RE: PETITION FOR RADIO AND TELEVISION
COVERAGE OF THE MULTIPLE MURDER CASES
AGAINST MAGUINDANAO GOVERNOR ZALDY
AMPATUAN, ET AL.
Date: June 14, 2011
Where Filed: RTC Quezon City
Crime Charged: Murder and rebellion
Doctrine: The right of an accused to a fair trial is not
incompatible to a free press, that pervasive publicity
is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to
a fair trial, and that there must be allegation and
proof of the impaired capacity of a judge to render a
bias-free decision. Mere fear of possible undue
influence is not tantamount to actual prejudice
resulting in the deprivation of the right to a fair trial.
Facts:
On November 23, 2009, 57 people including
32 journalists and media practitioners were killed
while on their way to Shariff Aguak in Maguindanao.
The tragic incident which came to be known as the
Maguindanao Massacre spawned charges for 57
counts of murder and an additional charge of
rebellion against 197 accused.
Almost a year later or on November 19,
2010, the National Union of Journalists of the
Philippines (NUJP), ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporation, GMA Network, Inc., relatives of the
victims, individual journalists from various media
entities, and members of the academe filed a
petition before this Court praying that live television
and radio coverage of the trial in these criminal
cases be allowed, recording devices (e.g., still
cameras, tape recorders) be permitted inside the
courtroom to assist the working journalists, and
reasonable guidelines be formulated to govern the
broadcast coverage and the use of devices.
In a related move, the National Press Club
of the Philippines (NPC) and Alyansa ng Filipinong
Mamamahayag (AFIMA) filed on November 22,
2010 a petition praying that the Court constitute
Branch 221 of RTC-Quezon City as a special court to
focus only on the Maguindanao Massacre trial to
relieve it of all other pending cases and assigned
duties, and allow the installation inside the
courtroom of a sufficient number of video cameras
that shall beam the audio and video signals to the
television monitors outside the court.
President Aquino in his letter to CJ Corona
expressed his support for the petitioners. Various
groups also sent to the CJ their respective
resolutions and statements on the matter.
Petitioners seek the lifting of the absolute
ban on live television and radio coverage of court
proceedings.
Ruling:
The Court partially grants pro hac vice the
prayer for a live broadcast of the trial court
proceedings, subject to guidelines.
Even before considering what is a
reasonable number of the public who may observe
the proceedings, the peculiarity of the subject
criminal cases is that the proceedings already
necessarily entail the presence of hundreds of
families. It cannot be gainsaid that the families of
the 57 victims and of the 197 accused have as much
interest, beyond mere curiosity, to attend or
monitor the proceedings as those of the impleaded
parties or trial participants. It bears noting at this
juncture that the prosecution and the defense have
listed more than 200 witnesses each.
The impossibility of holding such judicial
proceedings in a courtroom that will accommodate
all the interested parties, whether private
complainants or accused, is unfortunate
enough. What more if the right itself commands
that a reasonable number of the general public be
allowed to witness the proceeding as it takes place
inside the courtroom. Technology tends to provide
the only solution to break the inherent limitations of
the courtroom, to satisfy the imperative of
a transparent, open and public trial.
Indeed, the Court cannot gloss over what
advances technology has to offer in distilling the
abstract discussion of key constitutional precepts
into the workable context. Technology per se has
always been neutral. It is the use and regulation
thereof that need fine-tuning. Law and technology
can work to the advantage and furtherance of the
various rights herein involved, within the contours
of defined guidelines.
CORPUZ vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
Date: November 11, 2004
Where Filed: Office of the Ombudsman
Crime Charged: Volation of Section 3(e) of Republic
Act No. 3019 (tax credit scam)
Doctrine: In criminal cases, the accused is entitled
to a speedy disposition of the cases against him.
Facts:
The Office of the Ombudsman issued a
Resolution finding probable cause against
petitioners Antonio H. Roman, Sr. and Marialen C.
Corpuz, the President and Vice-President of FILSYN
Corporation, respectively, and several others.
The petitioners, the Undersecretary of
Finance Antonio P. Belicena, and the officers of the
Petron Corporation, were charged with violation of
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, involving the
so-called tax credit scam.
Aside from the aforestated case, sixty-one
(61) similar Informations were filed by the Office of
the Ombudsman against some fifty (50) public
officials and private individuals relating to the
issuance of tax credit certificates.
Ruling:
The petition is denied due course.
No less than Section 16, Article III of the
1987 Constitution provides that all persons shall
have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases
before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative
bodies. The judicial bodies envisaged in the said
provision include the Office of the Ombudsman and
the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
Rule 115, Section 1(h) of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure further provides that the
accused has the right to have a speedy, impartial
and public trial. The said rule requires that the
arraignment of the accused should be held within
thirty (30) days from the date the court acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a
shorter period is provided by special law or unless
excusable delays as provided in Rule 119, Section 10
of the Rules are attendant.
The right of the accused to a speedy trial
and to a speedy disposition of the case against him
was designed to prevent the oppression of the
citizen by holding criminal prosecution suspended
over him for an indefinite time, and to prevent
delays in the administration of justice by mandating
the courts to proceed with reasonable dispatch in
the trial of criminal cases. Such right to a speedy
trial and a speedy disposition of a case is violated
only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious,
capricious and oppressive delays. The inquiry as to
whether or not an accused has been denied such
right is not susceptible by precise qualification. The
concept of a speedy disposition is a relative term
and must necessarily be a flexible concept.
In determining whether the accused has
been deprived of his right to a speedy disposition of
the case and to a speedy trial, four factors must be
considered: (a) length of delay; (b) the reason for
the delay; (c) the defendants assertion of his right;
and (d) prejudice to the defendant.
There can be no denying the fact that the
petitioners, as well as the other accused, was
prejudiced by the delay in the reinvestigation of the
cases and the submission by the
Ombudsman/Special Prosecutor of his report
thereon. So was the State. The People has yet to
prove the guilt of the petitioners of the crimes
charged beyond reasonable doubt. We agree with
the ruling of the Sandiganbayan that before
resorting to the extreme sanction of depriving the
petitioner a chance to prove its case by dismissing
the cases, the Ombudsman/Special Prosecutor
should be ordered by the Sandiganbayan under pain
of contempt, to explain the delay in the submission
of his report on his reinvestigation.
PEOPLE vs. TORRES
Date: September 22, 2014 The prosecution adduced proof beyond
Where Filed: RTC of Manila reasonable doubt that the primary intention of
Crime Charged: Robbery with homicide appellant and his companions was to rob Espino.
Doctrine: Right against Double Jeopardy
Had they primarily intended to kill Espino,
When an accused appeals from the
they would have immediately stabbed him to
sentence of the trial court, he waives the
death. However, the fact that Ronnie initially
constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy
wrestled with appellant for possession of the belt-
and throws the whole case open to the review of
bag clearly shows that the central aim was to
the appellate court, which is then called upon to
commit robbery against Espino. This intention was
render such judgment as law and justice dictate,
confirmed by the accuseds taking of Espinos belt-
whether favorable or unfavorable to the appellant.
bag, wallet, wrist-watch and jewelries after he was
In other words, when appellant appealed the RTCs
stabbed to death. The killing was therefore merely
judgment of conviction for murder, he is deemed to
incidental, resulting by reason or on occasion of the
have abandoned his right to invoke the prohibition
robbery.
on double jeopardy since it became the duty of the
appellate court to correct errors as may be found in
the appealed judgment. Thus, appellant could not
have been placed twice in jeopardy when the CA
modified the ruling of the RTC by finding him guilty
of robbery with homicide as charged in the
Information instead of murder.

Facts:
Siblings Reynaldo Torres (Reynaldo), Jay
Torres (Jay), Ronnie Torres (Ronnie) and appellant
were charged with the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide committed against Jaime M.
Espino (Espino). Only appellant was arrested.
Reynaldo, Jay and Ronnie remain at-large.

Espino was driving his car along C.M. Recto

in Divisoria, Manila when Ronnie suddenly blocked
his path. Espino alighted from his car and
approached Ronnie who tried to grab his belt-bag.
Espino struggled but Jay, Rey, appellant and an
unidentified companion suddenly appeared
brandishing bladed weapons. They took turns
stabbing him and took his belt-bag. He was
pronounced dead on arrival.

RTC: Guilty only of Murder

CA: Guilty of Robbery with Homicide

Ruling:
The appeal is UNMERITORIOUS.
In an appeal by an accused, he waives his
right not to be subject to double jeopardy.