Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rule71 Contempt Marantan vs. Diokno Bangcola
Rule71 Contempt Marantan vs. Diokno Bangcola
vs.
RESOLUTION
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS:
P/Supt. Hansel M. Marantan is the respondent in G.R. No. 199462, a
Criminal Case, where Marantan and his co-accused are charged with
homicide. Respondent Monique Cu-Unjieng La’O is one of the petitioners in
the said case, while respondent Atty. Jose Manuel Diokno is her counsel. The
case involves an incident where the son of La’O and his company were shot
and killed by police officers at Ortigas Center allegedly for carnapping. La’O,
together with other petitioners filed that the resolution for homicide be
withdrawn; and that charges for murder be filed.
Marantan submits that the respondents violated the sub judice rule, making
them liable for indirect contempt. The respondents answered that there was
no violation of the sub judice rule as their statements were legitimate
expressions and did not actually impede, obstruct or degrade the
administration of justice in a concrete way; that no criminal intent was
shown as the utterances being a fair comment of a matter of public interest
and concern; and that the petition is intended to stifle legitimate speech
Issue:
Ruling:
The 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. A violation of this rule
may render one liable for indirect contempt under Sec. 3(d), Rule 71 of the
Rules of Court.
The "clear and present danger" rule means that the evil consequence of the
comment must be "extremely serious and the degree of imminence
extremely high" before an utterance can be punished. There must exist a
clear and present danger that the utterance will harm the administration of
justice. Freedom of speech should not be impaired through the exercise of
the power of contempt of court unless there is no doubt that the utterances
in question make a serious and imminent threat to the administration of
justice. It must constitute an imminent, not merely a likely, threat.