ZENAIDA M. LIMBONA, G.R. No. 173290
Petitioner,
Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr.,
Chico-Nazario,
and
Nachura, JJ.
HON. JUDGE RALPH S. LEE of
Br. 83, MAYOR ANWAR BERUA
BALINDONG,
LT. COL. JALANDONI
COTA,
MAYOR AMER ODEN Promulgated:
BALINDONG
& ALI BALINDONG,
Respondents.
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
In
the assailed November 20, 2006 Decision, this Court found respondents guilty of
indirect contempt and fined them P5,000.00 each for defying the Court’s
Decision in G.R. No. 159962 dated December 16, 2004.
In
G.R. No. 159962, this Court (through Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario
along with now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Associate Justices Alicia Austria-Martinez
and Dante O. Tinga) affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining
the August 4, 1999 Resolution of the Department of Justice directing the filing
of two informations for murder with attempted murder, two informations for
frustrated murder and an information for attempted murder against herein
private respondents. The Court also
ordered the Regional Trial Court to issue warrants of arrest against private
respondents whose Motion for Reconsideration was denied while their Urgent Motion
for Clarification was ordered expunged from the records. They were also admonished to desist from
filing further pleadings under pain of contempt. The decision in G.R. No. 159962 became final
and executory on
Notwithstanding
finality of the decision, private respondents filed before the trial court a
Motion for Determination of Probable Cause and/or Motion to Dismiss the Case
and Quash Warrant of Arrest which was denied by Judge Marie Christine A. Jacob
on
In
the now assailed Decision, we found Judge Lee and private respondents guilty of
indirect contempt and fined them P5,000.00 each.
In
finding them guilty of indirect contempt, we held that with the finality of the
Court’s Decision in G.R. No. 159962, all issues relative to the determination
of the proper offenses with which to charge the private respondents had already
been laid to rest. Thus, in continuing
to file pleadings and motions purportedly seeking clarification of the proper
charges against them, private respondents not only succeeded in delaying the
conduct of the trial but also stubbornly refused to abide by this Court’s
pronouncement on issues already resolved with finality. On the other hand, Judge Lee is found guilty
of indirect contempt because by downgrading the offenses charged, he in effect
substituted the final and executory pronouncement of no less than this Court
with his own.
The
instant Motion for Reconsideration in the guise of a Motion for Clarification
is another ploy to delay the trial of the case.
Despite the finality of G.R. No. 159962 where the Court categorically
declared that the proper charges to file against them are two informations for
murder with attempted murder, two informations for frustrated murder and one
information for attempted murder, private respondents insist this pronouncement
is flawed and does not bind the trial court.
They also argue that respondent judge did not err in downgrading the
offenses as the records of the case allegedly prove only the crimes of
frustrated homicide and attempted homicide.
The
motion is not impressed with merit.
The
issues raised herein are the same issues raised in the petition and squarely
discussed in the assailed Decision. It
could not be any clearer that in G.R. No. 159962, the Court has already
declared that the proper informations to be filed against private respondents
are murder, frustrated murder and attempted murder and not homicide. Entry of judgment has been made in due course
in G.R. No. 159962. The Court has
already spoken with finality, hence it should no longer be disturbed or
modified.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant motion
for reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above resolution were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third
Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Resolution were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice