You are on page 1of 2

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

Public Information Office


PRESS BRIEFING 10 December 2013 The Supreme Court en banc today acted on the following matter: [1] NEW GUIDELINES FOR THE MAGUINDANO MULTIPLE MURDER TRIALS: In A.M. No. 10-11-6-SC (RE: PETITION FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PRESENT COURT HANDLING THE TRIAL OF THE MASSACRE OF 57 PERSONS, INCLUDING 32 JOURNALISTS, IN AMPATUAN, MAGUINDANAO INTO A SPECIAL COURT HANDLING THIS CASE ALONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING GENUINE SPEEDY TRIAL AND FOR THE SETTING UP OF VIDEOCAM AND MONITOR JUST OUTSIDE THE COURT FOR THE JOURNALISTS TO COVER AND FOR THE PEOPLE TO WITNESS THE "TRIAL OF THE DECADE" TO MAKE IT TRULY PUBLIC AND IMPARTIAL AS COMMANDED BY THE CONSTITUTION), and A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC (RE: LETTER OF PRESIDENT BENIGNO S. AQUINO III FOR THE LIVE MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE TRIAL), the Court issued motu propio a Resolution dated 10 December 2013 which applies pro hac vice (only in this instance) to the trial of the Maguindanao massacre cases. In its Resolution, the Court made the following dispositions: (1) DIRECT the Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 221 of Quezon City to implement the Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8SC) in the reception of evidence thereby requiring all parties to submit judicial affidavits with attached exhibits in lieu of the direct testimonies of the remaining witnesses; provided, that the prosecution and the defense are given adequate time to consolidate their positions and to submit their judicial affidavits with attached exhibits at least ten days before the scheduled date of such testimony, furnishing copies thereof to the public prosecutor or the lead counsel for the accused; (2) ENJOIN the Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 221 of Quezon City to hold, based on her discretion, separate trials of the accused against whom the prosecution contemplates no further evidence thereby ordering such accused to present their evidence, and

have the case submitted for decision with respect to them; Provided that this paragraph is without prejudice to the application of the rules on demurrer to the evidence or other modes of terminating a case in advance of a full trial. (3) AUTHORIZE the Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 221 of Quezon City to issue, when appropriate, separate decisions or resolutions for issues which are ripe for resolution in any of the 58 cases being heard without waiting for the completion of the presentation of the evidence for all the accused; (4) DESIGNATE a third Assisting Judge to handle the conduct of all nontrial incidents in the Maguindanao massacre cases, such as arraignments and pre-trials, as well as to decide incidents and motions that are not intrinsic to the merits of the cases with deliberate dispatch, and for such purpose, the Presiding Judge shall determine incidents that shall be handled by the third Assisting Judge; (5) AUTHORIZE the Presiding Judge and the Assisting Judge, designated in accordance with paragraph 3 above, Regional Trial Court, Branch 221 of Quezon City, in their discretion, to resolve petitions, incidents and motions filed before the trial court, despite the pendency of some of these matters in the higher courts. [2] G.R. NO. 209421 (AUGUSTO L. SYJUCO JR., PH.D. vs. FLORENCIO B. ABAD. ET AL.) | The Court dismissed the petition filed by petitioner Syjuco Jr. to cite respondent Senate President Franklin M. Drilon for contempt of court for having filed Senate Resolution No. 302 and soliciting the signatures of other Senators allegedly in violation of the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court in the consolidated cases in G.R. Nos. 208566, 208493, and 209251. Petitioner also sought the disbarment or at least suspension of respondent Senate President from the practice of law. The Court found that petitioner failed to substantiate his allegations on the supposed violation of the TRO and, thus, for being insufficient in form and substance, the petition merits outright dismissal. Moreover, the Court finds that the petition has been mooted by its Decision in the PDAF cases rendered last November 19, 2013. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

###

You might also like