Dd Dddd Ddddgg

8/11/2019 Dd Dddd Ddddgg

1/13

Espuelas vs People

G.R. No. L-2990

December 17, 1951

Facts

!" #u"e 9 a"$ #u"e 2%, 19%7, bot& $ates '"clus've, '" t&e to(" o) *a+b'lara", o&ol,

!scar Espuelas e"$o/a &a$ &'s p'cture tae", ma'"+ 't to appear as ') &e (ere

&a"+'"+ l')eless at t&e e"$ o) a p'ece o) rope suspe"$e$ )orm t&e l'mb o) t&e tree,

(&e" '" trut& a"$ '" )act, &e (as merel sta"$'"+ o" a barrel. )ter secur'"+ cop'es

o) &'s p&oto+rap&, Espuelas se"t cop'es o) same to Free Press, t&e Eve"'"+ Ne(s,

t&e 'saas, Lam$a"+ o) +e"eral c'rculat'o" a"$ ot&er local per'o$'cals '" t&eProv'"ce o) o&ol but also t&rou+&out t&e P&'l'pp'"es a"$ abroa$, )or t&e'r

publ'cat'o" ('t& a su'c'$e "ote or letter, (&ere'" &e ma$e to appear t&at 't (as

(r'tte" b a ct't'ous su'c'$e, lberto Reve"'era a"$ a$$resse$ to t&e latter3s

suppose$ (')e tra"slat'o" o) (&'c& letter or "ote, stat'"+ &'s $'sma a"$

a$m'"'strat'o" o) Pres'$e"t Ro4as, po'"t'"+ out t&e s'tuat'o" '" e"tral Lu/o" a"$

Lete, a"$ $'rect'"+ &'s (')e &'s $ear (')e to (r'te to Pres'$e"t *ruma" a"$ &urc&'ll

o) 6 a"$ tell t&em t&at '" t&e P&'l'pp'"es t&e +over"me"t 's '")este$ ('t& ma"

8'tlers a"$ ussol'"'s.

ssue

:&et&er t&e accuse$ 's l'able o) se$'t'ous l'bel u"$er rt. 1%2 o) t&e RP a+a'"st t&e

Gover"me"t o) t&e P&'l'pp'"es;

8el$


2/13

"al/e$ )or mea"'"+ a"$ (e'+&e$ '" 'ts co"se=ue"ces, t&e art'cle (r'tte" bbt&e

accuse$, ca""ot )a'l to 'mpress t&'"'"+ perso"s t&at 't sees to so( t&e see$s o)

se$'t'o" a"$ str')e. *&e '")ur'at'"+ la"+ua+e 's "ot a s'"cere e?ort to persua$e, (&at

('t& t&e (r'ter3s s'mulate$ su'c'$e a"$ )alse cla'm to martr$om a"$ (&at ('t& 's

)a'lure to part'cular'/e. :&e" t&e use 'rr'tat'"+ la"+ua+e ce"ters "ot o" persua$'"+

t&e rea$ers but o" creat'"+ $'sturba"ces, t&e rat'o"able o) )ree speec& ca""ot appla"$ t&e speaer or (r'ter 's remove$ )rom t&e protect'o" o) t&e co"st'tut'o"al

+uara"t.

) 't be ar+ue$ t&at t&e art'cle $oes "ot $'scre$'t t&e e"t're +over"me"tal structure

but o"l Pres'$e"t Ro4as a"$ &'s me", t&e repl 's t&at art'cle 1%2 pu"'s&es "ot o"l

all l'bels a+a'"st t&e Gover"me"t but also @l'bels a+a'"st a" o) t&e $ul co"st'tute$

aut&or't'es t&ereo).@ *&e @Ro4as people@ '" t&e Gover"me"t obv'ousl re)er o) least

to t&e Pres'$e"t, &'s ab'"et a"$ t&e maAor't o) le+'slators to (&om t&e a$Aect'ves

$'rt, 8'tlers a"$ ussol'"'s (ere "aturall $'recte$. !" t&'s score alo"e t&eco"v'ct'o" coul$ be up&el$.

Re+ar$'"+ t&e publ'cat'o", 't su++ests or '"c'tes rebell'ous co"sp'rac'es or r'ots a"$

te"$s to st'r up people a+a'"st t&e co"st'tute$ aut&or't'es, or to provoe v'ole"ce

)rom oppos't'o" (&o ma see to s'le"ce t&e (r'ter. :&'c& 's t&e sum a"$ substa"ce

o) t&e o?e"se u"$er co"s'$erat'o".

*&e esse"ce o) se$'t'ous l'bel ma be sa'$ to 'ts 'mme$'ate te"$e"c to st'r up

+e"eral $'sco"te"t to t&e p'tc& o) 'lle+al coursesB t&at 's to sa to '"$uce people to

resort to 'lle+al met&o$s ot&er t&a" t&ose prov'$e$ b t&e o"st'tut'o", '" or$er to

repress t&e ev'ls (&'c& press upo" t&e'r m'"$s.

A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC July 29, 2002

IN RE: PUBLISHED ALLEGED THREATS AGAINST MEMBERS ! THE CURT IN

THE PLUNDER LA" CASE HURLED B# ATT#. LENARD DE $ERA

%APUNAN,J

.:

On December 11, 2001, the courtEn Bancissued the following Resolution directing respondent

Atty. Leonard De era to e!plain why he should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for

uttering some allegedly contemptuous statements in relation to the case in"ol"ing theconstitutionality of the #lunder Law $Republic Act %o. &0'0(1which was then pending

resolution)


3/13

*uoted hereunder are newspaper articles with contemptuous statements attributed to Atty.

Leonard De era concerning the #lunder Law case while the same was still pending

before the +ourt. he statements are italici-ed for ready identification)

PHILIPPINE DAIL# IN&UIRER

uesday, %o"ember , 2001

E'() *(+) l(+ /o' ou-B(oy +(u'

#lunder Law

De Vera asked the Supreme Court to dispel rumors that it would vote in favor of a

petition filed by Estradas lawyers to declare the plunder law unconstitutional forits supposed vagueness.

De era said he and his group were /greatly disturbed/ by the rumors fromupreme +ourt insiders.

Reports said that upreme +ourt ustices were tied o"er the constitutionalityof the #lunder Law, with two other ustices still undecided and uttered most li3ely

to inhibit, said #lunder 4atch, a coalition formed by ci"il society and militant

groups to monitor the prosecution of 5strada.

/4e are afraid that the 5strada camp6s effort to coerce, bribe, or influence theustices considering that it has a #700 million slush fund from the aborted

power grab that 8aywill most li3ely result in pro5strada decision declaring the

#lunder Law either unconstitutional or "ague, / the group said.

PHILIPPINE DAIL# IN&UIRER

8onday, %o"ember 19, 2001

SC u' )'u' /'o+ E'() )(l, /o

!!!

/#eople are getting dangerously passionate...emotionally charged./ aid lawyer

Leonard de era of the 5:ual ;ustice for All 8o"ement and a leading member ofthe 5strada Resign mo"ement.

e voiced his concern that a decision by the high tribunal rendering the plunder

law unconstitutional would trigger mass actions! probably more massive than

those that led to "eople "ower ##.

!!!


4/13

De era warned of a crisis far worse than the /ueteng/ scandal that led to #eople

#ower


5/13

4hile he admitted to ha"ing uttered the aforecited statements, respondent denied ha"ing made

the same to degrade the +ourt, to destroy public confidence in it and to bring it into disrepute.9

After a careful consideration of respondent6s arguments, the +ourt finds his e!planationunsatisfactory and hereby finds him guilty of indirect contempt of court for uttering statements

aimed at influencing and threatening the +ourt in deciding in fa"or of the constitutionality of the#lunder Law.

he udiciary, as the branch of go"ernment tas3ed to administer ustice, to settle usticiablecontro"ersies or disputes in"ol"ing enforceable and demandable rights, and to afford redress of

wrongs for the "iolation of said rights10must be allowed to decide cases independently, free of

outside influence or pressure. An independent udiciary is essential to the maintenance ofdemocracy, as well as of peace and order in society. >urther, maintaining the dignity of courts

and enforcing the duty of citi-ens to respect them are necessary aduncts to the administration of

ustice.11

hus, Rule &1, ection ? $d( of the Re"ised Rules of +ourt authori-es the courts to hold liable forcriminal contempt a person guilty of conduct that is directed against the dignity or authority of

the court, or of an act obstructing the administration of ustice which tends to bring the court into

disrepute or disrespect.12

Respondent cannot ustify his contemptuous statementsas3ing the +ourt to dispel rumors that itwould declare the #lunder Law unconstitutional, and stating that a decision declaring it as such

was basically wrong and would not be accepted by the peopleCas utterances protected by his

right to freedom of speech.


6/13

indi"idual e!ercises the right of selfdefense, it will act to preser"e its e!istence as an

unpreudiced tribunal.1

) #ursuant to the Antimut +ampaign of 8ayor Ramon Fagatsng, policemen sei-ed andconfiscated from dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and peddlers along 8anila sidewal3s,

maga-ines, publications and other reading materials belie"ed to be obscene, pornographic, and

indecent and later burned the sei-ed materials in public. Among the publications sei-ed and laterburned was /#inoy #layboy/ maga-ines published and coedited by plaintiff Leo #ita. After hisinuncti"e relief was dismissed by the R+ and his appeal reected by +A, he see3s re"iew with

+, in"o3ing the guaranty against unreasonable searches and sei-ure.


7/13

serach of the premises 45 >orum and 8etropolitan 8ail, two 8etro 8anila Dailies, by reason

of a defecti"e warrant.

here is a greater reason in this case to reprobate the :uestioned raid, in the complete absence of

a warrant, "alid or in"alid. he fact that the instant case in"ol"es an obscenity rap ma3es it nodifferent from Furgos, a political case, because speech is speech, whether political or /obscene/.

he authorities must apply for the issuance of the a search warrant from the udge , if in their

opinion, an obscenity rap is in order. hey must con"ince the court that the materials sought to besei-ed are /obscene/ and pose a clear and present danger of an e"il substanti"e enough to

warrant tate interference and action. he udge must determine 4O% the same are indeed

/obscene/) the :uestion is to be resol"ed on a casetocase basis and on the udgeIs sound

discretion.


8/13

law, rules and regulations and reasonale office regulations, refusal to perfor+ officialdut!, gross insuordination, conduct pre.udicial to the est interest of the service andasence without official leave& (etitioners failed to answer these charges& ollowing theinvestigations conducted ! the D8#' 6nvestigating #o++ittees, 'ecretar! #ariofound petitioners guilt! as charged and ordered their i++ediate dis+issal fro+ the

service&:

[:]

(etitioners appealed the orders of 'ecretar! #ario to the erit '!ste+s(rotection Board '(B- and later to the #'#& 6n 199;, the #'# +odified thesaid orders of 'ecretar! #ario as follows8R83R8, the #o++ission here! finds 8verdina Acosta guilt! of#onduct (re.udicial to the Best 6nterest of the 'ervice& 'he is here!+eted out the penalt! of si/ 0- +onths suspension without pa!onsidering the period of ti+e she was out of service, she is auto+aticall!reinstated to her for+er positions sic-& ;[;]

ollowing the denial of their +otion for reconsideration, petitioners ?uestionedthe +atter efore the #ourt of Appeals& @he appellate court denied their petitionfor certiorariand suse?uent +otion for reconsideration& >ence, this petition&

(etitioners su+it the following issues for our considerationA@ =R3)%5C (8)A568D (8@6@63)8R' =>3'83)5C E38)'8E =A' @3 8F8R#6'8 @>86R #3)'6@@63)A5 R6%>@

@3 (8A#8AB5C A''8B58 A)D (8@6@63) @>8 %38R)8)@ 3RR8DR8'' 3 %R68A)#8'&

R8'(3)D8)@ #3CR@ 3 A((8A5' %R683'5C 8RR8D =>8) 6@A6R8D @>8 A''A658D R8'35@63)' 3 @>8 #665 '8R6#8#36''63) @>A@ =R3)%5C D8)68D (8@6@63)8R' @>86R R6%>@@3 BA#G=A%8'&

@his petition is not i+pressed with +erit&

(etitioners do not den! their asence fro+ work nor the fact that said asences

were due to their participation in the +ass actions at the 5iwasang Bonifacio&>owever, the! contend that their participation in the +ass actions was an

%

5


9/13

e/ercise of their constitutional rights to peaceal! asse+le and petition thegovern+ent for redress of grievances& (etitioners likewise +aintain that the!never went on strike ecause the! never sought to secure changes or+odification of the ter+s and conditions of their e+plo!+ent&

(etitionersH contentions are without +erit& @he character and legalit! of the +assactions which the! participated in have een passed upon ! this #ourt as earl!as 1994 in Manila Public School Teachers' Association (MPSTA) v. Laguio, Jr.0[0]wherein we ruled that Ethese H+ass actionsH were to all intents and purposes astrikeI the! constituted a concerted and unauthoriJed stoppage of, or asencefro+, work which it was the teachersH sworn dut! to perfor+, undertaken foressentiall! econo+ic reasons&E7[7]6n Bangalisan v& #ourt of Appeals,"["]we addedthat

Documents

Dd Dddd Ddddgg