April 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > April 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 173612 : April 29, 2009] DOMINADOR MALANA AND RODEL TIAGA V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES :
[G.R. No. 173612 : April 29, 2009]
DOMINADOR MALANA AND RODEL TIAGA V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 29 April 2009:
G.R. No. 173612 (Dominador Malana and Rodel Tiaga v. People of the Philippines).- For resolution is the charge of indirect contempt initiated motu proprio by the Court against Arty. Oliver Lozano (Atty. Lozano) and Atty. Evangeline Junio Lozano (Atty. Evangeline).
The antecedent facts that transpired before this Court follow.
In the main case, G.R. No. 173612, the Court promulgated on 26 March 2008 its Decision affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals finding Dominador Malana and Rodel Tiaga guilty of the complex crime of murder with frustrated murder and attempted murder, with modification as regards the penalty.[1]
Atty. Lozano, as counsel for petitioners, filed on 10 April 2008 a Motion for Reconsideration with Prayer for the Voluntary Inhibition of the Ponente, and on 14 April 2008 an Amplification of the Motion for Reconsideration[2] Atty. Lozano makes the following averments in the Motion for Reconsideration:
In the Amplification of the Motion for Reconsideration, Atty. Lozano, as petitioners' counsel, declares, thus:
On 16 June 2008, the Court resolved to deny with finality both the motion for reconsideration and the amplification of the motion for reconsideration.[10]
Undaunted, Arty. Lozano and Atty. Evangeline (henceforth jointly referred to as "the Lozanos," filed three more motions before the Court.[11]
The Lozanos signed the Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Reconsideration dated 16 July 2008, one of the three motions they filed. The motion contains the following assertions:
The Court denied the three motions in a resolution dated 27 August 2008.[18]
In a separate resolution also dated 27 August 2008,[19] the Court required the Lozanos to explain in writing within ten days from receipt of the resolution why they should not be cited for indirect contempt of court, for it appeared that their allegations and statements in the motions which they filed before the Court would constitute improper conduct tending to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.
The Lozanos jointly filed a Compliance dated 15 September 2008,[20] and Atty. Lozano for himself filed an Amplification of the Explanation dated 16 September 2008.[21]
Subsequently, Atty. Lozano sent letters dated 30 September 2008 with the same content to all the members of the Court.[22] A similar letter was received by the Office of Chief Justice Reynato Puno. The letter was indorsed to the Chairperson of the Third Division, Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago,[23] who in turn referred it to the Second Division.[24]
In a resolution dated 15 October 2008, the Court directed the Lozanos to manifest within ten days from notice whether they were willing to submit the citation against them for indirect contempt for the Court's resolution based on the pleadings and letters filed or sent, as well as the notices and resolutions issued.[25]
Atty. Lozano filed a Second Amplification of the Explanation of Atty. Oliver O. Lozano dated 17 October 2008, which the Court received on even date. He states that "as lawyers are aptly admonished to use temperate language, the Honorable Ponentes are expected to avoid intemperate language that is not essential in rendering a just verdict, admonition or reprimand. It is bad taste to unleash invectives to a lawyer then threaten him with contempt for his repartee."[26]
The Lozanos jointly filed a Manifestation dated 31 October 2008 in compliance with our 15 October 2008 resolution. They state that the factual accounts in the Court's resolution are fair;[27] however, they also assert that they "honestly believe(s) that there is a pending (administrative (c)omplaint against Justice Tinga; hence, he did not 'wrongfully and maliciously'" make such claim.[28] They add that "the Honorable Court would not make such unkind and unjust observation; with due respect, the undersigned asks: "Was this questioned portion intercalated by some overzealous and biased clerks?"[29] Continuing on, they ask: "Vis-a-vis the 1st indorsement dated October 14, 2008 of the Honorable Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno to the Third Division, is the Resolution dated October 15, 2008 of the Special Second Division genuine, or fabricated by the same clerks?"[30] Atty. Lozano, for his part only, avers: "[I]f his claim is a mistake, the same was not spawned by an evil heart."[31]
In a resolution dated 10 November 2008,[32] the Court granted the Lozanos an additional 30 days, not 90 days they had sought,[33] to submit further amplification of their explanation, as they took exception to the Resolution dated 15 October 2008 which adverted that Atty. Lozano "wrongfully and maliciously claims that there is an administrative complaint against Justice Tinga...." This was the last extension that the Court had granted to the Lozanos. Yet Atty. Lozano still filed two more pleadings without leave of court.
The first pleading entitled Third Amplification of the Explanation of Atty. Oliver O. Lozano (third amplification) and dated 19 November 2008 was filed on even date. The second pleading entitled Fourth Amplification of Explanation and Plea for Christian Forgiveness (fourth amplification) and dated 22 December 2008 was filed on the following day.
In his third amplification, Atty. Lozano asks the Court in one breath to "understand and forgive the over-zealousness of a defense counsel,"[34] but in another breath reiterates his charge of falsification by intercalation of a decision against Justice Tinga as ponente of the decision in the main case.[35] He declares: "(I)f the valid protest is contumacious, a fortiori, the falsification is more contemptuous. Where is Justice and Sporting Fairplay if the aggrieved protester is punished but the oppressive deceiver is allowed to go scotfree?"[36] Atty. Lozano again insists that there is a pending administrative complaint against the Honorable ponente, adding that "(m)y Complaint against Justice Tinga is on file with the Supreme Court En Bane. To say there is no Complaint is dishonesty. To impute in the Resolution that I 'maliciously and untruthfully' alleged the existence of the Complaint is a big lie. I believe that the Supreme Court absolutely could not commit such dishonesty and big lie. Therefore, is that questioned portion of the Resolution another false intercalation?"[37] Atty. Lozano then threatens: "[T]erminating my membership in the IBP is an option to liberate myself from the shackles of legal niceties; and, thus, gain unfettered freedom to publicly express my grievances and inner rebellion."[38]
In his fourth amplification, Atty. Lozano reiterates his charge of falsification by intercalation of a decision. He bewails, "What about the questioned intercalation that is not denied? If I should be held in Contempt of Court, the errant also should be dealt with accordingly in the name of Sporting Fairplay." He expresses his readiness to be held in contempt "if that is the price to rectify the Miscarriage of Justice."[39] Then he asserts that he "was enraged by the inculpatory intercalation that resulted in lifetime incarceration."[40] Likening himself to God, Atty. Lozano claims that "the rage is long gone for God said: 'Never let your anger go beyond the setting of the sun.'"[41] But in the same breath he asks for the Court's forgiveness, undertaking not to repeat what he has done.
Come January 2009, Atty. Lozano resumed sending letters to the Court, with the letters adopting the tenor of the initial letter for the year, dated 5 January 2009.[42] Atty. Lozano continued his tirades against the Court, again stating that the Court had committed an injustice because "the accused were convicted due to the questioned and undenied or undisputed intercalation."[43]
Interestingly, before filing his third and fourth amplifications Atty. Lozano sent a letter dated 19 November 2008 to all the members of the Court. This time, he assailed the genuineness and integrity of another decision of the Court involving a different case in which he was the counsel of record for the losing party. He claimed that the Court's Resolution dated 6 October 2008 in G.R. No. 169933, Su Zhi Shan @ Alvin Ching So v. People of the Philippines/Office of the Solicitor General, "is of doubtful authenticity," as he suspected that it was "again the making of some jaundiced clerks."[44]
Against these factual antecedents, the Court finds, the Lozanos both guilty of indirect contempt.[45] They are to be meted out different penalties, however.
Prefatorily, the Court has to dispel some misleading statements made by the Lozanos. First, the Court reiterates that there is no pending administrative charge before the Court against Justice Tinga, contrary to the assertions of the Lozanos. The Lozanos failed to back up their allegation. They adverted to A.M. No. 08-4-8-SC, which involves a different aspect and objective, however. It refers to the news story written by Mr. Sherwin C. Olaes (Mr. Olaes) in the Daily Tribune on Atty. Lozano's motion for reconsideration and amplification of motion for reconsideration, which were then pending consideration before the Court. Second, the present contempt incident has never been referred to the Third Division.[46]
The charge of "falsification by intercalation" against the Honorable Justice Dante Tinga is not only false, but malicious. The Court in the main decision followed the age-old rule that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses. on the stand and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court, which forms its first-hand impressions as a witness testifies before it.47 Even the Court of Appeals saw "no reason to depart from the determination of the trial court in so far as the credibility of the prosecution witnesses is concerned."[48]
The Lozanos' declaration that the Court ignored the statement of the appellate court that "there is also no evidence on record which would show that the accused-appellants actually escaped unhurt"[49] and arrived at a different factual conclusion is baseless. Similarly baseless are the Lozanos' accusations, imputations and innuendos in their pleadings, properly marked.for purposes of emphasis in the recital of facts earlier, which no doubt are intended to get across the message that Justice Tinga has deliberately manufactured facts not on record in the resolution of cases, and has even deliberately preempted the alleged investigation by the Court en banc by resolving their motion for reconsideration with dispatch. Likewise nakedly unfounded is the Lozanos' assertion that certain employees of this Court are intercalating statements in the decisions and resolutions of the Court and are even engaged in the business of manufacturing false decisions and resolutions that were not properly deliberated, approved and promulgated by the Court.
The Lozanos' scurrilous attacks on the character and integrity of Justice Tinga and the hardworking employees of the Court, punctuated as they are with vile, intemperate and libelous language, degrade the dignity of the Court and denigrate the trust and respect that should be accorded the judiciary to maintain and uphold the highest ideals of justice. The statements of the Lozanos assail not only the integrity of the decisions and resolutions of the Court, but also their genuineness.
Atty. Lozano seeks to justify the language he employed in his pleadings, which the Court finds intemperate, offensive and libelous, on the pretext that his language is the aftermath of having been "emotionally overwhelmed with disillusionment"[50] by the decision of the Court affirming the conviction of his clients. He claims he was "deeply hurt" by the statements in the decision that "the defense offered 'denials and uncorroborated alibi/ harped 'on minor matters' and engaged 'in semantics,'" for these were allegedly not true.[51] Even after offering a half-hearted apology, Atty. Lozano has not relented in his tirades against Justice Tinga and this Court. In the third amplification, he asks the Court to forgive him and yet reiterates the malicious charge that Justice Tinga has falsely intercalated facts to sustain the conviction of petitioners.[52] He claims in his fourth amplification that he was enraged by the inculpatory intercalation of the ponente.
The Court finds Atty. Lozano's explanations not only unsatisfactory but even confirmatory of his culpability. While the Court recognizes a litigant's right to criticize judges and justices in the performance of their functions, "it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and the judges (or Justices) thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect [for] courts."[53] Far from being constructive, the Lozanos' criticisms of Justice Tinga are scurrilous attacks on his honor and integrity, as well as those of the entire Court. As the decision subject of the Lozanos' vicious attacks is a collegial action, such attacks tend to undermine the Court's capacity to render justice.
A lawyer, as an officer of the court and its indispensable partner in the sacred task of administering justice, bears graver responsibility than any other officer of the court to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to its officers. A wide divide exists between fair criticism and slander of courts and the judges. Unfounded and uncontrolled criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect for courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action.[54]
On the other hand, the Court considers the explanation of Atty. Evangeline on why she signed the motion for leave to file the incorporated second motion for reconsideration in a different light. Her explication that she signed the pleading out of filial piety is understandable. As Atty. Evangeline explained, the pleading was entirely prepared by her father, and she signed the said motion upon his request and out of trust and respect for him. She had hoped that her co-signing the pleadings would strengthen their clients' case, for she earnestly believed that they were innocent. Yet, the explanation projects an attenuating circumstance only. It cannot operate to obliterate her liability.
As to the penalty, a person adjudged guilty of indirect contempt may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both.[55] The Court exercises restraint and instead considers the case with compassion, bearing in mind that the purpose of contempt is preservative rather than punitive. Considering that Atty. Lozano attempted to apologize to the Court, a fine of P10,000.00 is sufficient. The magnanimity and graciousness of the Court in imposmg a small fine should by no means convey the impression that it will tolerate any act of disrespect or discourtesy. As for Atty. Evangeline, reprimand suffices.
ACCORDINGLY, Atty. Oliver Lozano and Atty. Evangeline Junio Lozano are both found guilty of INDIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT. Atty. Oliver Lozano is hereby FINED in the amount of �10,000.00 to be paid within ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution, or he shall suffer the penalty of five (5) days of imprisonment. Atty. Evangeline Junio Lozano is meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND. They are WARNED that a commission of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Quisumbing, J., on official business.
WITNESS the Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales, Acting Chairperson, Honorable Dante O. Tinga, Minita Chico-Nazario Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. and Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura (additional member per Special Order No. 632), Members, Special Second Division, this 29th day of April, 2009.
G.R. No. 173612 (Dominador Malana and Rodel Tiaga v. People of the Philippines).- For resolution is the charge of indirect contempt initiated motu proprio by the Court against Arty. Oliver Lozano (Atty. Lozano) and Atty. Evangeline Junio Lozano (Atty. Evangeline).
The antecedent facts that transpired before this Court follow.
In the main case, G.R. No. 173612, the Court promulgated on 26 March 2008 its Decision affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals finding Dominador Malana and Rodel Tiaga guilty of the complex crime of murder with frustrated murder and attempted murder, with modification as regards the penalty.[1]
Atty. Lozano, as counsel for petitioners, filed on 10 April 2008 a Motion for Reconsideration with Prayer for the Voluntary Inhibition of the Ponente, and on 14 April 2008 an Amplification of the Motion for Reconsideration[2] Atty. Lozano makes the following averments in the Motion for Reconsideration:
xxx xxx xxxContrary to the unfair and unkind observations of the Honorable Ponente, it is not true that the defense of the accused is "only denials, uncorroborated alibi, minor matters or semantics." This defense was unfairly and unkindly ignored.[3] (Emphasis supplied.)xxx xxx xxx
The above arguments were not discussed and shown in the Decision to be without merit; meaning, they were ignored by the Honorable Ponente.[4]xxx xxx xxx
In this case, ignoring the main defenses and falsely calling them only denials, uncorroborated alibis, minor matters and semantics is the worst violation of the time-honored presumption of innocence and the solemn judicial duty to resolve all doubts in favor of the accused. Such oppression resulting in conviction committed by a Supreme Court Justice constitutes the highest form of rendering unjust verdict. (Emphasis supplied.)
Hence, we say with a heavy heart: the accused and counsel have lost their faith in Him and think of taking Legal and Constitutional Action of Conscience for vindication.
It is saddening that the Supreme Court, through erring Ponentes that decide cases with inaccurate and emotional expressions that are uncalled for, has diminished its role as "Last Bulwark of Justice."[5] (Emphasis supplied.)
Enlightening Decision mollifies and unifies. Unjust verdict incites inner rebellion. "Man rebels not so much because of hunger but because of injustice."
No Caliber .45 bullet can stop and aggrieved assassin, It is better to arm Magistrates with conduct above suspicion and decisions that are just than arming them with guns. The best defense is a just verdict not Caliber .45. Sad to say, the New Judicial Revolution has been undermined by the unjust verdict in this case.[6]xxx xxx xxx
xxx In fact, the Honorable Court has recalled its Entries of Final Judgments to rectify injustice rather than perpetuate it.[7]
In the Amplification of the Motion for Reconsideration, Atty. Lozano, as petitioners' counsel, declares, thus:
xxx xxx xxx
When Justice Dante 0. Tinga thoroughly discussed the prosecution evidence to justify guilt and ignored defense evidence that proves innocence, he violated Sporting Fairplay of Due Process.[8]xxx xxx xxx
The fact that the accused were unscathed is exculpatory. So, Justice Tinga, apparently to sustain conviction, falsely intercalated a fact absolutely not borne by the record or evidence. Justice Tinga committed falsification although he knew the factual finding of the Court of Appeals which is not subject to review -there is no evidence that the accused escaped unhurt![9]
On 16 June 2008, the Court resolved to deny with finality both the motion for reconsideration and the amplification of the motion for reconsideration.[10]
Undaunted, Arty. Lozano and Atty. Evangeline (henceforth jointly referred to as "the Lozanos," filed three more motions before the Court.[11]
The Lozanos signed the Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Reconsideration dated 16 July 2008, one of the three motions they filed. The motion contains the following assertions:
Apparently, the denial was written by Justice Dante Tinga in order to preempt investigation by the Honorable Court En Banc of Atty. Oliver O. Lozano's Complaint against him for rendering unjust verdict. Instead of inhibiting, His Honor stealthily denied the Motion for Reconsideration. To deny it, he ignored, mis appreciated and misinterpreted the physical facts, evidence and circumstances. There is a travesty and mockery of justice indicating that all along the accused were deprived of fairplay, due process or cold neutrality reminiscent of the DimsumCase.[12] (Emphasis supplied.)xxx xxx xxx
The Resolution is fraught with reversible errors. The Ponente ignored, misappreciated and misinterpreted physical facts, evidence and circumstances consistent with the innocence of the accused as will be shown hereunder. (Emphasis supplied.)
He ignored or misinterpreted Supreme Court Guidelines for Decision-Making in Criminal Cases, to wit:[13]xxx xxx xxx
Instead, the Ponente stretched every circumstance consistent with guilt and set aside every circumstance consistent with innocence in violation of the above guidelines as shown by the following reversible errors in the challenged Resolution.[14] (Emphasis supplied.) xxxxxx xxx xxx
This is not true. To add merely details to justify reversible errors do not put to rest substantial matters consistent with the innocence of the accused. This kind of judicial tyranny challenges and justifies second reconsideration and, in due time, recall of entry of final judgment, criminal, civil and administrative actions.
Instead of detailing of errors, the ponente should not ignore, misterpret (sic) and misappreciate established physical facts, circumstances and evidence consistent with the innocence of the accused. [15] (Emphasis supplied.)xxx xxx xxx
xxx That Suzette and baby survived was God's Miracle for He loves children. The Ponente should not rule out God's Miracle in our lives, unless he is an unbeliever that accounts for his unholy verdict and equally unholy rationalizations.[16] (Emphasis supplied.)xxx xxx xxx
The Ponente adhered to his own erroneous interpretations of facts, evidence and Supreme Court rulings in order to convict.[17]
The Court denied the three motions in a resolution dated 27 August 2008.[18]
In a separate resolution also dated 27 August 2008,[19] the Court required the Lozanos to explain in writing within ten days from receipt of the resolution why they should not be cited for indirect contempt of court, for it appeared that their allegations and statements in the motions which they filed before the Court would constitute improper conduct tending to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.
The Lozanos jointly filed a Compliance dated 15 September 2008,[20] and Atty. Lozano for himself filed an Amplification of the Explanation dated 16 September 2008.[21]
Subsequently, Atty. Lozano sent letters dated 30 September 2008 with the same content to all the members of the Court.[22] A similar letter was received by the Office of Chief Justice Reynato Puno. The letter was indorsed to the Chairperson of the Third Division, Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago,[23] who in turn referred it to the Second Division.[24]
In a resolution dated 15 October 2008, the Court directed the Lozanos to manifest within ten days from notice whether they were willing to submit the citation against them for indirect contempt for the Court's resolution based on the pleadings and letters filed or sent, as well as the notices and resolutions issued.[25]
Atty. Lozano filed a Second Amplification of the Explanation of Atty. Oliver O. Lozano dated 17 October 2008, which the Court received on even date. He states that "as lawyers are aptly admonished to use temperate language, the Honorable Ponentes are expected to avoid intemperate language that is not essential in rendering a just verdict, admonition or reprimand. It is bad taste to unleash invectives to a lawyer then threaten him with contempt for his repartee."[26]
The Lozanos jointly filed a Manifestation dated 31 October 2008 in compliance with our 15 October 2008 resolution. They state that the factual accounts in the Court's resolution are fair;[27] however, they also assert that they "honestly believe(s) that there is a pending (administrative (c)omplaint against Justice Tinga; hence, he did not 'wrongfully and maliciously'" make such claim.[28] They add that "the Honorable Court would not make such unkind and unjust observation; with due respect, the undersigned asks: "Was this questioned portion intercalated by some overzealous and biased clerks?"[29] Continuing on, they ask: "Vis-a-vis the 1st indorsement dated October 14, 2008 of the Honorable Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno to the Third Division, is the Resolution dated October 15, 2008 of the Special Second Division genuine, or fabricated by the same clerks?"[30] Atty. Lozano, for his part only, avers: "[I]f his claim is a mistake, the same was not spawned by an evil heart."[31]
In a resolution dated 10 November 2008,[32] the Court granted the Lozanos an additional 30 days, not 90 days they had sought,[33] to submit further amplification of their explanation, as they took exception to the Resolution dated 15 October 2008 which adverted that Atty. Lozano "wrongfully and maliciously claims that there is an administrative complaint against Justice Tinga...." This was the last extension that the Court had granted to the Lozanos. Yet Atty. Lozano still filed two more pleadings without leave of court.
The first pleading entitled Third Amplification of the Explanation of Atty. Oliver O. Lozano (third amplification) and dated 19 November 2008 was filed on even date. The second pleading entitled Fourth Amplification of Explanation and Plea for Christian Forgiveness (fourth amplification) and dated 22 December 2008 was filed on the following day.
In his third amplification, Atty. Lozano asks the Court in one breath to "understand and forgive the over-zealousness of a defense counsel,"[34] but in another breath reiterates his charge of falsification by intercalation of a decision against Justice Tinga as ponente of the decision in the main case.[35] He declares: "(I)f the valid protest is contumacious, a fortiori, the falsification is more contemptuous. Where is Justice and Sporting Fairplay if the aggrieved protester is punished but the oppressive deceiver is allowed to go scotfree?"[36] Atty. Lozano again insists that there is a pending administrative complaint against the Honorable ponente, adding that "(m)y Complaint against Justice Tinga is on file with the Supreme Court En Bane. To say there is no Complaint is dishonesty. To impute in the Resolution that I 'maliciously and untruthfully' alleged the existence of the Complaint is a big lie. I believe that the Supreme Court absolutely could not commit such dishonesty and big lie. Therefore, is that questioned portion of the Resolution another false intercalation?"[37] Atty. Lozano then threatens: "[T]erminating my membership in the IBP is an option to liberate myself from the shackles of legal niceties; and, thus, gain unfettered freedom to publicly express my grievances and inner rebellion."[38]
In his fourth amplification, Atty. Lozano reiterates his charge of falsification by intercalation of a decision. He bewails, "What about the questioned intercalation that is not denied? If I should be held in Contempt of Court, the errant also should be dealt with accordingly in the name of Sporting Fairplay." He expresses his readiness to be held in contempt "if that is the price to rectify the Miscarriage of Justice."[39] Then he asserts that he "was enraged by the inculpatory intercalation that resulted in lifetime incarceration."[40] Likening himself to God, Atty. Lozano claims that "the rage is long gone for God said: 'Never let your anger go beyond the setting of the sun.'"[41] But in the same breath he asks for the Court's forgiveness, undertaking not to repeat what he has done.
Come January 2009, Atty. Lozano resumed sending letters to the Court, with the letters adopting the tenor of the initial letter for the year, dated 5 January 2009.[42] Atty. Lozano continued his tirades against the Court, again stating that the Court had committed an injustice because "the accused were convicted due to the questioned and undenied or undisputed intercalation."[43]
Interestingly, before filing his third and fourth amplifications Atty. Lozano sent a letter dated 19 November 2008 to all the members of the Court. This time, he assailed the genuineness and integrity of another decision of the Court involving a different case in which he was the counsel of record for the losing party. He claimed that the Court's Resolution dated 6 October 2008 in G.R. No. 169933, Su Zhi Shan @ Alvin Ching So v. People of the Philippines/Office of the Solicitor General, "is of doubtful authenticity," as he suspected that it was "again the making of some jaundiced clerks."[44]
Against these factual antecedents, the Court finds, the Lozanos both guilty of indirect contempt.[45] They are to be meted out different penalties, however.
Prefatorily, the Court has to dispel some misleading statements made by the Lozanos. First, the Court reiterates that there is no pending administrative charge before the Court against Justice Tinga, contrary to the assertions of the Lozanos. The Lozanos failed to back up their allegation. They adverted to A.M. No. 08-4-8-SC, which involves a different aspect and objective, however. It refers to the news story written by Mr. Sherwin C. Olaes (Mr. Olaes) in the Daily Tribune on Atty. Lozano's motion for reconsideration and amplification of motion for reconsideration, which were then pending consideration before the Court. Second, the present contempt incident has never been referred to the Third Division.[46]
The charge of "falsification by intercalation" against the Honorable Justice Dante Tinga is not only false, but malicious. The Court in the main decision followed the age-old rule that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses. on the stand and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court, which forms its first-hand impressions as a witness testifies before it.47 Even the Court of Appeals saw "no reason to depart from the determination of the trial court in so far as the credibility of the prosecution witnesses is concerned."[48]
The Lozanos' declaration that the Court ignored the statement of the appellate court that "there is also no evidence on record which would show that the accused-appellants actually escaped unhurt"[49] and arrived at a different factual conclusion is baseless. Similarly baseless are the Lozanos' accusations, imputations and innuendos in their pleadings, properly marked.for purposes of emphasis in the recital of facts earlier, which no doubt are intended to get across the message that Justice Tinga has deliberately manufactured facts not on record in the resolution of cases, and has even deliberately preempted the alleged investigation by the Court en banc by resolving their motion for reconsideration with dispatch. Likewise nakedly unfounded is the Lozanos' assertion that certain employees of this Court are intercalating statements in the decisions and resolutions of the Court and are even engaged in the business of manufacturing false decisions and resolutions that were not properly deliberated, approved and promulgated by the Court.
The Lozanos' scurrilous attacks on the character and integrity of Justice Tinga and the hardworking employees of the Court, punctuated as they are with vile, intemperate and libelous language, degrade the dignity of the Court and denigrate the trust and respect that should be accorded the judiciary to maintain and uphold the highest ideals of justice. The statements of the Lozanos assail not only the integrity of the decisions and resolutions of the Court, but also their genuineness.
Atty. Lozano seeks to justify the language he employed in his pleadings, which the Court finds intemperate, offensive and libelous, on the pretext that his language is the aftermath of having been "emotionally overwhelmed with disillusionment"[50] by the decision of the Court affirming the conviction of his clients. He claims he was "deeply hurt" by the statements in the decision that "the defense offered 'denials and uncorroborated alibi/ harped 'on minor matters' and engaged 'in semantics,'" for these were allegedly not true.[51] Even after offering a half-hearted apology, Atty. Lozano has not relented in his tirades against Justice Tinga and this Court. In the third amplification, he asks the Court to forgive him and yet reiterates the malicious charge that Justice Tinga has falsely intercalated facts to sustain the conviction of petitioners.[52] He claims in his fourth amplification that he was enraged by the inculpatory intercalation of the ponente.
The Court finds Atty. Lozano's explanations not only unsatisfactory but even confirmatory of his culpability. While the Court recognizes a litigant's right to criticize judges and justices in the performance of their functions, "it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and the judges (or Justices) thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect [for] courts."[53] Far from being constructive, the Lozanos' criticisms of Justice Tinga are scurrilous attacks on his honor and integrity, as well as those of the entire Court. As the decision subject of the Lozanos' vicious attacks is a collegial action, such attacks tend to undermine the Court's capacity to render justice.
A lawyer, as an officer of the court and its indispensable partner in the sacred task of administering justice, bears graver responsibility than any other officer of the court to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to its officers. A wide divide exists between fair criticism and slander of courts and the judges. Unfounded and uncontrolled criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect for courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action.[54]
On the other hand, the Court considers the explanation of Atty. Evangeline on why she signed the motion for leave to file the incorporated second motion for reconsideration in a different light. Her explication that she signed the pleading out of filial piety is understandable. As Atty. Evangeline explained, the pleading was entirely prepared by her father, and she signed the said motion upon his request and out of trust and respect for him. She had hoped that her co-signing the pleadings would strengthen their clients' case, for she earnestly believed that they were innocent. Yet, the explanation projects an attenuating circumstance only. It cannot operate to obliterate her liability.
As to the penalty, a person adjudged guilty of indirect contempt may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both.[55] The Court exercises restraint and instead considers the case with compassion, bearing in mind that the purpose of contempt is preservative rather than punitive. Considering that Atty. Lozano attempted to apologize to the Court, a fine of P10,000.00 is sufficient. The magnanimity and graciousness of the Court in imposmg a small fine should by no means convey the impression that it will tolerate any act of disrespect or discourtesy. As for Atty. Evangeline, reprimand suffices.
ACCORDINGLY, Atty. Oliver Lozano and Atty. Evangeline Junio Lozano are both found guilty of INDIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT. Atty. Oliver Lozano is hereby FINED in the amount of �10,000.00 to be paid within ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution, or he shall suffer the penalty of five (5) days of imprisonment. Atty. Evangeline Junio Lozano is meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND. They are WARNED that a commission of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Quisumbing, J., on official business.
WITNESS the Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales, Acting Chairperson, Honorable Dante O. Tinga, Minita Chico-Nazario Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. and Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura (additional member per Special Order No. 632), Members, Special Second Division, this 29th day of April, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Endnotes:
[1] 549 SCRA 451. Penned by Associate Justice Dante Tinga and concurred in by Associate Justices Leonardo Quisumbing, Conchita Carpio Morales, Minita Chico-Nazario, and Presbitero Velasco, Jr.
[2] The captions of both motions incorrectly bore the wrong heading. "Third Division." The case was then, and still is, assigned to the Second Division.
[3] Rollo, pp. 352- 353, 357-358, 360, 363, 365.
[4] Id. at 367; emphasis in the original.
[5] Id. at 368.
[6] Id. at 369.
[7] Id. at 369.
[8] Id. at 372.
[9] Id. at 373; emphasis in the original.
[10] Id. at 382. The Court found that the motions did not advance any new factual perspective or substantial argument to merit favorable action. To put matters finally to rest, the Court engaged in a more detailed fashion some points reiterated by counsels. On the whole, the Court held that the prosecution's evidence passed the test of moral certainty and is sufficient to rebut the constitutional presumption of innocence. 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.
[11] The three motions are : (1) a motion for leave to file the incorporated second motion for reconsideration with prayer for the voluntary inhibition of Justice Dante Tinga and the referral of the case to the Court en bane, (2) an amplification of the motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration, and (3) a motion for inhibition and referral to the Honorable Court en banc.
[12] Id.at386.
[13] Id. at 386.
[14] Id. at 388.
[15] Id. at 389.
[16] Id. at 400.
[17] Id.at 404.
[l8] Id. at 437. The Court stressed that the first motion for reconsideration was not simply denied, but precisely denied with finality. In the resolution, the Court denied the motion for leave 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, and denied with finality for lack of merit the motion for inhibition and referral of the case to the Court en bane, since the Court en bane is not an appellate tribunal of decisions and resolutions of a Division pursuant to SC Circular No. 2-89.
[19] Id. at 434-436.
[20] In their joint Compliance, the counsels quote their entire Motion for Reconsideration, which had already been denied with finality by the Court. Atty. Lozano alleges that the statements he made in the motions he filed were the result of his being "emotionally overwhelmed with disillusionment" by the Decision of the Court affirming the conviction of his clients. He was "deeply hurt" by the statements in the decision that "the defense offered 'denials and uncorroborated alibi,' harped 'on minor matters' and engaged 'in semantics,'" for these were allegedly not true. Atty. Lozano further alleges that he "honestly believed that if the Honorable Ponente did not commit errors alleged in the Motion for Reconsideration, the accused are entitled to acquittal," and that he realized now 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. Lozano, and she signed the said motion upon his request and out of trust and respect for her father, hoping that it would strengthened petitioners' case, for she earnestly believes that petitioners were innocent, but she failed to perceive the underlying import of the language used by Atty. Lozano, so she did not suggest their omission.
[21] In the Amplification of the Explanation of Atty. Oliver O. Lozano, Atty. Lozano alleges that "it was error for the Honorable Ponente to belittle the defense for invoking 'denials, alibi, minor matters and semantics,'" thus allegedly imputing "gross incompetence"; and that "an error cannot be corrected with another error," so he apologized. He further alleges that his emotional words were "intended and directed against His ponente's) unessential, erroneous, and emotional words," which pictured him as "stupid." Atty. Lozano prays that the Court take a second look at the second motion for reconsideration and await the investigation of the Court en banc.
[22] Id. at 464-467.
[23] Id. at 676.
[24] Id. at 536. In his letter, Atty. Lozano rehashes factual arguments that were fully discussed in the Court's main decision and the 7-page resolution denying with finality the motion for reconsideration. Atty. Lozano asserts that "(t)he defenses are substantial and valid. However, Justice Tinga unjustly held that the defense consists of mere 'denials, alibi, minor matters and semantics' in order to sustain conviction!"; that the motions he filed on behalf of petitioners were meritorious; hence, the resolutions "curtly denying them are unjust and oppressive. Certainly, 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 claims that there is an administrative complaint against the Honorable Justice Dante Tinga, and asks that the "case be taken up by the Honorable Court en Bane for the rendition of a just verdict in aid of future legislation that will prohibit unjust Minute Resolutions that do not thoroughly and sufficiently explain denials and dismissals that are not in accord with the Spirit of the Constitution." (Emphasis supplied).
[25] Id. at 609-612.
[26] Id.at614.
[27] Id.at748.
[28] Id. at 749.
[29] Id. at 749; emphasis supplied.
[30] Id. at 749; emphasis supplied.
[31] Id. at 750.
[32] Id. at 839.
[33] Id. at 750.
[34] Id. at 842.
[35] Id. at 841.
[36] Id. at 841; emphasis supplied.
[37] Id. at 842; emphasis supplied.
[38] Id. at 842; emphasis supplied.
[39] Id. at 848; emphasis supplied.
[40] Id. at 850; emphasis supplied.
[41] Id. at 850.
[42] "Id. at 860-864. He mistakenly alluded that the present contempt proceeding had been referred and assigned to the Third Division of the Court, since the Honorable Chief Justice indorsed his 30 September 2008 letter to it
[43] Id. at 860; emphasis supplied.
[44] Id. at S55-859; emphasis supplied.
[45] Rule of Court; Rule 71, SECTION 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. - After charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for contempt:
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official transactions;
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court,including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the process, or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under section 1 of this rule;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority;
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of a court held by him.
But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent the court from issuing process to bring the respondent into court, or from holding him in custody pending such proceedings. (Emphasis supplied.)
[46] Rollo, p. 536. See also p. 676.
[47] The RTC observed that the explosive used was more like a home-made incendiary bomb, a Molotov cocktail or a gasoline bomb. Suzette testified that the container burst into flames (nagliyab). It was an explosion of flames that engulfed practically the whole house, burning the roof and her mother, whose entire body from the neck down was scorched and charred (See CA rollo, p.35-36). For if the explosives were dynamites, then Suzette and her baby would have been blown to pieces. The RTC gave credence to Suzette's testimony that the counsels' clients were only about two steps away or around one meter from the main door, and they threw the container with explosives which burst into flames, and then they immediately fled from the crime scene (TSN, 6 July 2001, pp. 5-10). They were able to flee before the flames spread inside the house.
[48] Rollo, p. 75.
[49] Id. at 83. This statement does not exculpate the counsels' clients. They would make it appear that since their clients allegedly escaped unhurt, then they must not have been the perpetrators of the crime. Their factual conclusion is premised under the wrong, baseless, and illogical assumption that the real perpetrators could not have committed the crime unhurt. More so, since the RTC did not give credence to the testimony of Senior Police Officer (SPO)2 Jesus Mamaril, a supposed bomb specialist presented by the defense as expert witness. He testified that the blasting effect of dynamites placed in a container would be more powerful because of compression inside, and that it would have been physically impossible for the perpetrators to have escaped from the explosion of the house unhurt due to "pressure impact." The explosives used were not identified as dynamite. (CA rollo, pp. 34-35) As the Court of Appeals correctly observed, the bomb expert was not qualified to make such conclusions, as he never saw the actual explosives used in this case, much less was he ever privy to the investigation of the explosion. (Rollo, p. 82) Hence, his opinions based on hypothetical questions were correctly disregarded by the RTC and the Court of Appeals.
[50] Rollo, p. 455.
[51] Id. at 439.
[52] See note 34-39.
[53] Maglasang v. People, G.R. No. 90083, 4 October (1990), 190 SCRA 306, 313; In re Almacen, No. L-27654, 18 February (1970), 31 SCRA 562.
[54] See Tiongco v. Hon. Aguilar, G.R. No. 115932, 25 January 1995, 240 SCRA 589, 596-598.
[55] "Rule 71, Section 7 and 8. See Poblete, et. at v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128859, 23 June 2005, 461 SCRA 54.
