Marantan vs Diokno and La’o (Feb 12, 2014)

Ponente: Mendoza

Facts:
-Marantan was charged with homicide in criminal cases “People vs P/Sinsp. Marantan”
pending in the RTC of Pasig City
-The criminal cases involve an incident where Anton Cu-Unjieng, Francis Manzano,
Brian Dulay, were shot and killed by police officers in front of the AIC Gold Tower at
Ortigas Centre on November 7, 2005
-A television crew from UNTV 37 captured the incident
-La’O, the mother of Anton, and other petitioners, prayed that the Office of
Ombudsman’s resolution to downgrade the charges from murder to homicide be
annulled
-January 6, 2013, a shooting incident in Brgy. Lumutan, Quezon Province, where
Marantan was the ground commander in a police-military team
-The shooting caused the death of 13 men (Atimonan incident)
-This encounter gave negative publicity to Marantan
-Marantan alleged that La’o, Atty. Diokno, and Ernesto Manzano conducted a
televised/radio broadcasted press conference where stye made intemperate and
unreasonable comments on the conduct of the Court in handing “People vs Marantan”
and contumacious comments on the merits of the criminal cases before the RTC.
-This made the branding of Marantan and his co-accused guilty of murder.
-January 29, 2013, the interview was featured in TV Patrol and Marantan stated a
portion of the interview of Atty. Diokno, Ernesto Manzano, and Monique Cu-Unjieng
La’o:
-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 promoted some like Marantan
-They filed a Petition with the Supreme Court on December 6, 2011, asking for
TRO and that the Court has not acted on the case
-It has been 8 years since the murder occurred but the policemen led by Supt.
Marantan who killed them and involved in the Antimoan killings, still roam free and
remain unpunished
-Marantan:
-the respondents violated sub juice rule, making them liable for indirect contempt
under Sec. 3(d) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court
-They gave contemptuous statements and improper conduct tending directly or
indirectly to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice
-they have malicious comments on the inaction of the Court and the merits of the
criminal cases before the RTC
-they prematurely concluded that he and and his co-accused are guilty of murder
-press conference was organised to influence the decision of the Court
-Respondents argue that sub juice rule was not violated as their statements were
legitimate expressions of their desires, hopes and opinions and did not impede,
obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice in a concrete way
Issue: W/N the respondents violated the sub juidice rule

Ruling: No.
-Sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial
proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing
the administration of justice.
-Indirect contempt is:
-conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or a judge
acting judicially
-an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring the court into
disrepute or disrespect
-For a comment to be considered contempt of court: it must really appear that such
does impede, interfere with, and embarrass the administration of justice.
-Courts, in the decision of issues of fact and law, should be immune from every
extraneous influence
-The contemptuous statements of the respondents allegedly relate to the
1) merits of the case, particularly the guilt of the petitioner: an expression of their
opinion that their loved ones were murdered by Marantan, merely a reiteration of their
position in their case, calling the Court to upgrade the charges from homicide to murder.
No malice int he said statements, just a mere restatement of their argument in their
petition and does not influence the Court.
2) the conduct of the Court to its inaction
-They were simply stating that it had not yet been resolved their petition. There was no
complaint, express or implied, that an inordinate amount of time has passed and there
was no attack or insult on the dignity of the Court
-Respondents’ comments do not pose a serious and imminent threat to the
administration of justice.
-No criminal intent to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice from
their comments.
-Freedom of public comment should weigh heavily against a possible tendency to
influence pending cases.