Hole
of Justice
By
Peter G. Jimenea
P/Supt.
Hansel M. Marantan - (Jurisprudence)
Before
the Supreme Court’s Third Division, P/Supt. Marantan filed a Petition No.
205956 citing Atty. Jose Manuel Diokno, Monique Cu-Unjieng La’o and Ernesto
Manzano, respondents, for contempt of court.
P/Sinsp.
Marantan et al., were also respondents in Crim. Case Nos. 146413-PSG;
146414-PSG and 146415-PSG for the killing of Anton Cu-Unjieng, Francis Xavier
Manzano and Brian Anthony Dulay in front of a Hotel at Ortigas Center which was
captured by a television crew from UNTV 37, on November 7, 2005.
Respondent
Monique Cu-Unjieng La’o in the petition filed by P/Supt. Marantan is the mother
on the deceased Anton Cu-Unjieng, Atty. Jose Manuel Diokno is her lawyer and
Ernesto Manzano, father of Francis Xavier. Mrs. La’o resented the case for
Homicide filed against Marantan et al. at the Pasig RTC Br. 265.
Together
with other petitioners Mrs. La’o filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the
Office of the Ombudsman praying among others that the Resolution of the latter
downgrading the charges from murder to homicide be annulled and set aside, and
that charges for murder be filed. Thus, this (G.R. No. 199452).
On
January 6, 2013, however, a shooting
incident happened in Brgy. Lumutan, Atimonan, Quezon Province, where Marantan
is the ground commander in a police-military team which resulted in the death
of thirteen (13) men. Marantan claim this encounter puts him in bad publicity.
He
alleges that La’o, Atty Diokno and Ernesto Manzano ride in the unpopularity of
the Atimonan incident when they organized a televised/broadcasted press conference
with comments on the merit of the case before the RTC, branding him and his
co-accused guilty of murder in the Ortigas incident.
On
January 29, 2013, the press-interview was featured in ABS- CBN News and
Marantan quotes a portion as follows: Atty. Diokno: “So 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 pinapalabas nila that there was a shootout pero ang
nangyari na yon e tapos na, patay na.”
Ernesto
Manzano: “Kung sinasabi nilang carnapper
dapat hulihin nila ng buhay yong mga mahal naming and kinasuhan, pero ang
ginawa nila, sila mismo na ang nagbigay ng hatol.” Mrs. La’o: “Sinabi nila
na may kinarnap siya, tinutukan ng baril, hindi magagawa yong kasi kilala ko
siya, anak ko yon.”
Mrs.
La’o continued: “He (Marantan) 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: “Despite the overwhelming
evidence Supt. Marantan and company have never been disciplined, suspended or
jailed for their participation in Ortigas rubout, instead, they were commended
by their superiors and some like Marantan were even promoted to our
consternation and disgust.”
The
Petition of Marantan failed. There is no parallelism in Ortigas incident and
the Atimonan case. There was no violation of the sub judice rules as statements
of respondents were legitimate expression of their desires. hopes and opinion
taken out of context and did not actually impede, obstruct or degrade the
administration of justice.
The
sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosure pertaining to the judicial
proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court or
obstructing the administration of justice. A violation of this rule may render
one liable for indirect contempt under Sec. 3(d) Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
For
comment to be considered as contempt of court “it must really appear” that such
does impede, interfere with and embarrass the administration of justice. As
important as the maintenance of freedom of speech, is the maintenance of the
independence of the judiciary.
Freedom
of public comment should, in borderline instances, weigh heavily against a
possible tendency to influence pending cases. The power to punish for contempt,
being drastic and extraordinary in its nature, should not be resorted to unless
necessary in the interest of justice. In the present case such necessity is
wanting. Wherefore, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. (G.R. No. 205956, Feb.
12, 2014)
