Double jeopardy; where exceptions not appreciated

G.R. No. 176389

See - http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/176389.htm

ANTONIO LEJANO vs. PEOPLE, En Banc, G.R. No. 176389, Jan. 18, 2011

RESOLUTION

ABAD, J.:

On December 14, 2010 the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals (CA) and acquitted the accused in this case, Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada, and Gerardo Biong of the charges against them on the ground of lack of proof of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

On December 28, 2010 complainant Lauro G. Vizconde, an immediate relative of the victims, asked the Court to reconsider its decision, claiming that it “denied the prosecution due process of law; seriously misappreciated the facts; unreasonably regarded Alfaro as lacking credibility; issued a tainted and erroneous decision; decided the case in a manner that resulted in the miscarriage of justice; or committed grave abuse in its treatment of the evidence and prosecution witnesses.”[1]

But, as a rule, a judgment of acquittal cannot be reconsidered because it places the accused under double jeopardy. The Constitution provides in Section 21, Article III, that:

Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. x x x

To reconsider a judgment of acquittal places the accused twice in jeopardy of being punished for the crime of which he has already been absolved. There is reason for this provision of the Constitution. In criminal cases, the full power of the State is ranged against the accused. If there is no limit to attempts to prosecute the accused for the same offense after he has been acquitted, the infinite power and capacity of the State for a sustained and repeated litigation would eventually overwhelm the accused in terms of resources, stamina, and the will to fight.

As the Court said in People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan:[2]

[A]t the heart of this policy is the concern that permitting the sovereign freely to subject the citizen to a second judgment for the same offense would arm the government with a potent instrument of oppression. The provision therefore guarantees that the State shall not be permitted to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense, and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty. Society’s awareness of the heavy personal strain which a criminal trial represents for the individual defendant is manifested in the willingness to limit the government to a single criminal proceeding to vindicate its very vital interest in the enforcement of criminal laws.[3]

Of course, on occasions, a motion for reconsideration after an acquittal is possible. But the grounds are exceptional and narrow as when the court that absolved the accused gravely abused its discretion, resulting in loss of jurisdiction, or when a mistrial has occurred. In any of such cases, the State may assail the decision by special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65.[4]

Here, although complainant Vizconde invoked the exceptions, he has been unable to bring his pleas for reconsideration under such exceptions. For instance, he avers that the Court “must ensure that due process is afforded to all parties and there is no grave abuse of discretion in the treatment of witnesses and the evidence.”[5] But he has not specified the violations of due process or acts constituting grave abuse of discretion that the Court supposedly committed. His claim that “the highly questionable and suspicious evidence for the defense taints with serious doubts the validity of the decision”[6] is, without more, a mere conclusion drawn from personal perception.

Complainant Vizconde cites the decision in Galman v. Sandiganbayan[7] as authority that the Court can set aside the acquittal of the accused in the present case. But the government proved in Galman that the prosecution was deprived of due process since the judgment of acquittal in that case was “dictated, coerced and scripted.”[8] It was a sham trial. Here, however, Vizconde does not allege that the Court held a sham review of the decision of the CA. He has made out no case that the Court held a phony deliberation in this case such that the seven Justices who voted to acquit the accused, the four who dissented, and the four who inhibited themselves did not really go through the process.

Ultimately, what the complainant actually questions is the Court’s appreciation of the evidence and assessment of the prosecution witnesses’ credibility. He ascribes grave error on the Court’s finding that Alfaro was not a credible witness and assails the value assigned by the Court to the evidence of the defense. In other words, private complainant wants the Court to review the evidence anew and render another judgment based on such a re-evaluation. This is not constitutionally allowed as it is merely a repeated attempt to secure Webb, et al’s conviction. The judgment acquitting Webb, et al is final and can no longer be disturbed.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES for lack of merit complainant Lauro G. Vizconde’s motion for reconsideration dated December 28, 2010.

For essentially the same reason, the Court DENIES the motions for leave to intervene of Fr. Robert P. Reyes, Sister Mary John R. Mananzan, Bishop Evangelio L. Mercado, and Dante L.A. Jimenez, representing the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption and of former Vice President Teofisto Guingona, Jr.

No further pleadings shall be entertained in this case.

SO ORDERED.

SC pressed on live coverage of Ampatuan trial

SC pressed on live coverage of Ampatuan trial - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20110124-316222/SC-pressed-on-live-coverage-of-Ampatuan-trial



SC pressed on live coverage of Ampatuan trial
By Marlon Ramos
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:22:00 01/24/2011


MANILA, Philippines—A group of journalists is pressing the Supreme Court to grant its demand for live coverage of the ongoing trial of the Maguindanao massacre, saying this is not a special privilege for media but a recognition of the people’s right to know.

In a reply to defense lawyers opposing the petition, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) argued that open coverage was not barred by the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.

“To reiterate what was emphasized repeatedly in the petition, prohibition cannot be allowed when regulation is a reasonable alternative,” read the NUJP petition to the high tribunal filed on Friday by the Public Interest Law Center.

“The cognate connection arises because … the true beneficiary of a free press is not media institutions, but the people themselves,” it added.

The NUJP pointed out that no less than the United Nations had recognized the people’s right to information by authorizing the public viewing of the trial of war crime offenses.

“Ironically, the United Nations, the repository of the conventions relied upon by the defense, broadcasts trials in its war crimes tribunals. Viewing it is just a mouse-click away,” the petitioners said.

In opposing the journalists’ petition, lawyers of the Ampatuan clan blamed for the Nov. 23, 2009, massacre of 57 people in Maguindanao claimed that live reporting of court proceedings was prohibited by international law to protect the right to life of the accused.

The Ampatuan clan said the due process clause of the Constitution also banned cameras inside the courtrooms to avoid trial by publicity.

Grossly unfair to accused

But the petitioners countered that “it requires a great leap of the imagination” to conclude that the televised coverage would endanger the lives of the accused.

“Such is grossly unfair to the petitioners,” the NUJP said in the 33-page pleading. “The argument illustrates the pitfalls of trafficking in the abstract, of cobbling together broad statements in order to come up gasping with a conclusion.”

“The due process clause is neither for nor against live televised coverage of criminal trials; it is therefore up to those who favor or object to it to make out their respective cases,” the NUJP said.

The group also assailed the defense lawyers for resorting to “misrepresentation” and “falsity” in blocking the petition.

To illustrate its point, the NUJP clarified that it did not mention in its petition that studies on the effect of live media coverage showed that it could affect the judges, lawyers and witnesses as claimed by the Ampatuan lawyers.

The journalists challenged the defense panel to prove that they had included in their petition researches in the United States which purportedly tended to support the defense counsels’ position.

“The defense’s fabrication is the unethical practice that is expressly sanctioned by Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,” the NUJP said.

“Instead of meeting these challenges squarely,” the petitioners said, “the (defense panel) relies on purposeful misrepresentations, hypocrisy and clever manipulation of data to defeat a legitimate claim.”

“That is not how justice is supposed to work at the highest court of the land,” they argued.

While they were correct in saying that the right to information was not absolute, the NUJP said the lawyers of the accused had failed to prove that their clients were exempted from the rules set by existing jurisprudence.

This purportedly included issues pertaining to morals, public order, national security, foreign relations, trade secrets and privacy.

“It is one thing to cite authorities to establish a rule and quite another to claim an exception when no effort is made to establish that one rightfully falls within the exception,” the NUJP said.

“(I)t becomes incumbent upon them to show that they fall within the recognized exceptions of confidentiality… They have not. That is because they are not entitled to the exceptions,” the petitioners continued.

The group also downplayed the defense counsels’ insinuations that the petition would give “unbridled license” for media to show the hearings to the public.

Opportunity

Once approved, the live coverage of the trial would be in accordance to the rules set by the Supreme Court and that it would respect the rights of the Ampatuans, the petitioners said.

According to them, the petition was also an opportunity for the high tribunal to discuss “ramifications” of its rulings on the cases of the live coverage petitions on the plunder charge of deposed President Joseph Estrada and the libel case filed by the late President Corazon Aquino.

The high court’s arguments in these two cases were extensively raised by the Ampatuan lawyers.

“The Aquino and Estrada (cases have) so many ramifications far beyond the concerns raised therein … to foster the impartial administration of justice. The decisions ravage other constitutional rights in ways unforeseen,” the petitioners said.

A not very grand Supreme Court; De Quiros column.

Not very grand - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos
See - http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20110125-316392/Not-very-grand


There's The Rub
Not very grand
By Conrado de Quiros
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 04:09:00 01/25/2011

CHIEF JUSTICE Renato Corona has a complaint. There’s a smear campaign against his Court, he told the foreign correspondents last week. He doesn’t know exactly who’s behind it. “All I know is there are people who (have gone) out of their way to disparage the decisions of the Supreme Court.”

“When the Court decides a case, it neither asserts its moral ascendancy or dominance over, nor encroaches on, nor interferes in the powers of a co-equal branch of government. Stated figuratively, the Court does not wield the power of the sword, nor does it have the power of the purse, but it has the power to interpret the Constitution …. I think there is a constituency out there that we must convince of the rightness of a decision and the need to communicate with them, the reasons why we acted this way or that way.”

This reminds me of the way the Department of Education reacted to an unprecedented strike by the public school teachers way back in the early 1990s. The strike was clearly a plot against government, the education officials said, and they had asked the law enforcement agencies to hunt down its instigators. I said then that the law enforcement agencies might have trouble hunting down the instigators of the strike because they had no permanent addresses and went by many aliases. Among them, Poverty, Hunger and Injustice. The public school teachers themselves said they had replaced the carabao as the country’s primary beast of burden.

I say the same thing now. The Supreme Court may have trouble identifying the instigators of the smear campaign against it because those instigators have no permanent addresses and go by many aliases. Among them, Common Sense, Basic Decency and Justice. The people themselves see the Court’s decisions as they are and ask why, and see the Court’s decisions as they can be and ask why the hell not.

I am one of those who have disparaged those decisions, and am one constituency that can do with being convinced about their rightness, or indeed why the Supreme Court has acted this way and that way. I would be very interested for example to know what is so right about not asking one of its own justices to resign after he was shown not only to have plagiarized a legal luminary’s opinion about a legal principle but to have perverted that principle to argue against the author’s intent. Who was of course Justice Mariano del Castillo and about a case that had to do with the comfort women. Del Castillo did not just copy Evan Criddle’s argument word for word, an argument that said the state was duty-bound to take up the case of the comfort women, he used it to dismiss the comfort women’s petition for it.

More than that, I would be very interested to know what is so right not just about not asking one of its own to resign for contemptible behavior but going to ask the UP professors who exposed the misdeed to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt. The first was bad enough, the second is just mind-boggling. It adds whole new meanings to the word “supreme,” it adds whole new dimensions to the phrase “curiouser and curiouser.” Can there be a more patent case of injustice?

If this were a lone and solitary case, the Supreme Court might be excused for experiencing temporary insanity, however its scale makes it hard to excuse a court for, let alone a supreme one. But that comes along in the span of less than a year with such Supreme Court decisions as: upholding the midnight appointments, refusing to televise the Ampatuan trial, and aborting the Truth Commission. That is no longer an accident, that is a pattern. That makes the Court itself the very constituent that needs convincing—if at all it wants to listen—about the wrongheadedness of its cause.

What’s so wrong with that is that it betrays the essence of the Court. The business of law, as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, and as the UP College of Law proclaims, is to practice law in the grand manner, and nowhere is that truer than with the Supreme Court. Certainly, the business of law is not to be legalistic, or to find a statute or two to defend a narrow interest, or worse a self-serving one, and nowhere is that truer still than with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may not assert its moral ascendancy over the other branches of government, but it may, and should, assert its moral ascendancy over matters of justice. That is what it is there for: It is not a trier of facts, it is a trier of principle.

Doubtless you can always find a law or two to justify upholding the midnight appointments, refusing to televise the Ampatuan trial, and aborting the Truth Commission. You can also always find a law finding Ferdinand Marcos and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo innocent of plunder. But that is not practicing the law in the grand manner, that is being the devil quoting the Scripture to serve his purposes.

In the end, the fundamental, existential, primordial problem of the Supreme Court today is that it is headed by Renato Corona. The Court has upheld the midnight appointments? Well, he is a midnight appointee himself. The Court will not allow a commission that will show the truth about Arroyo’s lies? Well, if Arroyo is proved illegitimate, then his appointment is void. If Corona had been practicing law in the grand manner, or never mind the law, if he had simply been living life in the grand manner, he should never have accepted the position of chief justice in the midnight hour. Indeed, he should never have lobbied for the position in the witching hour. Does he really need convincing there is something profoundly wrong with being named Chief Justice by the Chief Witch at a Cheap Time?

That does not a Supreme Court make, that only a Lucky Me Supreme makes. My apologies to the mami.

Grand Jury Introduction
Ref. - http://www.the-filipino-people.com/Grand-Jury-Introduction.html

Grand Jury Introduction

A Grand Jury, or “GJ”, is a confidential group of pre-qualified private citizens organized by law, randomly chosen and empowered to directly exercise the sovereign power and authority of the people under the constitution to secretly investigate serious crimes and to file indictment in court against the crime suspect upon its finding of probable cause. It is traditionally composed of 23 members. Once organized, it acts without prior approval from any government authority.

One grand jury shall be organized in each jury district whose jurisdiction shall be coterminous with its congressional district.

A GJ does not need to find evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the crime suspect in order to present its indictment in court. What is important is that it acts as an independent body of the people to decide without fear or favor whether or not to indict a crime suspect, rich or poor, and regardless of the power of the person or public official who is suspected of committing a crime. Its members serve anonymously whose identity is secretly kept from publicity.

The Members of a GJ is required to take the following oath before they start to act on their mission:

"I will support the Constitution of the Philippines and all laws made in pursuance thereof and in conformity therewith, will diligently inquire into, and true presentment make, of all public offenses against the people of the Philippines, committed or triable within this municipality or city as well as within this province, or judicial district, of which the Grand Jury shall have or can obtain legal evidence. I will keep my own counsel, and that of my fellow grand jurors and of the government, and will not, except when required in the due course of judicial proceedings or authorized by statute, disclose the testimony of any witness examined before the Grand Jury, nor anything which I or any other grand juror may have said, nor the manner in which I or any other grand juror may have voted on any matter before the Grand Jury. I will present no person through malice, hatred or ill will, nor leave any unpresented through fear, favor, or affection, or for any reward, or the promise or hope thereof; but in all my presentments I will present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, according to the best of my skill and understanding, so help me God."

GJ members shall be chosen by lottery from among pre-qualified private citizens. Among others, some of their qualifications as required by the proposed jury law are: that they must be college graduates with a diploma but not necessarily with a law degree; and no public official or government employee or his close relative shall qualify for membership in the GJ.

The formation of a GJ shall be accomplished under the supervision of an executive trial judge. The supervising judge, however, has no participatory deciding power in the functions of the GJ. His role is limited only in the formation or organization of this body of citizens and issuing to them the Standard Grand Jury Instruction for their empowerment to act.

The Basic and Source of the
Power of the Grand Jury

The basis and direct source of power of the grand jury is the people's sovereign authority and power in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which states that "Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them."

GJ power to investigate and indict transcends all over the three great branches of the government, namely, the Legislature, the Presidency, and Judiciary, whose powers are derived in the subordinate Articles VI, VII, and VIII of the Philippine Constitution. Question: If the President has been meant to be the sovereign "guy" of the Philippines, why is his authority in Article VII written below the People's sovereign power in Article II?

Under the proposed jury law, the GJ is given the power to indict for Obstruction of Justice against any person or public official no matter how high his position is who shall violate obligatory rules, or court orders, such as, among others, disobedience to a GJ subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, or disobedience to court ordered writ of amparo, writ of habeas corpus, writ of mandamus, or writ of habeas data, even if the violator is the President of the Philippines. The penalty for Obstruction of Justice shall be from 3 to 5 years and 5 to 7 years in some specified cases.

By the creation of the Grand Jury System, justices, judges, and prosecutors as "agents" of justice shall no longer be treated as errand "boys" and "girls" of the the President. The Judiciary shall truly become a "living" co-equal branch in our present so-called equal government branches.

The Ultimate Objective of
Creating the Grand Jury System

The ultimate objective of the GJ is to investigate serious crimes. A serious crime is an offense punishable by imprisonment in jail by one year or more. This body of citizens shall decide by secret ballot so that none of its members shall know each others vote in reaching a decision to indict a suspected crime offender.

The purpose of secret balloting is to prevent coercion by any member upon any of its fellow members in voting so that its decision to indict, or not to indict, the subject of its investigation shall be secured upon the free will (and not on the ill-will) of its members. A member who votes “No” can not be reviled or antagonized by his fellow jurors because he cannot be identified with his "No" vote.

The GJ is never intended as an adversarial forum because it is not a court of law. Making a GJ an adversarial body will merely be duplicating the function of the courts to find whether the subject is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and will add up delays in deciding to file the needed accusation in court against a crime suspect.

All that is required of the Grand Jury is to find probable cause whether a crime has been committed and that the crime suspect is PROBABLY (or by prima facie evidence) guilty of said crime.

Why Corrupt Investigators
Oppose to the Creation of
The Grand Jury System?

Corrupt lawyers, prosecutors, and investigators love the present adversarial system of investigation for some reasons, such as:

To give them the opportunity, time and means to bilk the suspected offender, or to manipulate for the exoneration of a beloved or favorite crime suspect. Lately, we have seen all of these proceedings in the Joc-Joc Bolante and the Ex-Justice Sec Hernandez cases that were conducted by fiscals and the ombuds(wo)man under the command of GMA. Both were hocus-pocus proceedings. We do not want to make the GJ a monster hocus-pocus agent under the control of a grafter-in-chief. We have enough of this corrupt investigation system already. To show off their skills with grand standing investigations for trial by publicity purposes to gain points for promotions in their job or for political fame that usually ends with no indictment of their object of investigation. It’s all exercise in futility. Utmost Secrecy is Required in Grand Jury Investigations The official business of the GJ shall be conducted in a strictly confidential manner and should be accomplished only in a secret investigating room. Absolutely no one is allowed to enter its premises except one witness at a time when setting a witness for questioning. A witness shall not be allowed to have a lawyer to accompany him in the grand jury room. To find the subject in a GJ investigation, it shall require the clerk of court to publish in newspapers or in television the invitation of tipsters or whistle blowers to secretly report suspected serious crime offenders and witnesses with their names and addresses without requiring the tipsters and whistle blowers to disclose their identity. The report forms will be published in newspapers for convenient use by tipsters. Please read the sample form of the "Invitation for Anonymous Tipsters" near the bottom of this page. Tipsters and Whistle Blowers Who are the possible tipsters of crimes? Many. He or she could be a disgruntled or jilted lover of the crime suspect; a partner in crime who has not been paid, or or has been underpaid, of his share in the loot; a government employee or official who has been bypassed for promotion; an honest government employee or official who is already fed up with this business of corruption in his office; a person who is bothered by his conscience on a crime he knows about; an innocent person who is blamed for the crime of another; a close family member who is badly maltreated by the crime offender. Perhaps many more types of offenders you can imagine. Members of the GJ are never required to go out to the field to make their investigation. All their investigation activities are performed in their secret investigation room. In filing a GJ indictment none of its members is required to go to the clerk of court to file its indictment. Instead, it shall summon the Clerk of Court to come to the secret GJ investigation room to accept and stamp the filing of its indictment. Due to the secret manner by which GJs are made to operate, there is no chance that one can see it while at work . This is the reason that you may have not heard about it before. And perhaps today is the first time you have come to know that there is such thing as a Grand Jury. Most Americans, in fact, don’t know about it. How Do Witnesses Find the Grand Jury Investigation Room? A witness who is subpoenaed by the GJ is required to report to the Clerk of Court who shall, in turn, usher, or bring in, to the GJ investigating room the witness for questioning. If there are several witnesses, only one witness at a time shall be allowed and guided by the clerk of court to enter the GJ investigation room. The main reason for the utmost secrecy of GJ investigation is to counter-act the secret ways crimes are committed by offenders. GJ members are assigned with security ID numbers (SIDN) for their official name instead of their true names. The only person who will know the true names of GJ members is the judge who swore them into office and he is required by law to keep the list of the names of the GJ members in a bank vault. A witness is also given an SIDN and his true name is never mentioned when he testifies during investigation or questionings. Even a crime suspect under investigation is likewise assigned with an SIDN so that nobody whomsoever will know who the object of its investigation is. The only time the subject of investigation will know that he has been indicted is at the moment of the execution of an arrest warrant to take him into custody. The GJ law will require that court personnel, the court presiding judge, the sheriff or arresting warrant officer to keep the investigation and indictment strictly confidential until the indictee is already taken actually into custody. Other Purposes for the Secrecy of Grand Jury Investigations The other purposes of the secrecy of GJ investigation are: To protect the members of the grand jury from harm or harassment by powerful vindictive crime offenders and their cohorts or relatives such as the President, Governors, Mayors, Senators and Congressmen, Police and Army officers; and To protect all possible witnesses to the crime from harm and harassment by interested parties or persons to a case; To prevent the crime suspect from becoming fugitive of justice or from escaping arrest; To prevent trial by publicity by grandstanding government investigators like the presidential wannabee senators, and police or army officials who want to gain “good points” (or “pugi” points) for promotion with their so called crime prevention efforts; and To keep the constitutional innocence of the crime suspect from prejudicial judgment by potential jurors in the case. To prevent the suspect or victim or their respective sympathizers from tampering any evidence or of threatening, harassing or harming potential witnesses; To protect both the victim and crime suspect from further counter-attacks or from harming each other or by their followers. To protect judges and government prosecutors and private investigators for doing their jobs honestly from illegal or unethical interference, threats, embarrassments, or physical harm from highly armed or powerful or wealthy elements of society both in and outside of government; and To encourage potential crime informers and whistle blowers to secretly report to the grand jury any criminal wrong doings in their workplace, neighborhood, organizations, and among circle of friends. To prevent Filipino politicians from proclaiming against each other to the whole world that they are all thieves. At list, at this time, there is a tiny number of them who are not. Side Bar Issues There are two constitutional issues that may be raised over the secrecy of grand jury investigation under the Philippine Constitution, namely: The right of a person in a criminal investigation against him to be informed of his two important rights in Article III, Section 12(1); and The right of the accused to be informed of the nature and accusation against him, in Article III, Section 14(2). Article III, Section 12(1) is a protection for a person who IS IN CUSTODY such as when he is arrested while committing, or has committed, a criminal act. The rights there of the person is to be informed of two things: 1. His right to be reminded TO REMAIN SILENT; and 2. His right to be reminded TO RETAIN A LAWYER of his choice and if he cannot afford the government shall provide one for him. If the person is a fugitive from justice, like when he is on flight in an executive jet in going to Singapore or Hong Kong to avoid arrest for committing an electoral dagdag/bawas offense, it would be impossible for an arresting officer, much less a grand jury, to advise him of his Article III, Section 12(1) rights. Shall the authorities then have to call him by cell phone and say: "Hello, Garci, Hello, honey! Please remain silent, okay? You also have the right to hire your own attorney!". What if he does not even answer the phone so that his whereabouts cannot be determined? Does this mean that the Supreme Court will issue an order to disallow the NBI, or the Grand Jury, to gather evidence against this fugitive "Garci", if he is not around? SUSMARYOSEP!!! In GJ investigation, this Body is not dealing with a person in custody. It does not even know in the beginning who that person is. Besides that, none of its member is required to go out of the field to arrest any one. What will the members of the GJ do? Just play mahjong? Article III, Section 14(2) is applicable in a court proceeding and not in a GJ proceeding because it is not a court. Besides that, there is no ACCUSED to speak of in a GJ proceeding. The only time there can be an accused is when he is already indicted in court by the GJ. But once the suspected offender is already indicted, the GJ is already done with him and it has nothing to do with him any further. A Grand Jury is Not a Court. Has No Power To Compel Crime Suspect To Testify In Its Proceedngs The GJ is not a court. It has no power to compel a crime suspect to appear before it to testify in his own behalf. It has no judicial power to detain or arrest a crime suspect. Because it is not a court, no one is allowed to cross-examine during the questioning of a witness inside the GJ investigation room. A person under GJ investigation cannot claim double jeopardy because it has no judicial powers whatsoever. Investigation and indictment is not a judicial power. If a person claims that he is wrongly investigated and indicted by a GJ, he should examine himself about some acts he has performed that has placed him under suspicion of having committed a crime. If he suspects another person has reported him to the GJ for the alleged crime he has committed, he should report that person to the GJ likewise for counter-secret criminal investigation for obstruction of justice. If at least 14 of the 23 members of the GJ finds probable cause that the crime suspect has committed a serious crime the GJ shall then have the authority to indict (or accuse) in court the serious crime suspect. The indictee (or accused suspected crime offender) shall then be required to stand trial before the other “twin” jury known as the Trial Jury in a court of law. Sample of Invitation Notice To Tipsters and Whistle Blowers "Invitation For Anonymous Informants Of Commission of Crimes to the Grand Jury In the ________ Jury (Legislative) District of _______________ EVERY CITIZEN OR PERSON of this Jury (or Legislative) District is invited to submit anonymously to this Grand Jury who has first hand knowledge of the commission of any crime. Write your report in your own dialect or language. If you need more space to write on, write at the back of this paper. No need to type. In crimes of bribery regardless of the rank or position in the government of the crime offender, a private citizen who is the giver or offeror in bribery and who will testify against the recipient of his bribe will be granted immunity from criminal prosecution under Presidential Decree 749. IT IS NOT REQUIRED that you reveal your name but you may, if you wish. Send your report by mail or personally deliver and deposit your report at: "Citizens' Secret Crime Reports Drop Box", Attention: GJ SIDN #- ______Court House Building at (Address) The envelope containing the report should not be more than one-fourth inch thick, 9-1/2 and 13 inches wide. State in your report completely as you can the following information. Do some little investigation, if it is possible but if not, submit whatever information you have or know. No need to type. Simplyhand print the information: 1. Name of the crime offender - ________ 2. Office and address where the offender works or lives - _____________________ 3. Crime he committed ____________. Name of the victim of his crime ______________ The approximate date _________and time _________ of the crime. Place where the crime was committed ______________. If you have seen how the crime was committed,please describe here ______________________________ If the offender is a government official, worker, police, or officer, write his name: _____________________, the name of his office _________________ and address ___________________ If he demanded money, write here how much he asked - P___________pesos. 4. Name of witness _____________________. Address:____________________.(Not you necessarily) 5. Name of witness ____________________. Telephone ___________________ Address: ________________. 6. Why and how did you come to know personally the name or identity of the offender of the crime you arereporting? Please state briefly.________________________________________. Write at the back of this paper any other information you wish to give. Write in any language or dialect you speak and write. Let us put all crime offenders and grafters out of business in our community for good. Thank you. SALAMAT PO SA INYONG TULONG. Cut out this invitation. Fill it up and mail to the address mentioned above. Do your part and this Grand Jury will secretly investigate the crime which will charge the offender in court to stand trial before a trial jury of 12 citizens.-End of form. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Sample of a Grand Jury Subpoena "THE GRAND JURY Of the _______ Jury (Legislative) District of: ____________________________________ Grand Jury Term from ___________ to _______________ "Confidential GRAND JURY SUBPOENA Grand Jury Case Number ________________ STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL In the Matter of the Grand Jury Investigation of: (XXX XXX XXX)Name Withheld per Rule 1, Sec. 7 Of the Rules of the Jury System. (Note: Legible hand-printed information is sufficient to accomplish this form. No need to type) (Certain information are undisclosed in this form pursuant to Rule 1, Sec. 8, of the Jury System) To (Name of witness) ____________________, greetings: You are hereby commanded to appear before the Grand Jury of the ___________Jury (Legislative) District of _________________, on the _______ day of ____________, at the Grand Jury InvestigationRoom (for instruction, report to the Clerk of Court, telephone number _____________) in the Court House (indicate address/city/province where witness will testify) at _____________________ then and there to testify to your knowledge in the case which is before this Grand Jury in which (mark the appropriate boxes): (_)- A certain person named ______________________________ was allegedly (_)killed (_)- seriously injured (_)robbed. (_)subjected to physical torture or abuse (_)Others, specify: _____________ in or at (state location of the crime). (_)- Certain alleged acts of _________________________ have been committed or had been going on during the period, or sometime prior thereto, (indicate inclusive dates) from _______________ through __________________ and allegedly continuing in the office of, or _____________________ Grand Jury Investigation for: (Name and nature of crime is likewise withheld pursuant to Rule 1, Section 7, of the Rules of the Jury System. at, (indicate location or address) ______________________and to bring with you the following, it being necessary to use the same as testimony (write below and itemize by numbering the things, you think, the witness has custody or has physical control of bringing in): _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ (Write at the back of this paper for additional space) This Grand Jury will keep your identity absolutely in secret. Your testimony will not be revealed to the public. You are advised to keep this subpoena strictly confidential. Do not let anybody know about this subpoena. We will provide you with a Secret ID Number (SIDN) to keep your name secretly. In a bribery case, if you are a giver or offeror and private citizen, or non-government employed, this Grand Jury will grant you immunity from prosecution of bribery by authority of Presidential Decree No. 749 if you testify against the recipient of your bribe. With this offer and by this subpoena, if you refuse to testify, this Grand Jury will indict you, instead, for obstruction of justice for violation of Article V, Section 1(u) of the Jury Systems Law with penalty of at least three years to five years of imprisonment according to Article III, Section 1(d)(d-1) of the Jury Systems Law. If a third party prevents, or will prevent, you from testifying, you are obliged to testify and you are required to inform this Grand Jury of the identity and address of such third party regardless of his rank and power in the government or wealth or fame in the community for investigation and indictment bythis Grand Jury for Obstruction of Justice of such third party for violation of PD No. 1829. You must appear personally and alone. Do not send your attorney or agent. You are not allowed to bring in your attorney with you. If your attorney will advise you to refuse to give your testimony without his presence or insist on staying in the grand jury investigation room, this Grand Jury will charge himfor obstruction of justice and this Grand Jury will indict you for contempt as well as for obstruction of justice for refusal to testify in accordance with Rule 1, Section 8 of the Rules of the Jury System. ISSUED BY THIS GRAND JURY THROUGH ITS FOREMAN in the City of _______________, this_______ day of _____________, in the year _________.Recommended for issuance and signed by SIDN _______, Investigating GJ Member. Issued and signed by SIDN _______, Grand Jury Foreman.SIDN signatures validated pursuant to Section 5, Rule 1, of the Rules of the Jury System. Direction for the service of this subpoena: The Grand Jury to The Clerk of Court of the Regional/Municipal Trial Court of ____________, Greeting: You are hereby commanded to designate the server of, and return, the within subpoena according to law. Dated at ____________, this ______ day of _____________, _______ in the year of our Lord. Signed with SIDN# ______, of the Secretary of the Grand JurySIDN signature validated per Section 5, Rule 1, of the Rules of the Jury System PROOF OF SERVICE AND DELIVERY OF SUBPOENA: After being signed by server, the Original of this documentmust be submitted to and kept by the Secretary of the Grand Jury 1. I served this Subpoena by personally delivering a copy thereof to the person named below: (The personal server must fill in by handwriting in the blanks hereunder) (a) Name of Person Served _______________________ (b) Address where served _______________________ (c) Date/Time of Delivery: _____________, 20___ ______ ___.M 2. [_]- Non-Service Return of Subpoena (fill in and sign if server is unable to serve): After due search, careful inquiry, and diligent attempts at the dwelling or usual place of abode or usual place of business or work, I have been unable to make personal delivery of this Subpoena in this District on the person named therein for the following reason/s:, ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ I declare under penalty of perjury that this failure to serve this subpoena has not been induced with conspiracy, bribery, or any form of agreement by this server with the person to be served or with a third party. 3. Information about the Server or Person serving: Print Full Name- __________________________ (Must sign below)Occupation- __________________________________ Address - ____________________________________ , Telephone Number/s, ________________ Fax ____________ I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Philippines that the foregoing information is true and correct Note: Read carefully before signing. Anyone who falsifies a statement in this document shall be liable for indictment of perjury or of obstruction of justice and for punishment by imprisonment. ____________________, 20______ ______________________" (Date Signed) (Signature) - End of form - Sample INVITATION TO APPLY FOR GRAND JURY MEMBERSHIP "THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT Of the Judicial District Within the ________ Jury (Legislative) District of: _____________________________________ Street Address: _____________________________________ City/Province Address: _______________________________ REGISTERED VOTERS within the Legislative District stated above are invited to file SECRETLY in person an application for Membership in the Grand Jury of this Judicial District located at: Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court At (Street address)________________________________________ Municipal/City/Province: __________________________________ Official to accept applications: Clerk of Court or his DeputyFiling period: Month of: (_)-June ________ (_)-December ________Number of Applicants invited: NO LIMIT Number of applicants to be chosen by lottery: 23 citizens to be drawn randomly in court. Application drawn with absent applicant will be deposited back to the Raffle Bin. Term of Duty, temporary: Limited to 6 months - January to June, and from July to December. Compensation per day: P350 in Metro Manila or P300 pesos elsewhere plus reward from part of the fine against the convicted offender who was indicted by the grand jury. Date of Lottery: The first business day of (_)-July __________ (_)-January ___________Hour of lottery to choose grand jury members: To start exactly at 9:00 AM Persons to witness the raffle drawing of applications: Any and/or all Applicants only. Location: The Court Room of ______________________________ At (Street Address) ______________________________________ Municipality/City/Province: ______________________________ QUALIFICATION: (a) Filipino citizen, male or female, at least 21 years old including senior citizen; (b) A registered voter of the jury district where he will serve as a grand juror; (c) possessed with a bachelor's degree of any kind from a reputable college or university which he must show by his diploma in submitting his application who has not been a member of any fraternity, sorority or mista in any college, university or military school; (d) Must accept to serve with token compensation and contingent reward (e) Not an attorney at law; (f) Not an official or employee of any government instrumentality; (g) Not a son or son-in-law or daughter or daughter-in-law of an official or employee of any government instrumentality; (h) Not a father or father-in-law or mother or mother-in-law of an official or employee of any government instrumentality; (i) Not a brother or brother-in-law or sister orsister-in-law of an official or employee of any government instrumentality; (j) Not been convicted of a crime punishable for 6 months or more; (k) Not currently facing a criminal accusation of any kind in court; (l) Not have been a grand jury member in the last 12 months; (m) Not have been retiredas a government official or employee within the last 12 months; (n)) Has not been recommended or assisted by a public official or by anybody in preparing and filing his application for grand jury membership, (o) Not a member or employee of a media, news, or publishing organization; (p) Not a member of a royal clan or ruling family, or datu, bai, or sultan and/or has no claim for membership of such royal clan or ruling family, or datu, bai, or sultan; and (q) He swears under penalty of perjury in his application that he possesses all the qualification and none of the disqualification for membership in the grand jury. "Government instrumentality"includes government owned or quasi-government entities; and (q) He must submit a Clearance Certificate from the National Bureau of Investigation orregional Philippine National Police Office. WARNING: You will be secretly investigated and indicted for perjury or obstruction of justice by a new set of the Grand Jury if you falsely state your qualification in your application. JOB TO PERFORM: Strictly secret investigation of crimes with empowerment under the instruction and supervision by an Executive Judge. Your identity will be held in absolute secrecy. You will be given a code as your secret identity number and your name will be secretly held under the custody of the judge. The judge who will betray or disclose your name will be subject to removal from his position and will be liable for disbarment. This is a sacrificial job of citizens to serve their community to help get rid of lawlessness and government corruption. A Grand Jury is a group of private citizens acting under Grand Jury Instruction to collectively decide independently from government control to investigate serious or capital crimes including government corruption punishable by imprisonment of 12 months or more and to file accusation in court against suspected offenders regardless of their rank and position in the government or in the community upon their finding of probable cause without need of government approval. Grand Jury Instruction and its empowerment will be officiated and issued by an executive judge immediately following the drawing of the names of the newly chosen grand jury members. A Grand Jury action is a sovereign act of the people. Although a grand jury is composed only of 23 private citizens and blindly chosen by lottery, they wield more power than a thousand or more public demonstrators because they can secretly file their accusation in court without government approval by the use of the sovereign power of the people under Article II, Section 1 of the PhilippineConstitution. Since grand jurors are private citizens,vindictive corrupt government officials cannot fire them from their private employment. The job of the grand jury has nothing to do with trial juries. Its function is mainly investigative and prosecutorial. It can investigate as many cases it wishes to andindict as many crime offenders. Once the grand jury has filed its indictment in court, its job is done. Thereafter, each case will be pursued for trial in court by government prosecutors before another jury, called the trial jury of 12 private citizens with supervision by a presiding judge. The judge cannot decide the case and decided only by the trial jury. Applicants for grand jury membership are required to read the Rules of the Jury System as promulgated by the Supreme Court on ____________________. The heirs or next of kind of member of a grand jury who dies in the course of jury duty or arising out of jury duty is entitled to a monetary indemnity of two hundred thousand (P200,000) pesos. If incapacitated only, at least fifty thousand (P50,000) pesos payable to the juror, free of tax. This notice has been posted by the Clerk of Court shown above." - End of Form - = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Sample APPLICATION FOR GRAND JURY MEMBERSHIP “TO THE CLERK OF COURT Grand Jury Judicial District Within the _______ Legislative District of: ______________ Street Address: _____________________________________ City/Province Address: _______________________________ Form GJ- 2 - Application for Grand Jury Membership (Note: Legible hand-printed information is sufficient to accomplish this form. No need to type) GREETINGS: Please enter my name for drawing as an Applicant for membership of the Grand Jury of this Judicial District. I am qualified for grand jury membership as shown below and my [_]-NBI or [_]- PNP Clearance Certificate of the Municipality or City where I reside is herewith [_]-attached: I am: (a) A Filipino citizen, at least 21 years old; (b) A registered voter of this legislative district; (c) Possessed with bachelor's degree of ________________ from (name of school) ________________________________, a reputable college or university, and a copy of my diploma is attached for which I will exhibit its original upon submission of this application and I have not been a member of any fraternity, sorority or mista in any college or university; (d) I will accept to serve with token compensation of 350 pesos in Metro Manila or 300 pesos elsewhere per day and contingent reward; (e) I am not an attorney at law or bar member; (f) I am not an official or employee of any government instrumentality; (g) I am not a son or son-in-law or daughter or daughter-in-law of an official oremployee of any government instrumentality; (h) I am not a father or mother or father-in-law or mother-in-law of a public official or government employee; (i) I am not a brother or brother-in-law or sister or sister-in-law of an official or employee of any government instrumentality; (j) I have not beenconvicted of a crime punishable for 6 months or more; (k) I am not currently facing a criminal accusation of any kind in court; (l) I have not been a grand jury member in the last 12 months; (m) I have not been retired as a government official or employee within the last 12 months; (n) I have not been recommended or assisted by a public official or by anybody in preparing and filing my application for grand jury membership and (o) I am not a member or employee of a media, news, or publishing organization; (p) I am not a member of a royal clan or ruling family, or datu, bai or sultan. I have no claim for membership of such royal clan or ruling family, or datu, bai, or sultan; and (q) I SWEAR UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY OF THE LAWS of the Philippines in my herein application that I possess all the qualification and none of the disqualification for membership in the grand jury. I understand that I will be secretly investigated and indicted for perjury by a new set of the Grand Jury if I falsely state my qualification in my herein application for membership of the Grand Jury. I HAVEFULLY READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE CONTENTS OF THIS APPLICATION. Signed and executed at _____________________________ on ________________, year _______.Signature __________________ Printed Name: __________________ Voter's ID#_______________ Phone __________________ Address ___________________________________________ Leave this blank. For Court's use - > Grand Juror's SIDN# _____"NOTE: Top Secret. You must let no body know in applying for Grand Jury Membership. - End of Form = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = __________

Jury system for the Philippines; essay contest

From: Worldwide-Filipino-Alliance@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Worldwide-Filipino-Alliance@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of berteni causing

Sent: Wednesday, 5 January 2011 9:59 PM

To: undisclosed recipients:

Subject: [Worldwide-Filipino-Alliance] Essay writing tilt on jury system for Filipinos

Press Release

Contact: Berteni “Toto” Cataluña Causing,

totoacusing@yahoo.com,

Cellphone: 09178834254

Landline: 0632-3109144

Essay writing tilt on jury system for Filipinos

All persons, of all political and religious affiliations, rich or poor, professionals or students, retirees or professionally active, are invited to the 2011 Jury Essay Contest sponsored and conducted by Hukuman ng Mamamayan Movement, Inc. (HMMI).

Berteni “Toto” Cataluña Causing, HMMI president, said the theme for the contest is “WILL JURY SYSTEM WORK FOR FILIPINOS?”

The contest is being staged to commemorate the first anniversary of HMMI, founded on January 29, 2010 for the purpose of education all Filipinos about the system of justice where the people themselves are exercising the power to judge and leaving the judges and prosecutors with the work of implementing what they people have spoken.

Entries are expected to tackle concepts, benefits, viability, and capacity of the jury system of justice and on how it can affect the Filipino society.

Essays of at least 1,500 words should be creative in the presentation of how the jury system composed of two bodies can drastically reduce corruption and other crimes, steeply increase obedience to the rule of law, dramatically reduce inequalities and discriminations, substantially provide solid platforms to convince the rebels to lay down arms and give peace a chance, rapidly form good habits and culture as well as raise standards of ethics and morality among all government officials and professionals, among others.

It is required that participants must submit their entries by email bearing their complete names, addresses, cellular phone or other contact numbers, email addresses. They may also submit by snail mail and address their pieces to Toto Causing, HMMI, Ground Floor, National Press Club Bldg., No. 1 Magallanes Drive, Intramuros, Manila.

The criteria shall be as follows: (1) content, 60%; (2) style 20%; (3) grammar & composition 10%; and (4) creativity, 10%.

There are two categories: English and Filipino, provided that those who have submitted entries in one category can no longer submit for another.

Prizes for first 10 placers are yet to be announced. The deadline for submission is January 29, 2011, provided that with respect to entries submitted by mails should be postmarked with the date not later than the deadline date.