35.

SALVADOR
c. Attitude towards Judges, iii. CPR, Canon 13: Refrain from act giving
appearance of influence
Perez vs. Estrada, 360 SCRA 248

Facts: ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Petition to Allow Live Radio
and TV Coverage of the Court Hearings on the Plunder and Other Criminal Cases Filed
Against Former President Joseph Estrada, et al.

The Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas and the Secretary of Justice Hernando
B. Perez would want this Court to allow live radio and television coverage of the court
hearings on the plunder and other criminal cases filed against Former President Joseph
Ejercito Estrada, et al. pending before the Sandiganbayan. Claiming that there is a need
for pubilicity by reason that: (a) the prosecution thereof, definitely involves a matter of
public concern and interest, or a matter over which the entire citizenry has the right to
know, be informed and made aware of, (b) the constitutional right of the people to be
informed on matters of public concern, and (c) ensuring the desired transparency in the
administration of justice in order to disabuse the minds of the supporters of the past
regime of any and all unfounded notions.

President Estrada thru counsel, opposed the petition for live radio-TV coverage of his
trials in the Sandiganbayan. He cited the need to preserve the rule of law and warned
that “radio and television as media can be easily manipulated for propaganda
purposes.” He alleged that “the communicative effect of live TV and radio coverage is
much greater than print coverage” and “the freedom of television and radio broadcasting
is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom accorded in newspaper and print media.”

Issue: Whether the act of petitioning for the publicity of the criminal prosecution of
former Pres. Estrada not in violation of the CPR.

Ruling: No. Since it is in the trial court’s judge discretion to decide on this matter. The
exercise of this discretion will depend on the facts of each case and will involve the
delicate balancing of the constitutional right of the accused to fair trial and due process
of law, the press and the public right of access to trials in criminal cases, the right of the
state to prosecute crimes effectively and the duty of courts to ensure the fair and orderly
administration of justice. To be able to reasonably exercise his discretion, the trial judge
has to hear a party’s motion seeking to televise the proceedings or any portion thereof
to determine, among others, the standing of the movant, the factual and legal bases of
his asserted right and the opposition thereto. The trial judge should be given the power
at any time to terminate the televised proceedings upon a showing that the right to a fair
trial of the accused is being prejudiced by its continuance.

The absolute ban on televising criminal trials be lifted and the petitions of the Secretary
of Justice, the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Filipinas, Mr. Cesar Sarino, Atty.
Ricardo Romulo, et al., and Senator Renato Cayetano, to televise the trial of the plunder
cases against former President Joseph E. Estrada
 36. SALVADOR
LEGAL ETHICS: Duties and Responsibilities of Lawyers; c. Attitude towards
Judges, iii. CPR, Canon 13: Refrain from act giving appearance of influence
Cruz vs. Salva, 105 PHIL 115

Facts: ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and Prohibition with
Preliminary Injunction. This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction filed by Timoteo V. Cruz against Francisco G. H. Salva, in his capacity as City
Fiscal of Pasay City, to restrain him from continuing with the preliminary investigation he
was conducting in September, 1957 in connection with the killing of Manuel Monroy
which took place on June 15, 1953 in Pasay City.

With respect to the manner in which said investigation was conducted by the
respondent. If, as contended by him, the purpose of said investigation was only to
acquaint himself with and evaluate the evidence involved in the affidavits and
confessions of Sergio Eduardo, Cosme Camo and others by questioning them, then he,
respondent, could well have conducted the investigation in his office, quietly,
unobtrusively and without much fanfare, much less publicity.

However, according to the petitioner and not denied by the respondent, the investigation
was conducted not in respondent's office but in the session hall of the Municipal Court
of Pasay City evidently, to accommodate the big crowd that wanted to witness the
proceeding, including members of the press. A number of microphones were installed.
Reporters were everywhere and photographers were busy taking pictures. In other
words, apparently with the permission of, if not the encouragement by the respondent,
news photographers and newsmen had a field day. Not only this, but in the course of
the investigation, as shown by the transcript of the stenographic notes taken during said
investigation, on two occasions, the first, after Oscar Caymo had concluded his
testimony, respondent Salva, addressing the newspapermen said, "Gentlemen of the
press, if you want to ask questions I am willing to let you do so and the questions asked
will be reproduced as my own"; and the second, after Jose Maratella y de Guzman had
finished testifying and respondent Salva, addressing the newsmen, again said,
"Gentlemen of the press is free to ask question to the witness if you want to. We are
willing to adopt the questions as ours."

Issue: Whether the acts of Fiscal Salva constitutes a violation of the CPR.

Ruling: YES. Fiscal committed a grievous error and poor judgment when he allowed,
even encouraged, the reinvestigation to be conducted with much fanfare, publicity and
sensationalism. Such actuations of the Fiscal constitute contempt of court punishable by
public censure.

In this, he committed what we regard a grievous error and poor judgment for which we
fail to find any excuse or satisfactory explanation. His actuations in this regard went well
beyond the bounds of prudence, discretion and good taste. It is bad enough to have
such undue publicity when a criminal case is being investigated by the authorities, even
when it is being tried in court; but when said publicity and sensationalism is allowed,
even encouraged, when the case is on appeal and is pending consideration by this
Tribunal, the whole thing becomes inexcusable, even abhorrent, and this Court, in the
interest of justice, is constrained and called upon to put an end to it and a deterrent
against its repetition by meeting an appropriate disciplinary measure, even a penalty to
the one liable.

Penalty: Public Censure.