THE LETTER of Fidel M. Lopez, “Similarities, differences in Sta. Rosa and RPN cases,” (Opinion, 4/17/15) is disturbing.
I am a former overseas Filipino worker. At 82, I now tend only my backyard, but I am still strong physically and alert mentally. I walk and ride my bicycle every day to keep myself fit as I do not take any maintenance medicine.
I am a relative of former Supreme Court justice Mariano Honrade de Joya, who retired
after serving only a year in the bench because his salary was not enough to sustain his growing family. He returned to private practice and became one of the better criminal lawyers during his time with office at Escolta, Manila.
The legal points raised by Lopez and Carmelo Aquino demonstrate the deteriorating justice system of our country today. That Justices Roberto Abad (now retired), Presbitero Velasco and Diosdado Peralta ignored the well-established doctrines set by the Supreme Court (only questions of law may be the subject of review by the Court under Rule 45, but they nevertheless examined questions of fact; the dispositive portion prevails over the body of the decision, yet they gave weight to a phrase in the body of the decision; and their decision did not express clearly and distinctly the facts and law on which it was based) shows how truth and justice are twisted.
For the life of me, I do not know why the ponente (Abad) still wrote the decision when he was to retire in a month. There must be a special reason why he would do that; justices and judges normally refrain from doing so to “erase doubts” that money passed hands. Also, he should have voluntarily inhibited himself from the case since the Bank of Commerce lawyer, Victor Alimurung, was reportedly his classmate at Ateneo de Manila College of Law and a fraternity brother.
Also, I agree with Lopez: Justice Francis Jardeleza, who replaced Justice Abad, must voluntarily inhibit himself since he allegedly used to lawyer for San Miguel Corp., which has a P500-million investment in the Bank of Commerce.
In both instances, Abad and Jardeleza should have voluntarily inhibited themselves from the case. But I believe my relative Justice De Joya is as rare as a dodo, especially in this materialistic era.
Finally, considering that the Court of Appeals’ Dec. 8, 2009, decision became final, executory and immutable since Dec. 27, 2009, I see no reason for Abad, Velasco and Peralta to vote for its reversal. I assume they voted otherwise in other similar cases.
That they did not hew to the well-established doctrine on the immutability of final and executory decisions raises doubts on the integrity of the members of the Supreme Court.
—FIDEL L. HONRADE,
Barangay Pinagtong-ulan,
Lipa City