0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
61 просмотров2 страницы
Judge Eusebio Lopez issued a separate concurring opinion in a treason case that expressed views not supported by evidence and appeared to justify aid given to Japan. This prompted a petition to prohibit Judge Lopez from hearing other treason cases. The court found no applicable law allowing Judge Lopez's disqualification. While allowing him to remain on the cases could result in injustice, the court could not correct any legislative deficiencies and must apply the law as written. The petition was granted and Judge Lopez prohibited from the treason cases.
Judge Eusebio Lopez issued a separate concurring opinion in a treason case that expressed views not supported by evidence and appeared to justify aid given to Japan. This prompted a petition to prohibit Judge Lopez from hearing other treason cases. The court found no applicable law allowing Judge Lopez's disqualification. While allowing him to remain on the cases could result in injustice, the court could not correct any legislative deficiencies and must apply the law as written. The petition was granted and Judge Lopez prohibited from the treason cases.
Judge Eusebio Lopez issued a separate concurring opinion in a treason case that expressed views not supported by evidence and appeared to justify aid given to Japan. This prompted a petition to prohibit Judge Lopez from hearing other treason cases. The court found no applicable law allowing Judge Lopez's disqualification. While allowing him to remain on the cases could result in injustice, the court could not correct any legislative deficiencies and must apply the law as written. The petition was granted and Judge Lopez prohibited from the treason cases.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, On August 24, 1946, a decision penned by Associate Judge
Salvador Abad Santos, dated August 15, 1946, and concurred in by
vs. EUSEBIO LOPEZ, Associate Judge of Second Division of People's Associate Judge Jose P. Veluz, was promulgated, dismissing the case. Court, BENIGNO S. AQUINO and ANTONIO DE LAS ALAS, Associate Judge Lopez reserved his decision. respondents. On September 26, 1946, Judge Lopez promulgated a separate 1947 April 14 G.R. No. L-1243 PART 1/3 concurring opinion in which, according to the petition, "not satisfied with dismissing the aforementioned case on the ground raised by the accused therein, expressed views and conclusions of facts, not warranted by the evidence or by the issues raised by the parties nor Facts: necessary to the decision of the case, justifying the aid and comfort given to the Empire of Japan by the 'Filipino leaders' or the so-called Solicitor General Lorenzo M. Tañada, as head of the Office of political collaborators and holding them in effect to be patriots and Special Prosecutors, and Prosecutors Juan R. Liwag and Pedro C. therefore not guilty of the crime of treason with which they stand Quinto filed, in the name of the People f the Philippines, a petition charged." praying that a writ of prohibition be issued commanding Associate Judge Eusebio L Lopez, of the Second Division of the People's Court, "to desist from further proceedings in, or further exercising his jurisdiction in the trial of, and from otherwise taking further Issue: cognizance of criminal cases for treason against Benigno S. Aquino (No. 3527) and against Antonio de las Alas (No. 3531), and other Whether or not, upon the facts alleged in the petition and treason cases of the same nature actually pending before the Second appearing in the annexes on record, Judge Eusebio M. Lopez is Division of the People's Court or in any other division where he may disqualified from sitting and participating in any manner in the hereafter be assigned, and declaring him disqualified to sit therein." hearing, consideration and decision of the treason cases against Benigno S. Aquino (No. 3527), Antonio de las Alas (No. 3531), and of On March 14, 1946, an information for treason was filed in other criminal cases of the same -nature pending before the Second criminal case No. 3534 against Guillermo B. Francisco. The accused Division of the People's Court or in any other division where entered his plea of not guilty and the case was heard on diverse days respondent judge may hereafter be assigned. in the months of June and July 346, before the Second Division of the People's Court, composed of Associate Judges Salvador Abad Santos and Jose Veluz and the respondent judge. Held: After the prosecution had rested its case, counsel for the accused moved to dismiss, upon the sole ground that the overt acts This legal problem depends for its solution on the existence of charged in the information were not testified to by two witnesses as (a) an applicable provision of law, or (b) an applicable provision of a required by the treason law, article 114 of-the Revised Penal Code. judicial rule; or (c) a recognized legal principle governing the matter based on reason and justice. The pertinent part of section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 682 is as follows: No applicable legal or reglementary provision having been "No judge of the People's Court may disqualify himself or pointed out in support of the move to disqualify Judge Lopez, the next be disqualified except in accordance with the provisions of legal problem is to find out if there is a recognized legal principle existing laws or where the accused in a case have intervened in which may supply their absence. any previous appointment of the judge to any position in the government service." We are confronted with the situation in which it is committed by all that there is an existing legal principle but it is contended that The above provision is composed of two parts, one, general, there is no provision implementing its compliance. The court's which makes applicable "the provisions of existing laws," and the determination is demanded, and we cannot shirk from our other, specific, where the affected judge had been previously responsibility of applying the statute, on the excuse that its appointed to any government position through the intervention of the application is uncertain and indefinite. We must face with courage accused. this difficult task, and determine to our best the intention of the framers of this legal provision. We might at least justify the expense of The last specific provision does not apply to Judge Lopez, as time and money in the preparation and promulgation of the Rules of nobody alleged that any of the accused in the treason causes in Court. question had any part in the previous appointment of said judge to any position in the government service. What remains to be In view of the foregoing, the petition should be granted d the determined are what "provisions of existing laws" are referred to in the writ of prohibition issued against Eusebio Lopez, Judge of the People's above-quoted provision. Court.
There is no question that the stated provisions are not
applicable in the case of Judge Lopez. Counsel for the petitioner themselves never pretended that the case of Judge Lopez falls under any of the two above sections of Rule 126.
Assuming hypothetically that, by his several opinions
mentioned in the petition, Judge Lopez has shown that he cannot administer justice impartially in the treason cases in question, if he cannot be disqualified under Rule 124 or 126 or under any other legal provision, what relief can be afforded to the impending miscarriage of justice which will result by allowing him to continue participating in the disposal of said treason cases? We regret that in this case we are not called upon to answer the question. If there is any legislative deficiency, whether due to lack of foresight of lawmakers or lack of perspicacity of the Supreme Court as a rule-making body, that deficiency is now beyond our power to correct.
United States Ex Rel. Franklin Lanear, Relator-Appellant v. Hon. J. Edwin Lavallee, As Warden of Clinton State Prison, Dannemora, New York, 306 F.2d 417, 2d Cir. (1962)
Anointed Local Tyrant," and One Who Has "Assumed The Posture of A Crocodile Which, While Displaying Tears, Will Grab Through Any Victim Within His Reach Without Questions Asked."