October 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > October 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 173612 : October 15, 2008] DOMINADOR MALANA AND RODEL TIAGA V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES :
[G.R. No. 173612 : October 15, 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 15 October 2008:
G.R. No. 173612 (Dominador Malana and Rodel Tiaga v. People of the Philippines).In compliance with the resolution dated 27 August 2008 requiring Atty. Oliver Lozano (Atty. Lozano) and Atty. Evangeline Junio Lozano to explain in writing why they should not be punished for indirect contempt of court, they filed their Compliance dated 15 September 2008 and thereafter Atty. Lozano alone submitted an Amplification of the Explanation of Atty. Oliver Lozano dated 16 September 2008.
In their Compliance, Atty. Lozano avers that he made the statements adverted to in the resolution dated 27 August 2008 because he was "emotionally overwhelmed, with disillusionment" by the decision of the Court, affirming the conviction of petitioners, and that he was "deeply hurt" specifically by the statements in the decision that "the defense offered 'denials and uncorroborated alibi,' harped 'on minor matters' and engaged 'in semantics.'" He further declares that he has come to realize that he "was carried way" by his emotions. On the other hand, Atty. Evangeline Lozano explains that the motion for leave to file the incorporated second motion for reconsideration was entirely prepared by her father, Atty. Oliver Lozano, and that she signed the motion upon his request and out of trust and respect for him in the hope that it would strengthen petitioners' case, adding that as she failed to perceive the underlying import of the language used by her father she was not able to suggest the omission of the statements referred to in the resolution dated 27 August 2008.
While in the Amplification of the Explanation of Atty. Oliver O. Lozano, Atty. Lozano asserts that "it was error" for the ponente "to belittle the defense" for having invoked 'denials, alibi, minor matters and semantics," and thereby impute "gross incompetence" to him, but recognizing that "an error cannot be corrected with another error" he apologized. He further states that his emotional words were "intended and directed against his (the ponente's) unessential, erroneous, and emotional words" which to him pictured him as "stupid." Atty. Lozano asks the Court to "take a second look into the Second Motion for Reconsideration[1] and await the investigation of the Court En Banc[2]"
However, despite the fact that the present incident is pending before the Special Second Division of the Court, Atty. Lozano sent personal letters dated 30 September 2008 with the same contents to all the members of the Court. In these letters, he rehashes factual arguments which were already fully discussed in the Court's main decision and the seven (7)-page resolution[3] which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration with finality. He avers that while "(t)he defenses are substantial and valid,(,) (h)owever, Justice Tinga unjustly held that the defense consists of mere 'denials, alibi, minor matters and semantics' in order to sustain (the judgment of) conviction;" that while the motions he filed are meritorious, the resolutions "curtly denying them are unjust and oppressive"; and that since "the Honorable Court does not issue such unkind and unjust Resolutions," he suspects "that the highly questionable Minute Resolutions are not genuine and were not deliberated upon." Atty. Lozano asks the Court to "use once more its plenary powers of suspending the rules" so that "the Honorable Court can boldly take appropriate action in the Paramount Interest of 'Justice for God's Greater Glory.'" He then wrongfully and maliciously claims that there is an administrative complaint against Justice Tinga, and asks that the "case be taken up by the Honorable Court En Banc for the rendition of just verdict in aid of future legislation that will prohibit unjust Minute Resolutions which do not thoroughly and sufficiently explain denials and dismissals that are not in accord with the Spirit of the Constitution."
WHEREFORE, Atty. Oliver Lozano and Atty. Evangeline Lozano are REQUIRED to MANIFEST within ten (10) days from receipt of this resolution whether they are willing to submit the citation against them for indirect contempt for the resolution of this Court based on the notices and resolutions thus far issued and on the pleadings and letters they have already filed or sent, namely: their Compliance dated 15 September 2008; the Amplification of the Explanation of Atty. Oliver Lozano dated 16 September 2008; and Atty. Oliver Lozano's personal letters dated 30 September 2008 to the individual members of the Court.
G.R. No. 173612 (Dominador Malana and Rodel Tiaga v. People of the Philippines).In compliance with the resolution dated 27 August 2008 requiring Atty. Oliver Lozano (Atty. Lozano) and Atty. Evangeline Junio Lozano to explain in writing why they should not be punished for indirect contempt of court, they filed their Compliance dated 15 September 2008 and thereafter Atty. Lozano alone submitted an Amplification of the Explanation of Atty. Oliver Lozano dated 16 September 2008.
In their Compliance, Atty. Lozano avers that he made the statements adverted to in the resolution dated 27 August 2008 because he was "emotionally overwhelmed, with disillusionment" by the decision of the Court, affirming the conviction of petitioners, and that he was "deeply hurt" specifically by the statements in the decision that "the defense offered 'denials and uncorroborated alibi,' harped 'on minor matters' and engaged 'in semantics.'" He further declares that he has come to realize that he "was carried way" by his emotions. On the other hand, Atty. Evangeline Lozano explains that the motion for leave to file the incorporated second motion for reconsideration was entirely prepared by her father, Atty. Oliver Lozano, and that she signed the motion upon his request and out of trust and respect for him in the hope that it would strengthen petitioners' case, adding that as she failed to perceive the underlying import of the language used by her father she was not able to suggest the omission of the statements referred to in the resolution dated 27 August 2008.
While in the Amplification of the Explanation of Atty. Oliver O. Lozano, Atty. Lozano asserts that "it was error" for the ponente "to belittle the defense" for having invoked 'denials, alibi, minor matters and semantics," and thereby impute "gross incompetence" to him, but recognizing that "an error cannot be corrected with another error" he apologized. He further states that his emotional words were "intended and directed against his (the ponente's) unessential, erroneous, and emotional words" which to him pictured him as "stupid." Atty. Lozano asks the Court to "take a second look into the Second Motion for Reconsideration[1] and await the investigation of the Court En Banc[2]"
However, despite the fact that the present incident is pending before the Special Second Division of the Court, Atty. Lozano sent personal letters dated 30 September 2008 with the same contents to all the members of the Court. In these letters, he rehashes factual arguments which were already fully discussed in the Court's main decision and the seven (7)-page resolution[3] which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration with finality. He avers that while "(t)he defenses are substantial and valid,(,) (h)owever, Justice Tinga unjustly held that the defense consists of mere 'denials, alibi, minor matters and semantics' in order to sustain (the judgment of) conviction;" that while the motions he filed are meritorious, the resolutions "curtly denying them are unjust and oppressive"; and that since "the Honorable Court does not issue such unkind and unjust Resolutions," he suspects "that the highly questionable Minute Resolutions are not genuine and were not deliberated upon." Atty. Lozano asks the Court to "use once more its plenary powers of suspending the rules" so that "the Honorable Court can boldly take appropriate action in the Paramount Interest of 'Justice for God's Greater Glory.'" He then wrongfully and maliciously claims that there is an administrative complaint against Justice Tinga, and asks that the "case be taken up by the Honorable Court En Banc for the rendition of just verdict in aid of future legislation that will prohibit unjust Minute Resolutions which do not thoroughly and sufficiently explain denials and dismissals that are not in accord with the Spirit of the Constitution."
WHEREFORE, Atty. Oliver Lozano and Atty. Evangeline Lozano are REQUIRED to MANIFEST within ten (10) days from receipt of this resolution whether they are willing to submit the citation against them for indirect contempt for the resolution of this Court based on the notices and resolutions thus far issued and on the pleadings and letters they have already filed or sent, namely: their Compliance dated 15 September 2008; the Amplification of the Explanation of Atty. Oliver Lozano dated 16 September 2008; and Atty. Oliver Lozano's personal letters dated 30 September 2008 to the individual members of the Court.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] In the Resolution dated 27 August 200S, the Court denied for lack of merit petitioners' motion for leave to file the incorporated second motion for reconsideration since a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Section 2, Rule 52 in relation to Section 4, Rule 56 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, noted without action the amplification of the motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration, and denied with finality for lack of merit the motion for inhibition and referral of the case lo the Conn en banc since the Court en banc is not an appellate tribunal of decisions and resolutions of a Division pursuant to SC Circular No. 2-89.
[2] "N.B. Justices of the Court may be removed from office only by impeachment (CONSTITUTION, Art. 11 Sec. 2) likewise, there is no such pending investigation before the Court en banc for or against Atty. Oliver Lozano.
[3] 'Rollo, p. 382. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration dated 10 April 2008. together with their Amplification of the Motion for Reconsideration dated14 April 2008, is DENIED with FINALITY
