Contempt of Court

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)