, Jr. of the Saguisag, Carao & Associates signed the said motion as the new co-counsel of the respondent. Atty. Felix Carao, Jr. is his compadre and a close friend and had been his classmate at the San Beda College of Law, while Atty. Rene A.V. Saguisag had been his classmate in some subjects in the College of Arts and Sciences in San Beda College and a co-faculty member at the San Beda College of Law. Notwithstanding his association with Atty. Saguisag and his personal relationship with Atty. Carao, Jr., Justice Callejo, Sr. is not disqualified from taking part in the deliberation of the Court of respondent's motion for reconsideration and in the preparation of the resolution of the Court on said motion for reconsideration. The Saguisag, Carao & Associates entered its appearance only after the Court had resolved the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. (Limpin, Jr. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 161 SCRA 83 [1988] citing Araneta v. Dinglasan, 84 Phil. 368.)
[4] cralaw G.R. Nos. 147062-64.
[5] cralaw Leadership by Example per J. Panganiban.
[6] cralaw Massachusetts Convenion, 1853; Debates and Proceedings, 800.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
