Category: Rules of Court

Criminal law, Rules of Court, The President

On the Erap plunder case. “we wager our salvation…” w/ apologies to Justice Holmes

guada.jpgGuadalupe Ruins by Isidro Ancheta, 1937, Guadalupe, Rizal. (print from Vargas Museum)

With apologies to Manolo, (Manuel L Quezon III) at www.quezon.ph, i copied and pasted the following from his site:

From MLQIII: quote “marichu, so reinstatement only applies for officials suspended because of charges?

Quote “btw, in your opinion, how strong is the case against estrada, and for the layman, how should one go about looking at whatever decision the sandiganbayan hands down?” closed-quote.

My before-breakfast reply (I haven’t had breakfast, I ran before the morning pollution started to choke all!):

Hi Manolo! On “how strong is the case”: If I were a judge, I’d like to look at corroborating evidence; rather than what the protagonists/ antagonists said about each other during the trial and outside. If the main evidence of one charge is testimonial (“he-said-she-said”) evidence; you’d like to look at the hundreds of pieces of corroborating evidence (checks, deposit slips, etc.) to resolve any doubt. Unfortunately, that’s not what the public is being made to see: they’re being made to see Erap vs. Chavit, or Gloria vs. Erap. Whoever put out those ads last Wednesday is, wittingly or unwittingly, rabble-rousing. On: how should the public look at whatever decision: Maybe, the public can, after looking at all the evidence, ask: Can each of the three justices withstand tremendous pressure from all sides? Do we have a credible judicial system? How strong are our institutions? If millions of people think that the three justices are not impartial, that the judicial system should no longer be trusted, and that our institutions are built on shifting interests and collecting of favors, then this government should fall, whatever the decision is. Where does your faith lie?

Rules of Court

Lintang Bedol arrested

Lintang Bedol had been arrested according to PNP Director General Oscar Calderon interviewed one and a half hours ago in Umagang Kay Ganda (“What a Beautiful Morning” ) on ABS-CBN Channel 2. Calderon however failed to state details like the time and place of arrest and the operatives responsible, etc.

Based on newspaper accounts this week, the arrest warrant is based on a charge for indirect contempt.

While indirect contempt falls under the provisions on civil procedure in the Rules of Court (Rule 71), it has jail time as part of its penalty and therefore has a criminal aspect; in other words, you can only punish the respondent after charges are filed, a hearing is held and evidence thereon received.

Here’s a provision however i found in the contempt provisions which allows the court, in an indirect contempt charge, to detain the respondent pending proceedings.

It says: “…nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent the court from issuing the process xxx from holding him (the respondent) in custody pending such proceedings.” as follows:

Rule 71. Sec. 3 xxx

But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent the court from issuing process to bring the respondent into court, or from holding him in custody pending such proceedings.”

Whether the Comelec would actually detain Bedol pending proceedings is another matter. Surely, the respondent has a lot to say.

In any case, the acts punishable in indirect contempt are: 1)misbehavior of an officer of the court (a lawyer); or 2) disobedience to a lawful order of the court; or 3) unlawful interference with proceedings of the court; or 4) improper conduct tending to impede,obstruct, degrade, the administration of justice (a catch-all provision); 5) pretending to be an attorney; or 6) failure to obey a subpoena duly served; 7) rescue of a prisoner/ detainee.

For his failure to deliver the CoC’s in his custody, Bedol would have probably be charged under any of: 1); 4); or if the subpoena was a subpoena duces tecum (fr documents), also under 6).

Here are those provisions, happy reading:

“Rule 71. Sec. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt: (a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official transactions; (b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court, including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto; (c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule; (d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice; (e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority; (f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served; (g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of a court held by him. But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent the court from issuing process to bring the respondent into court, or from holding him in custody pending such proceedings.”