Sunday, April 21, 2013

Miranda Rights Exception

Boston Marathon suspect in no condition yet to be questioned, Boston police chief says

Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev remained in serious condition at a Boston hospital under heavy guard Sunday as investigators continued the long process of looking over motives, methods and possible links.

Tsarnaev, 19, who was taken into custody on Friday and whose older brother, Tamerlan, was killed in a shootout with police, will be questioned by a special team sent in by the FBI, Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis told “Fox News Sunday.”

“He’s [Dzhokhar] in no condition to be interrogated at this point in time. He’s progressing, though, and we’re monitoring the situation carefully," Davis said.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick said Saturday afternoon that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was in serious but stable condition and was probably unable to communicate. Tsarnaev was at Boston's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, where 11 victims of the bombing were still being treated.

"I, and I think all of the law enforcement officials, are hoping for a host of reasons the suspect survives," the governor said after a ceremony at Fenway Park to honor the victims and survivors of the attack. "We have a million questions, and those questions need to be answered."

The twin bombings killed three people and wounded more than 180.

Patrick told NBC on Sunday that surveillance video clearly puts Dzhokhar Tsarnaev at the scene of the attack.
"It does seem to be pretty clear that this suspect took the backpack off, put it down, did not react when the first explosion went off and then moved away from the backpack in time for the second explosion," Patrick said. "It's pretty clear about his involvement and pretty chilling, frankly."

Investigators believe the suspects also were likely planning other attacks based on the cache of weapons uncovered during the Thursday night shootout, according to Davis.

"We have reason to believe, based upon the evidence that was found at that scene -- the explosions, the explosive ordnance that was unexploded and the firepower that they had -- that they were going to attack other individuals," Davis said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation". "That's my belief at this point."

Davis added on "Fox News Sunday" that authorities cannot be positive there aren't more explosives that haven't been found, but the people of Boston are safe.

There was no immediate word on when Tsarnaev might be charged and what those charges would be, but a source told Fox News charges wouldn't come Sunday.

But the most serious charge available to federal prosecutors would be the use of a weapon of mass destruction to kill people, which carries a possible death sentence. Massachusetts does not have the death penalty.

A Justice Department official said Friday the government is invoking a seldom-used public safety exception permitting officials to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation of a suspect -- in this case Dzhokhar Tsarnaev -- without first reading him his typically assured Miranda rights. That official, as well as a second, both of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity, says Tsarnaev will be questioned by a special interrogation team for high-value suspects.

The public safety exception not only permits the unwarned questioning of a suspect, but also allows the government to introduce any statement yielded by such interrogation as evidence in court. The exception is triggered when authorities have an objectively reasonable need to protect themselves or the public from a clear and present danger.

However, the exception lasts only 48 hours and should be extended by declaring Tsarnaev a potential enemy combatant, under the Law of War, Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina; John McCain, Arizona; and Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire, said in a statement Saturday. They were joined by New York Republican Rep. Peter King.

According to media accounts, Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan, were Muslims who recently gravitated to a radical strain of Islam, going so far as to post Anti-American, jihadist videos on social-media sites. Both are thought to have as-yet-unprobed ties to a radical Muslim cleric hellbent on the destruction of the American way of life.

A day-long dragnet for Tsarnaev ended Friday, with police capturing the suspect covered in blood and hiding in a boat in the backyard of a man who called 911 after becoming suspicious of activity on his property.
"We got him," Boston Mayor Tom Menino tweeted moments later, as neighbors gathered to form a gauntlet of cheers while a phalanx of police cars departed the scene.

Police moved in on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Friday evening after a tip led them to the home on Franklin Street.

Neighbors said they heard more than 30 shots likened to "a roll of firecrackers shooting off." Police swarmed the scene, and several explosions, possibly police concussion grenades, were heard after a robot moved in on the boat. Less than two hours later, at about 9 p.m., the suspect, believed to have been injured in a wild shootout that spanned Thursday night to Friday morning, was being taken to Beth Israel Hospital.

No police were injured when shots were fired by the boat.

Sources told Fox News the shed and the boat had been searched earlier, but a local man noticed a door to it had been opened, saw blood on the tarp and called police.

"It was a call from a resident of Watertown," Watertown Police Chief Edward Deveau said. "We got that call, and we got the guy."

Davis said Tsarnaev was in serious condition and was found "covered with blood." He did not come out from inside the boat willingly, despite the efforts of negotiators, Davis said.

"We assume that those injuries came from the gunfire the night before," Davis said. He also said Tsarnaev did not have any explosives with him when he was taken into custody.

The hiding place was found just moments after police said their hunt for Tsarnaev, one of two radical Muslim brothers suspected in Monday's attack, had gone cold and urged people to "go about your business."
Shortly after the capture was announced, Watertown residents poured out of their homes and lined the streets to cheer police vehicles as they rolled away from the scene.

Celebratory bells rang from a church tower. Teenagers waved American flags. Drivers honked. Every time an emergency vehicle went by, people cheered loudly.

"Tonight, our family applauds the entire law enforcement community for a job well done, and trust that our justice system will now do its job," said the family of 8-year-old Martin Richard, who died in the bombing.
Early in the day, police told residents of several city neighborhoods, especially Watertown, to stay inside. School was canceled, bus and train service suspended and people were even told not to venture out for work. But those restrictions were lifted at the news briefing Friday night about 15 minutes before the gunshots were heard.

The boat Tsarnaev hid under was just outside the tight perimeter where Black Hawk helicopters patrolled the sky and police went door-to-door hunting for him, police said. Police say he and his older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev placed the deadly bombs, at least one of which was made from a pressure cooker packed with explosives and shrapnel, at the race, killing three and injuring more than 180. The sibling suspects are from Dagestan, a province in Russia that borders Chechnya, but have been in the U.S. for as much as a decade..
On Thursday night, hours after the radicalized Muslims were fingered by the FBI and their images circulated around the world, they killed a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer and carjacked an SUV from a man who later escaped. The brothers led police on a chase through city streets that included a wild shootout that saw some 200 shots fired and the suspects hurling pipe bombs from the SUV. Bizarrely, police discounted earlier reports that the brothers had robbed a 7/11, saying although it had been robbed, and they had been caught on surveillance video, they were not the robbers.

The pursuit went into Watertown, where Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, was shot several times in the gunfight. But Dzhokhar Tsarnaev somehow slipped away, running over his already wounded brother as he fled by car, according to two law enforcement officials who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was pronounced dead at Beth Israel Hospital Deaconess Medical Center Friday morning. But at some point following the shootout and car chase, the younger brother fled by foot, according to State Police, who said Friday night they don't believe he now has access to a car.

During the pursuit, a MBTA transit police officer was seriously injured and transported to the hospital, according to a news release. He was identified as Richard H. Donahue Jr., 33, and was at Mount. Auburn Hospital in critical but stable condition.

The suspects' bloody rampage claimed the life of MIT Police Officer Sean Collier, 26, who was found shot to death in his squad car at 10:20 p.m. Thursday in what Davis termed a "vicious assassination."

Moments after the shooting, the brothers carjacked the Mercedes SUV from Third Street in Cambridge and forced the driver to stop at several bank machines to withdraw money. The driver later told police that the brothers had bragged to him that they were the marathon bombers, law enforcement authorities said.

“The guy was very lucky that they let him go,” Massachusetts State Police spokesman David Procopio said.
It was when police were working to activate the tracking device on the stolen SUV, that other patrol officers spotted it in nearby Watertown, touching off the dramatic chase.

FBI Special Agent Rick Deslauriers said Friday night the FBI pored though thousands of tips, and chased down countless leads in the intense probe following the terror attack on Monday.

"The was a truly intense investigation," Deslauriers said. "As a result of that justice is being served for each of the victims of these crimes."

source:  Fox News

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Charges can be filed vs. slanderers

Dear PAO,
A lady went to our house and claimed that she has an affair with my father. She said demeaning and obscene words against him in front of a lot of people. Later, we found out that everything she said were all lies. May she be held criminally liable for her act?
MC

Dear MC,
In recognition of the value of a person’s honor and reputation, our Revised Penal Code makes it criminal the act of a person in publicly and maliciously imputing a crime, vice or defect, whether real or imaginary or the act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is already dead. The crimes relating to the uttering of slanderous or defamatory remarks are classified into three: written defamation or libel (Article 355, Revised Penal Code), oral defamation or slander (Article 358, ibid) and defamation by overt acts or slander by deed (Article 359, ibid). These crimes have the following common elements: 1) there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance; 2) that the imputation must be made publicly; 3) that it must be malicious; 4) that the imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead; and 5) that the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person defamed (Luis B. Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Book II (13th Ed.), page 841).

The lady who went to your house and imputed demeaning and obscene remarks against your father may be held liable for the crime of oral defamation defined and punished under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:
Art. 358. Slander. — Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.

Oral defamation or slander has been defined as the speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood (Victorio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-32836-37 citing 33 Am. Jur. 39). In determining whether the offense committed is serious or slight oral defamation, the sense and grammatical meaning of the utterances and the special circumstances of the case like the social standing or the advanced age of the person defamed are considered (Larobis vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104189, March 30, 1993).

source:  Manila Times' Column by

Monday, April 8, 2013

Small claims cases easier to resolve

Dear PAO,
I have been cheated by a dealer because I was able to buy a vehicle which he represents to have a certificate of public convenience. I later found out that the franchise does not exist. I was advised to file a case for estafa but I do not want to be involved in such a lengthy proceeding. I just want my money back. What may be the best solution to my problem?
Pablo

Dear Pablo,
Estafa is a crime which may be committed by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts. One of the false pretenses or fraudulent acts constituting estafa is the use of fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. There may be sufficient ground to hold the seller of the vehicle for estafa because he has fraudulently declared that the vehicle he was selling has a certificate of public convenience knowing that such is not existing and that you were induced to buy the said vehicle because of the declaration causing damage on your part (Article 315 par. [2][3], Revised Penal Code). The penalty for estafa depends upon the amount defrauded upon the victim, but the same shall not exceed imprisonment of twenty (20) years, which shall be imposed only upon his conviction in court.

Considering that you do not wish to pursue a criminal case for estafa against the seller of the vehicle, you may just send a demand letter to him for the refund of the price paid. You may also be assisted by the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) in a conference/mediation which may be conducted between you and the seller in the PAO District Office of the place where you are residing. Upon request for conference, the assisting Public Attorney, after determination of your qualification as client, shall send an invitation to the seller for such a conference to discuss your problem and possibly settle your dispute amicably (Section 4, Rule X, Public Attorney’s Office Operations Manual). You may also claim your refund through the filing of small claim case under A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC (Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases) if it does not exceed P100,000. The proceeding under this rule is expedient because the court shall immediately set the hearing. A postponement of the hearing therein may be granted only upon proof of the physical inability of the party to appear before the court on the scheduled date and time, but said party may avail of only one (1) postponement. Moreover, you will not need the assistance of a lawyer since the same is prohibited by the Rules and the Petition/Pleadings are readily available at the Office of the Clerk of Court. After the hearing, the court shall render its decision on the same day, based on the facts established by the evidence and such decision shall immediately be final and unappealable (Sections 17, 19, and 23, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC).

source:  Manila Times' Column by

Thursday, March 28, 2013

G.R. Nos. 138874-75: Privileged Mitigating Circumstance of Minority (Art 68, RPC)



Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. Nos. 138874-75             January 31, 2006

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias "PACO;" JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias "WESLEY;" ALBERT CAÑO alias "ALLAN PAHAK;" ARIEL BALANSAG; DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA alias ‘TISOY TAGALOG;" JAMES ANTHONY UY alias "WANGWANG;" and JAMES ANDREW UY alias "MM," Appellants.
R E S O L U T I O N

PER CURIAM:
Most jurisdictions recognize age as a barrier to having full responsibility over one’s action.1 Our legal system, for instance, does not punish a youth as it would an adult, and it sees youthful misconduct as evidence of unreasoned or impaired judgment. Thus, in a myriad of cases, we have applied the PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY EMBODIED IN ARTICLE 68 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE -- the rationale of which is to show mercy and some extent of leniency in favor of an accused who, by reason of his age, is presumed to have acted with less discernment. The case at bar is another instance when the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority must apply.

For our resolution is the motion for reconsideration2 filed by brothers James Anthony and James Andrew, both surnamed Uy, praying for the reduction of the penalties we imposed upon the latter on the ground that he was a minor at the time the crimes were committed.

A brief review of the pertinent facts is imperative.

On February 3, 2004, we rendered a Decision3 convicting the Uy brothers, together with Francisco Juan Larrañaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Caño and Ariel Balansag of the crimes of (a) special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape; and (b) simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Cebu City in Criminal Cases Nos. CBU 45303 and 45304 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

(1) In Criminal Case No. CBU-45303, appellants FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias ‘PACO; JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias ‘WESLEY; ALBERTO CAÑO alias ‘ALLAN PAHAK; ARIEL BALANSAG; and JAMES ANDREW UY alias MM,’ are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH by lethal injection;

(2) In Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, appellants FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias ‘PACO’; JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias ‘WESLEY; ALBERTO CAÑO alias ‘ALLAN PAHAK;’ ARIEL BALANSAG; and JAMES ANDREW UY alias MM,’ are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA;

(3) In Criminal Case No. CBU-45303, appellant JAMES ANTHONY UY who was a minor at the time the crime was committed, is likewise found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA; in Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, he is declared guilty of simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of TWELVE (12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period, as MINIMUM, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as MAXIMUM;

(4) Appellants are ordered to pay jointly and severally the heirs of Marijoy and Jacqueline, in each case, the amounts of (a) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P25,000.00 as temperate damages; (c) P150,000.00 as moral damages; and (d) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.

Three (3) Justices of the Court maintain their position that RA 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.
In accordance with Article 83 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 25 of RA No. 7659, upon the finality of this Decision let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for the possible exercise of Her Excellency’s pardoning power.

SO ORDERED.
On March 23, 2004, the Uy brothers filed a motion for reconsideration anchored on the following grounds:
I
ACCUSED JAMES ANDREW S. UY WAS, LIKE HIS YOUNGER BROTHER JAMES ANTHONY S. UY, A MINOR AT THE TIME THE OFFENSES AT BAR ALLEGEDLY HAPPENED LAST JULY 16, 1997;
II
THE IDENTITY OF THE DEAD BODY OF THE WOMAN FOUND IN TAN-AWAN, CARCAR, CEBU LAST JULY 18, 1997 WAS NEVER CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THUS THE NEED FOR ITS EXHUMATION FOR DNA TESTING.4

The issues raised in the above motion being intertwined with those raised by Larrañaga, Aznar, Adlawan, Caño and Balansag in their separate motions for reconsideration, we deemed it appropriate to consolidate the motions. After a painstaking evaluation of every piece and specie of evidence presented before the trial court in response to the movants’ plea for the reversal of their conviction, still we are convinced that the movants’ guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, in our Resolution dated July 21, 2005, we denied all the motions. However, left unresolved is the issue of James Andrew’s minority.

Hence, this disquisition A long or elaborate essay or discussion on a particular subject..

In their motion, the Uy brothers claim that James Andrew was only seventeen (17) years and two hundred sixty two (262) days old at the time the crimes were committed. To substantiate such claim, he begs leave and pleads that we admit at this stage of the proceedings his (1) Certificate of Live Birth issued by the National Statistics Office, and (2) Baptismal Certificate. In the ultimate, he prays that his penalty be reduced, as in the case of his brother James Anthony.

Considering that the entry of James Andrew’s birth in the proffered Certificate of Live Birth is not legible, we required the Solicitor General (a) to secure from the City Civil Registrar of Cotobato, as well as the National Statistics Office, a clear and legible copy of James’ Certificate of Live Birth, and thereafter, (b) to file an extensive comment on the Uy brothers’ motion, solely on the issue of James Andrew’s minority.

On November 17, 2005, the Solicitor General submitted his comment. Attached therewith are clear and legible copies of James’ Certificate of Live Birth duly certified by the Office of the City Civil Registrar of Cotobato and the National Statistics Office. Both documents bear the entry October 27, 1979 as the date of his birth, thus, showing that he was indeed only 17 years and 262 days old when the crimes were committed on July 16, 1997.
Consequently, the Solicitor General recommended that the penalty imposed on James Andrew be modified as follows:

In Criminal Case No. CBU-45303 for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape, the death penalty should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

In Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, for the crime of simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention, the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be reduced to twelve (12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum, similar to the penalty imposed on his brother James Anthony in Criminal Case No. CBU-45303.

The motion is meritorious.

Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

ART. 68. – Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. – When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed:
x x x
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.

Thus, the imposable penalty on James Andrew, by reason of his minority, is one degree lower than the statutory penalty. The penalty for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape, being death, one degree lower therefrom is reclusion perpetua.5 On the other hand, the penalty for simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention is reclusion perpetua to death. One degree lower therefrom is reclusion temporal.6 There being no aggravating and mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed on James Andrew is reclusion temporal in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum.7

Accordingly, in Criminal Case No. CBU-45303, the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed upon James Andrew; while in Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, the imposable penalty upon him is twelve (12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. Our Decision dated February 3, 2004 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in Criminal Case No. CBU-45303, James Andrew Uy is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; while in Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, the penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period, as MINIMUM, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum.

SO ORDERED. 


Footnotes
1 Siegel, Senna, Juvenile Deliquency, Theory, Practice and Law, 7th Edition, at 20.
2 Rollo, p. 1789. It was filed on March 23, 2004.
3 G.R. Nos. 138874-75, February 3, 2004, 421 SCRA 530.
4 Rollo, p. 1789. It was filed on March 23, 2004.
5 Article 61, par. 1 in relation to Article 71, Scale No. 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment. (Section 2) While the exception in Section 2 of the law speak of "life imprisonment," this term has been considered to also mean reclusion perpetua. (Regalado, Criminal Law Conspectus, First Edition, at 207).
6 Article 61, par. 2 in relation to Article 71, Scale No. 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
7 Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book I, 2001 Ed. at 780.
 

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

SC Dismisses RTC Deputy Sheriff for Receiving Kickbacks from Publisher of Judicial Notices


sc.judiciary.gov.ph

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Regional Trial Court (RTC) deputy sheriff for receiving kickbacks, amounting to P24,905.60, from the publisher of judicial notices issued by his court.

In a nine-page per curiam decision, the SC En Banc found respondent Rolando Tomas, Deputy Sheriff of the Santiago City Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty, and dismissed him from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except his accrued leave credits, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. The Court approved the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)’s recommendation finding Tomas liable for grave misconduct and dishonesty but rejected the OCA’s recommended penalty of suspension.

The Court also directed the Legal Office of the OCA to file with the Santiago City Prosecutor the appropriate criminal complaints against respondent Tomas in connection with the criminal aspect of the instant case under Section 5 of PD No. 1079, Revising and Consolidating All Laws and Decrees Regulating the Publication of Judicial Notices, Advertisements for Public Biddings, Notices of Auction Sales and Other Similar Notices, and Section 3(b) of RA No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.


Complainant Francisco Taguinod, publisher and editor of City Star, a newspaper locally published in Santiago City, previously initiated in Taguinod v. Madrid an administrative complaint against Branch 21’s presiding judge, Fe Albano Madrid, for irregularities in the allocation of judicial notices for publication by local publishers. In the course of the investigation by the OCA, Taguinod presented documentary evidence showing receipt by respondent of sums of money from March to November 1996 in exchange for City Star’s publication of judicial notices. As respondent Tomas was not impleaded in that case, the OCA recommended his separate investigation, which the Court approved.

In his comment to the charge, respondent Tomas readily admitted receiving payments from Taguinod in exchange for City Star’s publication of judicial notices. By way of defense, Tomas qualified that he “never demanded” any money from Taguinod. After investigation, the OCA recommended Tomas’ suspension for six months.

The Court pointed out that Section 5 of PD 1079 prohibits court personnel from “directly or indirectly demand[ing] of or receiv[ing] x x x money, commission or gifts of any kind” for the privilege of publishing judicial notices. As such, the Court held that respondent’s defense that he “never demanded any money or any rebate” from Taguinod does not spare him from liability. “Section 5 not only prohibits local court personnel from “demanding” pay-offs, it also bars receipt of such pay-offs. Respondent will take himself out of the ambit of Section 5 only if he did neither,” the Court said.

By accepting pay-offs from Taguinod, the Court further held that respondent Tomas also violated Section 2(e), Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, mandating that court personnel shall not “solicit or accept any gift, loan, gratuity, discount, favor, hospitality, or service under circumstances from which it could reasonably be inferred that a major purpose of the donor is to influence the court personnel in performing official duties.”

The Court noted that from March to November 1996, when City Star published judicial notices from Branch 21, for which respondent accepted 10 checks from Taguinod, respondent controlled the distribution of Branch 21’s judicial notices among Santiago City’s publishers because he was assigned this task by the judge. “It was in Taguinod’s interest, therefore, to give ‘discounts’ to respondent to influence respondent to keep assigning judicial notices to City Star. The 10 checks that Taguinod issued and respondent received speak volumes of this convenient, albeit unethical, arrangement. Section 2(e), Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct was crafted precisely to punish court personnel who engage in such practices,” the Court held.

The Court differed from the investigator’s view that respondent’s “unhesitant[ing] and candid admi[ssion]” of having received pay-offs from Taguinod is akin to “a plea of guilty [in criminal proceedings] that account attenuate the penalty imposed.” The Court noted that “the rule in criminal proceedings treating confessions as mitigating circumstance finds no rigorous application in administrative proceedings where the respondent, unlike the accused, stands to lose neither liberty nor property but a public trust to render service, a privilege burdened with numerous prohibitions such as those respondent violated.”

“To treat factual admissions of court personnel in disciplinary proceedings as standard basis to relax penalties not only renders nugatory the penalty structure carefully calibrated in the Uniform Rules but also provides incentive for erring employees to make strategic admissions calculated to spare them from receiving stiff penalties. The interest of maintaining a disciplined, ethical, and efficient corps of judicial employees militates against adopting such policy,” the Court added.

The Court also pointed out that PD 1079 is a special law providing penal sanctions for its violation. On the other hand, the Court noted that Section 3(b) of RA 3019 punishes as corrupt the practice of public officers of “directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.” Thus, the Court ruled that the documentary evidence on record coupled with respondent’s admission warrant referral of this matter to the Santiago City Prosecutor’s Office for violation of these penal provisions.

Concurring in the decision are Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Antonio T. Carpio, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose C. Mendoza, Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe. Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. took no part. Justice Jose Portugal Perez also took no part as he acted on the matter as Deputy Court Administrator. (AM No. P-09-2660, Taguinod v. Tomas, November 29, 2011)

Emphasis and links provided by Broker Rem Ramirez 0922.883.9308 broker.ramirez@yahoo.com.ph

For bar questions and law subjects reviewers, visit www.onlinereview.com.ph       

Libel Case: Manila Chronicle vs Yuchengco


SC Reduces Award of Damages to Tycoon in Libel Case

sc.judiciary.gov.ph

The Supreme Court has stood pat on its ruling finding the owner and several staff members of the now defunct publication Manila Chronicle guilty of libel for publishing a series of defamatory articles against businessman Alfonso T. Yuchengco but reduced considerably the amount of damages it had earlier awarded.

In a 14-page resolution penned by Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, the Court’s Special Third Division ordered The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation (Chronicle Publishing), which owned Manila Chronicle, together with publisher Roberto Coyiuto, Jr. to pay Yuchengco P11million, while writers Neil H. Cruz, Ernesto Tolentino, Noel Cabrera, Thelma San Juan, Gerry Zaragoza, Donna Gatdula, Raul Valino, and Rodney Diola P1.2 million, plus P200,000 as litigation costs, or a total of P12.4 million in damages. The amount is around a third of the PhP38.5 million total it had previously awarded in its November 25, 2009 decision.

The Court found as “too excessive” the original amount of its award of moral damages, hence, it reduced the same, as well as the exemplary damages.  The Court held that moral damages “are given to ease the defendant’s grief and suffering” and “should be reasonably approximate to the extent of the hurt caused and the gravity of the wrong done.”  Exemplary damages, it further held, “are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another, but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions.”

In its 2009 decision, the Court had found malice in the series of articles published in Manila Chronicle in November and December 1993 which referred to Yuchengco as a Marcos crony, an “unfair and uncaring employer,” and a “corporate raider.” The articles also alleged that Yuchengo engaged in unsound and immoral business practices for illegally acquiring his holdings in Benguet Corporation. Yuchengo was also accused of inducing Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation to violate provisions of the General Banking Act as well as to disobey lawful orders of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Court had noted that the articles were published a couple of months before the stockholders’ meeting of Oriental Corporation, control over which both Coyiuto and Yuchengco were battling for. As the articles portrayed Coyiuto as “an underdog and his rival Yuchengco as the greedy Goliath,” the Court had held that the publication of the articles constituted an orchestrated attack to undermine the reputation of Yuchengco while putting Coyiuto in a positive light to influence the public, particularly the stockholders of Oriental Corporation.  The Court had also noted that Chronicle was unable to present evidence showing that it verified the truth nor made efforts to take Yuchengco’s side of the story, neither was it able to rebut Yuchengco’s categorical denial of the paper’s allegations. (GR No. 184315, Yuchengco v. The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corp., November 28, 2011)


Emphasis and links provided by Broker Rem Ramirez 0922.883.9308 broker.ramirez@yahoo.com.ph

For bar questions and law subjects reviewers, visit www.onlinereview.com.ph