Legal Ethics for MIDTERMS

8/19/2019 Legal Ethics for MIDTERMS

1/30

#1 Re: Conviction of Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, RTC, Br. 121, Caloocan City in Crim. Cases!"!$"$%% to %$ for C&ild A'use, %() *CRA 1"$ , January )1, 2++Case Title : RE: CONVICTION OF JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH121, CALOOCAN CITY IN CRIMINAL CASES NO. Q-97-696 !" 6 FOR CHILD ABUSECase -ature : ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER #$ !%& S'()&*& C"')!. I$+#)&! C"$!&*(! $+ S'(&$#"$.*ylla'i Class : C"')!/J'+0&/C"$!&*(!/")+ $+ %)&/A!!")$&3/)&'*(!#"$ "4 I$$"&$&/A+*#$#!)!#5& L/)&5&$!#5& S'(&$#"$ivision: THIRD DIVISIONoc/et -um'er: A.M. N". 6-9-8-RTC

0onente: NACHURAisositive 0ortion:HEREFORE, !%& #$!$! +*#$#!)!#5& "*(#$! # %&)&3 DISMISSED 4") ; "4 *&)#!.N&5&)!%&&, )&("$+&$! A+")#"$ G. A$0&&, )&#+#$0 J'+0& "4 !%& R&0#"$ T)# C"')! "4 C""$C#!3, B)$% 121, # %&)&3 RERIMANDED 4") %&) '& "4 #$!&*(&)!& $0'0& #$ %&) (&+#$0 $+ #STERNLY ARNED !%! )&(&!#!#"$ "4 !%& *& ") #*#) ! % *&)#! *")& &5&)&$!#"$.S&$#") S!!& )"&'!") E**$'& Y. V&" "4 !%& D&()!*&$! "4 J'!#& # %&)&3 ARNED!%! %& %"'+ & *")& #)'*(&! #$ !%& !!&*&$! *+& #$ %# (&+#$0 $+ !%! )&(&!#!#"$ "4!%& *& % & +&! #!% *")& &5&)&3. T%& *"!#"$ !" #!& %#* 4") "$!&*(! # DENIED 4") ; "4*&)#!.T%& C"')! "4 A((& # DIRECTED !" )&"5& CA-G.R. CR N".


2/30

%#* "4 "') +*"$#!#"$ !" 3&) !" "&)5& !%& 4""#$0 C$"$ "4 !%& C"+& "4 )"4&#"$R&("$###!3, %#% )&+: C$"$ =. R'& =.1@A 3&) % $"!, #$ %# ()"4&#"$ +&#$0, '&$0'0& %#% # '#5&, "44&$#5& ") "!%&)#& #*()"(&). C$"$ 11. A 3&) % "&)5& $+*#$!#$ !%& )&(&! +'& !" !%& "')! $+ !" ?'+## "44#&) $+ %"'+ #$#! "$ #*#) "$+'! 3"!%&). A 3&) # $ "44#&) "4 !%& C"')!. I! # 3&) ")$ $+ *") +'!3 !" %&( '#+ $+ $"!'$$&&)#3 +&!)"3 !%& (&"(& %#0% &!&&* $+ )&0)+ 4") !%& "')! " &&$!# !" !%& ()"(&)+*#$#!)!#"$ "4 ?'!#&. A 3&) $0'0& *3 & 4")&4' '! %"'+ 3 & +#0$#4#&+ &*(%!#'! )&(&!4', &4#!!#$0 $ +5"!&. A)0'*&$!, %&!%&) )#!!&$ ") "), %"'+ & 0)#"' !""!% "')! $+ "(("#$0 "'$&, $+ %"'+ '& '% $0'0& *3 & ()"(&)3 ++)&&+ 3 "$&

(&)"$ !" $"!%&).*ame *ame 0resumtion of 4nnocence A ?'+0& "$5#!#"$ 3 !%& R&0#"$ T)# C"')! +"& $"!$&&)#3 ))$! %&) '(&$#"$ %#& %&) ((& 4)"* '% "$5#!#"$ # (&$+#$0@'$!# !%&

?'+0*&$! % !!#$&+ 4#$#!3, %& !# &$?"3 !%& "$!#!'!#"$ ()&'*(!#"$ "4 #$$"&$&.@I$ N'&5. A!!3. A)!')" B. A!")0, 82 SCRA


3/30

"')! $+ K%&$ CA L"; %#*&4 "& %# "?&!#5#!3 $+ *#'& !%& 4' ("&) "4 %# O44#& !"(&)&'!& !%& "?&! "4 %# 4$3, !%&$ #! # !#*& 4") %#* !" !&( +"$. I$ !%& !!&*(! !" +#)&+#! CAL";, )&("$+&$! &5&$ +)00&+ CA L"; "$ #$!" !%& "$!)"5&)3, !" #!: I! # $"!&")!%3 !" *&$!#"$!%! CA L"; %"!#& !!#!'+& 00)5!&+ 3 %# &*))*&$! %&$ !%& '$+&)#0$&+ *&$!#"$&+!" %#* !%! %& ;$& %" %& '&+ %# #$4'&$& !" &')& ("#!#"$ 4") %# "$ ! !%& RTC L#))3 "43 C#!3 %#% !%&$ *$0&+ 3 J'+0& )## M#?)&. CA L"; %+ *+& ')& !%! %# "$ &#0$&+ !" !%& #))3 !" &$& !%& !!&) !" "$5&$#&$!3 +?'! %# %&+'& #$ )&5#&#$0 4") !%& )&*#$!#"$.*ame *ame %#& !%& C"')! +"& $"! &0)'+0& !%& ()!#& !%& ()&)"0!#5& !" #$#!#!& %)0&

0#$! !%"& %", #$ !%) "(#$#"$, *3 %5& )"$0&+ !%&*, #! # & !" )&*#$+ !%&* !%! !%#()#5#&0& *'! & &&)#&+ #!% ()'+&$&, %&$ !%&)& )& &)3 4' 0)"'$+, $+ "$3 #$ !%&(')'#! "4 !)'!% $+ ?'!#&@!%# ()&)"0!#5& +"& $"! 0#5& !%&* !%& )#0%! !" #$!#!'!& %"!0'$ %)0&#!% )&;& $+"$, ") " !%) +#0)&&*&$! !" +&!&)#")!& #$!" ('&)#& '))&, $"! '$#;& !%!"4 !" #))&("$#& %#+)&$.@T%& ()!#& %&)$ %5& +*#!!&+ #$ !%) 5)#"' (&+#$0 !%! !%&3%5& 4#&+ $'*&)"' & 0#$! &% "!%&). & +" $"! &0)'+0& !%&* !%& ()&)"0!#5& !" #$#!#!&%)0& 0#$! !%"& %", #$ !%) "(#$#"$, *3 %5& )"$0&+ !%&*. B'! #! # & !" )&*#$+ !%&*!%! !%# ()#5#&0& *'! & &&)#&+ #!% ()'+&$&, %&$ !%&)& )& &)3 4' 0)"'$+, $+ "$3 #$!%& (')'#! "4 !)'!% $+ ?'!#&. T%# ()&)"0!#5& +"& $"! 0#5& !%&* !%& )#0%! !" #$!#!'!& %"!0'$%)0& #!% )&;& $+"$, ") " !%) +#0)&&*&$! !" +&!&)#")!& #$!" ('&)#& '))&, $"!'$#;& !%! "4 !" #))&("$#& %#+)&$. J'+0& A$0&& $+ SS V&" %"'+ &) #$ *#$+ !%! !%&3)& %#0%-)$;#$0 ('# "44#&) %"* !%& (&"(& ""; '( !" 4") &"', "$#&$!#"' $+ )&("$#5&

('# &)5#&. N*&-#$0 %)+3 &"*& !%&*. C"0$#$! "4 !%& +5&)& #*(! $+ '$(&$!"$&'&$& !%# "$!#$'#$0 "$4#! # #$4#! "$ !%& ('# &)5#&, & 4#$+ "!% "44## $!#$0 #$!%& "$+'! +&*$+&+ "4 ('# &)5$!.#2 Basa Air Base *avings 7 5oan Association, 4nc. vs. 0imentel, Jr., ) *CRA %(2, August22, 2++2Case Title : BASA AIR BASE SAVINGS LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC., "*(#$$!, 5. REGIONAL TRIALCOURT JUDGE GREGORIO G. IMENTEL, JR., GUAGUA, AMANGA, BRANCH , )&("$+&$!.Case -ature : ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER #$ !%& S'()&*& C"')!. G)" I0$")$& "4 !%& L, G)5&)!##!3 $+") $"#$03 R&$+&)#$0 U$?'! J'+0*&$!, $+ U$)&"$& D&3 #$ R&$+&)#$0J'+0*&$!.*ylla'i Class :C"')!/J'+0&/S(&&+3 D#("#!#"$ "4 C&/G)" I0$")$& "4 !%& L/G)5& )!##!3Syllabi :

1. Courts ; Judges ; Speedy Disposition of Cases ; The Court has always considered a judge’s failureto decide a case within the prescribed period of three (3) months as gross inefficiency for which theimposition of a penalty of fine or suspension is proper.-n the charge of delay in the rendition of

judgment! the Court has always considered a judge’s failure to decide a case within the prescribed period of three (3) months as gross inefficiency for which the imposition of a penalty of fine orsuspension is proper. "n the case at bar! respondent failed to obser#e Canon 3! $ule 3.%& of the Codeof 'udicial Conduct which mandates that a judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and

resol#e cases within ninety (%) days from the submission of the last pleading reuired.2. Courts ; Judges ; Speedy Disposition of Cases ; 'udges burdened with hea#y caseloads shouldreuest the Court for an e*tension of the reglementary period within which to decide their cases if they thin+ that they cannot comply with their judicial duty.-$espondent admitted his failure but pleads forcompassion on the ground that he was a newly-appointed judge and he merely ,inherited most of thecases pending before him. e cannot consider the e*cuse as #alid. 'udges burdened with hea#ycaseloads should reuest the Court for an e*tension of the reglementary period within which to decidetheir cases if they thin+ that they cannot comply with their judicial duty. This Court! aware of the

predicament of most judges! in#ariably grants said reuest for good reasons and upon properapplication. $espondent judge failed to discharge his basic duty of as+ing for an e*tension of time to

decide the subject cases and the omission is without any reason.). Courts ; Judges ; Gross Ignorance of the Law ; Grave Partiality ; /nowingly $endering an 0njust

'udgment1 n charges of gross ignorance of the law! gra#e partiality and2or +nowingly rendering anunjust judgment! the e#idence must show that the respondent judge committed an error that was

deliberate! malicious! gross and patent1 charge of +nowingly rendering an unjust judgmentconstitutes a criminal offense1 judge’s mere error in the interpretation or application of the law perse will not warrant the imposition of an administrati#e sanction against him for no one is infallible4good faith and absence of malice! corrupt moti#es or improper consideration are sufficient defenses.-

n the charges of gross ignorance of the law! gra#e partiality and2or +nowingly rendering an unjust judgment! the e#idence must show that the respondent judge committed an error that was deliberate!

malicious! gross and patent. charge of +nowingly rendering an unjust judgment constitutes acriminal offense. The +eyword in said offense is ,+nowingly. Thus! the complainant must not only

pro#e beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment is patently contrary to law or not supported by the

3

http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/722151191969/AQM999-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/722151191969/AQM999-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Courts/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judges/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Speedy%20Disposition%20of%20Cases/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Courts/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judges/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Speedy%20Disposition%20of%20Cases/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Courts/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judges/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Gross%20Ignorance%20of%20the%20Law/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Grave%20Partiality/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/722151191969/AQM999-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/722151191969/AQM999-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Courts/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judges/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Speedy%20Disposition%20of%20Cases/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Courts/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judges/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Speedy%20Disposition%20of%20Cases/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Courts/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judges/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Gross%20Ignorance%20of%20the%20Law/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Grave%20Partiality/http://void%280%29/


4/30

e#idence but that it was also made with deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. judge’s mereerror in the interpretation or application of the law per se will not warrant the imposition of anadministrati#e sanction against him for no one is infallible. 5ood faith and absence of malice! corruptmoti#es or improper consideration are sufficient defenses that will protect a judicial officer from thecharge of rendering an unjust decision. "n the case at bar! the mere fact that the respondent foundthat the prosecution failed to establish accused’s guilt beyond moral certainty is not an indicium of hisbias. Complainant has not shown by clear and competent e#idence that respondent was mo#ed by bad faith! corruption! #engeance or some other ill-moti#e in acuitting the accused. e reiterate that not

e#ery error of judgment renders a judge liable for no judge is beyond error.

ivision: THIRD DIVISIONoc/et -um'er: A+*. M!!&) N". RTJ-1-168=0onente: UNOisositive 0ortion:IN VIE HEREOF, !%& C"')! 4#$+ )&("$+&$! J'+0& G)&0")#" G. #*&$!&, J). 0'#!3 "4 4##$0 !")&$+&) ?'+0*&$! #$ C)#*#$ C& N". G-276= $+ G-2772 #!%#$ !%& ()&)#&+ (&)#"+ $+ FINE "4"$& !%"'$+ (&" 1,. # #*("&+ "$ %#*. H& # ADMONISHED !" & *")& #)'*(&! #$ !%&(&)4")*$& "4 %# ?'+## 4'$!#"$ )&(&!#!#"$ "4 !%& *& ") #*#) ! #$ !%& 4'!')& # &+&! #!% *")& &5&)&3. T%& %)0& "4 0)" #0$")$& "4 !%& , 0)5& ()!##!3 $+") ;$"#$03)&$+&)#$0 $ '$?'! ?'+0*&$! 0#$! )&("$+&$! # +#*#&+.#) 8aylas, Jr. vs. *ese, (" *CRA $+2 , August +(, 2++$Case Title : IGNACIO E. MAYLAS, JR., "*(#$$!, 5. JUDGE MANUEL L. SESE, R&0#"$ T)# C"')!

"4 M!& C#!3, B)$% 8, )&("$+&$!.Case -ature : ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER #$ !%& S'()&*& C"')!. G)" I0$")$& "4 !%& L,I$"*(&!&$&, V#"!#"$ $+ #4' D#)&0)+ "4 !%& R'& "4 C"')!.*ylla'i Class : J'+0&Syllabi :1. Judges ; s a matter of policy! in the absence of fraud! dishonesty and corruption! the acts of a

judge in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary action.4The error attributed to respondent judge pertains to the e*ercise of his adjudicati#e functions. s a matter of policy! in the absence offraud! dishonesty and corruption! the acts of a judge in his official capacity are not subject to

disciplinary action. 6e cannot be subjected to liability4ci#il! criminal oradministrati#e4for any of hisofficial acts! no matter how erroneous as long as he acts in good faith. nly judicial errors tainted with

fraud! dishonesty! gross ignorance! bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be

administrati#ely sanctioned. 7ettled is the rule that errors committed by a judge in the e*ercise of hisadjudicati#e functions cannot be corrected through administrati#e proceedings! but should instead beassailed through judicial remedies.2. Same ; To merit disciplinary action! the error or mista+e must be gross or patent! malicious!deliberate or in bad faith! and in the absence of a showing to the contrary! defecti#e or erroneousdecision or order is presumed to ha#e been issued in good faith.48#en granting that respondent judgeerred in the issuance of the assailed rder! he could not be held administrati#ely liable considering

that there is no proof that such error of judgment was tainted with bias or partiality! fraud! dishonesty!bad faith! deliberate intent to do an injustice! or gross ignorance. To merit disciplinary action! the error

or mista+e must be gross or patent! malicious! deliberate or in bad faith. "n the absence of a showingto the contrary! defecti#e or erroneous decision or order is presumed to ha#e been issued in goodfaith. s noted by the C! the complaint did not impute malice or bad faith on the part of respondent

judge hence! he is presumed to ha#e acted in good faith. 9oreo#er! in his Comment! respondentclaimed that he issued the assailed rder after a careful e*amination of the records of the case.). Same ; Grave abuse of discretion alone is not a ground for disciplinary proceedings ; Thefiling of an administrati#e complaint is not the proper remedy for the correction of actions of a judge

percei#ed to ha#e gone beyond the norms of propriety! where a sufficient judicial remedy e*ists.-

47ection ! $ule ;;< of the $ules of Court mandates that! in a motion to uash! the court shall notconsider any ground other than those stated in the motion! e*cept lac+ of jurisdiction o#er the offense

charged. "n Criminal Case =o. ;%;;! respondent judge erred when he considered a ground not raisedby the accused. s found by the Court of ppeals! the error in issuing the assailed rder dated ctober

;>! %%3 is tantamount to gra#e abuse of discretion. 6owe#er! gra#e abuse of discretion alone is not aground for disciplinary proceedings. The filing of an administrati#e complaint is not the proper remedyfor the correction of actions of a judge percei#ed to ha#e gone beyond the norms of propriety! where asufficient judicial remedy e*ists.

ivision: YNARES-SANTIAGOoc/et -um'er: A.M. N". RTJ-6-212 OCA-I..I. N". 8-216-RTJ0onente: YNARES-SANTIAGOisositive 0ortion:

4

http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/722151191969/ARM950-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Judges/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Grave%20abuse%20of%20discretion%20alone%20is%20not%20a%20ground%20for%20disciplinary%20proceedings/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/722151191969/ARM950-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Judges/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Grave%20abuse%20of%20discretion%20alone%20is%20not%20a%20ground%20for%20disciplinary%20proceedings/http://void%280%29/


5/30

HEREFORE, #$ 5#& "4 !%& 4")&0"#$0, !%& #$!$! +*#$#!)!#5& & 0#$! J'+0& M$'& L. S&& "4!%& R&0#"$ T)# C"')! "4 M!& C#!3, B)$% 8, # DISMISSED 4") ; "4 *&)#!.#( 9errer vs. Ra'aca, $)2 *CRA 2+( , cto'er +$, 2+1+Case Title : LOURDES B. FERRER $+ ROSERIDAD M. ARANDEP, "*(#$$!, 5. JUDGE ROMEOA. RABACA, M&!)"("#!$ T)# C"')!, B)$% 2, M$#, )&("$+&$!.Case -ature : ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER #$ !%& S'()&*& C"')!. G)" I0$")$& "4 !%& L,D&)&#!#"$ "4 D'!3, $"#$03 R&$+&)#$0 $ U$?'! I$!&)"'!")3 O)+&), $+ V#"!#"$ "4 !%& C"+& "4C"$+'! 4") G"5&)$*&$! O44##.*ylla'i Class : J'+0&/G)" I0$")$& "4 !%& L/E?&!*&$!

Syllabi :1. Judges ; Gross Ignorance of the Law ; !ectment ; "t is the ministerial duty of the judge to grantthe plaintiff’s motion for immediate e*ecution in an ejectment case upon the defendant’s failure to file

the sufficient supersedeas bond.4"ndeed! respondent 'udge should ha#e granted the plaintiff’s motionfor immediate e*ecution considering that the defendant did not file the sufficient supersedeas bonddespite ha#ing appealed. 5ranting the plaintiff’s motion for immediate e*ecution became hisministerial duty upon the defendant’s failure to file the sufficient supersedeas bond. 7ection ;! $ule


6/30

of malice or bad faith. rule as clear and e*plicit as 7ection ; could not be misread or misapplied!but should be implemented without e#asion or hesitation. To us! good faith! or honest belief! or lac+ ofmalice! or lac+ of bad faith justifies a non-compliance only when there is an as-yet unsettled doubt onthe meaning or applicability of a rule or legal pro#ision. "t was not so herein. nd! thirdly! gi#en thathis court! being #ested with original e*clusi#e jurisdiction o#er cases similar to Ci#il Case =o. ;-CA! had been assigned many such cases! he was not a trial judge bereft of the pertinent priore*perience to act on the issue of immediate e*ecution! a fact that further e*posed the abject inanity of his e*cuses.

ivision: THIRD DIVISION.

oc/et -um'er: A.M. N". MTJ--1=Counsel: J"& F. S" 4") "*(#$$!.0onenteJ. : BERSAMIN,isositive 0ortion:HEREFORE, & 4#$+ )&("$+&$! JUDGE ROMEO A. RABACA, )&#+#$0 J'+0& "4 B)$% 2,M&!)"("#!$ T)# C"')!, #$ M$# 0'#!3 "4 #0$")$& "4 !%& $+ ()"&+')&, $+, ")+#$03,#*("& '("$ %#* 4#$& "4 ,. #!% )$#$0 !%! )&(&!#!#"$ "4 !%& *& ") #*#) ! "'+ &+&! #!% *")& &5&)&3.#% Corus vs. c&otorena, ()% *CRA (($ , July )+, 2++(Case Title : MARGIE MACIAS CORUS, "*(#$$!, 5. JUDGE ILFREDO G. OCHOTORENA, RTCBR.11, SINDANGAN, PAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, )&("$+&$!.Case -ature : ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER #$ !%& S'()&*& C"')!. B#, )!##!3, $+ V#"!#"$ "4

J'+## C"$+'!.*ylla'i Class : C"')!/J'+0&/&+#$0 $+ )!#&/M"!#"$ !" D#*#/D&)!#"$ "4 N'#!3/D&4'!/G)" I0$")$& "4 !%& LSyllabi :1. Courts ; Judges ; Pleadings and Practice ; %otions to Dismiss ; here the last pleading was adefendant’s motion to dismiss! the judge should first resol#e the motion and wait for the plaintiff ’smotion to set the case for pre-trial! and not railroad the case by completely ignoring the motion todismiss and proceeding to trial on the merits.- "n summary! 9rs. 9acias now asserts before the Courtthat the respondent judge’s actuations constitute bias! partiality and conduct unbecoming a judge.

9oreo#er! according to her! what is more glaring and conclusi#e from the records is that therespondent is grossly ignorant of the law and procedure. Bor these administrati#e lapses! 9rs. 9acias

concludes that the Court should sanction him. The conclusion is amply supported by the Court of

ppeals’ ecision which states that the respondent judge totally disregarded 9rs. 9acias’ right to due process when he proceeded with the trial on the merits of the case completely ignoring the fact thather 9otion to ismiss! which was filed within the 3%-day reglementary period! was still pendingresolution. The respondent judge disregarded the pro#isions of 7ection ;! $ule ;D of the ;< $ules onCi#il Erocedure! which states that: ,fter the last pleading has been ser#ed and filed! it shall be theduty of the plaintiff to promptly mo#e e*-parte that the case be set for pre-trial. Considering that thelast pleading was 9rs. 9acias’ 9otion to ismiss! the respondent judge should ha#e first resol#ed the

motion and then waited for 9r. 9acias’ motion to set the case for pre-trial. hat happened in the caseis a classic e*ample of ,railroading or ,procedural short-cut. "nstead of resol#ing the 9otion to

ismiss! the respondent judge completely ignored it and proceeded with the trial on the merits of thecase by recei#ing 9r. 9acias’ e#idence e*-parte.2. Courts ; Judges ; Pleadings and Practice ; %otions to Dismiss ; "n holding the trial of the case upto its completion! the respondent judge acted utterly obli#ious to the pending 9otion for$econsideration of his order denying the 9otion to ismiss.- The respondent judge compounded hisblunder when! after denying 9rs. 9acias’ 9otion to ismiss! he continued with the reception of 9r.9acias’ e#idence e*-parte! ordered the termination of the trial and thereafter! considered the casesubmitted for decision despite 9rs. 9acias’ filing of a 9otion for $econsideration of the order denying

her 9otion to ismiss. "n holding the trial of the case up to its completion! the respondent judge hadacted utterly obli#ious to the pending 9otion for $econsideration.

). Courts ; Judges ; Pleadings and Practice ; Declaration of &ullity ; Defaults ; The $ules of Court prohibits default proceedings in cases in#ol#ing declaration of nullity of marriage.- "t is also worth

mentioning that! as correctly found by the appellate court! e#en if 9rs. 9acias failed to file her answerto the complaint after the period therefor had elapsed! the respondent judge was not authori?ed toconduct a hearing of the case on its merits. The $ules of Court prohibits default proceedings in casesin#ol#ing declaration of nullity of marriage.

(. Courts ; Judges ; Pleadings and Practice ; Declaration of &ullity ; The report of the EublicErosecutor is a condition sine ua non for further proceedings to go on in an action for declaration of

nullity of marriage where the defending party fails to answer.-7ection 3! $ule of the ;< $ules ofCi#il Erocedure states: ,"f the defending party in an action for annulment or declaration of nullity of

marriage or for legal separation fails to answer! the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to

6

http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/722151191969/APA121-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/722151191969/APA121-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Courts/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judges/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Pleadings%20and%20Practice/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Motions%20to%20Dismiss/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Courts/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judges/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Pleadings%20and%20Practice/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Motions%20to%20Dismiss/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Courts/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judges/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Pleadings%20and%20Practice/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Declaration%20of%20Nullity/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Defaults/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Courts/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judges/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Pleadings%20and%20Practice/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Declaration%20of%20Nullity/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/722151191969/APA121-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Courts/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judges/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Pleadings%20and%20Practice/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Motions%20to%20Dismiss/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Courts/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judges/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Pleadings%20and%20Practice/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Motions%20to%20Dismiss/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Courts/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judges/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Pleadings%20and%20Practice/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Declaration%20of%20Nullity/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Defaults/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Courts/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judges/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Pleadings%20and%20Practice/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Declaration%20of%20Nullity/http://void%280%29/


7/30

in#estigate whether or not a collusion between the parties e*ists! and if there is no collusion! tointer#ene for the 7tate in order to see to it that the e#idence submitted is not fabricated. Thus! thereport of the Eublic Erosecutor is a condition sine ua non for further proceedings to go on in the case.$espondent judge ignored this procedural rule. hile the record shows that Eublic Erosecutor rturo9. Eaculanag had filed a Certification dated 9ay %>! %%; with the respondent judge’s court! stating!among others! that he appeared in behalf of the 7olicitor 5eneral during the e*-parte presentation of

plaintiff’s e#idence! e#en cross-e*amining the plaintiff and his witness! the psychiatrist r. Cheryl T.Falsos! and that he had no objection to the granting of the petition for declaration of nullity of

marriage! such Certification does not suffice to comply with the mandatory reuirement that the court

should order the in#estigating public prosecutor whether a collusion e*ists between the parties. 7uchdirecti#e must be made by the court before trial could proceed! not after the trial on the merits of thecase had already been had. =otably! said Certification was filed after the respondent judge hadordered the termination of the case.%. Courts ; Judges ; Pleadings and Practice ; Gross Ignorance of the Law ; judge is called uponto e*hibit more than just a modicum of acuaintance with statutes and procedural rules4it is his dutyto +eep always abreast with law and jurisprudence.-Considering the foregoing! the Court rules that therespondent judge #iolated 9rs. 9acias’ right to due process when he completely ignored the pertinentrules. judge is called upon to e*hibit more than just a modicum of acuaintance with statutes and

procedural rules! it is his duty to +eep always abreast with law and jurisprudence. hen the law or procedure is so elementary! for him not to +now it or to act as if he does not +now it constitutes gross

ignorance.

ivision: SECOND DIVISIONoc/et -um'er: A.M. N". RTJ-8-1=61Counsel: L&0" L&0" L O44#&0onente: TINGAisositive 0ortion:HEREFORE, J'+0& #4)&+" G. O%"!")&$ # 4"'$+ GUILTY "4 0)" #0$")$& "4 !%& $+#$"*(&!&$& $+ # %&)&3 FINED !%& *"'$! "4 T&$!3 T%"'$+ &" 2,. !" & !;&$4)"* !%& *"'$! &)#&) #!%%&+ 4)"* %# )&!#)&*&$! &$&4#!. T%& F# M$0&*&$! O44#& "4 !%&OCA # DIRECTED !" #**&+#!&3 )&&& !" !%& )&("$+&$! ?'+0& !%& )&*#$#$0 $& "4 T&$!3T%"'$+ &" 2,. 4)"* !%& 4")&#+ )&!#$&+ *"'$!, '$& !%&)& )& "!%&) 5#+ )&"$4") #! 4')!%&) )&!&$!#"$.6 8arcos vs. 0amintuan, $)" *CRA $% , January 1, 2+11

Case Title : IMELDA R. MARCOS, "*(#$$!, 5. JUDGE FERNANDO VIL AMINTUAN, )&("$+&$!Case -ature : ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER #$ !%& S'()&*& C"')!. G)" I0$")$& "4 !%& L*ylla'i Class : J'+0&/C"+& "4 J'+## C"$+'!Syllabi :1. Judgments ; Doctrine of 'inality of Judgments ; "t is a*iomatic that when a judgment is finaland e*ecutory! it becomes immutable and unalterable.- 4"t is a*iomatic that when a judgment is finaland e*ecutory! it becomes immutable and unalterable. "t may no longer be modified in any respect

either by the court which rendered it or e#en by this Court. The doctrine of immutability andinalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose! to wit: (;) to a#oid delay in the administration

of justice and thus! procedurally! to ma+e orderly the discharge of judicial business1 and () to put anend to judicial contro#ersies! at the ris+ of occasional errors! which is precisely why courts e*ist.Contro#ersies cannot drag on indefinitely.2. Judges ; Code of Judicial Conduct ; Gross Ignorance of the Law ; "gnorance of the law! whiche#eryone is bound to +now! e*cuses no one- 4not e#en judges.4Competence is a mar+ of a good

judge. hen a judge e*hibits an utter lac+ of +now-how with the rules or with settled jurisprudence!he erodes the public’s confidence in the competence of our courts. "t is highly crucial that judges beacuainted with the law and basic legal principles. "gnorance of the law! which e#eryone is bound to

+now! e*cuses no one4not e#en judges.ivision: EN BANCoc/et -um'er: A.M. N". RTJ-7-2620onente: ER CURIAMisositive 0ortion:HEREFORE, )&("$+&$! J'+0& F&)$$+" V# *#$!'$ "4 !%& R&0#"$ T)# C"')! "4 B0'#" C#!3,B)$%


8/30

RESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, $+ RAUL S. ROCO, )&("$+&$!., ARAJA G.HAYUDINI, (&!#!#"$&), 5. THE SANDIGANBAYAN $+ THE REUBLIC OF THE HILIINES, )&("$+&$!.Case -ature : SECIAL CIVIL ACTION #$ !%& S'()&*& C"')!. C&)!#"))#.*ylla'i Class : A!!")$&3/L3&)-C#&$! R&!#"$%#(Syllabi :1. "ttorneys ; Lawyer(Client $elationship ; Eetitioners are being prosecuted solely on the basis ofacti#ities and ser#ices performed in the course of their duties as lawyers.-"t would seem that

petitioners are merely standing in for their clients as defendants in the complaint. Eetitioners are being

prosecuted solely on the basis of acti#ities and ser#ices performed in the course of their duties as

lawyers. Guite ob#iously! petitioners’ inclusion as co-defendants in the complaint is merely being usedas le#erage to compel them to name their clients and conseuently to enable the EC55 to nail theseclients. 7uch being the case! respondent EC55 has no #alid cause of action as against petitioners andshould e*clude them from the Third mended Complaint.2. "ttorneys ; Lawyer(Client $elationship ; n attorney is more than a mere agent or ser#antbecause he possesses special powers of trust and confidence reposed on him by his client.-"n modernday perception of the lawyer-client relationship! an attorney is more than a mere agent or ser#ant!because he possesses special powers of trust and confidence reposed on him by his client. lawyer isalso as independent as the judge of the court! thus his powers are entirely different from and superior

to those of an ordinary agent. 9oreo#er! an attorney also occupies what may be considered as a,uasi-judicial office since he is in fact an officer of the Court and e*ercises his judgment in the choice

of courses of action to be ta+en fa#orable to his client.

). "ttorneys ; Lawyer(Client $elationship ; "n the creation of lawyer-client relationship there arerules! ethical conduct and duties that breathe life into it.-Thus! in the creation of lawyer-clientrelationship! there are rules! ethical conduct and duties that breathe life into it! among those! thefiduciary duty to his client which is of a #ery delicate! e*acting and confidential character! reuiring a#ery high degree of fidelity and good faith! that is reuired by reason of necessity and public interestbased on the hypothesis that abstinence from see+ing legal ad#ice in a good cause is an e#il which isfatal to the administration of justice.

(. "ttorneys ; Lawyer(Client $elationship ; 5enerally! a lawyer may not in#o+e the pri#ilege andrefuse to di#ulge the name or identity of his client.- s a matter of public policy! a client’s identity

should not be shrouded in mystery. 0nder this premise! the general rule in our jurisdiction as well as inthe 0nited 7tates is that a lawyer may not in#o+e the pri#ilege and refuse to di#ulge the name or

identity of his client.%. "ttorneys ; Lawyer(Client $elationship ; Client identity is pri#ileged where a strong probabilitye*ists that re#ealing the client’s name would implicate that client in the #ery acti#ity for which hesought the lawyer’s ad#ice.-Client identity is pri#ileged where a strong probability e*ists that re#ealingthe client’s name would implicate that client in the #ery acti#ity for which he sought the lawyer’sad#ice.

$. "ttorneys ; Lawyer(Client $elationship ; here disclosure would open the client to ci#il liabilityhis identity is pri#ileged.-here disclosure would open the client to ci#il liability! his identity is

pri#ileged. Bor instance! the peculiar facts and circumstances of =eugass #. Terminal Cab Corporation! prompted the =ew Hor+ 7upreme Court to allow a lawyer’s claim to the effect that he could not re#eal

the name of his client because this would e*pose the latter to ci#il litigation.. "ttorneys ; Lawyer(Client $elationship ; The content of any client communication to a lawyer lieswithin the pri#ilege if it is rele#ant to the subject matter of the legal problem on which the client see+slegal assistance.- part from these principal e*ceptions! there e*ist other situations which could ualify

as e*ceptions to the general rule. Bor e*ample! the content of any client communication to a lawyerlies within the pri#ilege if it is rele#ant to the subject matter of the legal problem on which the clientsee+s legal assistance. 9oreo#er! where the nature of the attorney-client relationship has been

pre#iously disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be confidential! the identity of the client

has been held to be pri#ileged! since such re#elation would otherwise result in disclosure of the entiretransaction.

. "ttorneys ; Lawyer(Client $elationship ; The lawyer-client confidentiality pri#ilege and lawyer’sloyalty to his client e*tends e#en after the termination of the relationship.-The utmost ?eal gi#en byCourts to the protection of the lawyer-client confidentiality pri#ilege and lawyer’s loyalty to his client ise#ident in the duration of the protection! which e*ists not only during the relationship! but e*tendse#en after the termination of the relationship.". "ttorneys ; Lawyer(Client $elationship ; "t is unreasonable for the 7andiganbayan to compel

petitioners to breach the trust reposed on them and succumb to a thinly disguised threat ofincrimination.-" see in the case before us! gi#en the attendant circumstances already detailed in the

ponencia! a situation of the $epublic attempting to establish a case not on what it percei#es to be thestrength of its own e#idence but on what it could elicit from a counsel against his client. " find it

8

http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Attorneys/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Lawyer-Client%20Relationship/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Attorneys/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Lawyer-Client%20Relationship/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Attorneys/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Lawyer-Client%20Relationship/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Attorneys/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Lawyer-Client%20Relationship/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Attorneys/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Lawyer-Client%20Relationship/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Attorneys/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Lawyer-Client%20Relationship/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Attorneys/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Lawyer-Client%20Relationship/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Attorneys/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Lawyer-Client%20Relationship/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Attorneys/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Lawyer-Client%20Relationship/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Attorneys/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Lawyer-Client%20Relationship/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Attorneys/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Lawyer-Client%20Relationship/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Attorneys/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Lawyer-Client%20Relationship/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Attorneys/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Lawyer-Client%20Relationship/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Attorneys/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Lawyer-Client%20Relationship/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Attorneys/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Lawyer-Client%20Relationship/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Attorneys/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Lawyer-Client%20Relationship/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Attorneys/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Lawyer-Client%20Relationship/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Attorneys/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Lawyer-Client%20Relationship/http://void%280%29/


9/30

unreasonable for the 7andiganbayan to compel petitioners to breach the trust reposed on them andsuccumb to a thinly disguised threat of incrimination.1+. "ttorneys ; Lawyer(Client $elationship ; The prerogati#e to determine who shall be madedefendant in a ci#il case is initially #ested in the plaintiff.-The prerogati#e to determine who shall bemade defendants in a ci#il case is initially #ested in the plaintiff! or the EC55 in this case. The controlof the Court comes in only when the issue of ,interest (I! $ule 3! $ules of Court) as! e.g.! whetheran indispensable party has not been joined! or whether there is a misjoinder of parties (I

relationship is not a cause to e*clude a party.-"n #iew of their adamantine position! the petitioners didnot! therefore! allow themsel#es to be li+e $oco. They cannot claim the same treatment! much lesscompel the EC55 to drop them as defendants! for nothing whatsoe#er. They ha#e no right to ma+esuch a demand for until they shall ha#e complied with the conditions imposed for their e*clusion! theycannot be e*cluded e*cept by way of a motion to dismiss based on the grounds allowed by law (e.g.!those enumerated in I;! $ule ;@! $ules of Court). The rule of confidentiality under the lawyer-clientrelationship is not a cause to e*clude a party. "t is merely a ground for disualification of a witness(I>! $ule ;3%! $ules of Court) and may only be in#o+ed at the appropriate time! i.e.! when a lawyeris under compulsion to answer as witness! as when! ha#ing ta+en the witness stand! he is uestioned

as to such confidential communication or ad#ice! or is being otherwise judicially coerced to produce!through subpoenae duces tecum or otherwise! letters or other documents containing the same

pri#ileged matter. Jut none of the lawyers in this case is being reuired to testify about or otherwise

re#eal ,any KconfidentialL communication made by the client to him! or his ad#ice gi#en thereon in thecourse of! or with a #iew to! professional employment. 12. "ttorneys ; Lawyer(Client $elationship ; The relation of attorney and client cannot e*ist for the

purpose of counsel in concocting crimes.-Communications to an attorney ha#ing for their object thecommission of a crime ,* * * parta+e the nature of a conspiracy! and it is not only lawful to di#ulgesuch communications! but under certain circumstances it might become the duty of the attorney to doso. The interests of public justice reuire that no such shield from merited e*posure shall be interposed

to protect a person who ta+es counsel how he can safely commit a crime. The relation of attorney andclient cannot e*ist for the purpose of counsel in concocting crimes. "n the well chosen words of retired

'ustice Guiason! a lawyer is not a gun for hire.1). "ttorneys ; Lawyer(Client $elationship ; s a general rule! the attorney-client pri#ilege does not include the right of non-disclosure of client identity.- ssuming then that petitioners can in#o+e theattorney-client pri#ilege since the EC55 is no longer proceeding against them as co-conspirators incrimes! we should focus on the more specific issue of whether the attorney-client pri#ilege includes theright not to di#ulge the identity of a client as contended by the petitioners. s a general rule! theattorney-client pri#ilege does not include the right of non-disclosure of client identity. The general rule!howe#er! admits of well-etched e*ceptions which the 7andiganbayan failed to recogni?e.

1(. "ttorneys ; Lawyer(Client $elationship ; The person claiming the pri#ilege or its e*ceptions hasthe obligation to present the underlying facts demonstrating the e*istence of the pri#ilege.-Je that as

it may! " part ways with the majority when it ruled that petitioners need not pro#e they fall within thee*ceptions to the general rule. " respectfully submit that the attorney-client pri#ilege is not a magic

mantra whose in#ocation will ipso facto and ipso jure drape he who in#o+es it with its protection.Elainly put! it is not enough to assert the pri#ilege. The person claiming the pri#ilege or its e*ceptionshas the obligation to present the underlying facts demonstrating the e*istence of the pri#ilege. henthese facts can be presented only by re#ealing the #ery information sought to be protected by the

pri#ilege! the procedure is for the lawyer to mo#e for an inspection of the e#idence in an in camerahearing. The hearing can e#en be in camera and e*-parte.oc/et -um'er: G.R. N". 19


10/30

Case -ature : ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER #$ !%& S'()&*& C"')!. G)5& A'& "4 D#)&!#"$ $+A'!%")#!3, C"$+'! U$&"*#$0*ylla'i Class : J'+0&/C"')! &)"$$&/B# $+ )!##!3/'# T)#/O44#& "4 !%& C"')!A+*#$#!)!") OCA C#)') N". 7-2


11/30

$espondent 'udge sdala e#en had the gall to insist that as presiding judge she has the authority anddiscretion to designate ,anyone who wor+s under her! as long as that person enjoys her trust andconfidence. Coming from a judge! such arrogance! if not ignorance! is ine*cusable. The memorandumfrom the C regarding the designation of court personnel is no less an order from this Court. Courtofficials and personnel! particularly judges! are e*pected to comply with the same. $espondent judge’sgross insubordination cannot be countenanced.

%. Court Personnel ; Insubordination ; court employee’s continued e*ercise of the functions offficer in Charge ("C) after the disappro#al of her designation is a clear defiance of the instruction of

the 7upreme Court.-$espondent =icandro! on her part! has been accused of usurping the functions of

"C. hile she acted on the strength of the memorandum of respondent 'udge sdala designating heras such! it is undeniable that she is aware of the memorandum of this Court! through the C!appro#ing my 7oneja’s designation as "C2Jranch Cler+ of Court. $espondent =icandro’s continuede*ercise of the functions of "C after the disappro#al of her designation is a clear defiance of theinstruction of this Court.$. Court Personnel ; court employee who acts as a ,collection agent of the office staff lac+s the

propriety and proper decorum e*pected of a court personnel.- s to the charge of unauthori?edsolicitation! it is clear that respondent =icandro! at the #ery least! acted as ,collection agent of theoffice staff with regard to the alleged amounts owed by complainant. 7uch action on the part of

respondent =icandro lac+s the propriety and proper decorum e*pected of a court personnel. This is not the first time that this Court had censured respondent =icandro’s beha#ior in dealing with party

litigants. 8arly this year! on Bebruary ;! %%

failure and indifference to the orders of this Court despite ha#ing been found in contempt for herrefusal to comply with the said orders. 7he was also reprimanded for willful failure to pay a just debtdespite repeated demands from the complainant therein. 7uch infractions are conduct highly

prejudicial to the best interest of the ser#ice.ivision: EN BANCoc/et -um'er: A.M. N". RTJ-6-1978Counsel: R*"$ M)"$#, T&"+'" M. '$$, M)#' S. G'!&)0onente: ER CURIAMisositive 0ortion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uan de la Cru= >Concerned Citi=en of 5ega=i City? vs. Carretas, %)2 *CRA 21 ,*etem'er +%, 2++Case Title : JUAN DE LA CRUP CONCERNED CITIPEN OF LEGAPI CITY, "*(#$$!, 5. JUDGERUBEN B. CARRETAS, )&#+#$0 J'+0&, R&0#"$ T)# C"')! "4 L&0(# C#!3, B)$% 9, )&("$+&$!.Case -ature : ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER #$ !%& S'()&*& C"')!. C"$+'! U$&"*#$0 J'+0&.*ylla'i Class : C"')!/J'+0&/A.M. N". 2-9-2-SCivision: FIRST DIVISIONoc/et -um'er: A.M. N". RTJ-7-28<0onente: CORONAisositive 0ortion:L&! "(3 "4 !%# )&"'!#"$ & !!%&+ !" !%& (&)"$ )&")+ "4 )&("$+&$! ?'+0&.#1+ Re: ;ntitlement to @a=ard 0ay of *C 8edical and ental Clinic 0ersonnel, %2 *CRA 1 ,-ovem'er 2, 2++Case Title : RE: ENTITLEMENT TO HAPARD AY OF SC MEDICAL AND DENTAL CLINIC ERSONNELCase -ature : ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER #$ !%& S'()&*& C"')!. R&'&! 4") G)$! "4 H)+A"$&.*ylla'i Class : '# H&!% ");&) H)+ 3 ivision: EN BANCoc/et -um'er: A.M. N".


12/30

HEREFORE, !%& )&'&! "4 !%& S'()&*& C"')! M&+# $+ D&$! S&)5#& D#5##"$ !" *&$+A+*#$#!)!#5& C#)') A.C. N". 7-28 ")+#$0 !" !%& ()"5##"$ "4 D&()!*&$! "4 H&!%A+*#$#!)!#5& O)+&) N". 26-11 # DENIED. T%& C"')! DIRECTS !%! !%& (3*&$! "4 %)+"$& #$ 45") "4 !%& (&)"$$& "$&)$&+ & *+& #$ ")+$& #!% A.C. N". 7-28.#11 Jamin vs. e Castro, %)$ *CRA )%" , cto'er 1, 2++Case Title : MARY JANE VALLENTOS JAMIN, "*(#$$!, 5. JUDGE MANUEL A. DE CASTRO, MCTC,JAGNA $+ GARCIAHERNANDEP, BOHOL, )&("$+&$!.Case -ature : ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER #$ !%& S'()&*& C"')!. G)" M#"$+'! $+ I**")#!3.*ylla'i Class : C"')!/J'+0&/I**")#!3/A44#+5#! "4 D&#!$&/A+*#$#!)!#5& L/A.M. N". 2-9-

2-SCivision: EN BANCoc/et -um'er: A.M. N". MTJ--16160onente: ER CURIAMisositive 0ortion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

"4 !%& %##((#$& B).#12 Reyes vs. 0aderanga, %( *CRA 2(( , 8arc& 1(, 2++Case Title : ASUNCION REYES, "*(#$$!, 5. JUDGE RUSTICO D. ADERANGA, R&0#"$ T)#C"')!, B)$% 2=, M*?", C*#0'#$, )&("$+&$!.Case -ature : ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER #$ !%& S'()&*& C"')!. B#, I0$")$& "4 !%& L $+)"&+')&, A$!&+!#$0 O)+&), F#')& !" R&"5& C& #!%#$ R&0&*&$!)3 &)#"+ $+ R&4' !"I$%##! #$ S&5&) C& &$+#$0 B&4")& %# C"')!.*ylla'i Class : C"')! J'+0& S(&&+3 D#("#!#"$ "4 C& &+#$0 $+ )!#& ivision: THIRD DIVISIONoc/et -um'er: A.M. N". RTJ-6-197<Counsel: L0*"$ L O44#&0onente: AUSTRIA-MARTINEP

isositive 0ortion:HEREFORE, )&("$+&$! J'+0& R'!#" D. +&)$0 # %&)&3 4"'$+ GUILTY "4 0)" #0$")$& "4 !%& 4"), %#% %& # 4#$&+ 2,. $+ '$+'& +&3 #$ )&"5#$0 *"!#"$ $+ #$ +&#+#$0 $ ((&,4") %#% %& # 4#$&+ 1,. #!% STERN ARNING !%! *")& &5&)& (&$!3 # & *&!&+ "'!4") !%& "**##"$ "4 #*#) "44&$& #$ !%& 4'!')&.

5astest Case 0rovided

#1 Re: 0etition for Radio and Television Coverage of t&e 8ultile 8urder Cases Against8aguindanao Governor aldy Amatuan, et al., $%2 *CRA 1 , June 1(, 2+11Case Title : RE: ETITION FOR RADIO AND TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THE MULTILE MURDERCASES AGAINST MAGUINDANAO GOVERNOR PALDY AMATUAN, ET AL.

Case -ature : ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS #$ !%& S'()&*& C"')!. R&'&! 4") L#5& TV $+ R+#"C"5&)0& "4 !%& T)# "4 !%& M0'#$+$" M)& C&.*ylla'i Class : C"')!/R#0%! "4 !%& A'&+Syllabi :1. Courts ; $ights of the "ccused ; The indication of ,serious ris+s posed by li#e media co#erage tothe accused’s right to due process has left a blow to the e*ercise of press freedom and the right to

public information.-4The indication of ,serious ris+s posed by li#e media co#erage to the accused’s

right to due process! left une*plained and une*plored in the era obtaining in uino and 8strada! hasleft a blow to the e*ercise of press freedom and the right to public information. The rationale for an

outright total prohibition was shrouded! as it is now! inside the comfortable cocoon of a fearedspeculation which no scientific study in the Ehilippine setting confirms! and which fear! if any! may bedealt with by safeguards and safety nets under e*isting rules and e*acting regulations.

2. Same ; Same ; Maw and technology can wor+ to the ad#antage and furtherance of the #arious rightsherein in#ol#ed! within the contours of defined guidelines.-4"ndeed! the Court cannot gloss o#er whatad#ances technology has to offer in distilling the abstract discussion of +ey constitutional precepts intothe wor+able conte*t. Technology per se has always been neutral. "t is the use and regulation thereofthat need fine-tuning. Maw and technology can wor+ to the ad#antage and furtherance of the #arious

rights herein in#ol#ed! within the contours of defined guidelines.

12

http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/0784915534101/AQK312-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/0784915534101/AQK312-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/0784915534101/AQU563-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/0784915534101/ARL069-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/0784915534101/ARL069-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/0784915534101/ARL069-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Courts/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Rights%20of%20the%20Accused/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/0784915534101/AQK312-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/0784915534101/AQU563-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/0784915534101/ARL069-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/0784915534101/ARL069-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Courts/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Rights%20of%20the%20Accused/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://void%280%29/


13/30

). Same ; Same ; Technology tends to pro#ide the only solution to brea+ the inherent limitations of thecourtroom! to satisfy the imperati#e of a transparent! open and public trial.-4The impossibility ofholding such judicial proceedings in a courtroom that will accommodate all the interested parties!whether pri#ate complainants or accused! is unfortunate enough. hat more if the right itselfcommands that a reasonable number of the general public be allowed to witness the proceeding as itta+es place inside the courtroom. Technology tends to pro#ide the only solution to brea+ the inherentlimitations of the courtroom! to satisfy the imperati#e of a transparent! open and public trial.(. Same ; Same ; "n this day and age! it is about time to craft a win-win situation that shall notcompromise rights in the criminal administration of justice! sacrifice press freedom and allied rights!

and interfere with the integrity! dignity and solemnity of judicial proceedings.-4"n this day and age! itis about time to craft a win-win situation that shall not compromise rights in the criminaladministration of justice! sacrifice press freedom and allied rights! and interfere with the integrity!dignity and solemnity of judicial proceedings. Compliance with regulations! not curtailment of a right!

pro#ides a wor+able solution to the concerns raised in these administrati#e matters! while! at the sametime! maintaining the same underlying principles upheld in the two pre#ious cases.ivision: EN BANCoc/et -um'er: A.M. N". 1-11--SCCounsel: R"*&" T. C('"$0, R%& F. !")&, F)$# A$!%"$3 )#$#(&, M)3 !%)3$ G. S#"$,R"$+" R#" C. O#, A*33$ B. S!", J"& C%)#!"(%&) Y. B&*"$!&, %##( D. S# $+ R"*-V"!#)& C. Q'#"$0onente: CARIO-MORALES, J

isositive 0ortion:HEREFORE, #$ #0%! "4 !%& 4")&0"#$0 +#'##!#"$, !%& C"')! ARTIALLY GRANTS RO HAC VICE !%&)&'&! 4") #5& )"+! 3 !&&5##"$ $+ )+#" "4 !%& !)# "')! ()"&&+#$0 "4 !%& M0'#$+$"M)& &, '?&! !" !%& 0'#+&#$& %&)$ "'!#$&+.E&)(!:1. , )&")+&), $+ &') +&5#& '("$ &$!)3, $+ !%! '$+&) !)#! ")+&) "4 !%& !)# "')!0#$! #5&)"+! "5&)0& , !%& $'*&) "4 *&+# ()!#!#"$&) "&+ #$#+& !%& "')!)""* %&&$ #*#!&+ !" "$& )&(")!&) 4") &% *&+# #$!#!'!#"$. T%& )&")+ %" !%! NUJ V#&-C%#)(&)"$J"& J#*& E(#$, 3 J$')3 12, 21 &!!&) 18 !" J'+0& S"#-R&3&, )&'&!&+ +#"0'& !"+#' "$&)$ "5&) *&+# "5&)0& "4 !%&()"&&+#$0 "4 !%& M0'#$+$" M)& &. J'+0&S"#-R&3& )&(#&+, %"&5&), !%! K*!!&) "$&)$#$0 *&+#"5&)0& %"'+ & )"'0%! !" !%& C"')!!!&$!#"$ !%)"'0% (()"()#!& *"!#"$. 1 H&$&, !%& ()&&$! (&!#!#"$%#%&)! !%& &&)#& "4 !%& 4)&&+"* "4 2. )&(&!#5& )&"'!#"$ $+ !!&*&$! &)#$0 "$ !%&& *!!&). T%& ()#$#( '&+ #$ !%& &,A$+A*(!'$ , J). A*(!'$ , 4#&+ C"$"#+!&+ C"**&$! "4 D&&*&) 6, 21 #$ A.M. N". 1-11--SC $+ A.M. N". 1-11-7-SC. T%& )&#+&$!, !%)"'0% !%& O44#& "4 !%& S"##!") G&$&) OSG,$+ NUJ, &! . 4#&+ !%) )&(&!#5& R&(3 "4 J$')3 1=, 211 $+ J$')3 2, 211. A*(!'$ "4#&+ R&?"#$+&) "4 M)% 9, 211. O$ B)"+!#$0 !%& T)# "4 !%& M0'#$+$" M)& C&&!#!#"$&) &&; !%& #4!#$0 "4 !%& "'!& $ "$ #5&!&&5##"$ $+ )+#" "5&)0& "4 "')!()"&&+#$0. T%&3 ()#$#(3 ')0& !%& C"')! !" )&5##! !%& 1991 )'#$0 #$ R&:L#5& TV $+R+#" C"5&)0& "4 !%& H&)#$0


14/30

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

+";&!&+ !%& *!!&) A.M. N". 1-11-7-SC. B3 &()!& R&"'!#"$ "4 N"5&*&) 2; (;DD)! where the 0.7. 7upreme Court held that due process does notreuire the 7tate to preser#e the semen specimen although it might be useful to the accused unlessthe latter is able to show bad faith on the part of the prosecution or the police.-47till! ebb is notentitled to acuittal for the failure of the 7tate to produce the semen specimen at this late stage. Borone thing! the ruling in Jrady #. 9aryland that he cites has long been o#erta+en by the decision in

ri?ona #. Houngblood! where the 0.7. 7upreme Court held that due process does not reuire the7tate to preser#e the semen specimen although it might be useful to the accused unless the latter isable to show bad faith on the part of the prosecution or the police. 6ere! the 7tate presented a medical

e*pert who testified on the e*istence of the specimen and ebb in fact sought to ha#e the samesubjected to = test. Bor! another! when ebb raised the = issue! the rule go#erning =

e#idence did not yet e*ist! the country did not yet ha#e the technology for conducting the test! and noEhilippine precedent had as yet recogni?ed its admissibility as e#idence. Conseuently! the idea of

+eeping the specimen secure e#en after the trial court rejected the motion for = testing did notcome up. "ndeed! neither ebb nor his co-accused brought up the matter of preser#ing the specimenin the meantime.2. Same ; Same ; 7ince ,the tas+ of the pillars of the criminal justice system is to preser#e our

democratic society uNnder the rule of law! ensuring that all those who appear before or are brought tothe bar of justice are afforded a fair opportunity to present their side! the measure of whether the

accused herein has been depri#ed of due process of law should not be limited to the state of mind ofthe prosecution! but should include fundamental principles of fair play.-4"n our #arious decisions

relating to interlucotory orders and incidents pertaining to this case! this court’s adherence to

14

http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/0784915534101/ARJ871-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Criminal%20Procedure/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Due%20Process/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Legal%20Research/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Webb%20is%20not%20entitled%20to%20acquittal%20for%20the%20failure%20of%20the%20State%20to%20produce%20the%20semen%20specimen%20at%20this%20late%20stage/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Webb%20is%20not%20entitled%20to%20acquittal%20for%20the%20failure%20of%20the%20State%20to%20produce%20the%20semen%20specimen%20at%20this%20late%20stage/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/reader/0784915534101/ARJ871-rw/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Criminal%20Procedure/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Due%20Process/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Legal%20Research/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Webb%20is%20not%20entitled%20to%20acquittal%20for%20the%20failure%20of%20the%20State%20to%20produce%20the%20semen%20specimen%20at%20this%20late%20stage/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Webb%20is%20not%20entitled%20to%20acquittal%20for%20the%20failure%20of%20the%20State%20to%20produce%20the%20semen%20specimen%20at%20this%20late%20stage/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://void%280%29/


15/30

instrumentalism has led to our finding in each instance that there was no due process #iolationcommitted against petitioner! because bad faith was not shown by the prosecution or the trial judge.6owe#er! since ,the tas+ of the pillars of the criminal justice system is to preser#e our democraticsociety under the rule of law! ensuring that all those who appear before or are brought to the bar of

justice are afforded a fair opportunity to present their side! the measure of whether the accusedherein has been depri#ed of due process of law should not be limited to the state of mind of the

prosecution! but should include fundamental principles of fair play. 6ence! as we write finis to thiscase! it is time we e#aluate the total picture that the prosecution’s acts or omissions ha#e wrought

upon the accused’s rights with each seemingly innocuous stro+e! whate#er its intention may ha#e

been. The #arious #iolations of the accused’s rights ha#e resulted in his failure to secure a just trial. ssuch! the judgment of con#ictio). Same ; Same ; Same ; Same ; Same ; Deo5yribonucleic "cid ,D&"- *esting ; "f a negati#eeo*yribonucleic cid (=) test result could not be considered as pro#iding certainty that ebb didnot commit the crime! would it not ha#e at least cast a reasonable doubt that he committed itO -4The idea that a negati#e = test result would not ha#e necessarily e*culpated ebb! because

pre#ious se*ual congress by Carmela with another man prior to the crime could not be discounted!would unrealistically raise the bar of e#idence4and for the wrong party! i.e.! for the part of thedefense! instead of for the prosecution. "f a negati#e = test result could not be considered as

pro#iding certainty that ebb did not commit the crime! would it not ha#e at least cast a reasonabledoubt that he committed itO

(. Same ; Same ; Same ; Same ; $ight of "ccess to vidence ; The accused’s right to access to

e#idence necessitates in the correlati#e duty of the prosecution to produce and permit the inspection of the e#idence! and not to suppress or alter it.-4s discussed in the preceding section! the accused’sright to access to e#idence necessitates in the correlati#e duty of the prosecution to produce and

permit the inspection of the e#idence! and not to suppress or alter it. hen the prosecution is calledupon not to suppress or alter e#idence in its possession that may benefit the accused! it is alsonecessarily obliged to preser#e the said e#idence. To hold otherwise would be to render illusory thee*istence of such right. The ad#ent of = technology prompted this Court’s promulgation of the =ew

$ules for = 8#idence. s = e#idence pro#ides objecti#e proof of identification and may beobtained from e#idence left in the scene of the crime or in the #ictim’s person! it also gi#es new

meaning to the abo#e duty of the prosecution. The prosecution did not fare well when measuredagainst this standard.

%. Same ; Same ; Same ; Judges ; )ias and Partiality ; hen allegations of instances of the trial judge’s bias were first brought to this Court! it was understandable that the Court would accord the judge the presumption of regularity in the performance of her duties! but her subseuent acts! as wellas her ecision-4ta+en together4showed a pattern now recogni?able in retrospect as bias against theaccused! amounting to denial of due process.4llegations of issuance of prejudicial comments aboutthe accused in this case pertained to the acts of the trial judge! and not the prosecution. henallegations of instances of the trial judge’s bias were first brought to this Court! it was understandablethat the Court would accord the judge the presumption of regularity in the performance of her duties.

6er subseuent acts! howe#er! as well as her ecision4ta+en together4showed a pattern nowrecogni?able in retrospect as bias against the accused! amounting to denial of due process.

$. Same ; Same ; Presumption of Innocence ; The presumption of innocence of the accused is at thecenter of our criminal justice system-4the cornerstone! as it were! of all the other rights accorded tothe accused! including the right to due process of law1 Jecause the accused must be presumedinnocent! and because they are entitled to due process of law! it is the duty of the prosecution not to

issue prejudicial statements about them while the trial is being conducted! a standard which applieswith e#en more force to the trial judge.4The presumption of innocence of the accused is at the centerof our criminal justice system4the cornerstone! as it were! of all the other rights accorded to theaccused! including the right to due process of law. "n pronouncing the presumption of innocence of the

accused and their right to due process! the Constitution declares that the ris+ of letting the guilty wal+free would be error on the side of justice. This outcome is infinitely better than imprisoning an innocent

person. Jecause the accused must be presumed innocent! and because they are entitled to due process of law! it is the duty of the prosecution not to issue prejudicial statements about them whilethe trial is being conducted. This standard applies with e#en more force to the trial judge who must atall times not only be impartial! but also appear to be so.. Same ; Due Process ; hat is in truth referred to when e*panding on the concept of ,fair trial isthat the rights of the accused are protected! to the e*tent necessary to ensure fairness for him-

4rights of the #ictim are not ignored! but they are respected only to the e*tent that they areconsistent with the fairness of the trial for the accused.4"n the words of $ichard $efshauge: ,The

ad#ersarial system P is rooted in the notion of a contest with winners and losers! yet the prosecutor isethically forbidden from embracing that notion. The uestion then! is not what will ma+e the prospect

of a con#iction more certain! but what is fair and what will contribute to justice. Thus! a criminal trial

15

http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Deoxyribonucleic%20Acid%20(DNA)%20Testing/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Right%20of%20Access%20to%20Evidence/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judges/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Bias%20and%20Partiality/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Presumption%20of%20Innocence/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Due%20Process/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Deoxyribonucleic%20Acid%20(DNA)%20Testing/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Right%20of%20Access%20to%20Evidence/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judges/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Bias%20and%20Partiality/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Presumption%20of%20Innocence/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Due%20Process/http://void%280%29/


16/30

is not about personal redress for the #ictims! but about determining the guilt and the just punishmentof the accused. hat is in truth referred to when e*panding on the concept of ,fair trial is that therights of the accused are protected! to the e*tent necessary to ensure fairness for him. $ights of the#ictim are not ignored! but they are respected only to the e*tent that they are consistent with thefairness of the trial for the accused.. Criminal Procedure ; Public Prosecutors ; "t cannot be o#eremphasi?ed that the prosecutingofficer is the representati#e not of an ordinary party to a contro#ersy! but of a so#ereignty whoseobligation to go#ern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to go#ern at all! and whose interest!

therefore! in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case! but that justice shall be done.-4t

the outset! it cannot be o#eremphasi?ed that the prosecuting officer ,is the representati#e not of anordinary party to a contro#ersy! but of a so#ereignty whose obligation to go#ern impartially is ascompelling as its obligation to go#ern at all1 and whose interest! therefore! in a criminal prosecution isnot that it shall win a case! but that justice shall be done. s such! he is in a peculiar and #ery definitesense the ser#ant of the law! the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocencesuffer. 6e may prosecute with earnestness and #igor4indeed! he should do so. Jut! while he maystri+e hard blows! he is not at liberty to stri+e foul ones. "t is as much his duty to refrain fromimproper methods calculated to produce a wrongful con#iction as it is to use e#ery legitimate means tobring about a just one.

". Same ; Same ; Same ; The presence or absence of spermato?oa is immaterial in a prosecution forrape-4the important consideration in rape cases is not the emission of semen but the unlawful

penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ.4e thus reiterate that the #aginal smear

confirming the presence of spermato?oa merely corroborated lfaro’s testimony that Carmela wasraped before she was +illed. "ndeed! the presence or absence of spermato?oa is immaterial in a prosecution for rape. The important consideration in rape cases is not the emission of semen but theunlawful penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ. n the other hand! a negati#e result of = e*amination of the semen specimen could not ha#e e*onerated ebb of the crime charged as hisidentity as a principal in the rape-slay of Carmela was satisfactorily established by the totality of thee#idence. finding that the semen specimen did not match ebb’s = does not necessarily negate

his presence at the locus criminis.1+. Same ; Same ; Same ; The source of the semen e*tracted from the #aginal ca#ity of the deceased#ictim is immaterial in determining ebb’s guilt -4from the totality of the e#idence presented by boththe prosecution and the defense! ebb was positi#ely identified as Carmela’s rapist.4e hold that the

source of the semen e*tracted from the #aginal ca#ity of the deceased #ictim is immaterial indetermining ebb’s guilt. Brom the totality of the e#idence presented by both the prosecution and thedefense! ebb was positi#ely identified as Carmela’s rapist. s the records bear out! the positi#eidentification of appellant ebb as Carmela’s rapist satisfied the test of moral certainty! and the

prosecution had eually established beyond reasonable doubt the fact of rape and the unlawful +illingof Carmela! 8strellita and 'ennifer on the occasion thereof. 8#en assuming that the = analysis of thesemen specimen ta+en from Carmela’s body hours after her death e*cludes ebb as the sourcethereof! it will not e*onerate him from the crime charged. lfaro did not testify that ebb had

ejaculated or did not use a condom while raping Carmela. 7he testified that she saw ebb rapeCarmela and it was only him she had witnessed to ha#e committed the rape inside the Ai?conde

residence between late e#ening of 'une ! ;; and early morning of 'une 3%! ;;. 9oreo#er! shedid not testify that Carmela had no se*ual relations with any other man at least > hours prior to thattime. n the other hand! a positi#e result of = e*amination of the semen specimen e*tracted by r.Cabanayan from Carmela’s cada#er would merely ser#e as corroborati#e e#idence.

11. Same ; $ape ; Deo5yribonucleic "cid ,D&"- *esting ; ith the great ad#ances in forensicscience and under pertinent state laws! merican courts allow post-con#iction eo*yribonucleic cid(=) testing when its application has strong indications that the result could potentially e*onerate thecon#ict.-4ppellant 5atchalian reiterates his and appellant ebb’s motion for = testing of the

semen specimen ta+en from the #aginal ca#ity of Carmela during the autopsy conducted by r.Cabanayan! which motion was denied by the $TC for lac+ of a#ailable scientific e*pertise and

technology at the time. ith the great ad#ances in forensic science and under pertinent state laws! merican courts allow post-con#iction = testing when its application has strong indications that theresult could potentially e*onerate the con#ict. "ndeed! e#en a con#icted felon has the right to a#ail ofnew technology not a#ailable during his trial.12. Same ; Same ; Same ; 0nder paragraph 3 of rticle ; of the $e#ised Eenal Code! as amended!there are two () classes of accessories! one of which is a public officer who harbors! conceals or

assists in the escape of the principal -4such public officer must ha#e acted with abuse of his publicfunctions! and the crime committed by the principal is any crime! pro#ided it is not a light felony.4

0nder paragraph 3 of rticle ; of the $e#ised Eenal Code! as amended! there are two () classes ofaccessories! one of which is a public officer who harbors! conceals or assists in the escape of the

principal. 7uch public officer must ha#e acted with abuse of his public functions! and the crime

16

http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Criminal%20Procedure/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Public%20Prosecutors/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Rape/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Deoxyribonucleic%20Acid%20(DNA)%20Testing/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Criminal%20Procedure/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Public%20Prosecutors/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Rape/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Deoxyribonucleic%20Acid%20(DNA)%20Testing/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://void%280%29/


17/30

committed by the principal is any crime! pro#ided it is not a light felony. ppellant Jiong is one (;)such public officer! and he abused his public function when! instead of immediately arresting the

perpetrators of the crime! he acceded to the bidding of appellant ebb to ,clean the Ai?conde house!which means he must help hide any possible trace or sign lin+ing them to the crime! and notnecessarily to pre#ent the disco#ery of the bodies in such actual condition upon their deaths. 6ence!such ,cleaning would include obliterating fingerprints and other identifying mar+s which appellantsebb! Mejano and Aentura might ha#e left at the scene of the crime.1). Same ; Same ; "ccessories ; 3ords and Phrases ; ccessory is one who has +nowledge of thecommission of the crime! yet did not ta+e part in its commission as principal or accomplice! but too+

part in it subseuent to its commission.-4The $e#ised Eenal Code in rticle ; defines an accessory asone who has +nowledge of the commission of the crime! yet did not ta+e part in its commission as

principal or accomplice! but too+ part in it subseuent to its commission by any of three modes: (;) profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime1 () concealing ordestroying the body of the crime! or the effects or instruments thereof in order to pre#ent itsdisco#ery1 and (3) harboring! concealing! or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime!

pro#ided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or when the offender is guilty of treason! parricide! murder! or an attempt to ta+e the life of the Chief 8*ecuti#e! or is +nown to be habituallyguilty of some other crime.

1(. Same ; $ape with 6omicide ; Conspiracy ; lthough only one (;) rape was actually pro#en bythe prosecution! as conspirators who mutually agreed to commit the crime and assisted one (;)

another in its commission! on the occasion of which the rape #ictim! her mother and sister! were +illed!

each of the accused-appellants shall be criminally liable for rape with homicide.-4The e*istence ofconspiracy between appellants ebb! Aentura! Mejano! 5atchalian! Bernande?! $odrigue? and Bilartwas satisfactorily pro#en by the prosecution. Conspiracy e*ists when two or more persons come to anagreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy comes to life atthe #ery instant the plotters agree! e*pressly or impliedly! to commit the felony and forthwith decideto actually pursue it. "t may be pro#ed by direct or circumstantial e#idence. lthough only one (;) rapewas actually pro#en by the prosecution! as conspirators who mutually agreed to commit the crime and

assisted one (;) another in its commission! on the occasion of which the rape #ictim Carmela! hermother 8strellita and sister 'ennifer! were +illed! each of the accused-appellants shall be criminally

liable for rape with homicide.1%. Same ; Same ; Same ; Judicial &otice ; Philippine Passport "ct of 7889 ,$.". &o. :128- ; TheCourt ta+es judicial notice of reported irregularities and tampering of passports in the years prior tothe recent issuance by the epartment of Boreign ffairs (B) of machine-readable passports-4infact! the proliferation of photo-substituted passports! fa+e immigration stamps! assumed identity anddouble passports! among others! ha#e been cited as grounds to justify the necessity of amending theEhilippine Eassport ct of ;@.4That reasonable doubt is not engendered by the presentation ofcertifications of entry into and e*it from the 07! passport with stamp mar+s of departure anddeclarations of witnesses who are mostly relati#es and friends of appellant ebb! can be gleaned fromthe fact that passports and plane tic+ets indicating dates of arri#al and departure do not necessarily

pro#e that the #ery same person actually too+ the flight. This Court ta+es judicial notice of reportedirregularities and tampering of passports in the years prior to the recent issuance by the B of

machine-readable passports. "n fact! the proliferation of photo-substituted passports! fa+e immigrationstamps! assumed identity and double passports! among others! ha#e been cited as grounds to justifythe necessity of amending the Ehilippine Eassport ct of ;@ ($.. =o. D3) as proposed in the7enate! ,* * * to rally for the issuance of passports using tamper proof and the latest data encryption

technology1 and pro#ide stiffer penalties against proliferators of fa+e passports. 1$. Same ; Same ; Same ; Presumption of Innocence ; 3ords and Phrases ; efinitely! ,reasonabledoubt is not mere guesswor+ whether or not the accused is guilty! but such uncertainty that ,areasonable man may entertain after a fair re#iew and consideration of the e#idence. -4"t is the

prosecution’s burden to pro#e the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. efinitely!,reasonable doubt is not mere guesswor+ whether or not the accused is guilty! but such uncertainty

that ,a reasonable man may entertain after a fair re#iew and consideration of the e#idence.$easonable doubt is present when4after the entire comparison and consideration of all the e#idences!lea#es the minds of the KjudgesL in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding con#iction!to a moral certainty! of the truth of the charge1 a certainty that con#inces and directs theunderstanding! and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiouslyupon it.

1. Same ; Same ; Same ; Aerily! it is only when the identification of the accused as the author of thecrime charged is inconclusi#e or unreliable that alibi assumes importance.-4libi cannot be sustained

where it is not only without credible corroboration! but also where it does not! on its face! demonstratethe physical impossibility of the accused’s presence at the place and time of the commission of the

crime. gainst positi#e e#idence! alibi becomes most unsatisfactory. libi cannot pre#ail o#er the

17

http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Accessories/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Words%20and%20Phrases/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Rape%20with%20Homicide/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Conspiracy/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Same/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Judicial%20Notice/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/%20Philippine%20Passport%20Act%20of%201996%20(R.A.%20No.%208239)/http://void%280%29/http://www.central.com.ph/escra/searchsyllabi/Same/http://w

Documents

Legal Ethics for MIDTERMS