Case Summary (G.R. No. 32774)
Petitioner’s Position
Marantan alleged that respondents organized and conducted a televised and radio‑broadcast press conference capitalizing on negative publicity from the Atimonan incident to malign him. He claimed their public statements: (a) impugned the Court’s handling of G.R. No. 199462; (b) addressed the merits of the criminal cases pending in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig (alleging murder rather than homicide); and (c) branded him and his co‑accused as guilty. He invoked the sub judice rule and sought punishment for indirect contempt under Section 3(d) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, arguing the statements were intended to influence the Supreme Court’s resolution of the petition and the outcome of the RTC criminal cases.
Respondents’ Defense
Respondents denied contempt. They contended their utterances were legitimate expressions of opinion, hopes, and grievances taken out of context; they were fair comment on matters of public interest and did not show criminal intent to impede or degrade the administration of justice. They further characterized the contempt petition as an attempt to stifle constitutionally protected speech.
Press Conference Excerpts and Media Coverage
The questioned statements, excerpted in the petition, included allegations that the UNTV footage showed the victims already dead, assertions that police had effectively pronounced judgment on the victims, identical complaints that Marantan and others had not been disciplined despite overwhelming evidence, and calls for presidential intervention. These remarks were broadcast on ABS‑CBN’s TV Patrol on January 29, 2013. The petition emphasized the respondents’ repetition of the claim that the Ortigas incident amounted to murder and their criticism of the Court’s alleged inaction.
Governing Legal Standard — Indirect Contempt and Sub Judice Rule (1987 Constitution context)
The Court applied Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, which penalizes “any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.” Proceedings for indirect contempt are criminal in nature; intent is a necessary element — punishment requires proof of intent to commit contempt. The sub judice rule restricts comments about pending judicial proceedings to prevent prejudgment, extraneous influence, or obstruction of justice. This protection of the judiciary’s independence is balanced against freedom of speech; under the “clear and present danger” test the comment must present an extremely serious and imminent harm to the administration of justice before punishment may be imposed. The power of contempt is to be exercised sparingly because it is drastic and can impinge on free expression.
Application of Law to Facts — Court’s Analysis
The Court examined whether respondents’ remarks (1) contained malice or a direct attack on the dignity of the Court, (2) directly or imminently threatened the administration of justice, or (3) were intended to influence the pending proceedings. The Court found that the respondents’ statements largely reiterated positions already advanced in G.R. No. 199462 (i.e., that the killings were murder and that charges should be upgraded), and that such restatement lacked apparent malice on its face. Their remarks about the Court’s inaction merely observed that the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 32774)
Case Caption, Citation, and Court
- Decision reported at 726 Phil. 642, Third Division, G.R. No. 205956, dated February 12, 2014.
- Resolution authored by Justice Mendoza; Justices Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad, and Leonen concur.
- Nature of proceeding: Petition to cite respondents in contempt of court.
Parties
- Petitioner: P/Supt. Hansel M. Marantan (hereafter "Marantan").
- Respondents: Atty. Jose Manuel Diokno (counsel) and Monique Cu-Unjieng LaaO (hereafter "LaaO"); Ernesto Manzano also referenced as participant in the press conference.
- Related litigation referenced: G.R. No. 199462 (Jennifer Eloise V. Mazano and Monique Cu-Unjieng LaaO v. Hon. Conchita Carpio-Morales, et al.), and Criminal Case Nos. 146413-PSG, 146414-PSG and 146415-PSG (People of the Philippines v. P/SInsp Hansel M. Marantan, et al., pending before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 265).
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought in This Petition
- Petitioner filed a petition to cite the respondents in contempt of the Supreme Court for alleged violations of the sub judice rule.
- Background: Marantan is respondent in G.R. No. 199462 filed December 6, 2011 (the petition in that case was already dismissed though disposition was not yet final at the time of the contempt petition).
- Relief sought in G.R. No. 199462 by LaaO and other petitioners: annulment and setting aside of the Office of the Ombudsman resolution downgrading charges from murder to homicide; withdrawal of informations for homicide; filing of murder charges.
Relevant Facts — Ortigas Incident
- Date and circumstances: Incident transpired on November 7, 2005.
- Victims: Anton Cu-Unjieng (son of respondent LaaO), Francis Xavier Manzano, and Brian Anthony Dulay were shot and killed by police officers in front of the AIC Gold Tower at Ortigas Center (referred to as the "Ortigas incident").
- The Ortigas incident was captured by a television crew from UNTV 37.
- Criminal charges: Marantan and his co-accused were charged with homicide in the RTC cases related to the Ortigas incident.
Relevant Facts — Atimonan Incident and Subsequent Publicity
- Date and circumstances: On January 6, 2013, a shooting incident occurred in Barangay Lumutan, Municipality of Atimonan, Province of Quezon (referred to as the "Atimonan incident").
- Role of petitioner: Marantan was the ground commander in a police-military team during the Atimonan incident.
- Outcome: Thirteen (13) men were killed in the Atimonan incident.
- Effect on petitioner: The Atimonan incident, according to Marantan, elicited much negative publicity for him.
- Allegation by petitioner: Riding on the unpopularity of the Atimonan incident, LaaO, her counsel Atty. Diokno, and Ernesto Manzano organized and conducted a televised/radio broadcasted press conference.
Press Conference and Media Coverage — Quoted Statements
- The press conference was featured on a TV Patrol ABS-CBN news program on January 29, 2013.
- Portions of the interview quoted by Marantan include statements attributed to respondents and Ernesto Manzano (as quoted in the rollo, pp. 8–9):
- Atty. Diokno: "So ang lumabas din sa video that the actual raw footage of the UNTV is very long. Ang nangyari, you see the police officers may nilalagay sila sa loob ng sasakyan ng victims na parang pinapalabas nila that there was a shootout pero ang nangyari na yon e tapos na, patay na."
- Ernesto Manzano: "Kung sinasabi nilang carnapper dapat huliin nilang buhay yong mga mahal naming sa buhay and kinasuhan pero ang ginawa nila, sila mismo na ang nagbigay ng hatol."
- Monique Cu-Unjieng Laao: "Sinasabi nila na may kinarnap siya, tinutukan ng baril, hindi magagawa yong kasi kilala ko siya, anak ko yon e x x x he is already so arrogant because they protected him all these years. They let him get away with it. So even now, so confident of what he did, I mean confident of murdering so many innocent individuals."
- Atty. Diokno (additional quoted statements): "Despite the overwhelming evidence, however, Supt. Marantan and company have never been disciplined, suspended or jailed for their participation in the Ortigas rubout, instead they were commended by their superiors and some like Marantan were even promoted to our consternation and disgust. Ang problema po e hangang ngayon, we filed a Petition in the Supreme Court December 6, 2011, humihingi po kami noon ng Temporary Restraining Order, etc. a hangang ngayon wala pa pong action ang Supreme Court yong charge kung tama ba yong pag charge ng homicide lamang e subalit kitang kita naman na they were killed indiscriminately and maliciously."
- Atty. Diokno (further): "Eight years have passed since our love ones were murdered, but the policemen who killed them led by Supt. Hansel Marantan the same man who is involve