SECOND DIVISION
ANGEL H. QUIZON,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
127819
April 27, 2004
-versus-
HON. COURT OF
APPEALS,
HON. HARRIET O. DEMETRIOU,
IN HER CAPACITY
AS PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 70,
PASIG CITY AND
ANTONIO
L. SANCHEZ,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TINGA,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The Court is here confronted
with a Petition that is moot in one aspect and premature in
another.
Consequently, the Petition must be denied.
Sometime in November
1993, in connection with Criminal Case Nos. 101141-47, entitled People
of the Philippines versus Antonio L. Sanchez, et al., Atty. Manuel P.
Cruz,
then Chief of the Legal Division of Philippine National Police-Central
Investigation Service Command (PNP-CISC), filed an ex-parte motion to
transfer
the custody of accused Antonio L. Sanchez from the CISC Custodial
Center
to the PNP Custodial Center before the Regional Trial Court. After an
ocular
inspection, respondent Judge Harriet O. Demetriou denied the request.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 26, 1994,
the Chief of the Prosecution Division of the legal office of the CIS,
Atty.
Joselito A.Z. Casugbo, filed another motion to transfer Sanchez from
the
CISC Detention Center to the PNP Custodial Center. Atty. Casugbo
alleged that there was a recent intelligence report indicating that a
member
of the PNP assigned to the CISC was a very close friend of Sanchez and
had made arrangements for his rescue. He further alleged that in the
first
week of January 1994, a high ranking police officer of the CISC was
offered
a huge amount of money for the detainee’s escape. This time,
respondent
Judge granted the motion.cralaw:red
On January 31, 1994,
one of the lawyers of the accused Sanchez, Atty. Mario E. Ongkiko,
filed
a motion to cite petitioner Chief Supt. Angel H. Quizon, then Chief of
the CISC, in contempt of court for allegedly fabricating the so-called
intelligence report.cralaw:red
After initially failing
to attend the first hearing, petitioner appeared at the contempt
proceedings
on February 7, 1994. Petitioner testified that he was the police
officer who was offered a P100 million bribe. However, when questioned
as to the identity of the bribe offeror, petitioner declined to answer,
alleging that it was classified information.[1]
When pressed further, petitioner added that he was concerned for the
security
and safety not only of himself but also of his family because the
proponent
is allegedly powerful and influential in government.[2]
For petitioner’s refusal
to disclose the identity of the bribe offeror, Sanchez’s counsel moved
that petitioner be declared guilty of contempt of court. On February 8,
1994, respondent Judge declared petitioner in contempt and ordered him
incarcerated until further action of the court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On February 14, 1994,
or seven (7) days after his arrest, petitioner filed an Urgent Ex-Parte
Manifestation and Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated
February
8, 1994, this time invoking a totally different justification for his
refusal
to answer: his constitutional right against self-incrimination. He
claimed
that by divulging the identity of the offeror, the latter may charge
him
with false testimony, or even incriminating innocent person, defined
and
punished by Articles 183 and 363 of the Revised Penal Code,
respectively.[3]
Petitioner likewise reiterated that the information is classified based
on an “unwritten law” practiced by all police organizations worldwide.[4]
On the same day, the trial court issued an order which considered
petitioner’s
seven (7) days of confinement as full service for the direct contempt.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On February 18, 1994,
the court a quo denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.cralaw:red
Thereafter, petitioner
filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary
Injunction
and Temporary Restraining Order before the Court of Appeals, assailing
respondent Judge’s Orders dated February 8 and 18, 1994.cralaw:red
While the petition was
pending resolution in the Court of Appeals, the PNP initiated an
administrative
case for summary dismissal against petitioner. As a result, the
petition
before the Court of Appeals was amended on February 20, 1995 to include
then PNP Director General Recaredo Sarmiento as one of the
respondents.
Eventually, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of
merit.cralaw:red
Petitioner thus filed
the present Petition before this Court assailing the Court of Appeals'
decision for holding that a conviction for direct contempt is not
correctible
by certiorari and prohibition, that the conviction of the petitioner is
in order, and that he was not denied due process of law by reason of
prejudicial
publicity. Petitioner prays that the Court not only reverse the
Decision
of the Court of Appeals but also to enjoin the PNP from proceeding with
the administrative charges against him based on the orders subject of
the
instant petition or declare void any action taken relative thereto.[5]
The Petition is denied.cralaw:red
In direct contempt cases,
the matter becomes a fait accompli once the penalty has been executed
by
the contemnor’s service of the penalty of imprisonment.[6]
In the present case, respondent Judge has deemed petitioner’s
incarceration
of seven (7) days as full service for direct contempt. Plainly,
the
petition is moot.cralaw:red
That administrative
charges have been leveled against petitioner does not render the case
less
so. The administrative case against petitioner stems from the
same
facts that gave rise to the contempt proceedings and not on the fact
that
petitioner was found guilty of contempt by respondent Judge. In
recommending
the institution of summary proceedings against petitioner, Police Chief
Insp. Ceferino Nunag found:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
11.
As an officer with the rank of Chief Superintendent, one commands the
respect
of his peers and subordinates. In a court room, a lawyer is being
accorded with the same respect as an officer of the Court. P/CSupt.
Angel
Quizon, a star-rank officer and a lawyer on 07 Feb 1994, compromised
these
positions. He opened the floodgates of suspicion when he
repeatedly
refused to heed the order of the court to identify his bribe offeror.
His
conflicting explanation on why he defied the order of the court made
him
“less than fair and candid in dealing with the magistrate.” Moreover,
“it
was certainly misbehavior not to speak of misconduct on his part to
give
impression or insinuation to the Court that there was strong
proof
of reliability on the bribe story.” Short of saying that an
attempt
to fool the court did not materialize, the court declared that P/Chief
Supt. Quizon merited the penalty of direct contempt.cralaw:red
12.
More particularly, P/Chief Supt. Quizon dishonored and disgraced
himself
as a member of the PNP and officer of the Court in refusing to identify
his bribe offeror. Furthermore, P/Chief Supt. Quizon made
irresponsible
remarks to the questions of the defense counsel of Mayor Sanchez as
appearing
in the stenographic notes in Crime Cases No. 101141-47 of the People of
the Philippines vs. Antonio Sanchez, et al.cralaw:red
13.
The word of an officer is his badge of honor. It must be beyond
reproach.
The last paragraph of the Police Officer’s creed speaks of the wisdom
of
truthfulness. That a policeman “must be trustworthy and shall
speak
the truth at all times as required by his profession.” For a man in
uniform
to be branded as untruthful under whatever circumstances brings
disgrace
and dishonor to the organization he represents.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
14.
P/Chief Supt. Quizon’s weakness in moral character was observed when in
the same stenographic notes, specifically on page 49, P/Chief Supt.
Quizon
stated that security not only to himself but the entire members of his
family is paramount reason why he cannot tell before the court the
identity
of the bribe offeror. This statement elicited sarcastic remarks
not
only from the defense counsel but the court itself who maybe could not
believe that such remark is coming from a PNP General holding at that a
key
position such as the
Dir[.] of CISC.cralaw:red
15.
We have our solemn oath to perform our sworn duty over and above our
obligation
to our family. Although we are but human to “subject that oath
over
our concern for our love ones, still, it is unethical for a man in
uniform
to shrink from that responsibility, more so if declared openly.
Citing
again the Police Officer’s Creed, we have vowed “selfless love and
service
to the people.” As a consequence, “we commit ourselves to the
service
of our fellowmen over an above our personal conve[n]ience.”
16.
Whatever reasons P/Chief Supt. Quizon has at that moment, the fact
remains
that the PNP in general was placed in a very bad light. The
ridicule
he received and the embarrassment it generated affected the whole
officer
corps. He can blame no one but himself is the whole PNP
organization
was enraged by his conduct for he failed to conform to that high
standards
of propriety and correct behavior. Sadly, this episode was
recently
repeated in the halls of the Senate at the expense of the PNP.[7]
Thus, any decision rendered
on the merits of this case would not affect the disposition of the
administrative
case against petitioner, administrative cases being entirely
independent
of contempt proceedings.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, petitioner
claims that the institution of the administrative case is unwarranted
since
his refusal to answer was made in the exercise of his right against
self-incrimination.[8]
This plea is premature, however, since it does not appear that the
administrative
tribunal already had to rule on the matter then, assuming that
petitioner
has even raised that argument therein.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the Petition
is denied.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Quisumbing,
and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J.,
no part.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo p. 113.
[2]
Id. at 119.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 138.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at 140.
[5]
Id., p. 387.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Edillon v. Ferandos, G.R. No. L-31255, 31 May 1982, 114 SCRA 155.
[7]
Rollo, pp. 219-221.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 385-386. |