You are on page 1of 7

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

ATENEO STUDENT JUDICIAL COURT Ateneo de Manila University - Loyola Schools Barangay Loyola Heights, Quezon City

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS OF THE LOYOLA SCHOOLS Petitioner represented by CHIEF PROSECUTOR CLYDE MARAMBA, PROSECUTORS BEATRIZ BEATO, ROBERT MARI IBAY, JULIA DARYL LENARZ, MAGDALENA MARIE PINEDA, JIEGO MICHAEL TANCHANCO, CRISTINE MARIE VILLARUEL, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR JAYVY GAMBOA, AND DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT PATRICK JOSEPH NG

Case No. 2013-001

Promulgated: December 7, 2013

versus

SOSS SECRETARY-TREASURER MARVIN LAGONERA Respondent x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x TO: Mr. Andre Miko Alazas, Lead Counsel for Mr. Lagonera (Respondent) CC: Mr. Clyde Maramba, Chief Prosecutor

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

IN RE: Consolidated Motion for a Bill of Particulars and for an Extension of the Deadline for Reply and/or Filing of Motions ATENEO STUDENT JUDICIAL COURT DECISION 12072013
The facts of the case are as follows: On 2 December 2013, the Ateneo Student Judicial Court (hereinafter referred to as the Court for brevity), received a consolidated impeachment complaint from Mr. Clyde Maramba, Chief Prosecutor, et al. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners, containing six (6) impeachment charges against Mr. Marvin Lagonera, SOSS Secretary-Treasurer (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent). Article XIII Section 10a of the 2005 Constitution of the Undergraduate Students of the Ateneo de Manila Loyola Schools (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) states:
Section 10. Procedures on Accountability (a) The Student Judicial Court shall order investigations of cases of impeachment and recall at its own discretion or on the basis of written complaints from any member of the student body within seven regular school days. The JC shall then decide whether to initiate impeachment or recall proceedings or not. Should the Student Judicial Court fail to meet this deadline, complaints shall be automatically dismissed. (emphasis ours)

implying that the Court is given until 11 December 2013 (counting Faculty Day, 6 December 2013 as a school holiday and Saturday, 7 December 2013 as a regular school day) to render a decision on acceptance or rejection of the consolidated impeachment complaint based on its judicial merits. On 4 December 2013, a summons notifying the Respondent of the consolidated impeachment complaint and a copy of the said complaint were officially delivered to the Respondent at 3:20 pm in Ricardo and Dr. Rosita Leong Hall, Room 407, as attested by the Affidavit of Service submitted by Clerk-of-Court Paolo Sta. Isabel. Section 5.2.1 of the 2007 Rules of Court state that:
5.2.1 Acceptance of Petition If the Student Judicial Court decides to accept the petition, the hearing on the petition, if the court decides to conduct a hearing, shall be held no later than seven days after the said decision. Before coming to a decision of whether to accept the petition for review or consideration, the court shall inform the parties named and from the time the parties are informed, three days are to be given for any motions to the court. (emphasis ours)

implying that the Respondent is given three days (72 hours) from official receipt of the complaint to file a reply and/or motions, that is to say until 7 December 2013 at 3:20 pm. The certified copies of the Appendices and Affidavits cited in footnotes throughout the consolidated impeachment complaint were not given to the Respondent. 2

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

On 6 December 2013, the Court received a consolidated motion for a Bill of Particulars and an Extension of the Deadline for Reply and/or Filing of Motions filed by Mr. Andre Miko Alazas, lead counsel for the Respondent. The said consolidated motion prays for an extension of the deadline for at least five (5) days for the filing of replies and other motions regarding the complaints in order to give the Respondent and his counsel ample time to prepare [their] defense, given the expected high volume of documents pertaining to the case. The consolidated motion also prays that all documents pertaining to all parts of the case, such as, but not limited to, affidavits (including those submitted to the prosecutors but not cited in the main complaints), appendices, the Rules of Court of the Student Judicial Court, official documents used by the prosecution (such as its own copy of the 2005 Sanggunian Constitution, as well as its own copy of other public documents used in the main complaints), and evidence be furnished to him [the Respondent] through his counsel. The case before us concerns only the Consolidated Motion for a Bill of Particulars and an Extension of the Deadline for Reply and/or Filing of Motions, filed by the Respondents lead counsel, where he requests that a copy of all the documents pertinent to the case be given to the Respondent, and that an extension of the deadline for filing replies and/or motions be granted on the grounds of giving the Respondent more time to prepare for his defense and examine the documents expected to be given to them. On the matter concerning the request for all documents pertinent to the case, and in the spirit of transparency and fairness, it is the decision of the Court to furnish the Respondent soft copies of the following items in possession of the Court: The 2005 Constitution of the Undergraduate Students of the Ateneo de Manila Loyola Schools, Annotated (Constitution) The 2007 Rules of Court (RoC) The 2011 Ateneo Student Judicial Court Code of Internal Procedures (SJC CIP) The 2013 Sanggunian Central Board Code of Internal Procedures (CB CIP) Affidavit of Service submitted by Paolo Sta. Isabel, Clerk-of-Court

The Court, however, cannot furnish some of the documents cited as evidence in the consolidated impeachment complaint, as is explained infra. The consolidated motion prayed for a Bill of Particulars. The motion asserts that the Respondent has the right to read the allegations against him and the basis thereof in full, in accordance with his right to due process. Arguing that the right to read the allegations against the Respondent and the basis thereof in full necessarily means receiving all documents cited as evidence in footnotes and appendices (evidence including but not limited to affidavits), the motion cites the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines, in GR. No. 149375, Mercado vs. People, 3

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

The substance of the Footnote may not be the ratio decidendi of the case, but it still constitutes an important part of the decision since it enunciates a fundamental procedural rule in the conduct of appeals. That this rule is stated in a Footnote to a decision is of no consequence as it is merely a matter of style (emphasis ours).1

The Court agrees that the Respondent has the right to read the allegations against him and the basis thereof in full, in accordance with his right to due process. However, upon closer examination of GR. No. 149375, Mercado vs. People, the Court discovered that the Supreme Court upheld the substance of documents cited in footnotes because these documents referred to a past decision, not items of evidence. The Court similarly quotes Mercado vs. People:
The Court of Appeals in its assailed resolution relied on People v. Omotoy where the Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty of arson and sentenced him to imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years of prision mayor maximum, as minimum, to reclusion perpetua. The case reached this Court on automatic appeal. In Footnote 16 of the decision, it was observed - ... We see no error by the appellate court in relying on a Footnote in Omotoy to affirm the conviction of the accused.2

It is very clear then that the Supreme Court decision cited by the consolidated motion was in the context of upholding use of the footnote of a previous decision in order to support a petition. Citing this Supreme Court case then does not establish that simply because certain material was cited in footnotes in a petition, the Respondent has the right to demand items of evidence cited in footnotes at the pre-trial stage. While footnotes are, as the Supreme Court says, an important part of the decision since it enunciates a fundamental procedural rule in the conduct of appeals,3 (emphasis ours), the citation was meant to uphold a previous decision and not to direct the reader to items of evidence that the Respondent arguably cannot legally demand, as the Court elucidates infra. The motion prayed for a Bill of Particulars in order to satisfy the Respondents right to read the allegations against him and the basis thereof in full. As stated supra, the Court upholds this right. However, it is the opinion of the Court that this right does not extend to serving the Respondent a Bill of Particulars which the motion argues must include all pieces of evidence. The Court quotes the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 106527, Virata vs. Sandigandbayan and People, for the definition and purpose of the Bill of Particulars:
1. REMEDIAL LAW; BILL OF PARTICULARS; PURPOSE. As this Court enunciated in Tan vs. Sandiganbayan: "It is the office or function, as well as the object or purpose, of a bill of particulars to amplify or limit a pleading, specify more minutely and particularly a claim or defense set up and pleaded in general terms, give information, not contained in the pleading, to the opposite party and the court as to the precise nature, character, scope, and extent of the cause of action or defense relied on by the pleader, and apprise the opposite party of the case which
1 2

G.R. No. 149375, November 26, 2002 Ibid. 3 Ibid.

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

he has to meet, to the end that the proof at the trial may be limited to the matters specified, and in order that surprise at, and needless preparation for, the trial may be avoided, and that the opposite party may be aided in framing his answering pleading and preparing for trial. It has also been stated that it is the function or purpose of a bill of particulars to define, clarify, particularize, and limit or circumscribe the issues in the case, to expedite the trial, and assist the court. A general function or purpose of a bill of particulars is to prevent injustice or do justice in the case when that cannot be accomplished without the aid of such a bill. It is not the office of a bill of particulars to supply material allegations necessary to the validity of a pleading , or to change a cause of action or defense stated in the pleading, or to state a cause of action or defense other than the one stated. Also it is not the office or function, or a proper object, of a bill of particulars to set forth the pleader's theory of his cause of action or a rule of evidence on which he intends to rely, or to furnish evidential information whether such information consists of evidence which the pleader proposes to introduce or of facts which constitute a defense or offset for the other party or which will enable the opposite party to establish an affirmative defense not yet pleaded."4 (emphasis ours)

The Court believes that the consolidated impeachment complaint filed by the Petitioners, a comprehensive 42-page document, and delivered to the Respondent as stated in the facts supra, satisfies the Respondents right to know the full scope of all the allegations lodged against him. The said complaint contains in very specific terms the six (6) impeachment charges, detailed accounts of the accusations against him, and the legal and evidentiary bases of these charges and accusations, respectively. The Respondent therefore should already know the precise nature, character, scope, and extent of the cause of action5 without being served a Bill of Particulars, which ought not contain the actual pieces of evidence mentioned in the complaint. Compelling examination of evidence, in an absolute sense, and in administrative cases, can only occur in the context of a trial. The Bill of Particulars is meant to fully and truthfully inform the Respondent of the charges and accusations he is facing (since it is unfair to be investigated for and forced to respond to a vague, incomplete, baseless, or forcibly withheld official complaint), not to reveal the Petitioners motives or strategy for pleading. The Court therefore rules out the possibility of compelling the Petitioners to submit the pieces of evidence before a trial (if the consolidated complaint is accepted and the Court decides to hold a trial), unless the Petitioners themselves consent to this. Moreover, the Court itself has not officially received the evidence from the Petitioners. The evidence is expected to be presented for examination based on admissibility and merit during a trial, if the Court decides to accept the complaint and have a trial. The additional documents cited as evidence remain the property of the Petitioners, who are at full liberty to do what they wish with the evidence before presenting them to Court. WHEREFORE, on the matter concerning the request for all documents pertinent to the case, the Court will deliver all documents mentioned supra EXCEPT a Bill of Particulars, whose function has been fulfilled sufficiently by the consolidated impeachment complaint, and all documents mentioned in the footnotes thereof of evidentiary nature (e.g. affidavits, photos, etc.).

4 5

G.R. No. 106527, April 6, 1993 Ibid.

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

On the matter concerning the request for extension of the deadline for the filing of replies and motions for at least five (5) days, the Court cannot grant this, as is explained infra. As stated in the facts supra, the Article XIII Section 10a of the Constitution provides that the Student Judicial Court shall order investigations of cases of impeachment and recall at its own discretion or on the basis of written complaints from any member of the student body within seven regular school days,6 (emphasis ours), meaning that acceptance or rejection of the consolidated impeachment complaint must be made on or before 11 December 2013. Moreover, Section 5.2.1 of the Rules of Court state that before coming to a decision of whether to accept the petition for review or consideration, the court shall inform the parties named and from the time the parties are informed, three days are to be given for any motions to the court,7 (emphasis ours), meaning that responses to the petition as well as motions must be given before the Courts ruling on the petition on 11 December 2013. And by enforcing the three-day (72-hour) time period, the real deadline must come even before this, at 7 December 2013. By extending the deadline for filing responses and/or motions by at least five (5) days, meaning on or before 12 December 2013, this would in effect be violating the Constitution. Moreover, since the motion to extend the deadline by five (5) days is premised on the need to examine the expected high volume of documents pertinent to the case, and in light of the Respondent not being served a Bill of Particulars with the expected high volume of documents pertinent to the case, the bulk of which are evidentiary in nature, it is the opinion of the Court that the Respondent has no need for a five (5) day extension. HOWEVER, in the spirit of fairness, and pursuant to Section 8 of the Rules of Court, which states:
8 Amendments or Suspension of Rules Procedure The Student Judicial Court Procedural Rules may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the Magistrates following a two week reading period. When questioned or in cases of urgency, any item of the SJC Procedural Rules may be suspended for any period of time not to exceed a semester by a two-thirds vote of the Magistrates, (emphasis ours)

the Court has decided, by unanimous vote of the Magistrates, to suspend part of Section 5.2.1 of the Rules of Court, specifically the provision stipulating a three-day period for filing a response to the petition and/or motions, but not the provision stating that the said period must occur before acceptance or rejection of the petition. Due to the fact that in an unprecedented move, a consolidated impeachment complaint with a total of six (6) charges has been filed, and that this complaint is elaborated in a 42-page document, the Court understands that the Respondent requires more time to examine the petition. Therefore, the Court believes that is a just and equitable decision to grant the Respondent an extension of the deadline for filing a response and/or motions by two days or forty-eight (48) hours. This means that the deadline for filing such has been moved from 7 December 2013, 3:20 pm, to 9 December 2013, 3:20 pm.

6 7

The 2005 Constitution of the Undergraduate Students of the Ateneo de Manila Loyola Schools 2007 Ateneo Student Judicial Court Rules of Court

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT


THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

WHEREFORE, the Court rules that granting a five-day extension for the period of filing a response and/or complaints is unconstitutional and unnecessary in this scenario. However, by suspending a part of the Rules of Court, the Court hereby grants the Respondent a two-day or 48-hour extension to the deadline for filing such. The respondent must be able to do so, if he wishes to do so, on or before 9 December 2013, 3:20 pm. SO ORDERED.

Roy Lambert Guerra, Chief Magistrate Leo Francis Abot, Magistrate for Internal Affairs Administration Danielle Joanna Gaite, Magistrate for Audit Lorenzo Pepito, Magistrate for Human Resources Ryan Gregory Nicolas, Magistrate for External Affairs Aldwin Segismundo, Magistrate for Project and Operations Management

You might also like