62ND PERSUASIVE APPEAL_6OCT16_TO SCP JUSTICES: PMA ADMITS, NOTHING TO GAIN ON CUDIA'S DISMISSAL...

EXCERPTED FROM CADET CUDIA'S CASE DECISION As to the dismissal proceedings as sham trial – According to petitioners, the proceedings before the HC were a sham. The people behind Cadet 1CL Cudia’s charge, investigation, and conviction were actually the ones who had the intent to deceive and who took advantage of the situation. Cadet 1CL Raguindin, who was a senior HC member and was the second in rank to Cadet 1CL Cudia in the Navy cadet 1CL, was part of the team which conducted the preliminary investigation. Also, Cadet 1CL Mogol, the HC Chairman, previously charged Cadet 1CL Cudia with honor violation allegedly for cheating (particularly, conniving with and tutoring his fellow cadets on a difficult topic by giving solutions to a retake exam) but the charge was dismissed for lack of merit. Even if he was a non-voting member, he was in a position of influence and authority. Thus, it would be a futile exercise for Cadet 1CL Cudia to resort to the procedure for the removal of HC members.186chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Further, no sufficient prior notice of the scheduled CRAB hearing was given to Cadet 1CL Cudia, his family, or his PAO counsel. During one of her visits to him in the Holding Center, petitioner-intervenor was advised to convince his son to resign and immediately leave the PMA. Brig. Gen. Costales, who later became the CRAB Head, also categorically uttered to Annavee: “Your brother, he lied!” The CRAB conferences were merely used to formalize his dismissal and the PMA never really intended to hear his side. For petitioners, these are manifestations of PMA’s clear resolve to dismiss him no matter what. For their part, respondents contend that the CHR’s allegation that Maj. Hindang acted in obvious bad faith and that he failed to discharge his duty to be a good father of cadets when he “paved the road to [Cadet 1CL Cudia’s] sham trial by the Honor Committee” is an unfounded accusation. They note that when Maj. Hindang was given the DR of Cadet 1CL Cudia, he revoked the penalty awarded because of his explanation. However, all revocations of awarded penalties are subject to the review of the STO. Therefore, it was at the instance of Maj. Leander and the established procedure followed at the PMA that Maj. Hindang was prompted to investigate the circumstances surrounding Cadet 1 CL Cudia’s tardiness. Respondents add that bad faith cannot likewise be imputed against Maj. Hindang by referring to the actions taken by Maj. Jekyll Dulawan, the CTO of Cadets 1CL Narciso and Arcangel who also arrived late for their next class. Unlike the other cadets, Cadet 1CL Cudia did not admit his being late and effectively evaded responsibility by ascribing his tardiness to Dr. Costales. As to the CHR’s finding that Cadet 1CL Mogol was likewise “in bad faith and determined to destroy [Cadet 1CL] Cudia, for reasons of his own” because the former previously reported the latter for an honor violation in November 2013, respondents argue that the bias ascribed against him is groundless as there is failure to note that Cadet 1CL Mogol was a non-voting member of the HC. Further, he cannot be faulted for reporting a possible honor violation since he is the HC Chairman and nothing less is expected of him. Respondents emphasize that the representatives of the HC are elected from each company, while the HC Chairman is elected by secret ballot from the incoming first class representatives. Thus, if Cadet 1CL Cudia believed that there was bias against him, he should have resorted to the procedure for the removal of HC members provided for in the Honor Code Handbook. Finally, respondents declare that there is no reason or ill-motive on the part of the PMA to prevent Cadet 1CL Cudia from graduating because the Academy does not stand to gain anything from his dismissal. On the contrary, in view of his academic standing, the separation militates against PMA’s mission to produce outstanding, honorable, and exceptional cadets. The Court differs with petitioners.

61ST PERSUASIVE APPEAL_5OCT16_TO SCP JUSTICES: HONOR CODE REIGN SUPREME OVER THE CONSTITUTION

DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY LAWS & JURISPRUDENCE Under this doctrine, if a law or contract violates any norm of the Constitution, that law or contract, whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes, is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract. (Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997) Justice Isagani A. Cruz eloquently expound the essence of this great doctrine in this wise: “The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. No act shall be valid, however nobly intentioned, if it conflicts with the Constitution. The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law. Expediency must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power debase its rectitude. Right or wrong, the Constitution must be upheld as long as it has not been changed by the sovereign people lest its disregard result in the usurpation of the majesty of the law by the pretenders to illegitimate power.” (Isagani A. Cruz, Philippine Political Law, Central Lawbook Publishing, Co., Inc. 1991 Ed., p. 11) BAR QUESTION (2004) BNN Republic has a defense treaty with EVA Federation. According to the Republic's Secretary of Defense, the treaty allows temporary basing of friendly foreign troops in case of training exercises for the war on terrorism. The Majority Leader of the Senate contends that whether temporary or not, the basing of foreign troops however friendly is prohibited by the Constitution of BNN which provides that, "No foreign military bases shall be allowed in BNN territory." In case there is indeed an irreconcilable conflict between a provision of the treaty and a provision of the Constitution, in a jurisdiction and legal system like ours, which should prevail: the provision of the treaty or of the Constitution? Why? Explain with reasons, briefly. ANSWER: In case of conflict between a provision of a treaty and a provision of the Constitution, the provision of the Constitution should prevail. Section 5(2)(a), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty when it conflicts with the Constitution. (Gonzales v. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230 [1963]). shared from http://www.prohealthlaw.com/2015/04/doctrine-of-constitutional-supremacy.html

DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY LAWS & JURISPRUDENCE Under this doctrine, if a law or contract violates any norm of the Constitution, that law or contract, whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes, is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract. (Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997) Justice Isagani A. Cruz eloquently expound the essence of this great doctrine in this wise: “The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. No act shall be valid, however nobly intentioned, if it conflicts with the Constitution. The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law. Expediency must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power debase its rectitude. Right or wrong, the Constitution must be upheld as long as it has not been changed by the sovereign people lest its disregard result in the usurpation of the majesty of the law by the pretenders to illegitimate power.” (Isagani A. Cruz, Philippine Political Law, Central Lawbook Publishing, Co., Inc. 1991 Ed., p. 11) BAR QUESTION (2004) BNN Republic has a defense treaty with EVA Federation. According to the Republic's Secretary of Defense, the treaty allows temporary basing of friendly foreign troops in case of training exercises for the war on terrorism. The Majority Leader of the Senate contends that whether temporary or not, the basing of foreign troops however friendly is prohibited by the Constitution of BNN which provides that, "No foreign military bases shall be allowed in BNN territory." In case there is indeed an irreconcilable conflict between a provision of the treaty and a provision of the Constitution, in a jurisdiction and legal system like ours, which should prevail: the provision of the treaty or of the Constitution? Why? Explain with reasons, briefly. ANSWER: In case of conflict between a provision of a treaty and a provision of the Constitution, the provision of the Constitution should prevail. Section 5(2)(a), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty when it conflicts with the Constitution. (Gonzales v. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230 [1963]). shared from http://www.prohealthlaw.com/2015/04/doctrine-of-constitutional-supremacy.html

GR NO. L-47388 OCT 22 1940_PEOPLE VS. MARCOS ET AL(SEARCHED REFERENCE FROM LAWPHIL PROJECT))

IMAGE CREDIT:WIKIPEDIA.ORG JUSTICE JOSE P. LAUREL ACQUITED MARCOS Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-47388             October 22, 1940 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIANO R. MARCOS, ET AL., defendants-appellants. The defendants and appellants in their own behalf. Office of the Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Solicitor Guerrero for appellee. LAUREL, J.: In the elections of 1934 in which Mariano Marcos and Julio Nalundasan, both of Batac, Ilocos Norte, were rival candidates for the office of representative for the second district of said province, Nalundasan was elected. The term for which the latter was elected was, however, cut short as a result of the approval of the Constitution of the Philippines under the general elections for members of the National Assembly were by law set for September 17, 1935. In these general elections Julio Nalundasan and Mariano Marcos resumed their political rivalry and were opposing candidates for assemblyman in the same district. In the strife Nalundasan again came out triumphant over Marcos. In the afternoon of September 19, 1935, in celebration of Nalundasan's victory, a number of this followers and partymen paraded in cars and trucks through the municipalities of Currimao, Paoay and Batac, Ilocos Norte, and passed in front of the house of the Marcoses in Batac. The parade is described as provocative and humiliating for the defeated candidate, Mariano Marcos. The assemblyman-elect, Julio Nalundasan, was not, however, destined to reap the fruits of his political laurels for on the night of September 20, 1935, he was shot and killed in his house in Batac. Very intensive investigation of the crime by the Government authorities, particularly the Philippine Constabulary, followed, as a consequence of which an information was filed in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte charging one Nicasio Layaoen, a businessman of Batac, Ilocos Norte, with having committed the murder of Nalundasan. After trial, however, Layaoen was acquitted. This acquittal resulted in another protracted investigation and detective work by the Governmental agencies, particularly the Division of Investigation of the Department of Justice, with a view to solving the Nalundasan murder. On December 7, 1938. or more than three years after the death of Nalundasan, Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo were prosecuted for the crime of murder in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte under the following information: Que en o hacia la noche del 20 de septimbre de 1935, en el Municipio de Batac, Provincia de Ilocos Norte, Filipinas, y dentrio de la jurisdiccion de este Honorable Juzgado, los acusados arriba nombrados, armados con armas de fuego, puestos de acuerdo y conspirandose entre si, voluntaria, elegal y criminalmente, con alevosia y premeditacion conocida y con intencion de matar, dispararon contra Julio Nalundasan, entonces electo Diputado por el Segundo Distrito de Ilocos Norte, tocandole en su costado derecho habiendo la bala interesado organos vitales internos, lesionandolos, las cuales lesiones causaron la muerte instantinea de dicho Julio Nalundasan. Hecho cometido con infraccion de la ley y con las circunstancias agravantes de nocturnidad y de haberse cometido el delito en la morada del occiso. On June 10, 1939, before the conclusion of the trial, Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo filed eight separate complaints before the justice of the peace of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, charging Calixto Aguinaldo, the principal witness for the prosecution, who was still under cross-examination in the trial against Lizardo, with the offense of false testimony allegedly committed in the preliminary investigation of December 7, 1938, and during the trial. The defense had not yet completed the presentation of its evidence, and the prosecution was preparing its rebuttal testimony. Upon motion of the provincial fiscal of Ilocos Norte, the trial court ordered the provincial dismissal of the complaints. Fiscal Higinio Macadaeg also moved said court to find the Marcoses and Lizardo guilty of contempt of court, by virtue of which the latter were ordered to show cause why the motion should not be granted. After the conclusion of the trial, the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte rendered judgment the dispositive parts of which read as follows: En su virtud, el Juzgado halla a los acusados Quirino S. Lizardo y Ferdinand E. Marcos culpables, fuera de toda duda recional, del delito de asesinato, con agravante de morada, pero compensada por la atenuante de provocacion en el caso de Quirino S. Lizardo, y por la circunstancia adicional de minoria de edad en el caso de Ferdinand E. Marcos, y condena al primero a la pena de resolucion perpectua, a las accesorias de ley, y al pago de una cuarta parte de las costas procesales; y al segundo, a la pena indeterminada de diez anos como minima a diecisiete anos y cuatro meses como maxima, a las accesorias de ley, y al pago de una cuarta parte de las costas procasales; y ambos a indemnizar mancomunada y solidtriameiite a los herederos del occiso en la cantidad de mil pesos (P1,000), pero sin prision subsidiaria en caso de Insolvencia; y se absuelve a los acusados Mariano R. Marcos y Pio Marcos, con la mitad de las costas procesales de oficio, y con la cancelacion de la fianza que han prestado para su libertad provisional. Por lo expuesto, el Juzgado declara a los acusados en el incidente reos de desacato, y les condena a cada uno a pagar una multa de P200, o a sufrir la prision subsidiaria correspondiente en caso de insolvencia o falta de pago. From this judgment the defendants Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino appealed, assigning the following errors: 1. The trial court erred in according greater credibility to the prosecution witnesses. 2. The trial court erred in convicting two and acquitting two accused upon the same evidence. 3. The trial court erred in considering the character of Quirino Lizardo against the accused. 4. The trial court erred in not crediting the electoral censo, Exhibit 84 for the defense, with any probative value. lawphil.net 5. The trial court erred in denying the motions of the accused for a reopening and a new trial. 6. The trial court erred in finding the four accused- appellant guilty of contempt.1awphil.nêt The defendants Mariano Marcos and Pio Marcos have also appealed, but only from so much of the judgment as found them guilty of contempt. A three-volume brief was filed by the appellants and a comprehensive brief submitted by the Government. Both briefs are, however, more valueable for their literary value. Oral argument was had and doubtful points eliminated. In view of the importance of the case and the fact that the Government asks for the extreme penalty of death for the defendants-appellants, Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo, we have taken over the case on appeal with utmost caution and searching scrutiny of the evidence presented both by the prosecution and by the defense. As a general rule, this court will not interfere with judgment of the trial court in passing upon the weight or credibility that should be attached to the testimony of witnesses; but this court may determine for itself the guilt or innocence of the defendant and may modify or reverse the conclusions of fact laid down by the trial court if there is some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been over- looked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted. The theory of the prosecution, stripped of nonessentials, is that Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo were prompted to conspire against the life of Julio Nalundasan by the latter's electoral victory over Mariano Marcos, father of Ferdinand and brother-in-law of Lizardo, on September 17, 1935; that Calixto Aguinaldo, the principal witness for the prosecution, was a trusted and loyal attendant and bodyguard of Quirino Lizardo; that the said Calixto Aguinaldo was present in various conference of the Marcoses and Lizardo, in the last of which (that held on September 20, 1935) it was decided that Nalundasan must be killed; that Ferdinand was selected as the trigger man because he was a marks- man and because, if discovered and convicted, he would only be sent to Lolomboy reformatory school in view of his age, and that Mariano Marcos, father of Ferdinand, would in the meantime be in Laoag; that about nine o'clock in the evening of September 20, 1935, Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo, the first armed with an automatic pistol and the second with a police positive revolver, and accompanied by Calixto Aguinaldo, left for the fatal mission and, upon reaching Nalundasan's yard, they posted themselves at a point where they could not be detected but where they could get a full view of the intended human target; that Calixto Aguinaldo was asked to watch while his two companions, Ferdinand and Lizardo, were to execute the act that would put an end to Nalundasan's life; that Calixto Aguinaldo, after waiting for a few minutes, was seized by fear as a result of which he proceeded to return to the house of the Marcoses, but that on his way he heard the fatal shot from the direction of Nalundasan's home; that Ferdinand fired the fatal shot at Nalundasan while the latter's back was turned towards Ferdinand and Lizardo. On the other hand, the defense is one of complete denial of participation by any of the herein defendants in the commission of the crime. It is at once apparent that the validity of the theory of the prosecution rests upon the weight that should be accorded to the testimony of Calixto Aguinaldo, the principal witness for the prosecution and the alleged companion of the defendants-appellants, Quirino Lizardo and Ferdinand Marcos on the night of the killing of Julio Nalundasan. It is important to observe that, as stated, immediately after the death of Nalundasan and as a result of the efforts exerted by the agents of the Government, particularly the Philippine Constabulary, Nicasio Layaoen, a businessman of Batac, Ilocos Norte, was prosecuted for the murder of Nalundasan. In that case the star witness, Gaspar Silvestre, identified Layaoen as the man who fired the fatal shot at Nalundasan on the night in question, and the prosecution, with the same earnestness and vehemence exhibited in the case, prayed for the imposition of the extreme penalty of death upon the accused Layaoen. In that case it was claimed that the accused Layaoen was seen on the night in question with a revolver under the house of the deceased and that in a house immediately adjoining that of Layaoen and under the care and control of his wife, the Constabulary agents discovered eighty-one rounds of ammunition of the 22 long Lubaloy Western rifle, the brand and class of bullet which was alleged in that case and is alleged in the present case to have killed Nalundasan. Nevertheless the accused Layaoen was acquitted by the court of First instance of Ilocos Norte. According to Calixto Aguinaldo, the principal witness for the prosecution, he was present in the various stages of the conspiracy to murder Nalundasan and, as noted above, he was present at the time of the commission of the murder on the night of September 20, 1935. Aguinaldo also alleges to have been present at the meeting in the house of the Marcoses in the morning of September 15th as well as at the meetings in the morning and in the after- noon of September 20th, The very evidence for the prosecution therefore shows that Calixto Aguinaldo was a coconspirator. His testimony accordingly comes from a polluted source and should be received with a great deal of caution and, for this reason, should be closely and carefully scrutinized. A painstaking review of the evidence reveals several important considerations leading to the inescapable conclusion that the testimony of Calixto Aguinaldo does not deserve the credit that was accorded by the trial court. It is noteworthy that Aguinaldo claims to have been present at the various stages of the conspiracy and to have participated in the commission of the offense herein charged to the extent admitted by him. Nevertheless he remained silent for approximately three years, it appearing that it was only in November, 1938, that he broke his silence. The reason given the prosecution is that his loyalty to the defendant Quirino Lizardo prevented him from betraying the latter's confidence, and in this connection it was admitted in the argument by the representative of the prosecution that it was only when Aguinaldo was approached by the Constabulary agents that he decided to speak out the truth. The pretended loyalty of Aguinaldo is conspicuously disproved by the circumstance that, as the prosecution itself admits, although he was asked to watch, he returned to the house of the Marcoses before Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo has executed the alleged fatal act. But whatever might have Aguinaldo's reason, the fact is that his long continued silence creates serious doubts in the mind of this Court as to his motives for breaking that silence. The change of attitude could not have been due to a desireable impulse to serve the interest of justice and proves, if it proves anything at all, the tardy revival of stultified civic consciousness. According to the theory of the prosecution, Ferdinand was selected as the trigger man for two reasons, namely: because he is experienced in pistol shooting, having been cadet major in the University of the Philippines, and because he was below eighteen years of age and, if discovered and convicted, would be merely sent to Lolomboy reformatory school. With reference to the first reason, it is even represented that Mariano Marcos, father of Ferdinand, not only acquiesced in the arrangement but apparently encouraged his son to perform the foul task, with the simple remark that an assurance be made that the target was not missed and, if we may believe further the testimony of Calixto Aguinaldo, that he (Mariano Marcos) was to go in the meantime to Laoag, Ilocos Norte, thereby leaving his son to accomplish the dirty job while he, the person most affected by the electoral triumph of Nalundasan, was to stay away safe and sound. This is something extraordinary for a father to feel and to do, and we incline to reject the testimony of Aguinaldo and the inferences deducible therefrom, because the story is, while possible, devoid of reasonable probability and opposed to the lessons of common experience and the teachings of experimental psychology. As regards the second reason, it appears that both the prosecution and the defense agree that Ferdinand Marcos was at the time of the commission of the alleged offense already over eighteen years of age. As a matter of fact, one of the ground invoked by the Solicitor-General in asking for the modification of the judgment of the lower court and imposition of the death penalty upon this appellant is that he was more than eighteen years old at the time of the commission of the offense. It is of course reasonable to assume that at least his father and the interested party himself, if not his uncle Pio Marcos and Quirino Lizardo, knew this fact. The theory that Ferdinand was chosen to be the trigger man because of minority must therefore be decidedly false. We find the claim of Calixto Aguinaldo that he was present at the alleged various conferences held in the house of the Marcoses as a mere bodyguard of Quirino Lizardo to be incredible, in view of the absence of a valid reason for the latter, admitted by the prosecution to be "a domineering, blustering giant of a man" and by the trial court to be "un hombre de rebusta constitucion fisica, de caracter implusivo, val;iente y decidido," to employ as his bodyguard Calixto Aguinaldo, who is only about one-half of Lizardo in size and who has not been shown to be capable, either by experience or by nature, to discharge such office. More incredible still is alleged participation of Aguinaldo in the actual conspiracy to kill Julio Nalundasan, especially in view of the fact that, notwithstanding the attempt of the prosecution to show that he was a trusted man of Quirino Lizardo, there is evidence to prove that the relationship between the two could not be said to be of the best, it appearing, according to the admission of Aguinaldo himself, that he lost his job in the Government by order of the University of Labor upon the strength of the findings in an administrative investigation in which Lizardo testified Aguinaldo. It is hard to believe that either the Marcoses or Quirino Lizardo would allow themselves to commit the stupidity of permitting Calixto Aguinaldo, who was a stranger to the Marcoses and who, as already stated, had reason to be antagonistic to Lizardo, to know their alleged plan to kill Nalundasan and of later asking Aguinaldo to merely play the insignificant, nay unnecessary, role of watcher, unless it was the intention of the defendant herein to facilitate the discovery of the alleged crime and to preserve the only means of their conviction. Since, according to the theory of the prosecution, Ferdinand Marcos was selected to be the trigger man, Quirino Lizardo, Mariano Marcos or Pio Marcos could easily have personally done the alleged watching. Calixto Aguinaldo testified that when he and Quirino Lizardo arrived at noon in Batac, Ilocos Norte, Ferdinand was in the house of the Marcoses to whom he was introduced. It is a fact, however, that Ferdinand was a student of the University of the Philippines and left Manila in the morning of September 15, 1935, arriving in Batac only at 8:30 p. m. of that day. Aguinaldo therefore declared falsely when he stated that he met Ferdinand in the house of the Marcoses at the time he (Aguinaldo) and Lizardo arrived in Batac at noon of September 15, 1935. The prosecution has pictured Quirino Lizardo as a person more interested and enthusiastic than his brother-in-law, Mariano Marcos, in seeing the latter win in the elections of September 17, 1935, against Julio Nalundasan at all costs. Thus it is represented that when Pio Marcos informed Lizardo prior to the elections about the imminent defeat of Mariano Marcos, Lizardo is alleged to have impulsively exclaimed " Eso no puede ser! !Si vamos a perder la eleccion ganaremos en otra cosa, y es . . . matar a Nalundasan! Con una bala voy a terminar la politica en Ilocos!" In this connection it is well to recall that after marriage of Quirino Lizardo to Maria Marcos, sister of Mariano and Pio Marcos, animosity and ill feeling arose between the Marcoses and Lizardo as a result of family questions, which culminated in the filing in court of a criminal complaint against Lizardo for attempted homicide in which the offended party was the mother of the Marcoses. In the light of this circumstance, we cannot align ourselves with the theory that Lizardo could thereafter have shown such interest in the candidacy of Mariano Marcos as to take the initiative not only of suggesting but of participating in the murder of Julio Nalundasan, even granting that previous family differences had been patched up. The trial court was of the opinion that the Marcoses and Lizardo conceived the idea of killing Nalundasan with some seriousness only in the morning of September 209, 1935, after the provocative and humiliating parade held by Nalundasan's followers and partymen in the afternoon of the preceding day. But while the defeat of Marcos, followed by such insulting parade, might have irritated the herein defendants, the existence of a motive alone, though perhaps an important consideration, is not proof of the commission of a crime, much less of the guilt of the defendants-appellants. By and large, we find the testimony of Calixto Aguinaldo to be inherently improbable and full of contradictions in important details. For this reason, we decline to give him any credit. In view of this conclusion, we find it neither necessary nor profitable to examine the corroborative evidence presented by the prosecution. Where the principal and basic evidence upon which the prosecution rests its case fails, all evidence intended to support or corroborate it must likewise fail. In passing we may state that the prosecution deserves commendation for the industry and zeal it has displayed in this case, although its failure to obtain the conviction of Nicasio Layaoen in the first case it is not necessarily vindicated by the instant effort to secure a judgment against the herein defendants-appellants, unless the latter's guilt is shown to the point of a certain degree of moral certainty and the judicial mind is set at ease as to their culpability. The judgment of the lower court, herein appealed from is accordingly reversed, and the defendants-appellants, Ferdinand Marcos and Quirino Lizardo, acquitted of the charge of murder and forthwith liberated from imprisonment and discharged from the custody of the law, with costs de oficio. With reference to the incident of contempt, it appears that on June 10, 1939, the four accused below filed eight separate complaints with the justice of the peace of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, charging the principal witness for the prosecution, Calixto, Aguinaldo, with the crime of false testimony because of alleged false declaration made by the latter in the preliminary investigation of December 7, 1938, and during the trial of the aforesaid four accused. When the several complaints for false testimony were filed, it appears that Calixto Aguinaldo was under cross-examination in the separate trial against Quirino Lizardo, and the trial of the other three accused, Mariano, Pio and Ferdinand Marcos, had not yet commenced. The judge of the Court of First Instance who was trying the murder case, upon motion of the provincial fiscal of Ilocos Norte, ordered the provincial dismissal of the various complaints filed in the justice of the peace court of Laoag against Calixto Aguinaldo and, thereafter, a motion was presented asking that the Marcos and Lizardo be declared in contempt. Lizardo and the Marcoses were ordered to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt and, simultaneously with the judgment on the principal case for murder, Quirino Lizardo, Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos and Ferdinand Marcos were adjudged guilty of contempt and sentenced each to pay a fine of two hundred pesos, with corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. It is evident that the charges for false testimony filed by the four accused above mentioned could not be decided until the main case for murder was disposed of, since no penalty could be meted out to Calixto Aguinaldo for his alleged false testimony without first knowing the extent of the sentence to be imposed against Lizardo and the Marcoses (Revised Penal Code, art. 180). The latter should therefore have waited for the termination of the principal case in the lower court before filing the charges for false testimony against Calixto Aguinaldo. Facts considered, we are of the opinion that the action of the Marcoses and Lizards was calculated, or at least tended. directly or indirectly to obstruct the administration of justice and that, therefore, the trial court properly found them guilty of contempt. (In re Gomez, 6 Phil., 647; U.S. vs. Jaca, 26 Phil., 100.) In view of the result, however, arrived at in the principal case, and considering that the inherent power to punish for contempt should be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle (Villavicencio vs. Lukban 39 Phil., 778), and on the corrective and not on the retaliatory idea of punishment (In re Lozano and Quevedo, 54 Phil., 801), it is our view that this purpose is sufficiently achieved and the principle amply vindicated with the imposition upon each of the four accused above mentioned of a fine of fifty (50) pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. So ordered. Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.

Talk to the Troops 10/4/2016

Started streaming 8 minutes ago Connect with RTVM

60TH PERSUASIVE APPEAL_5OCT16_TO SCP JUSTICES_30 PUSH-UPS FOR MANILA HOTEL COUP PARTICIPANTS

59TH PERSUASIVE APPEAL_4OCT16_TO THE SCP JUSTICES_TOO STRICT BUT TOO LENIENT

THE PRESIDENT SAYS, "I AM SORRY; "I WANT TO CLOSE THIS CHAPTER.'(searched reference)

story shared from June 28, 2005 · Posted in: Gloriagate, In the News The president says, ‘I am sorry;  I want to close this chapter.’ READING from a prompter, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo at 7 pm Monday made the following statement about the wiretapping controversy. Mga minamahal kong kababayan. For the last several weeks, the issue of the tape recordings has spun out of control. Tonight, I want to set the record straight. You deserve an explanation from me, because you are the people I was elected to serve. As you recall, the election canvassing process was unnecessarily slow even after the election results were already in and the votes had been counted. I was anxious to protect my votes and during that time had conversations with many people, including a Comelec official. My intent was not to influence the outcome of the election, and it did not. As I mentioned, the election has already been decided and the votes counted. And as you remember, the outcome had been predicted by every major public opinion poll, and adjudged free, fair and decisive by international election observers, and our own Namfrel. That said, let me tell you how I personally feel. I recognize that making any such call was a lapse in judgment. I am sorry. I also regret taking so long to speak before you on this matter. I take full responsibility for my actions and to you and to all those good citizens who may have had their faith shaken by these events. I want to assure you that I have redoubled my efforts to serve the nation and earn your trust. Nagagambala ako. Maliwanag na may kakulangan sa wastong pagpapasya ang nangyaring pagtawag sa telepono. Pinagsisisihan ko ito nang lubos. Pinananagutan ko nang lubusan ang aking ginawa, at humihingi ako ng tawad sa inyo, sa lahat ng mga butihing mamamayan na nabawasan ng tiwala dahil sa mga pangyayaring ito. Ibig kong tiyakin sa inyo na lalo pa akong magsisikap upang maglingkod sa bayan at matamo inyong tiwala. I took office with a mandate to carry out a plan for the nation. Since that time, I have focused on making the tough but necessary decisions to make up for years of economic neglect. We passed a comprehensive, fiscally responsible national budget; raised new and necessary revenues to invest in the people; and implemented new anti-corruption measures that have led to the highest collection of taxes in history. Nothing should stand in the way of this work, or the next phase of my reform agenda, which includes new investments in education and social services with our new revenues; and an expansion of our successful, anti-corruption and lifestyle checks. That is why I want to close this chapter and move on with the business of governing. I ask each and everyone of you to join hands with me in a show of unity, to help forge one Philippines, where everyone is equal under the law, and everybody has the opportunity to use their God-given talents to make a better life. Our nation is strong and getting stronger. The progress is steady and I ask you to walk with me on this journey to rebuild our great nation. I remain your humble servant and promise you that I will fulfill my constitutional oath of office to serve the people to the best of my ability. God bless the Philippines.

MIRIAM'S "BEAUTY, BRAINS"

For the Defensor family of Iloilo, her being the epitome of “beauty and brains” has always been debatable, but there is no contest as far as her “brains and shapely legs” are concerned. Thus recalled Nenalyn Defensor, younger sister of Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, on Saturday night when she acknowledged the tribute given by the UP Vanguards where Miriam served as corps sponsor in 1969. Nenalyn fondly recalled the “big debate” in their family every time the issue of Miriam being an example of “beauty and brains” was brought up.

58TH PERSUASIVE APPEAL_3OCT16_TO SCP JUSTICES_ JUSTICES' INJUSTICES