Chapter 1

History of Legal Writing

In an overview of Legal Information institute, It stated that, “In many legal

settings specialized forms of written communication are required. In many others,
writing is the medium in which a lawyer must express their analysis of an issue
and seek to persuade others on their clients' behalf, furthermore they also added
that any legal document must be concise, clear, and conform to the objective
standards that have evolved in the legal profession.

Foreign History of Legal Writing

The herein facts are obtain from the Study of Bhumesh Verma entitled
“Factors that led to the Evolution of Llegal Drafting”, published on November
2020. Moreover the herein provided facts do not intend copyright infringement
and will only be use for academic purposes only.

Early Fifteenth Century

Spoken words were put into written form. In order to accommodate more
meaningful words into one piece of paper gave rise to tautologies. It is also to be
noted that the invention of printing press gave great impetus for the development
of legal writing.

During King Canute

Latin was used in English law perhaps as early as the reign of their king.
After the Norman Conquers, Latin became the main language of English law.
Latin was the universal language of the church and scholarship throughout
medieval Europe. Latin terms which are still in use are subpoena, ad hoc, bona
fide, etc
During Edward III

He force all proceedings in common law courts to be conducted in

English. Cromwell's parliament passed an Act in 1650 to convert all statutes and
court proceedings into English

French Period

After William the Duke of Normandy conquered England and claimed the
English throne in 1066, Norman French was the language of the ruling class.
Since French was spoken widely, a vast amount of legal vocabulary is French in
origin, including basic words such as appeal, attorney, bailiff, bar, claim,
complaint, counsel, court, defendant, demurrer, evidence, indictment, judge,
judgment, jury, justice, party, plaintiff, plea, plead, sentence, sue, suit, summon,
verdict and voir dire.

1731

Britain’s parliament finally ended the use of Latin and French in legal
proceedings. English Parliament forbade the use of Latin or French in legal
documents because it thought that "many and great mischief do frequently
happen to the subjects of this kingdom from the proceedings in courts of justice
being in an unknown language

English Movement in 1970

Significant development in the way legal writing was transformed. There

was a significant shift from the structure to usage of words in legal writing. The
events leading to Plain English Campaign and the role of the National Consumer
Council in promoting English needs to be to studied extensively so that the
readers can effectively discern the factors that led to the beginning of Modern
English in legal writing.
Local History of Legal Writing

When the Spanish colonizers first arrived in the Philippine archipelago,

they found the indigenous Filipinos without any written laws. Mainly, the laws
enforced were derived from customs, usages and tradition. These laws were
believed to be God-given and were orally transmitted from generation to
generation.

A remarkable feature of these customs and traditions was that they were
found to be very similar to one another notwithstanding that they were observed
in widely dispersed islands of the archipelago. There were no judges and lawyers
who were trained formally in the law, although there were elders who devoted
time to the study of the customs, usages and traditions of their tribes to qualify
them as consultants or advisers on these matters.

The unit of government of the indigenous Filipinos was the barangay,

which was a family-based community of 30 to 100 families, occupying a pook
(“locality” or “area”) Headed by a chieftain called a datu who exercised all
functions of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—a barangay was
not only a political but also a social and economic organization. In the exercise of
his judicial authority, the datu acted as a judge (hukom) in settling disputes and
deciding cases in his barangay.
 CHAPTER 2

Definition of terms

Abduction - the taking of a person against their will, generally by means of

persuasion, fraud, or force.

Accessory - In the context of criminal law, is a person who helps in the

commission of a crime, such as by commanding the crime, driving the getaway
car, providing the weapons, assisting in the planning, providing an alibi, or hiding
the main offender after the crime.

Aggravating circumstance - refers to the factors that increase the severity or

culpability of a criminal act. Typically, the presence of an aggravating
circumstance will lead to a harsher penalty for a convicted criminal.

Arrest - Is the act of apprehending and taking a person into custody (legal
protection or control), usually because the person has been suspected of or
observed committing a crime. After being taken into custody, the person can be
questioned further and/or charged.

Assault - Is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent,

present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may
result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is
the same in criminal and Tort Law.

Ballistic – Is the study of flight, behavior, and characteristics of projectiles,

especially bullets. Ballistics is used to study the functioning of firearms, and the
firing, flight, and effects of ammunitions.

Bribery - Refers to the improper acceptance by a public official, juror, or

someone bound by a duty to act impartially, of any gain or advantage to the
beneficiary, including any gain or advantage to a third person by the desire or
consent of the beneficiary.

Conscience - The moral sense, or that capacity of our mental constitution, by

which we irresistibly feel the difference between right and wrong.
Corrupt - Having an unlawful or evil motive especially characterized by improper
and usually unlawful conduct intended to secure a benefit for oneself or another.

Counter-terrorist - An ideologically motivated unlawful act or acts, including but

not limited to the use of violence or force or threat of violence or force.

Crisis - Is any event that is, or expected to lead to, an unstable and dangerous
situation affecting an individual, group, community, or whole society. Crises are
deemed to be negative changes in the security, economic, political, societal, or
environmental affairs, especially when they occur abruptly, with little or no
warning.

Dismissed - to remove from position or service dismissed the employee.

Extortion - Refers to the crime of obtaining money or property by using threats

of harm against the victim, or against his property or family. Extortion might
involve threats of damage to the victim’s reputation, or to his financial wellbeing.

Gang Rape - Is when rape is committed by more than one person on a woman
against her will and consent. It is a kind of rape involving more than one
perpetrator. In a gang rape, it is not necessary for each individual in the gang or
group to commit the crime of rape that is to have a high degree of culpability.

Hijacked - Means the unlawful seizure or exercise of control of any Carrier by

force or violence or threat of force or violence or an act, including but not limited
to the use of force or violence or the threat thereof, committed for any reason
(including political, religious or ideological) by any person or group of persons,
whether acting alone or on behalf of or in connection with any organization or
government.

Homicide - The killing of one human being by another human being

Hostage - A person delivered into the possession of a public enemy in the time
of war, as a security for the performance of a contract entered into between the
belligerents.
Hostage crisis - The criminal activity is known as kidnapping. An acute situation
where hostages are kept in a building or a vehicle that has been taken over by
armed terrorists or common criminals is often called a hostage crisis.

Intra-cranial Hemorrhage - refers to any bleeding within the intracranial vault,

including the brain parenchyma and surrounding meningeal spaces.

Jeopardized - When a case is at trial and the outcome of the case is in jeopardy
and subject to an unbiased decision which has not been predetermined.

Kidnapping - is defined as forcibly, secretly, or by threat confining, abducting, or

imprisoning someone else against their will and without lawful authority with the
intent to: Hold for ransom, reward, or as a hostage.

Massacre - the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or

unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty.

Masterminding - A person who plans and organizes something He is considered

(to be) the mastermind of the team's winning strategy. a criminal mastermind
Methamphetamine – Is a stimulant drug that is chemically similar to
amphetamine (a drug used to treat ADHD and narcolepsy)

Misconduct - The legal viewpoint is something that contravenes your rules and
regulations. As such, your business such identify what you consider to be
inappropriate behavior.

Motion to quash - Refers to a specific type of request, in which one court is

asked to render the decision made by another, lower court as invalid.

Murder - Intentional killing. Unlawful, as in not legally justified. Committed with

malice aforethought, also known as the intention to kill someone without legal
justification or excuse. Intentional infliction of bodily harm that causes victim's
death.

Principal - Is a person, legal or natural, who authorizes an agent to act to create

one or more legal relationships with a third party.
Rape - unlawful sexual activity, most often involving sexual intercourse, against
the will of the victim through force or the threat of force or with an individual who
is incapable of giving legal consent because of minor status, mental illness,
mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception.

Resthouse - a building used for shelter by travelers (especially in areas where

there are no hotels) building, edifice - a structure that has a roof and walls and
stands more or less permanently in one place; "there was a three-story building
on the corner"; "it was an imposing edifice"

Smuggle - Is the illegal transport of goods, especially across borderlines.

Smuggling is engaged in to avoid taxation or to obtain goods which are
prohibited in a certain region. Items that are often involved in smuggling include
alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs, arms, and even immigrants.

Sugarcane - is a species of (often hybrid) tall, perennial grass (in the genus
Saccharum, tribe Andropogoneae) that is used for sugar production.

Victim - One who is killed, injured or subjected to suffering. One injured under
any of various conditions.
 Chapter 3

This chapter represents the background of the case, its status, finding,
conclusions and recommendations

Background of the Case

The Manila hostage crisis, officially known as the Rizal Park hostage-
taking incident took place when a disgruntled former Philippine National Police
officer named Rolando Mendoza hijacked a tourist bus in Rizal Park, Manila,
Philippines, on August 23, 2010. The bus carried 25 people: 20 tourists, a tour
guide from Hong Kong, and four local Filipinos. Mendoza claimed that he had
been unfairly dismissed from his job, and demanded a fair hearing to defend
himself. Negotiations (which were broadcast live on television and the internet)
broke down dramatically about ten hours into the stand-off, when the police
arrested Mendoza's brother and thus incited Mendoza to open fire. The bus
driver managed to escape, and declared "Everyone is dead" before he was
whisked away by policemen. Following a 90-minute gun battle, Mendoza and
eight of the hostages were killed and several others injured. The Philippine and
Hong Kong governments conducted separate investigations into the incident.
Both inquiries concluded that the Philippine officials' poor handling of the
situation caused the eight hostages' deaths. The assault mounted by the Manila
Police District (MPD), and the resulting shoot-out, have been widely criticized by
pundits as "bungled" and "incompetent", and the Hong Kong Government has
issued a "black" travel alert for the Philippines as a result of the affair.

Profile of Victim

Six of the surviving hostages were taken to Ospital ng Maynila Medical

Center, where two later died; two were taken to the Philippine General Hospital;
the remaining seven hostages were taken to Manila Doctors Hospital. There
were eight total fatalities. The 13 survivors had injuries which ranged from minor
to substantial. Because the bus driver Alberto Lubang had escaped the bus
minutes before the situation deteriorated, despite his claim that he had been
handcuffed to the steering wheel, suspicions arose that he was in fact the
gunman's accomplice, which Lubang denied. Lubang claimed to have unlocked
his handcuffs using nail cutters. However, on August 27, 2010, Lubang and his
family were reported missing and had fled their home, possibly going into hiding.
Yet, on 7 September 2010 he was reported to be present at a hearing of the
investigative committee. The list of the eight identified victims included Masa Tse
Ting Chunn [zh; zh-yue] ( 謝 廷 駿 ), Ken Leung Kam-wing ( 梁 錦 榮 ), his two
daughters Doris Leung Chung-see (梁頌詩), 21, and Jessie Leung Song-yi (梁頌
儀), 14 (his son Jason Leung Song-xue (梁頌學) was seriously injured)[53] Wong
Tze-lam (汪子林) and his wife Yeung Yee-wa (楊綺華) and her sister Yeung Yee-
kam (楊綺琴); and Fu Cheuk-yan (傅卓仁).

Donald Tsang, Chief Executive of Hong Kong, offered for the eight victims
to be buried in the Tribute Garden [zh] (景仰園), a part of Wo Hop Shek Public
Cemetery designated for Hongkongers who showed extraordinary acts of bravery
to save others. Fu and the three members of the Wong family accepted the offer
and were buried at Tribute Garden. On July 1, 2011, Masa Tse, Fu Cheuk-yan
and Ken Leung Kam-wing were all posthumously awarded the gold medal for
Bravery by the Hong Kong government. Mendoza's parents apologized and
begged forgiveness from the Hong Kong government for their son's actions.

Profile of Suspects

Rolando del Rosario Mendoza (January 10, 1955 – August 23, 2010),
born in Naic, Cavite, graduated from the Philippine College of Criminology with a
degree in criminology, joined the Philippine National Police force as a patrolman
in April 1981, and rose to become police captain. He was decorated 17 times for
bravery and honor, and was described by colleagues as hard-working and kind.
In February 1986, Mendoza led a group of policemen that accosted a van
carrying 13 crates full of money, which former Philippine president Ferdinand
Marcos was apparently trying to smuggle out of the country. Mendoza and his
team turned the shipment over to authorities, for which he was declared one of
the Ten Outstanding Policemen of the Philippines by the Jaycees International
that year. On April 9, 2008, hotel chef Christian Kalaw alleged that he was
accosted by Mendoza and several other officers over a parking violation. Kalaw
alleged that the police planted sachets of methamphetamine in his car, forced
him to take the drug, and accused him of being a drug addict. The officers also
allegedly demanded Kalaw access his bank ATM and hand over money. Kalaw
said the policemen released him after a friend raised 20,000 pesos on his behalf.

The Office of the Ombudsman found Mendoza and four others guilty of
misconduct, and ordered Mendoza's dismissal from the service and the voiding
of all his benefits. In late April 2008, he was relieved as Chief of the Mobile Patrol
Unit. In August 2008, the Eighth Division of the Manila Prosecutors' Office
vacated the case after Kalaw failed to attend the dismissal proceedings, and in
October the PNP Internal Affairs Service recommended the case be dropped.
Mendoza was later dismissed from the police force in February 2009 on charges
of extortion. Mendoza's brothers, Gregorio and Florencio, later stated that all his
brother wanted was a fair hearing by the Ombudsman, who "never even gave
him a chance to defend himself; they [just] immediately dismissed him." There
were later reports that Mendoza was also charged with gang rape in a 1996
incident, but the case was dismissed when the complainants did not show up at
court. He was married to Aurrora Mendoza and had three children: Andrew (born
1977), a seaman, Mary Grace (born 1983), a call center agent, and Bismark
(born 1984), an Inspector and deputy chief of the Bangued police in Abra
province. Mendoza was shot and killed by a sniper during the hostage crisis and
was pronounced dead on August 23, 2010. He was 55 years old.
Status of the Case

In the morning of August 23, 2010, news media scampered for a minute-
by-minute coverage of a hostage drama that had slowly unfolded right at the very
heart of the City of Manila. While initial news accounts were fragmented it was
not difficult to piece together the story on the hostage-taker, Police Senior
Inspector Rolando Mendoza. He was a disgruntled former police officer
attempting to secure his reinstatement in the police force and to restore the
benefits of a life-long, and erstwhile bemedaled, service. The following day,
broadsheets and tabloids were replete with stories not just of the deceased
hostage-taker but also of the hostage victims, eight of whom died during the
bungled police operation to rescue the hapless innocents. Their tragic deaths
triggered word wars of foreign relation proportions. One newspaper headline ran
the story in detail, as follows: A dismissed policeman armed with an assault rifle
hijacked a bus packed with tourists, and killed most of its passengers in a 10
hour-hostage drama shown live on national television until last night. Former
police senior inspector Rolando Mendoza was shot dead by a sniper at past 9
p.m. Mendoza hijacked the bus and took 21 Chinese tourists hostage,
demanding his reinstatement to the police force. The hostage drama dragged on
even after the driver of the bus managed to escape and told police that all the
remaining passengers had been killed. Late into the night assault forces
surrounded the bus and tried to gain entry, but a pair of dead hostages hand-
cuffed to the door made it difficult for them. Police said they fired at the wheels of
the bus to immobilize it. Police used hammers to smash windows, door and wind-
shield but were met with intermittent fire from the hos-tage taker. Police also
used tear gas in an effort to confirm if the remaining hostages were all dead or
alive. When the standoff ended at nearly 9 p.m., some four hostages were
rescued alive while Mendoza was killed by a sniper.

Initial reports said some 30 policemen stormed the bus. Shots also rang
out, sending bystanders scampering for safety. It took the policemen almost two
hours to assault the bus because gunfire reportedly rang out from inside the bus.
Mendoza hijacked the tourist bus in the morning and took the tourists hostage.
Mendoza, who claimed he was illegally dismissed from the police service, initially
released nine of the hostages during the drama that began at 10 a.m. and played
out live on national television. Live television footage showed Mendoza asking for
food for those remaining in the bus, which was delivered, and fuel to keep the air-
conditioning going. The disgruntled former police officer was reportedly armed
with an M-16 rifle, a 9 mm pistol and two hand grenades.

Mendoza posted a handwritten note on the windows of the bus, saying

"big deal will start after 3 p.m. today." Another sign stuck to another window said
"3 p.m. today deadlock." Stressing his demand, Mendoza stuck a piece of paper
with a handwritten message: "Big mistake to correct a big wrong decision." A
larger piece of paper on the front windshield was headed, "Release final
decision," apparently referring to the case that led to his dismissal from the police
force. Negotiations dragged on even after Mendoza's self-imposed deadline.
Senior Police Officer 2 Gregorio Mendoza said his brother was upset over his
dismissal from the police force. "His problem was he was unjustly removed from
service. There was no due process, no hearing, no com-plaint," Gregorio said.
Last night, Gregorio was arrested by his colleagues on suspicions of being an
accessory to his brother's action. Tensions rose as relatives tried to prevent
lawmen from arresting Gregorio in front of national television. This triggered the
crisis that eventually forced Mendoza to carry out his threat and kill the remaining
hostages. Negotiators led by Superintendent Orlando Yebra and Chief Inspector
Romeo Salvador tried to talk Mendoza into surrendering and releasing the 21
hostages, mostly children and three Filipinos, including the driver, the tourist
guide and a photographer. Yebra reportedly lent a cellphone to allow
communications with Mendoza in-side the bus, which was parked in front of the
Quirino Grandstand.Children could be seen peeking from the drawn curtains of
the bus while police negotiators hovered near the scene.

Manila Police District (MPD) director Chief Superinten-dent Rodolfo

Magtibay ordered the deployment of crack police teams and snipers near the
scene. A crisis man-agement committee had been activated with Manila Vice
Mayor Isko Moreno coordinating the actions with the MPD. Earlier last night,
Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez had a meeting with Moreno to discuss
Mendoza's case that led to his dismissal from the service. Ombudsman
spokesman Jose de Jesus said Gutierrez gave a "sealed letter" to Moreno to be
delivered to Mendoza. De Jesus did not elaborate on the contents of the letter
but said Moreno was tasked to personally deliver the letter to Mendoza. MPD
spokesman Chief Inspector Edwin Margarejo said Mendoza was apparently
distraught by the slow process of the Ombudsman in deciding his motion for
reconside-ration. He said the PNP-Internal Affairs Service and the Manila
Regional Trial Court had already dismissed crim-inal cases against him. The
hostage drama began when Mendoza flagged down the Hong Thai Travel Tourist
bus (TVU-799), pretending to hitch a ride. Margarejo said the bus had just left
Fort Santiago in Intramuros when Mendoza asked the driver to let him get on and
ride to Quirino Grandstand. Upon reaching the Quirino Grandstand, Mendoza
announced to the passengers that they would be taken hostage. "Having worn
his (police) uniform, of course there is no doubt that he already planned the
hostage taking,"

Findings

President Benigno Aquino III expressed his condolences to the victims

and promised a "thorough investigation". While he was not impressed with the
manner the police handled the crisis, he defended the actions of the police,
stating that the gunman had not shown any signs of wanting to harm the
hostages. He also made reference to the Moscow theater hostage crisis, which
he said resulted in "more severe" casualties despite Russia's "resources and
sophistication". In addition, he declared that the news media may have worsened
the situation by giving the shooter "a bird's-eye view of the entire situation". After
Aquino's comments, a number of Hong Kong residents posted angry messages
to his official Facebook page, some of which accused Aquino of smiling during
the press conference. Aquino subsequently apologized, saying it was an
expression of exasperation. On September 5, 2010, Aquino said (in Filipino),
"Our problems now, in two or three years we can say that they are laughable
when we recall that they were not that grave." On September 9, 2010, Aquino
revealed that he had received a letter from the Hong Kong Government, which
gave instructions to the Philippine government in "minute detail"; Aquino
regarded the letter as insulting, which the Hong Kong Government denied. As to
Donald Tsang's claim that he could not reach Aquino by telephone during the
siege, Aquino said that Tsang should have followed protocol in trying to contact
him, and claimed that he had tried to contact Tsang the next day.

The decision to arrest Mendoza's brother during the negotiation process

was questioned. Manila Police District director Rodolfo Magtibay said that Mayor
Lim, as head of the crisis management committee, gave the order to arrest
Gregorio Mendoza – a move which caused distress in the gunman and allegedly
triggered him to shoot the hostages. Manila Vice-Mayor Isko Moreno told CNN
that Mendoza's brother was guilty of conspiring with the hostage-taker and
allegedly helped instigate the shooting. MPD commander Leocadio Santiago,
while agreeing with the decision to put the assault on hold until Mendoza had
started shooting hostages, admitted that mistakes were made. Senior Supt.
Agrimero Cruz Jr., spokesman for the national police, said five general lapses
were observed by the PNP Command Group and Staff: poor handling of the
hostage negotiation; side issues and events that further agitated the hostage
taker; inadequate planning of the assault, and lack of team capability, skills and
equipment; improper crowd control; and non-compliance with media relations
procedures in hostage taking. Interior secretary Jessie Robredo, who is in charge
of the national police, also admitted problems with how the crisis was handled.
Manila Police District director Rodolfo Magtibay, as commander of the rescue
operation, took leave and four members of the SWAT team were suspended,
pending investigation.
 Several members of the House of Representatives condemned the
hostage-taking while criticizing how the MPD handled the situation:
Representative Gabriel Luis Quisumbing (Lakas-Kampi, Cebu–6th) blamed the
non-stop media coverage, saying the live coverage "may have jeopardized police
rescue operations on site" and authored a bill to constrain media coverage so as
not to hinder or obstruct such rescue efforts. Rodolfo Biazon (Liberal,
Muntinlupa) blamed the outcome of the incident on the unclear MPD command
structure.The Philippines planned to send a high-level delegation to China to
meet and explain to officials there what happened in the hostage crisis. However,
the schedule of this delegation could not be confirmed by Beijing government.
Instead, Beijing urged the Philippines to submit a "comprehensive, precise,
objective" investigation report. In his Proclamation 23, President Aquino declared
August 25, 2010, a National Day of Mourning for those killed. All Philippine flags
at all government institutions, including consulates and embassies worldwide,
would be flown half-mast. A hearing into the crisis was conducted by the Senate
Committee on Public Order and Illegal Drugs on August 26. During the hearing,
police operatives revealed that Mendoza was reading the letter from the Office of
the Ombudsman to an unknown person over the phone before the violence
began, and subpoenaed the records of the telephone conversation. It was further
revealed that Rodolfo Magtibay, ground commander during the crisis, had an
elite team of Special Action Force of the Philippine National Police at his
disposal, but chose to utilize the SWAT team instead because his team had
successfully rehearsed the storming that afternoon.

The counter-terrorist unit from the national police were on standby behind
the grandstand; the Philippine Army Light Reaction Company had also offered
one of its elite squads, trained in hostage-taking scenarios and fighting Islamist
militants in the southern Philippines, but was told by police it was not needed. On
August 30, 2010, a Philippine consulate official in Hong Kong appealed to
Filipinos to postpone trips to Hong Kong indefinitely, citing anti-Filipino
sentiments in Hong Kong. Claro Cristobal, Philippine Consul General in Hong
Kong, said in a radio interview that although Filipinos in Hong Kong could be
assured of safety, Filipinos traveling to Hong Kong for vacation may be troubled
by angry sentiments there. President Aquino ordered a thorough investigation,
and for a report to be issued within three weeks. The investigation was held by
the Post Critical Incident Management Committee (PCIMC), under the auspices
of the Joint Incident Investigation and Review Committee (JIIRC), headed by
former Secretary of Justice Leila de Lima and Prosecution/Investigation team led
by Cielito Celi. As a gesture of transparency towards the Hong Kong
government, the Aquino government invited the Hong Kong Police Force to send
a team to observe the investigation. De Lima declared a gag order to cover all
parties and departments, including the Hong Kong team examining evidence on
the ground.

Preliminary results of the official investigation were released on August 31,

2010. Ballistic tests showed that the deceased hostages' wounds were caused
by a high-calibre weapon fired from within the coach. Of the 65 recovered M16
rifle cartridges from the coach, 58 came from Mendoza's gun, making it nearly
certain that the eight deceased hostage were killed by Mendoza. However, on
September 3, 2010, De Lima admitted that the police might have accidentally
shot some of the hostages. After the completion of the initial inquiry on
September 15, 2010, the JIIRC traveled to Hong Kong to interview survivors. The
report was delivered first to the Chinese embassy in Manila on September 20,
2010, before being released to the general public, in an attempt to "repair the
nation's relations with China". On March 31, 2011, Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales
was dismissed by President Aquino for his "inordinate and unjustified delay" in
handling Mendoza's appeal. Gonzales was the first individual to receive direct
sanction from the Philippine government in connection with the incident. He
appealed the decision, claiming that he was "prejudged guilty before the
investigation started".
Conclusion

The tragic hostage-taking incident was the result of a confluence of

several unfortunate events including system failure of government response. It
cannot be solely attributed then to what petitioner Gonzales may have negligently
failed to do for the quick, fair and complete resolution of the case, or to his error
of judgment in the disposition thereof. Neither should petitioner's official acts in
the resolution of P/S Insp. Mendoza's case be judged based upon the resulting
deaths at the Quirino Grandstand. The failure to immediately act upon a party's
requests for an early resolution of his case is not, by itself, gross neglect of duty
amounting to betrayal of public trust. Records show that petitioner took
considerably less time to act upon the draft resolution after the same was
submitted for his appropriate action compared to the length of time that said draft
remained pending and unacted upon in the Office of Ombudsman Merceditas N.
Gutierrez. He reviewed and denied P/S Insp. Mendoza's motion for
reconsideration within nine (9) calendar days reckoned from the time the draft
resolution was submitted to him on April 27, 2010 until he forwarded his
recommendation to the Office of Ombudsman Gutierrez on May 6, 2010 for the
latter's final action. Clearly, the release of any final order on the case was no
longer in his hands. Even if there was inordinate delay in the resolution of P/S
Insp. Mendoza's motion and an unexplained failure on petitioner's part to
supervise his subordinates in its prompt disposition, the same cannot be
considered a vicious and malevolent act warranting his removal for betrayal of
public trust. More so because the neglect imputed upon petitioner appears to be
an isolated case. Similarly, petitioner's act of directing the PNP-IAS to endorse
P/S Insp. Mendoza's case to the Ombudsman without citing any reason therefor
cannot, by itself, be considered a manifestation of his undue interest in the case
that would amount to wrongful or unlawful conduct. After all, taking cognizance of
cases upon the request of concerned agencies or private parties is part and
parcel of the constitutional mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman to be the
"champion of the people."
Recommendation

The factual circumstances that the case was turned over to the Office of
the Ombudsman upon petitioner's request; that administrative liability was
pronounced against P/S Insp. Mendoza even without the private complainant
verifying the truth of his statements; that the decision was immediately
implemented; or that the motion for reconsideration thereof remained pending for
more than nine months cannot be simply taken as evidence of petitioner's undue
interest in the case considering the lack of evidence of any personal grudge,
social ties or business affiliation with any of the parties to the case that could
have impelled him to act as he did. There was likewise no evidence at all of any
bribery that took place, or of any corrupt intention or questionable motivation.
Background of the Case

On the night of June 28, 1993, Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez,
students of the University of the Philippines, Los Baños (UPLB), were abducted
at gunpoint by men working for Antonio Sanchez, the mayor of Calauan, Laguna.
The students were brought to Sanchez's farm in Barangay Curba, where both
were bound and gagged. Court records showed Sanchez's men also brought
Gomez along "to avoid complications". The students were brought inside a
resthouse, where Sarmenta was taken into Sanchez's room while Gomez was
beaten by Luis Corcolon, Rogelio "Boy" Corcolon, Zoilo Ama and George
Medialdea and thereafter thrown out of the resthouse. Pepito Kawit struck Allan
Gomez's diaphragm with the butt of an Armalite, causing Gomez to fall against a
cement box. Brion thought Gomez was already dead, but Kawit said that his
death would come later. Aurelio Centeno joined Sanchez's personal aides Edwin
Cosico and Raul Alorico to watch television at the adjacent resthouse. Alorico
told Centeno that Sanchez had been eagerly waiting for the group and worried
that they would not arrive. At around 1:00 a.m. the next day, a crying Sarmenta
was dragged out of the resthouse by Luis and Medialdea, still bound and gagged
and now stripped of her shorts. Sanchez, clad merely in a white polo shirt,
appeared and thanked Luis and Medialdea for the gift. He is alleged to have
stated: "I am through with her. She's all yours." When asked what would happen
to Gomez, Medialdea assured the mayor that they would also kill him for full
measure. The students were then loaded in a Tamaraw van by the appellants
and headed for Calauan, followed closely by the ambulance. Kawit finished off
Gomez with a single gunshot from his Armalite. The men then stopped at a
sugarcane field at Sitio Paputok, Mabacan, Calauan, and gang-raped Sarmenta.
Kawit invited Centeno to join the assault, but Centeno refused as he could not, in
conscience, bear the crime being committed. Despite Sarmenta's pleas to spare
her life, Luis Corcolon fired his baby Armalite at her, and ordered Centeno to get
rid of her body. Following separate investigations by different law enforcement
agencies, prosecutors pursued charges against Sanchez and his men, but did
not include Teofilo "Kit" Alqueza, son of Gen. Dictador Alqueza, as respondents.
Sanchez had claimed Alqueza was the mastermind behind the incident.

Profile of the Victims

The murders of Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez occurred on June 28,
1993 in Calauan, Laguna, Philippines. The case involved police personnel and
the late Antonio Sanchez, the former mayor of Calauan, who were tried and
convicted of the crime. Sanchez was accused of masterminding the abduction of
Sarmenta and her companion, Gomez, and the subsequent rape and murder of
Sarmenta and the torture and murder of Gomez. The victims were both students
of the University of the Philippines, Los Baños (UPLB).

Profile of the Suspect

Antonio Leyza Sanchez (May 10, 1946 – March 27, 2021) was a Filipino
politician who served as mayor of Calauan, Laguna from 1980 to 1986 and from
1988 to 1993. He is the convicted mastermind in the murders of Eileen Sarmenta
and Allan Gomez, both students of the University of the Philippines, Los Baños
(UPLB), in 1993.

Status of the Case

On the night of June 28, 1993, Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez, both
students of the University of the Philippines in Los Baños, were abducted by men
of the late Calauan Mayor Antonio Sanchez and forcibly entered them into the
white vehicle. The two were brought to Erais Farm in Barangay Curba, which is
said to be owned by the Mayor. Upon arriving there, Sarmenta was taken to
Sanchez's room while Allan was left to be beaten by Mayor's staff namely Luis
Corcolon, Rogelio "Boy" Corcolon, Zoilo Ama and George Medialdea. After that,
Sanchez's orders the two men to bring Sarmenta and Gomez to the Toyota
Tamaraw FX; the suspects are also board the vehicle. Pepito Kawit followed-up
by striking Allan's diaphragm with the butt of an armalite, causing Allan to fall
against a cement box. Brion thought Allan was already dead, but Kawit said,
quote, "His death will come later." Aurelio Centeno, who eventually became a
star witness, joined Sanchez's personal aides Edwin Cosico and Raul Alorico to
watch television at the adjacent resthouse. Alorico told Centeno that the Mayor
had been eagerly waiting for the group and worried that they will not arrive. At
around 1:00 a.m. of the next day, a crying Eileen was dragged out of the
resthouse by Luis and Medialdea, her hair disheveled, mouth covered by a
handkerchief, hands still tied and stripped of her shorts. The Mayor, clad merely
in white polo, appeared and thanked Luis and Medialdea for the gift. "I am
through with her. She's all yours," the Mayor uttered in contentment. When asked
what will happen to Allan, Medialdea assured the Mayor that they will also kill him
for full measure. Eileen and Allan were then loaded in the Tamaraw van by the
appellants and headed for Calauan, followed closely by the ambulance. Kawit
finished off Allan with a single gunshot from his armalite.

The men then stopped at a sugarcane field in Sitio Paputok, Kilometro 74

of Barangay Mabacan, and gang-raped Eileen. Kawit invited Centeno to join the
sexual fiasco but Centeno refused as he cannot, in conscience, bear the
bestiality being committed on Eileen. At the end of the gang-rape, the six men
decided to shoot Eileen in the face in order to hide their crime. When Eileen cried
while knelled and pleaded to the six men to spare her life, Eileen said to the six
men, quote, "Please, you have taken everything from me. My shame, my honor.
But please, spare me my breath. It’s the only thing I’ve got left." Despite Eileen's
pleas to spare her life, Luis Corcolon gagged Eileen's mouth with a handkerchief
and fired his baby armalite at her face, causing her instant death, and ordered
Centeno to get rid of Eileen's body. However, the dead body of Eileen has just
remains inside the van. Her face bears the fatal gunshot wound, her mouth
stuffed with a handkerchief, her melon orange Giordano Classic t-shirt rolled up
to her shoulders exposing her chest and her underwear pushed down near her
white Tretorn rubber-shoed feet. Following separate investigations by different
law enforcement agencies, prosecutors pursued charges against Sanchez and
his men, but did not include Teofilo "Kit" Alqueza, son of Gen. Dictador Alqueza,
as respondents. Sanchez had claimed Alqueza was the mastermind. On April 13,
1991, at around 10:00 in the morning, state witness Vivencio Malabanan, team
leader of a group of policemen, went to the Bishop Compound in Calauan,
Laguna, as part of the security force of mayor Antonio L. Sanchez. After a while,
accused Ding Peradillas arrived and asked for mayor Sanchez. Peradillas
informed mayor Sanchez that there would be a birthday party that night at Dr.
Virvilio Velecina's house in Lanot, Calauan, Laguna, near the abode of
Peradillas. Peradillas assured mayor Sanchez of Nelson Peñalosa's presence
thereat. Dr. Velecina was a political opponent of mayor Sanchez for the
mayoralty seat of Calauan, Laguna, Mayor Sanchez then replied, "Bahala na
kayo mga anak. Ayusin lang ninyo ang trabaho," and left the premises. Peradillas
immediately called Corcolon and Averion and relayed the message — "Ayos na
ang paguusap at humanap na lang ng sasakyan." All the accused, including
Malabanan, understood it as an order to kill Nelson Peñalosa, one of the political
leaders of Dr. Velecina.

Afterwards, Peradillas, Corcolon and Averion made arrangements to

acquire two-way radios and a vehicle for the operation. At around 2:30 in the
afternoon, Malabanan and the three accused went their separate ways and
agreed to meet at mayor Sanchez' house at 6:00 in the evening. Malabanan
returned to his detachment area at Dayap, proceeded to the municipal hall, then
went home where Peradillas fetched him at 6:00 p.m. They proceeded to mayor
Sanchez' house where they met Averion and Corcolon, with the car and two-way
radios. At around 7:00 in the evening, Malabanan and the three accused boarded
the car and went to Marpori Poultry Farm in Barangay Lanot, near Dr. Velecina's
house. Peradillas alighted and walked towards his own house, near Dr.
Velecina's house, to check whether Nelson Peñalosa was at the party.
Thereafter, using the two-way radio, Peradillas informed the occupants of the car
that Nelson Peñalosa's jeep was leaving the Velecina compound. Accused
Averion immediately drove the car to the front of Peradilla's house and the latter
hopped in the car's back seat. Corcolon sat in the front seat beside him; witness
Malabanan sat at the left side of the backseat and Peradillas stayed at the right
side of the back seat. The group pursued Peñalosa's jeep. When the accused's
car was passing Victoria Farms, located about 100 meters from Peñalosa
compound, Corcolon ordered Averion to overtake Peñalosa's jeep. As the car
overtook the jeep, Peradillas and Corcolon fired at Peñalosa's jeep, using M-16
and baby armalite rifles, executed in automatic firing mode. There were three
bursts of gunfire. Based on the sketch prepared by Malabanan, illustrating the
relative position of their car and Nelson's jeep at the time of the shooting, the
assailants were at the left side of the jeep.Rickson Peñalosa, son of Nelson
Peñalosa, fell from the jeep. The jeep, however, continued running in a zigzag
position until it overturned in front of Irais Farm. After the shooting, the accused
proceeded to the house of mayor Sanchez in Bai, Laguna, and reported to mayor
Sanchez that Peñalosa was already dead.

Together with his superior SPO4 Lanorio and photographer Romeo

Alcantara, policeman Daniel Escares went to the crime scene. There, he saw the
body of Nelson Peñalosa slumped at the driver seat of the owner-type jeep. They
recovered the body of Rickson Peñalosa slumped on a grassy place not far from
where they found Nelson Peñalosa. After all the evidence and photographs were
taken, they brought the cadavers to Funeraria Señerez. Daniel Escares
submitted his investigation report of the incident to the Provincial Director,
Laguna PNP Command. Dr. Ruben B. Escueta, Rural Health Physician, Rural
Health Unit, Calauan, Laguna, conducted an autopsy on the bodies of Nelson
and Rickson Peñalosa. Nelson Peñalosa suffered massive intra-cranial
hemorrhage and died of cranial injury due to gunshot wounds. Rickson Peñalosa
died of massive intra thoracic hemorrhage due to gunshot wounds.14 Dr.
Escueta, as a defense witness, testified that based on the points of entrance and
exit of the wounds sustained by the Peñalosas, it was not possible for the
assailants to be at the left side of the victims.15 It contradicted Malabanan's
testimony that they were at the left side of the victims when the shooting took
place. He further stated that based on the wounds inflicted on the victims, the
assailants were either in a sitting or squatting position when they shot the victims.
Some of the wounds indicated an upward trajectory of the bullets. On September
15, 1993, Janet P. Cortez, PNP ballistician, completed the ballistic tests
conducted on the twelve (12) empty shells found at the crime scene and the M-
16 baby armalite surrendered by Corcolon.16 She concluded that the 12 empty
shells were fired using three (3) different firearms, one of which was the M-16
baby armalite.17 On August 18, 1995, Adelina Peñalosa, common law wife of
Nelson Peñalosa and mother of Rickson, testified that the whole family was in
mourning and could not eat after what happened.18 She testified that the family
incurred P250,000.00 for funeral expenses, but failed to present the appropriate
receipts. She also stated that Nelson Peñalosa was earning one (1) million pesos
per annum from his businesses. However, no income tax return or other proofs
were shown to substantiate the statement.

Findings

On June 29, 1993, after Eileen's mother, Ma. Clara Sarmenta, received a
phone call from someone else, they arrive at the site where they found a lifeless
body of Eileen inside a white van. In an examination conducted by PNP Crime
Laboratory Office, it was found out that Sarmenta had been raped before being
killed. Meanwhile, the body of Allan Gomez was found in the grassy area in
another village in Calauan, Laguna; Gomez sustained two gunshot wounds (one
in the head and one in the back) in his body. The two men later surrendered at
the police headquarters where they identified themselves as the personnel of
Sanchez. They also explicitly pointed the finger to Sanchez as the mastermind of
murder and killing of the two victims. The case considered the most challenging
for the investigators, due to the witnesses incriminate Sanchez and his men for
the case. A vehicle, Toyota Tamaraw FX, used in the kidnapping of Sarmenta
and Gomez was surrendered to the police. It was not before that, after they
committed the crime, the vehicle was cleaned in front of the Calauan municipal
hall. The authorities found the empty bullet shell of the M16 rifle near the body of
Gomez. On July 28, 1993, the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission requested the
filing of appropriate charges against several persons, including the petitioner, in
connection with the rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of Allan
Gomez. Acting on this request, the Panel of State Prosecutors of the Department
of Justice conducted a preliminary investigation on August 9, 1993. Petitioner
Sanchez was not present but was represented by his counsel, Atty. Marciano
Brion, Jr. On August 12, 1993, PNP Commander Rex Piad issued an "invitation"
to the petitioner requesting him to appear for investigation at Camp Vicente Lim
in Canlubang, Laguna.

It was served on Sanchez in the morning of August 13,1993, and he was

immediately taken to the said camp. At a confrontation that same day, Sanchez
was positively identified by Aurelio Centeno, and SPO III Vivencio Malabanan,
who both executed confessions implicating him as a principal in the rape-slay of
Sarmenta and the killing of Gomez. The petitioner was then placed on "arrest
status" and taken to the Department of Justice in Manila. The respondent
prosecutors immediately conducted an inquest upon his arrival, with Atty.
Salvador Panelo as his counsel. After the hearing, a warrant of arrest was served
on Sanchez. This warrant was issued on August 13, 1993, by Judge Enrico A.
Lanzanas of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 7, in connection with
Criminal Cases Nos. 93-124634 to 93-124637 for violation of Section 8, in
relation to Section 1, of R.A. No. 6713. Sanchez was forthwith taken to the CIS
Detention Center, Camp Crame, where he remains confined. On August 16,
1993, the respondent prosecutors filed with the Regional Trial Court of Calamba,
Laguna, seven informations charging Antonio L. Sanchez, Luis Corcolon, Rogelio
Corcolon, Pepito Kawit, Baldwin Brion, Jr., George Medialdea and Zoilo Ama
with the rape and killing of Mary Eileen Sarmenta.

On August 26, 1993, Judge Eustaquio P. Sto. Domingo of that court

issued a warrant for the arrest of all the accused, including the petitioner, in
connection with the said crime.The respondent Secretary of Justice subsequently
expressed his apprehension that the trial of the said cases might result in a
miscarriage of justice because of the tense and partisan atmosphere in Laguna
in favor of the petitioner and the relationship of an employee, in the trial court
with one of the accused. This Court thereupon ordered the transfer of the venue
of the seven cases to Pasig, Metro Manila, where they were raffled to respondent
Judge Harriet Demetriou.

On September 10, 1993, the seven informations were amended to include

the killing of Allan Gomez as an aggravating circumstance. On that same date,
the petitioner filed a motion to quash the informations substantially on the
grounds now raised in this petition. On September 13, 1993, after oral
arguments, the respondent judge denied the motion. Sanchez then filed with this
Court the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a temporary
restraining order/writ of injunction.The petitioner argues that the seven
informations filed against him should be quashed because: 1) he was denied the
right to present evidence at the preliminary investigation; 2) only the Ombudsman
had the competence to conduct the investigation; 3) his warrantless arrest is
illegal and the court has therefore not acquired jurisdiction over him, 4) he is
being charged with seven homicides arising from the death of only two persons;
5) the informations are discriminatory because they do not include Teofilo
Alqueza and Edgardo Lavadia; and 6) as a public officer, he can be tried for the
offense only by the Sandiganbayan. The respondents submitted a Comment on
the petition, to which we required a Reply from the petitioner within a non-
extendible period of five days.1 The Reply was filed five days late. 2 The Court
may consider his non-compliance an implied admission of the respondents'
arguments or a loss of interest in prosecuting his petition, which is a ground for
its dismissal. Nevertheless, we shall disregard this procedural lapse and proceed
to discuss his petition on the basis of the arguments before us.

Conclusion

There is probably no more notorious person in the country today than

Mayor Antonio L. Sanchez of Calauan, Laguna, who stands accused of an
unspeakable crime. On him, the verdict has already been rendered by many
outraged persons who would immediately impose on him an angry sentence.
Yet, for all the prejudgments against him, he is under our Constitution presumed
innocent as long as the contrary has not been proved. Like any other person
accused of an offense, he is entitled to the full and vigilant protection of the Bill of
Rights. Both Sarmenta and Gomez were senior agriculture students at UPLB, the
country’s leading educational institution in agriculture. As reasonably assumed by
the trial court, both victims would have graduated in due course. Undeniably,
their untimely death deprived them of their future time and earning capacity. For
these deprivation, their heirs are entitled to compensation. Difficulty, however,
arises in measuring the value of Sarmenta’s and Gomez’s lost time and capacity
to earn money in the future, both having been unemployed at the time of death.
While the law is clear that the deceased has a right to his own time — which right
cannot be taken from him by a tortfeasor without compensation — the law is also
clear that damages cannot be awarded on the speculation, passion, or guess of
the judge or the witnesses.

Recommendation

As above demonstrated, all of the grounds invoked by the petitioner are

not supported by the facts and the applicable law and jurisprudence. They must,
therefore, all be rejected. In consequence, the respondent judge, who has started
the trial of the criminal cases against the petitioner and his co-accused, may
proceed therewith without further hindrance. It remains to stress that the decision
we make today is not a decision on the merits of the criminal cases being tried
below. These will have to be decided by the respondent judge in accordance with
the evidence that is still being received. At this time, there is yet no basis for
judgment, only uninformed conjecture. The Court will caution against such
irrelevant public speculations as they can be based only on imperfect knowledge
if not officious ignorance. On March 14, 1995, Pasig Judge Harriet Demetriou
concluded the 16-month Sarmenta-Gomez murder trial with the finding that
Calauan Mayor Antonio Sanchez and several henchmen (only some of whom
were policemen) were guilty of seven counts of rape with homicide for the rape
and killing of Sarmenta and the killing of Sarmenta's friend. Demetriou, in her
132-page decision, described the crime as being borne out of "a plot seemingly
hatched in hell".Sanchez was serving seven counts of reclusión perpetua (40
years for each count) for the crimes until his death. On January 25, 1999, the
Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial
Court. On August 29, 1999, Sanchez was sentenced to two counts of reclusion
perpetua by the Supreme Court for the murders of Nelson and Rickson Peñalosa
 Chapter IV

Comparative Case Analysis

This chapter presents the similarities and distinction of the cases stated in
the preceding chapter.

Case Distinction and Similarities

The Manila Hostage Crisis and Mayor Sanchez of Calauan case have
several distinction and several similarities. Generally, the key similaritiy of the
case is that they are crimes committed against a person/persons. On the
contrary the key distinction is that they differ to one another in terms of motive.
Herein below are the distinction and similarity of the case in terms of:

Profile of the Suspects

Both of the suspect in the aforementioned cases served as a public

servant, a policeman and mayor, who willfully, intentionally, with intent
committed a crime.

As per analyzing the case, the policeman served the country and
his people with passion in fact he is medaled and decorated 17 times for
bravery and honor however he was relieved for he was proven guilty of a
crime. On the other hand, is the mayor who served the Calauan Laguna
for two terms.

The difference between is that how they served their punishment

after committing the crime. The policeman from Hostage crisis was killed
during the commission of the act, on the contrary, the mayor from Calauan
Laguna, served his sentence with a punishment of reclusion perpetua
Profile of the Victim

In this matter, the cases widely differ to one another. In the hostage
crisis, several victims were affected furthermore some of them are foreign
nationalities. Unfortunately, in this hostage crisis some of them died during
the crime. On the other side, in the Mayor Sanchez Case, only two victim
suffered from the crime but the worst difference from the preceeding case
is that, these two suffered from violence then eventually killed and found.

On how the Government handled the operation:

Policeman Mendoza willfully committed the crime due to the denial

of acceptance from his previous judgement given by the ombudsman. The
president on the good side after learning the cause, then were dismissed.
The commission of the crime was herein committed due to personal
reason of the suspect. However, during the incident, herein facts also
stated that the death of some victims was caused by the police
accidentally. Moreover, it is also stated that the media intervention during
the crisis must have jeopardized the operation. The worst difference in this
case is that the failure of the ombudsman to render judgement regarding
the appeal resulted to the commission of this crime. As we conclude in
studying this case, the poor justice system served to the policeman
pushed him to commit this act.

The Mayor Sanchez case of Calauan Laguna, similarly in one of

the well-known crime committed in the Philippines. As we review this
case, in comparison with the hostage crisis, the Secretary of justice in this
case apprehended and admitted that this case might result to miscarriage
of justice, so they ordered to transfer the venue of the seven cases. As we
conclude this case, the action of the court to deny the filing of Sanchez of
motion to quash served the justice for the untimely death of the victims
were properly served right. And proving the guilt of Mayor Sanchez
resulted for his punishement gives the amount of justice that the families
 of the victim they deserved. With the above mentioned paragraph, the
cases does distinct to one another. An erred judgement from the
ombudsman and a justice served to the family of the victims of Mayor
Sanchez case.

How did the distinction and similarity affects the Criminal Justice System
in the Philippines?

The above cases affected our system differently. These cases proved that
the justice system in the Philippines may or may not be served right. Moreover,
with these cases, we can conclude that with no attention of media, these cases
might still be in pending as of now. The case of the policeman before the case
were not intervened by the media, unfortunately he received an erred judgment
which affected his medaled honor and his service for the country. The justice
served to the policeman resulted for a crime to be committed, as we may learned
from this case, the criminal justice system of the Philippines is indeed poor for
there is a presence that you may not get the justice that the citizen deserves. On
the other hand, is the Mayor Sanchez Case, we highly analyzed that in the midst
of unfair treatment of judgement, there is a chance for the criminal justice of the
Philippines to be fair and equal. The penaly imposed on the Mayor of Calauan
Laguna may be no sufficient enough for the life taken from the victim, but the
judgement rendered may also have given the family of the victim the satisfaction
that there is justice for the victims.

These well-known cases, may affect not only the system but also the
people of the Philippines. The people might question the justice system of ours.
“Can we really trust there will be fair justice and judgement fro everyone?”.
Moreover, not only our people will question it’s worst but also the other nations.
The improper rendered of judgement and decision questioned not only the justice
system but also the power of the government.
 CHAPTER 5

LAWS AND APPLICATION

Mayor Sanchez Case of Calauan, Laguna.

Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to

fair trial. The mere fact that the trial of appellant was given a day-to-day, gavel-to-
gavel coverage does not by itself prove that publicity so permeated the mind of
the trial judge and... impaired his impartiality. Our judges are learned in the law
and trained to disregard off-court evidence and on-camera performances of
parties to a litigation. Their mere exposure to publications and publicity stunts
does not per se fatally infect their impartiality.

This failure to present proof of actual bias continues to hound accused-

appellant Sanchez, having failed, in his motion for reconsideration, to
substantiate his claims of actual bias on the part of the trial judge. Not only that,
accused-appellant's case has been... exhaustively and painstakingly reviewed by
the Court itself. Accused-appellant Sanchez has not shown by an iota of proof
that the Court, in the examination of his appeal, was unduly swayed by publicity
in affirming the sentence of conviction imposed by the trial court. The... charge of
conviction by publicity leveled by accused-appellant has thus no ground to stand
on.

As to the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of Centeno and

Malabanan, suffice it to say that the points raised have all been carefully and
assiduously examined, not only by the trial court but also by the Court itself, and
that the inconsistencies were found to refer to... minor and collateral matters. It is
well-settled that so long as the witnesses' declarations agree on substantial
matters, the inconsequential inconsistencies and contradictions dilute neither the
witnesses' credibility nor the verity of their testimony

Accused-appellant Sanchez's argument that the testimony of his 13-year

old daughter, Ave Marie Sanchez, as to his whereabouts on the night of the
crime should be given full faith and credence is likewise unavailing. While it is
true that statements of children are accorded... great probative value, it is
likewise true that alibi is the weakest defense an accused can concoct. Where
nothing supports the alibi except the testimony of a relative, it deserves but scant
consideration the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects. In
addition, each of the appellants having been found guilty of seven (7) counts of
rape with homicide and considering that existing jurisprudence pegs the amount
of indemnity for the death of the victim at Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos,
this Court hereby orders each of the appellants to pay the respective heirs of
Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez the amount of Seven Hundred Thousand
(P700,000.00) Pesos as additional indemnity.

Manila Hostage Drama (PSINSP Mendoza)

In this case there is no ruling of the court because of that the suspect
PSINSP Mendoza was died. The hostage crisis in Manila took place in Quirino
grandstand which commemorates the Philippine democratic struggle, and where
elected heads of state take their vow of office, including President Benigno
Aquino. The incident reveals the many flaws in the country’s security regime and
crisis management strategies.