Supreme Court’s reply to this column
I received a letter from the Supreme Court commenting on my Feb. 24 column titled “What’s happening to the Supreme Court?” The column was about a 26-year-old double homicide case that has been thrown from one judge to another. Eight Court of Appeals justices, one after another, inhibited themselves from the case without explaining why. The defendant, Licerio Antiporda III, former mayor of Buguey, Cagayan, was eventually convicted of two counts of homicide and one count of frustrated murder. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, then by the Supreme Court and a warrant of arrest was issued for Antiporda and his bail bond cancelled. Antiporda filed a motion for reconsideration; it was denied by the Supreme Court. He filed a second motion for reconsideration and, suddenly, the conviction was suspended, his bail bond restored, and the warrant of arrest lifted. Isn’t that strange?
But here is the explanation sent by Theodore O. Te, assistant court administrator and chief of the Supreme Court Public Information Office:
“This refers to your column, ‘What’s happening to the Supreme Court?’… where you wrote that ‘strange things are happening in the highest court of the land’ and give as an example the Antiporda case (GR 202301, Licerio Antiporda III vs People of the Philippines)…. In your column you also specifically single out SC Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes by mentioning him several times and ascribing unethical conduct to him.
“Unfortunately, your narration of facts is wrong, especially as it pertains to Justice Reyes. Allow us, in the spirit of fair play and truthful reporting, to set the record straight.
“Justice Reyes’ only participation in the case was his ponencia of the Court of Appeals (First Division) Decision dated Jan. 23, 2002 (not Jan. 22, as you stated in your column) which affirmed the conviction of Mr. Antiporda. However, after realizing that the case has been raffled to him only for completion of records (this is based on the then prevailing CA Internal Rules, specifically sec. 5[b], Rule 3; this is no longer the rule at present), Justice Reyes promptly recalled the Jan. 23, 2002 Decision and inhibited himself from the case on Jan. 28, 2002 in a Resolution concurred in by then Presiding Justice (later SC Associate Justice Alicia Austria-Martinez) and CA Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios. The reason he gave for recalling the Jan. 23, 2002 Decision was ‘to obviate any mistaken impression that (he) took special interest in the present controversy.’ Thereafter, Justice Reyes’ participation in the Antiporda case ended. The Court of Appeals Decision would later be penned by CA Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Romeo F. Barza on Jan. 17, 2012. The CA Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration dated June 26, 2012 was penned by CA Associate Justice Tijam and concurred in by CA Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Antonio L. Villamor.
“Brought to the Supreme Court on July 5, 2012 by way of a petition for review, the case was raffled to a member of the Second Division, which was then composed of Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio (chair) and Associate Justices Arturo D. Brion, Jose Portugal Perez, Maria Lourdes Sereno and Bienvenido L. Reyes (members). Records of the SC Raffle Committee show that the case was never raffled to SC Justice Bievenido L. Reyes.
“On July 11, 2012 (not July 12, 2012 as stated in the column), the Second Division denied the petition for review (not a motion for reconsideration as stated in the column). In September 2012, Mr. Antiporda moved for reconsideration of the denial of the petition; the SC required the Office of the Solicitor General to comment on the motion for reconsideration.
“On Jan. 28, 2013, the Second Division granted Mr. Antiporda’s motion for reconsideration, reinstated the petition and required the OSG to comment on the petition itself. By then, Justice Reyes was no longer with the Second Division, having transferred to the First Division. The Second Division, as of this date, was composed of Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio (chair), Associate Justices Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. del Castillo, Jose Portugal Perez and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (members).
“In March 2013, Mr. Antiporda sought clarification of the Jan. 28, 2013 Resolution; he asked if the Court, in granting the motion for reconsideration, was also setting aside or reversing the conviction or, at the very least, granting him a new trial. Acting on the motion for clarification (not second motion for reconsideration, as stated in the column), the Second Division issued the July 17, 2013 Resolution which merely reiterated its Jan. 28, 2013 Resolution; it also, additionally, issued a status quo ante order ‘to restore the status quo prior to the cancellation of petitioner’s bail bond and thereby REINSTATE the bail bond of petitioner, and PREVENT the implementation of the standing warrant of arrest signed by the Division Clerk of Court of the Court of
Appeals.’ Justice Reyes was, by this time, already with the First Division and could not have been the one who penned the July 23 Resolution, as you incorrectly claim.
“We request that the record be set straight and any wrong impression arising out of your erroneous assertion against Justice Reyes be set aright. In this regard, we request that this letter be published in your column, as is and sans comment.”
Request granted.
