Angeles RTC 59 records ‘fastest’ decision on human trafficking

ANGELES CITY—“Justice delayed is justice denied.” So goes the legal maxim as the wheels of justice most often grind exceedingly slow.

But not at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) 59 here which recently made history for being able to render a decision on a human-trafficking case, a conviction, nine months after it was filed.

RTC 59 Presiding Judge Maria Angelica Paras-Quiambao found the two accused, identified as Esmeraldo “Jay” Amurao and Marlyn “Lyn” Valencia, guilty of peddling five minors and a woman to local and foreign customers.

The two felons were arrested on February 25,2013, in front of Nathalia Hotel along Fields Avenue in Barangay Balibago here. They were convicted on November 8, 2013, with the sentence promulgated on November 15, 2013, with five counts of human trafficking on violation of RA 9208 and child abuse or violation of RA 7610.

They were sentenced to life imprisonment.

“Typical human trafficking cases in the Philippines take four years before being decided. I expedited the process because the international standard is less than a year,” Quiambao said.

Prior to this, RTC 59 convicted a woman last September for pushing her 16-year-old niece into prostitution. 

source:  Business Mirror

Drilon laments Sandigan’s slow disposition of cases

MANILA, Philippines - Senate President Franklin Drilon lamented on Thursday that it takes the Sandiganbayan an average of seven years to dispose of a case, from the filing of the information to the promulgation of judgment.

“This dismal rate of disposition reflects the heavily clogged dockets of the court, given that the cases filed before it has multiplied over the years. Such a drawn-out process of litigation is injustice in itself,” Drilon said.

In an effort to help speed up the disposition of cases, the Senate is now taking up a bill that would amend Republic Act 1606 or the law creating the Sandiganbayan.

Senate Bill 2138, which was endorsed by the committee on justice and human rights chaired by Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III, was filed in substitution of two bills filed by Drilon and Sen. Teofisto Guingona III.

In his co-sponsorship speech, Drilon said that the inability to swiftly achieve the objective for which the Sandiganbayan was created could be attributed to its systemic limitations.

R.A. 2138 was enacted in 1978 and Drilon said that it is about time this is amended.

 

“As a result, this public accountability weapon, which used to be tagged as a frontrunner in defeating corruption, now occupies the last spot in the race toward good governance,” Drilon said.

“If we are to outrun graft and corruption, it is imperative that we resuscitate and recondition our existing prosecutorial and adjudicatory institutions against this opponent,” he said.

Drilon said that three innovations would be introduced in the Sandiganbayan Law that would help bring about a faster disposition of cases.

The first innovation under the measure is what was described as the “justice-designate” system, which would involve the amendment of Section 5 of the Sandiganbayan Charter that currently requires the presence of all three members of a division before a case could be heard.

Drilon said the individual members of a division would be allowed to hear and receive evidence, and resolve incidents arising during such session for the day, in behalf of the division to which he or she belongs.

To further expedite the proceedings, the measure likewise allows session to be held upon the attendance of two members of a division, instead of all three, as presently required.

“Nevertheless, consistent with the principle of collegiality, all three members of the division shall be required to deliberate and decide the case, after all pieces of evidence have been presented. This new concept is expected to accelerate the pace of case disposition, with minimal cost to the government,” Drilon said.

Another provision introduced in the bill involves the streamlining of the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction, which would enable the court to concentrate its resources in resolving the most significant cases filed against public officials.

An amendment to Section 4 of the law was introduced that would lead to the transferring of jurisdiction over cases that are classified as “minor” to the regional trial courts, which Drilon said “have the sufficient capability and competence to handle these cases.”

Minor cases pertain to those that do not allege any damage or bribe arising from the same or closely related transactions or acts not exceeding P1 million.

Drilon said around 60 percent of cases filed before the Sandiganbayan constitute minor cases.

source:  Philippine Star

Petition to DOJ

Dear PAO,
I filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the Resolution of the fiscal recommending the filing of serious physical injuries against me. Do I still have a remedy if my motion is not granted? Does your office give assistance to this kind of problem?
ML

Dear ML,

Resolutions of the prosecutors on the preliminary investigation of criminal complaint filed before them may be appealed to the Secretary of Justice. If your Motion for Reconsideration is denied, you may appeal the same by filing a verified petition for review before the Office of the Secretary of Justice and furnishing copies thereof to the adverse party and the Prosecutor’s Office which issued the resolution (Section 4, NPS Rule on Appeal). Your petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the resolution denying your motion for reconsideration (Section 3, NPS Rule on Appeal).

The petition shall contain or state the following: (a) the names and addresses of the parties; (b) the investigation slip number (I.S. No.) and criminal case number, if any, and title of the case, including the offense charged in the complaint; (c) the venue of the preliminary investigation; (d) the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time; (e) a clear and concise statement of the facts, the assignment of errors, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal; and (f) proof of service of a copy of the petition to the adverse party and the Prosecution Office concerned. The petition shall be accompanied by legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the resolution appealed from together with legible true copies of the complaint, affidavits/sworn statements and other evidence submitted by the parties during the preliminary investigation/ reinvestigation. If an information has been filed in court pursuant to the appealed resolution, a copy of the Motion to Defer proceedings filed in court must also accompany the petition (Section 5, NPS Rule on Appeal).

As to your second question, the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) gives assistance to qualified clients in civil, criminal, labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases. To be qualified, the prospective client shall pass both the merit and indigency tests. A case shall be considered meritorious, if an assessment of the law and evidence on hand, discloses that the legal services of the office will assist, or be in aid of, or in the furtherance of justice, taking into consideration the interests of the party and those of society. In criminal cases, the accused enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence until the contrary is proven, hence, cases of defendants in criminal actions are considered meritorious (Section 2, PAO Operations Manual). On the other hand, the following are considered indigent persons: 1) If residing in Metro Manila, whose net income does not exceed P14,000.00 a month; 2) If residing in other cities, whose net income does not exceed P13,000.00 a month; and 3) If residing in all other places, whose net income does not exceed P12,000.00 a month (Section 3, PAO Operations Manual).

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

source:  Manila Times' Column of Atty Persida Acosta

Towards a paperless judiciary

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS in digital and communications technology and the emergence of the information superhighway have paved the way for the proliferation of paperless transactions and activities undertaken in the virtual environment. The enactment of Republic Act No. 8792, or the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, provided a framework which sought to address legal concerns with respect to electronic documents and transactions. For the judiciary’s part, which is generally perceived as the more “conservative” or “traditional” branch of government, the Philippine Supreme Court was quick to embrace the challenges posed by the information superhighway and promulgated, in August 2001, the Rules of Electronic Evidence. At that time, the Philippines was considered by several reputable international study groups and analysts as one of the more e-ready countries in terms of providing secure legal framework for electronic or paperless transactions.

To date, our Supreme Court continues to actively seek and institute reforms in the judiciary, particularly in the practice of law, not only to cope with our fast-paced borderless world but to address other broader contemporary issues. On Nov. 13, 2012, the Supreme Court En Banc signed A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC, otherwise known as the Efficient Use of Paper Rule (“EUPR”). The said rule took effect on Jan. 1, 2013. As stated in the Whereas clauses of the EUPR, the primary intention of the Supreme Court in promulgating this rule is to reinforce the rule of the judiciary to save the environment by minimizing the “judicial system’s use of excessive quantities of costly paper, save our forests, avoid landslides, and mitigate the worsening effects of climate change.” It is very rare that we see the foregoing words in a procedural rule promulgated by none other that the country’s highest judicial body actively advocating an environmental cause. This notwithstanding, the underlying intent is to provide more efficient services, as the EUPR is seen to contribute to a more speedy judicial process.

The scope of application of the EUPR covers all courts and quasi-judicial bodies under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court. Essentially, the EUPR prescribes the format, style, and number of copies of pleadings/documents to be filed with the courts and tribunals, as well as all documents issued by the latter (including their reports and transcript of stenographic notes or TSNs). Now, all pleadings/documents filed with the courts must be single-spaced, with spacing of 1 space in between paragraphs, use a font size of 14, and written on a long bond white paper (8.5” by 13”). The foregoing format is also prescribed for all documents prepared and issued by the courts. The EUPR also prescribes that the margins for court-bound documents must be 1.5” on the side, 1.2” on the upper side, and 1.0” on both the right and lower portions. With respect to the number of copies to be filed, the rule provides the following:

(a) Supreme Court En Banc one original copy (properly marked as such) and 10 additional copies, with two sets of annexes (one attached to the original copy and the other as extra copy);

(b) Supreme Court Division -- one original copy (properly marked as such) and four additional copies, with two sets of annexes (one attached to the original copy and the other as extra copy);

(c) Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan -- one original copy (properly marked as such) and two additional copies with annexes;

(d) Court of Tax Appeals -- one original copy (properly marked as such) and two additional copies with annexes. If filed with the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc, one has to submit six more additional copies with annexes on top of the foregoing requirement;

(e) Other courts -- one original copy (properly marked as such) with stated annexes attached to it.

The foregoing requirement on the number of copies significantly reduces the volume of paper documents submitted. In addition to this and recognizing the increasing role technology plays in streamlining procedures and providing for more efficient means of doing things, the EUPR requires that for respect to pleadings/documents filed with the Supreme Court, parties must file soft copies of the pleading or motion and their annexes (annexes required under the EUPR to be in a PDF format) either by e-mail or CD. This additional submission requirement is on a voluntary basis until 01 October 2013. After Oct. 1, 2013, it will be compulsory.

For copies of pleadings/documents served by one party to an adverse party, the serving party need not attach copies of annexes to the pleadings which, based on the records of the court, the adverse party already has in his possession. However, should the adverse party request a set of annexes actually filed with the court, the party who filed the paper should comply with the request within five days from receipt thereof.

It is expected that the EUPR will change the landscape of legal practice in the Philippines. It somehow paves the way towards a paperless system of filing and serving court documents and pleadings in the judiciary. Currently, there are initiatives in the Supreme Court to establish a framework that will allow the electronic filing and service of pleadings and other documents, similar to the current system in other sophisticated jurisdictions such as Singapore. Moreover, there are efforts to promulgate rules on electronic notarization to further facilitate commercial and non-commercial transactions that utilize paperless or electronic documents. Various committees and technical working groups have been put in place to, among others, study the feasibility and implementation of these projects, as well as crafting procedures and rules that are responsive to the requirements of various judicial institutions and stakeholders.

(The author is a partner of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices. He can be contacted at 830-8000 or through jmgaba@accralaw.com. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. This article is for general informational and educational purposes only and not offered as and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion).

source:  Businessworld

SC’s new e-Court system uses PH-developed software

 The newly launched e-Court system of the Supreme Court is using a homegrown solution from local software house Ideyatech Inc., a first step by the judiciary towards automating court processes and to go paperless.

The e-Court system, which is being funded by the USAID, is an electronic end-to-end case management system that organizes cases digitally, from filing of complaints to resolution and enforcement.

Ideyatech specializes on Java technology and is based in Ortigas, Pasig City. It has provided software services for the Philippine legal sector, including the Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, Office of the Solicitor General, as well as other government agencies such the Department of Agrarian Reform.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno led the launch of the project last June 14 in Quezon City where the e-Court is being piloted. “We can only deliver justice if the systems that will deliver justice are abled… and the e-Court system is a step in the right direction,” Sereno said.

The e-Court system allows the capture of basic case information, as well as the tracking and monitoring of cases, down to the issuance of notices of decision and writs of execution.

It allows automatic computation of court fees and issues official receipts, corresponding to a generated docket number for new cases. It also allows electronic raffling or assigning of cases which removes human intervention and prevents assumptions of rigging of cases.

A calendar of hearings is also a feature of the system that allows judges to view happenings on a daily, weekly, up to an annual basis.

The public can also search for cases according to case number, category, or title, and allows monitoring of cases in terms of history or status. The e-Court can show the status of active and pending cases, as well as a notice of overstaying detainees that efficiently reminds the concerned judge or legal entity.

Sereno said that the system is open for further innovation, including possibly serving court notices digitally that can be received by lawyers and litigation officers, archiving and retrieval, and the use of electronic forms that streamline administrative processes.

The project will be pilot-tested in regional trial courts in Quezon City which holds majority of the cases in the entire Metro Manila. SC Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro, chairperson of the Computerization and Library Committee, said this pilot testing will hopefully serve as a model when SC eventually rolls out the project in all other regions in the country.

“Working with government agencies on automation projects could be very daunting. Our team, however, is consistent in addressing the software requirements of our clients in a timely and orderly manner. Our efforts result not only to successful system implementations, but also ultimately to contribute to the country’s growth, which is priceless for us,” Tan said.

source:  Newsbytes

A call for judicial reforms

The business sector is obviously very happy with the performance of the P-Noy government. A letter to the President by the 13 biggest business groups in the country said:

“Since 2010, the Philippines has seen a resurgence in confidence, both in economic terms and in terms of governance, led by your administration’s reforms towards a more transparent, fair and inclusive nation. The impressive economic growth rates, achievement of investment grade ratings, improving national competitiveness, and a palpable optimism and vigilance against corruption within the people are testaments to your leadership and the management of your Cabinet.”

This is not surprising considering that in the last three years, many businesses have had record profits, the stock market index has dramatically gone up, crony capitalism eliminated and investments — domestic and foreign — have been increasing every year.

The London Financial Times calls the Philippines the fastest growing economy in Asia and a rejuvenated manufacturing sector is one of the prime reasons.

The letter of the Philippine Business Groups includes proposed measures for the remainder of the President’s term. One proposal I strongly support is reforming the judicial system. The letter continues: “Furthermore, concerns surrounding the seemingly arbitrary issuances and interpretations and the slow disposition of cases may create a perception of distrust in our legal processes.”

One of the recommendations is to “provide an efficient mechanism to aggressively investigate judges suspected of corruption and pursue legal and administrative actions once offense is established.”

I am aware that the Judiciary is supposed to be a separate but equal branch of government together with the Executive and Legislative branches. But it is not clear who is the point person in the Judiciary for ensuring action against corruption.

For example, I am aware that BIR Commissioner Kim Henares has filed more than 160 tax evasion cases and is actively pursuing other tax evaders. I am sure that is the reason why there is a concerted “demolition” job to try and destroy her reputation. This is one proof that she is doing an effective job.

Leila de Lima has also vigorously prosecuted criminal cases including the oil smuggling case against Phoenix Petroleum. This effort was, however, blocked by a  TRO issued by three Court of Appeals Justices: Justices Romeo Barza, Francisco Acosta, and Angelita Gacutan.

I am not a lawyer but in my own analysis of the judicial system, it seems to me there is a mechanism in place for investigating judges and pursuing appropriate actions. In the Guidelines on the Functions of the Court Administrator, it states that among the “work attended to by the Office of the Court Administrator” is “Judicial discipline of lower court justices, judges and personnel.” Another provision states that “The Court thus acts through the Court Administrators in the exercise of its administrative functions.”

The Court Administrator is Jose Midas Marquez.  His profile says that the “Supreme Court Justices, in an unprecedented move, unanimously appointed him the youngest ever Court Administrator with the rank of Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals. “

But the most interesting sentence in the profile says, “He [Midas Marquez] now has supervision over all 2,000 justices of the 3rd level courts and judges and 27,000 court personnel across the country, many of them twice his age.”

This young man’s position sounds extremely powerful and apparently he controls the mechanism to impose “judicial discipline.” Perhaps, this is the person we can hold accountable for cleansing the Judiciary. Unless, of course, Court Administrator Marquez believes that the level of corruption in the Judiciary is minimal and not a national concern.

The last time I saw and heard the Hon. Midas Marquez on television, he was reliving the impeachment trial of ex-Supreme Court Chief Justice Corona.  I was hoping he would discuss their own version of an anti-corruption initiative in the Judiciary instead.

If the Judiciary cannot reform itself, then there is a clear need for the Executive and Legislative branches, hopefully with the cooperation of the Judicial branch, to follow the proposal of the Business Groups “to institute reforms that would address issues of competence and efficiency in the justice system.”

The Business Groups’ letter also talked about rationalizing incentive-giving laws to further spur investments in sectors that would generate jobs. This is a very laudable proposal. The business sector is not only the primary engine of economic growth but also the generator of sustainable employment.

The World Bank study concludes that two-thirds of the fall in poverty was due to economic growth and one third  from greater income equality. More equal countries cut poverty further and faster than unequal ones. Job generation is clearly the first major step to income equality.

Unfortunately, the letter did not contain any specific measures or recommendations for job generation. Business, even those planning to expand, will not necessarily create more jobs. One of the primary goals of business is to improve productivity which means lowering the cost of operations. This actually means looking for ways to employ less people and save on labor costs.

But if business takes a long term and macroenvironmental view, creating more jobs leads to higher demand which leads to higher revenues. Businessmen will normally agree with this holistic view and still base their decisions on their short term, profit maximizing goal. But the issue of creating more jobs in the private sector demands immediate attention by both business and the government.

A fair and prosperous Philippine society built on the rule of law requires weeding out systemic corruption in all branches of government, including the Judiciary. It also requires a society that will give everyone equal opportunity for finding a decent job and being able to live a life of human dignity.

*      *      *

E-mail: elfrencruz@gmail.com

BREAKTHROUGH By Elfren S. Cruz (The Philippine Star)

One cannot participate in trial if held in default by court

Dear PAO,
 
A case was filed against me for collection of sum of money before a court in Metro Manila. Out of disbelief that this person filed a case against me, I did not appear in the hearings scheduled in the letter sent to me by the court. I then received notice that I was being held in default, and that I cannot participate in the proceedings. I think this is unfair. What does being in default mean? What should I do? Thank you!
 
Ton-ton

Dear Ton-ton,
 
Rule 9, Section 3 of our Rules of Court states that when a court declares you in default, it means that you failed to answer the complaint within the time allowed by the court. 

The other party filed a motion with notice to you to declare you in default. When the court finds that you are in fact in default, it will proceed to render judgment granting the reliefs it is seeking from the court or renders judgment after the claimant submits evidence.

An order of default will subject the other party held in default to notice of subsequent proceedings, but he cannot take part in the trial.

It may seem unfair at first, but the law assumes that the notice which the respondent receives from the court, called a summons, is sufficient notification for the respondent to be aware that a case has been filed against him. The notice from the court requiring the respondent to answer the complaint within a certain period of time is enough for him to be prudent in preparing his own response to the complaint. If no answer is submitted, despite these notices, the respondent loses his opportunity to answer, as it appears that he has no interest in the outcome of the case.

Whatever your reason may be, Rule 9, Section 3(b) states that if you are declared in default, you may, at any time after notice and before judgment, file a motion to set aside the order of default. You must show to the court that your failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence and that you have a meritorious defense.
We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.

Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

source:  Manila Times' Column of Atty. Persida Acosta