Joseph Erap Estrada alleges that he is the President on leave while Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo claims she is the

President. From the beginning o Erap!s term" he was plag#ed by problems that slowly b#t s#rely eroded his pop#larity.
$is sharp descent rom power started on %ctober &" '(((. )ingson" a longtime riend o Estrada" went on air and
acc#sed the Estrada" his amily and riends o receiving millions o pesos rom *#eteng lords. +he e,pos- immediately
ignited reactions o rage. %n Jan#ary ./" Estrada ell rom power. At .0'( p.m. o said day" the Erap inormed then
E,ec#tive )ecretary Edgardo Angara that General Angelo 1eyes" 2hie o )ta3 o the Armed Forces o the Philippines"
had deected. Jan#ary '( t#rned to be the day o Erap!s s#rrender. %n Jan#ary ''" the Monday ater ta4ing her oath"
Arroyo immediately discharged the powers and d#ties o the Presidency. Ater his all rom the pedestal o power"
Erap!s legal problems appeared in cl#sters. )everal cases previo#sly 5led against him in the %6ce o the %mb#dsman
were set in motion.
7))8E0 9hether or not Arroyo is a legitimate :de *#re; president.
$E<=0 +he )2 holds that the resignation o Estrada cannot be do#bted. 7t was con5rmed by his leaving Malaca>ang.
7n the press release containing his 5nal statement" :.; he ac4nowledged the oath-ta4ing o the respondent as President
o the 1ep#blic albeit with the reservation abo#t its legality? :'; he emphasi@ed he was leaving the Palace" the seat o
the presidency" or the sa4e o peace and in order to begin the healing process o o#r nation. $e did not say he was
leaving the Palace d#e to any 4ind o inability and that he was going to re-ass#me the presidency as soon as the
disability disappears? :A; he e,pressed his gratit#de to the people or the opport#nity to serve them. 9itho#t do#bt"
he was reerring to the past opport#nity given him to serve the people as President? :&; he ass#red that he will not
shir4 rom any #t#re challenge that may come ahead in the same service o o#r co#ntry. Estrada!s reerence is to a
#t#re challenge ater occ#pying the o6ce o the president which he has given #p? and :B; he called on his s#pporters
to *oin him in the promotion o a constr#ctive national spirit o reconciliation and solidarity. 2ertainly" the national
spirit o reconciliation and solidarity co#ld not be attained i he did not give #p the presidency. +he press release was
petitioner!s valedictory" his 5nal act o arewell. $is presidency is now in the past tense. Even i Erap can prove that he
did not resign" still" he cannot s#ccess#lly claim that he is a President on leave on the gro#nd that he is merely #nable
to govern temporarily. +hat claim has been laid to rest by 2ongress and the decision that respondent Arroyo is the de
*#re President made by a co-eC#al branch o government cannot be reviewed by this 2o#rt.
1ep#blic o the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
ED EAD2
G.R. Nos. 146710-15 April A" '((.
JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, petitioner,
vs.
ANIANO DESIERTO, in his !"!i#$ !s O%&'(s%!n, RAMON GON)A*ES, +O*UNTEERS AGAINST CRIME AND
CORRUPTION, GRA,T ,REE PHI*IPPINES ,OUNDATION, INC., *EONARD DE +ERA, DENNIS ,UNA, ROMEO
CAPU*ONG !n( ERNESTO -. ,RANCISCO, JR., respondents.

G.R. No. 1467./ April A" '((.
JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, petitioner,
vs.
G*ORIA MACAPAGA*-ARRO0O, respondent.

R E S O * U T I O N
PUNO, J.:
For resol#tion are petitioner!s Motion or 1econsideration in G.1. Dos. .&FG.(-.B and %mnib#s Motion in G.1. Do.
.&FGAH o the 2o#rt!s =ecision o March '" '((..
7n G.1. Dos. .&FG.(-.B" petitioner raises the ollowing gro#nds0
7. 7+ =7)1EGA1=E= +$E 2<EA1 AD= EIP<727+ P1%J7)7%D) %F A1+. I7" )E2+7%D A :G; %F +$E 2%D)+7+8+7%D AD= +$E
)E++<E= J817)P18=ED2E +$E1E%D.
77. 7+ $E<= +$A+ PE+7+7%DE1 2AD EE P1%)E28+E= D%9" F%1 +$7) 18<7DG 9%8<= J7%<A+E +$E =%8E<E JE%PA1=K
2<A8)E %F +$E 2%D)+7+8+7%D" 2%D)7=E17DG +$A+ PE+7+7%DE1 9A) A2L87++E= 7D +$E 7MPEA2$MED+
P1%2EE=7DG).
777. 7+ $E<= +$A+ PE+7+7%DE1 7) D% <%DGE1 ED+7+<E= +% AE)%<8+E 7MM8D7+K F1%M )87+.
7J. 7+ $E<= +$A+ PE+7+7%DE1!) =8E P1%2E)) 17G$+) +% A FA71 +17A< $AJE D%+ EEED P1EJ8=72E= EK P1E-+17A<
P8E<727+K.
J. 7+ $E<= +$A+ +$E1E 7) D%+ ED%8G$ EJ7=ED2E +% 9A11AD+ +$E 2%81+ +% EDJ%7D +$E P1E<7M7DA1K
7DJE)+7GA+7%D %F +$E 7D28MEED+ %ME8=)MAD" PE+7+7%DE1 $AJ7DG FA7<E= +% P1%JE +$E 7MPA71E= 2APA27+K %F
+$E %ME8=)MAD +% 1ED=E1 A E7A)E= F1EE =E27)7%D.
7n G.1. Do. .&FGAH" petitioner raises and arg#es the ollowing iss#es0
.. 9$E+$E1 PE+7+7%DE1 1E)7GDE= %1 )$%8<= EE 2%D)7=E1E= 1E)7GDE= A) %F JAD8A1K '(" '((.?
'. 9$E+$E1 +$E ADGA1A =7A1K 7) 7DA=M7))7E<E F%1 EE7DG J7%<A+7JE %F +$E F%<<%97DG 18<E) %D EJ7=ED2E0
$EA1)AK" EE)+ EJ7=ED2E" A8+$ED+72A+7%D" A=M7))7%D) AD= RES INTER ALIOS ACTA?
A. 9$E+$E1 1E<7AD2E %D DE9)PAPE1 A22%8D+) 7) J7%<A+7JE %F +$E $EA1)AK 18<E?
&. 9$E+$E1 2%DG1E)) POST FACTO 2AD =E27=E PE+7+7%DE1!) 7DAE7<7+K +% G%JE1D 2%D)7=E17DG )E2+7%D .."
A1+72<E J77 %F +$E 2%D)+7+8+7%D? and
B. 9$E+$E1 P1EJ8=727A< P8E<727+K $A) AFFE2+E= PE+7+7%DE1!) 17G$+ +% FA71 +17A<.
9e 5nd the contentions o petitioner beret o merit.
I
P123'(ii!4 P'&4ii#$ on #h2 Co'1#
Petitioner insists he is the victim o pre*#dicial p#blicity. Among others" he assails the =ecision or adverting to
newspaper acco#nts o the events and occ#rrences to reach the concl#sion that he has resigned. 7n o#r =ecision" we
#sed the totality test to arrive at the concl#sion that petitioner has resigned. 9e reerred to and analy@ed events that
were prior" contemporaneo#s and posterior to the oath-ta4ing o respondent Arroyo as president. A44 #h2s2 252n#s
!12 6!#s 7hih !12 7244-2s#!&4ish2( !n( !nno# &2 126'#2(. +h#s" we adverted to prior events that b#ilt #p the
irresistible press#re or the petitioner to resign. +hese are0 :.; the e,pose o Governor <#is 2havit )ingson on
%ctober &" '(((? :'; the 7 acc#se speech o then )enator +eo5sto G#ingona in the )enate? :A; the *oint investigation
o the speech o )enator G#ingona by the El#e 1ibbon 2ommittee and the 2ommittee on J#stice? :&; the investigation
o the )ingson e,pose by the $o#se 2ommittee on P#blic %rder and )ec#rity? :B; the move to impeach the petitioner in
the $o#se o 1epresentatives? :F; the Pastoral <etter o Archbishop Jaime 2ardinal )in demanding petitioner!s
resignation? :G; a similar demand by the 2atholic Eishops conerence? :H; the similar demands or petitioner!s
resignation by ormer Presidents 2ora@on 2. AC#ino and Fidel J. 1amos? :/; the resignation o respondent Arroyo as
)ecretary o the =)9= and her call or petitioner to resign? :.(; the resignation o the members o petitioner!s 2o#ncil
o )enior Economic Advisers and o )ecretary Mar 1o,as 777 rom the =epartment o +rade and 7nd#stry? :..; the
deection o then )enate President Fran4lin =rilon and then )pea4er o the $o#se o 1epresentatives Man#el Jillar and
orty seven :&G; representatives rom petitioner!s <apiang Masang Pilipino? :.'; the transmission o the Articles o
7mpeachment by )pea4er Jillar to the )enate? :.A; the #nseating o )enator =rilon as )enate President and o
1epresentative Jillar as )pea4er o the $o#se? :.&; the impeachment trial o the petitioner? :.B; the testimonies o
2larissa %campo and ormer Finance )ecretary Edgardo Espirit# in the impeachment trial? :.F; the ..-.( vote o the
senator-*#dges denying the prosec#tor!s motion to open the 'nd envelope which allegedly contained evidence showing
that petitioner held a PA.A billion deposit in a secret ban4 acco#nt #nder the name o Jose Jelarde? :.G; the
prosec#tors! wal4o#t and resignation? :.H; the inde5nite postponement o the impeachment proceedings to give a
chance to the $o#se o 1epresentatives to resolve the iss#e o resignation o their prosec#tors? :./; the rally in the
E=)A )hrine and its intensi5cation in vario#s parts o the co#ntry? :'(; the withdrawal o s#pport o then )ecretary o
Dational =eense %rlando Mercado and the then 2hie o )ta3" General Angelo 1eyes" together with the chies o all
the armed services? :'.; the same withdrawal o s#pport made by the then =irector General o the PDP" General
Pan5lo <acson" and the ma*or service commanders? :''; the stream o resignations by 2abinet secretaries"
#ndersecretaries" assistant secretaries and b#rea# chies? :'A; petitioner!s agreement to hold a snap election and
opening o the controversial second envelope. A44 #h2s2 "1io1 252n#s !12 6!#s 7hih !12 7i#hin 3'(ii!4 no#i2
&$ #his Co'1#. Th212 7!s no n22( #o i#2 #h2i1 n27s !o'n#s. Th2 126212n2 &$ #h2 Co'1# #o 21#!in
n27s"!"21s 12"o1#in8 #h2% !s #h2$ h!""2n2( (o2s no# %!92 #h2% in!(%issi&42 25i(2n2 6o1 &2in8
h2!1s!$. Th2 n27s !o'n# on4$ &'##12ss2( #h2s2 6!#s !s 6!#s. ,o1 !44 his 4o'( "1o#2s#!#ions, "2#i#ion21
h!s no# sin842( o'# !n$ o6 #h2s2 6!#s !s 6!4s2.
9e now come to some events o Jan#ary '(" '((. contemporaneo#s to the oath ta4ing o respondent Arroyo. 9e #sed
the Angara =iary to decipher the intent to resign on the part o the petitioner. <et it be emphasi@ed that it is not
#n#s#al or co#rts to distill a person!s s#b*ective intent rom the evidence beore them. Everyday" co#rts ascertain
intent in criminal cases" in civil law cases involving last wills and testaments" in commercial cases involving contracts
and in other similar cases. As will be disc#ssed below" the #se o the Angara =iary is not prohibited by the hearsay
r#le. Petitioner may disagree with some o the inerences arrived at by the 2o#rt rom the acts narrated in the =iary
b#t that does not ma4e the =iary inadmissible as evidence.
9e did not stop with the contemporaneo#s events b#t proceeded to e,amine some events posterior to the oath-ta4ing
o respondent Arroyo. )peci5cally" we analy@ed the all important press release o the petitioner containing his :n!4
s#!#2%2n# which was iss#ed ater the oath-ta4ing o respondent Arroyo as president. Ater analy@ing its content" we
r#led that petitioner!s iss#ance o the press release and his abandonment o Malaca>ang Palace con5rmed his
resignation.
.
+hese are o521# !#s which leave no do#bt to the 2o#rt that the petitioner has resigned.
In 4i8h# o6 #his :n(in8 #h!# "2#i#ion21 h!s 12si8n2( &26o12 1; o<4o9 noon o6 J!n'!1$ ;0, ;001, #h2 4!i%
#h!# #h2 o=2 o6 #h2 P12si(2n# 7!s no# 5!!n# 7h2n 12s"on(2n# A11o$o #oo9 h21 o!#h o6 o=2 !# h!46
"!s# noon o6 #h2 s!%2 (!$ h!s no 428 #o s#!n( on.
9e also re*ect the contention that petitioner!s resignation was d#e to ('12ss and an in5o4'n#!1$ 12si8n!#ion is no
resignation at all.
, , , 7 t has been said that" in determining whether a given resignation is vol#ntarily tendered" the element o
vol#ntariness is vitiated only when the resignation is s#bmitted #nder d#ress bro#ght on by government
action. +he #h122-"!1# #2s# or s#ch d#ress has been stated as involving the ollowing elements0 :.; whether one side
invol#ntarily accepted the other!s terms? :'; whether circ#mstances permitted no other alternative? and :A; whether
s#ch circ#mstances were the res#lt o coercive acts o the opposite side. +he view has also been e,pressed that a
resignation may be o#nd invol#ntary i on the #o#!4i#$ o6 #h2 i1'%s#!n2s it appears that the employer!s cond#ct
in 12>'2s#in8 12si8n!#ion e3ectively deprived the employer o ree choice in the matter. ,!#o1s #o &2
onsi(212(" #nder this test" are0 :.; whether the employee was given some alternative to resignation? :'; whether the
employee #nderstood the nat#re o the choice he or she was given? :A; whether the employee was given a reasonable
time in which to choose? and :&; whether he or she was permitted to select the e3ective date o resignation. 7n
applying this totality o the circ#mstances test" the assessment whether real alternatives were o3ered m#st be ga#ged
by an ob*ective standard rather than by the employee!s p#rely s#b*ective eval#ation? #h!# #h2 2%"4o$22 %!$
"212i52 his o1 h21 on4$ o"#ion #o &2 12si8n!#ion ? 6o1 2@!%"42, &2!'s2 o6 on21ns !&o'# his o1 h21
12"'#!#ion ? is i112425!n#. Si%i4!14$, #h2 %212 6!# #h!# #h2 hoi2 is &2#722n o%"!1!&4$ 'n"42!s!n#
!4#21n!#i52s ? 6o1 2@!%"42, 12si8n!#ion o1 6!in8 (isi"4in!1$ h!182s ? (o2s no# o6 i#s246 2s#!&4ish #h!# !
12si8n!#ion 7!s in('2( &$ ('12ss o1 o21ion, !n( 7!s #h2126o12 in5o4'n#!1$. +his is so even where the
only alternative to resignation is acing possible termination or ca#se" #nless the employer act#ally lac4ed good ca#se
to believe that gro#nds or termination e,isted. 7n this regard it has also been said that a resignation res#lting rom a
choice between resigning or acing proceedings or dismissal is not tantamo#nt to discharge by coercion witho#t
proced#ral view i the employee is given s#6cient time and opport#nity or deliberation o the choice
posed. F#rthermore" a resignation by an o6cer charged with miscond#ct is not given #nder d#ress" tho#gh the
appropriate a#thority has already determined that the o6cer!s alternative is termination" where s#ch a#thority has the
legal a#thority to terminate the o6cer!s employment #nder the partic#lar circ#mstances" since it is not d#ress to
threaten to do what one has the legal right to do" or to threaten to ta4e any meas#re a#thori@ed by law and the
circ#mstances o the case.
'
7n the cases at bar" "2#i#ion21 h!( s2521!4 o"#ions available to him other than resignation. $e proposed to the
holding o snap elections. $e transmitted to the 2ongress a written declaration o temporary inability. $e co#ld not
claim he was orced to resign beca#se immediately beore he let Malaca>ang" he as4ed )ecretary Angara0 Ed" aalis
na ba a4oM which implies that he still had a choice o whether or not to leave.
To &2 s'12, "12ss'12 7!s 2@21#2( 6o1 #h2 "2#i#ion21 #o 12si8n. -'# i# is (i='4# #o &24i252 #h!# #h2
"12ss'12 o%"42#24$ 5i#i!#2( #h2 5o4'n#!1in2ss o6 #h2 "2#i#ion21<s 12si8n!#ion. +he Malaca>ang gro#nd was
then #lly protected by the Presidential )ec#rity G#ard armed with tan4s and high-powered weapons. +he then 2hie
o )ta3" General Angelo 1eyes" and other military o6cers were in Malaca>ang to ass#re that no harm wo#ld beall the
petitioner as he let the Palace. 7ndeed" no harm" not even a scratch" was s#3ered by the petitioner" the members o
his amily and his 2abinet who st#c4 it o#t with him in his last ho#rs. Petitioner!s ento#rage was even able to deto#r
saely to the M#nicipal $all o )an J#an and bade goodbye to his ollowers beore 5nally going to his residence in Pol4
)treet" Greenhills. +he only incident beore the petitioner let the Palace was the stone throwing between a small
gro#p o pro and anti Erap rallyists which res#lted in minor in*#ries to a ew o them. 2ertainly" there were no tan4s
that r#mbled thro#gh the Palace" no attac4 planes that New over the presidential residence" no shooting" no large scale
violence" e,cept verbal violence" to *#stiy the concl#sion that petitioner was coerced to resign.
II
E5i(2n#i!1$ Iss'2s
Petitioner devotes a large part o his arg#ments on the alleged improper #se by this 2o#rt o the An8!1! Di!1$. 7t is
#rged that the #se o the An8!1! Di!1$ to determine the state o mind o the petitioner on the iss#e o his resignation
violates the r#le against the admission o h2!1s!$ 25i(2n2.
9e are #npers#aded. +o begin with" #h2 An8!1! (i!1$ is no# !n o'# o6 o'1# s#!#2%2n#. +he An8!1! Di!1$ is
"!1# o6 #h2 "42!(in8s in #h2 !s2s !# &!1. Petitioner cannot complain he was not #rnished a copy o the Angara
=iary. Dor can he eign s#rprise on its #se. +o be s#re" the said =iary was reC#ently reerred to by the parties in their
pleadings.
A
+he three parts o the =iary p#blished in the P=7 rom Febr#ary &-F" '((. were attached as Anne,es A-2"
respectively" o the Memorand#m o private respondents 1omeo +. 2ap#long" et al." dated Febr#ary '(" '((.. +he
second and third parts o the =iary were earlier also attached as Anne,es .' and .A o the 2omment o private
respondents 2ap#long" et al." dated Febr#ary .'" '((.. 7n act" petitioner even cited in his )econd )#pplemental 1eply
Memorand#m both the second part o the diary" p#blished on Febr#ary B" '((."
&
and the third part" p#blished on
Febr#ary F" '((..
B
7t was also e,tensively #sed by )ecretary o J#stice $ernando Pere@ in his oral arg#ments. +h#s"
petitioner had all the opport#nity to contest the #se o the =iary b#t #nort#nately ailed to do so.
Even ass#ming arg#endo that the Angara =iary was an o#t o co#rt statement" still its #se is not covered by the
hearsay r#le.
F
Evidence is called hearsay when its probative orce depends" in whole or in part" on the competency
and credibility o some persons other than the witness by whom it is so#ght to prod#ce it.
G
+here are three reasons or
e,cl#ding hearsay evidence0 :.; absence o cross e,amination? :'; absence o demeanor evidence" and :A; absence o
the oath.
H
Dot at all hearsay evidence" however" is inadmissible as evidence. %ver the years" a h#ge body o hearsay
evidence has been admitted by co#rts d#e to their relevance" tr#stworthiness and necessity.
/
+he emergence o these
e,ceptions and their wide spread acceptance is well-e,plained by 9einstein" Mans5eld" Abrams and Eerger as ollows0
, , ,
%n the other hand" we all ma4e decisions in o#r everyday lives on the basis o other persons! acco#nts o what
happened" and verdicts are #s#ally s#stained and a6rmed even i they are based on hearsay erroneo#sly admitted" or
admitted beca#se no ob*ection was made. )ee )hepp v. 8ehlinger" GGB F 'd &B'" &B&-&BB :.st 2ir. ./HB; :hearsay
evidence alone can s#pport a verdict;. Altho#gh vol#mes have been written s#ggesting ways to revise the hearsay
r#le" no one advocates a r#le that wo#ld bar all hearsay evidence. In(22(, #h2 (2i(2( his#o1i!4 #12n( h!s &22n
#o 2@4'(2 !#28o1i2s o6 hi8h4$ "1o&!#i52 s#!#2%2n#s 61o% #h2 (2:ni#ion o6 h2!1s!$ As2#ions ; !n( .,
in61!B, !n( #o (2524o" %o12 4!ss 2@2"#ions #o #h2 h2!1s!$ 1'42 As2#ions 4-11, in61!B. ,'1#h21%o12,
%!n$ s#!#2s h!52 !((2( #o #h2i1 1'42s #h2 12si('!4, o1 !#h-!44, 2@2"#ions :1s# "ion2212( &$ #h2 ,2(21!4
R'42s 7hih !'#ho1iC2 #h2 !(%ission o6 h2!1s!$ #h!# (o2s no# s!#is6$ ! 4!ss 2@2"#ion, "1o5i(2( i# is
!(2>'!#24$ #1's#7o1#h$ !n( "1o&!#i52 :section .'" inra;.
Moreover" so%2 o%%2n#!#o1s &24i252 #h!# #h2 h2!1s!$ 1'42 sho'4( &2 !&o4ish2( !4#o82#h21 ins#2!( o6
&2in8 4oos2n2(. )ee" e.g." Dote" +he +heoretical Fo#ndation o the $earsay 1#les" /A $arv.<.1ev. .GHF" .H(&-.H(B"
.H.B :./H(; :ootnotes omitted;0
+he Federal 1#les o Evidence provide that OPaQltho#gh relevant" evidence may be e,cl#ded i its probative val#e is
s#bstantially o#tweighed by the danger o #nair pre*#dice.! 8nder this str#ct#re" e,cl#sion is *#sti5ed by ears o how
the *#ry will be inN#enced by the evidence. $owever" it is not traditional to thin4 o hearsay as merely a s#bdivision o
this str#ct#re" and the Federal 1#les do not conceive o hearsay in that manner. Pre*#dice reers to the *#ry!s #se o
evidence or inerences other than those or which the evidence is legally relevant? by contrast" the r#le against
hearsay C#estions the *#ry!s ability to eval#ate the strength o a legitimate inerence to be drawn rom the
evidence. For e,ample" were a *#dge to e,cl#de testimony beca#se a witness was partic#larly smooth or convincing"
there wo#ld be no do#bt as to the #s#rpation o the *#ry!s #nction. +h#s" #nli4e pre*#dices recogni@ed by the
evidence r#les" s#ch as those stemming rom racial or religio#s biases or rom the introd#ction o photographs o a
victim!s 5nal state" the e,cl#sion o hearsay on the basis o misperception stri4es at the root o the *#ry!s #nction by
#s#rping its power to process C#ite ordinary evidence" the type o inormation ro#tinely enco#ntered by *#rors in their
everyday lives.
R
)ince virt#ally all criteria see4ing to disting#ish between good and bad hearsay are either incoherent" inconsistent" or
indeterminate" the only alternative to a general r#le o admission wo#ld be an absol#te r#le o e,cl#sion" which is
s#rely inerior. More important" the ass#mptions necessary to *#stiy a r#le against hearsay R seem ins#pportable
and" in any event" are inconsistent with accepted notions o the #nction o the *#ry. +hereore" the hearsay r#les
sho#ld be abolished.
)ome s#pport or this view can be o#nd in the limited empirical research now available S which is" however" derived
rom sim#lations S that s#ggests that !(%i##in8 h2!1s!$ h!s 4i##42 2D2# on #1i!4 o'#o%2s &2!'s2 3'1o1s
(iso'n# #h2 5!4'2 o6 h2!1s!$ 25i(2n2. )ee 1a4os T <andsman" 1esearching the $earsay 1#le0 Emerging
Findings" General 7ss#es" and F#t#re =irections" GF Minn. <. 1ev. FBB :.//';? Miene" Par4" T Eorgidas" J#ry =ecision
Ma4ing and the Eval#ation o $earsay Evidence" GF Minn. <. 1ev. FHA :.//';? Uovera" Par4" T Penrod" J#rors!
Perceptions o Eyewitness and $earsay Evidence" GF Minn. <. 1ev. G(A :.//';? <andsman T 1a4os" 1esearch Essay0 A
Preliminary Empirical EnC#iry 2oncerning the prohibition o $earsay Evidence in American 2o#rts" .B <aw T Psychol.
1ev. FB :.//.;.
O#h21s, 252n i6 #h2$ on2(2 #h!# 12s#1i#ions on h2!1s!$ h!52 so%2 '#i4i#$, >'2s#ion 7h2#h21 #h2
&2n2:#s o'#72i8h #h2 os#E
+he cost o maintaining the r#le is not *#st a #nction o its contrib#tion to *#stice. 7t also incl#des the time spent on
litigating the r#le. And o co#rse this is not *#st a cost vol#ntarily borne by the parties" or in o#r system virt#ally all
the cost o the co#rt S salaries" administrative costs" and capital costs S are borne by the p#blic. As e,pensive as
litigation is or the parties" it is s#pported by an enormo#s p#blic s#bsidy. E!h #i%2 ! h2!1s!$ >'2s#ion is
4i#i8!#2(, #h2 "'&4i "!$s. +he r#le imposes other costs as well. Enormo#s time is spent teaching and writing
abo#t the hearsay r#le" which are both costly enterprises. 7n some law schools" st#dents spend over hal their time in
evidence classes learning the intricacies o the hearsay r#le" and R enormo#s academic reso#rces are e,pended on
the r#le.
Allen" 2ommentary on Proessor Friendman!s Article0 +he Evol#tion o the $earsay 1#le to a 1#le o Admission" GF
Minn.<.1ev. G/G" H(( .//' :b#t wo#ld abolish r#le only in civil cases;. )ee also Friedman" +oward a Partial Economic"
Game-+heoretic Analysis o $earsay" GF Minn. <. 1ev. G'A :.//';.
.(
A o%"42#2 !n!4$sis o any hearsay problem reC#ires that we 6'1#h21 (2#21%in2 whether the hearsay evidence is
one e,empted rom the 1'42s o6 2@4'sion. A %o12 i1'%s"2# 2@!%in!#ion o6 o'1 1'42s o6 2@4'sion 7i44
sho7 #h!# #h2$ (o no# o521 !(%issions o6 ! "!1#$ !n( #h2 An8!1! Di!1$ &24on8s #o #his 4!ss. )ection 'F
o 1#le .A( provides that the act" declaration or omission o a party as to a relevant act may be given in evidence
against him.
..
I# h!s 4on8 &22n s2##42( #h!# #h2s2 !(%issions !12 !(%issi&42 252n i6 #h2$ !12
h2!1s!$. 1etired J#stice %scar $errera o the 2o#rt o Appeals cites the vario#s a#thorities who e,plain
why !(%issions !12 no# o5212( &$ #h2 h2!1s!$ 1'42E
.'
Fi8%o12" ater pointing o#t that the "!1#$<s (24!1!#ion has generally the probative val#e o any other person!s
assertion" arg#ed that it had a s"2i!4 5!4'2 7h2n oD212( !8!ins# #h2 "!1#$. 7n that circ#mstance" the admission
discredits the party!s statement with the present claim asserted in pleadings and testimony" m#ch li4e a witness
impeached by contradictory statements. Moreover" he contin#ed" !(%issions "!ss #h2 8!'n#42# o6 #h2 h2!1s!$
1'42" which reC#ires that e,tra*#dicial assertions be e,cl#ded i there was no opport#nity or the opponent to cross-
e,amine beca#se it is the opponent!s own declaration" and Oh2 (o2s no# n22( #o 1oss 2@!%in2
hi%s246.< 9igmore then added that the $earsay 1#le is satis5ed since the party now as opponent has the #ll
opport#nity to p#t himsel on the stand and e,plain his ormer assertion. :Fi8%o12 on 25i(2n2, S2. 104/
ACh!(&o'1n R25. 1G7;B, i#2( in S2. 154, MCo1%i9;
According to Mo18!n0 O+he admissibility o an admission made by the party himsel rests not #pon any notion that the
circ#mstances in which it was made #rnish the trier means o eval#ating it airly" b#t #pon the adversary theory o
litigation. A "!1#$ !n h!1(4$ o&32# #h!# h2 h!( no o""o1#'ni#$ #o 1oss-2@!%in2 hi%s246 o1 #h!# h2 is
'n7o1#h$ o6 12(2n2 s!52 7h2n s"2!9in8 'n(21 s!n#ion o6 !n o!#h.!
A man!s acts" cond#ct" and declaration" wherever made" i vol#ntary" are admissible against him" or the reason that it
is air to pres#me that they correspond with the tr#th" and it is his a#lt i they do not. :U.S. vs. Ching Po, 23 Phil.
578, 583;.
+he An8!1! Di!1$ contains direct statements o petitioner which can be categori@ed as !(%issions o6 ! "!1#$0 his
proposal or a snap presidential election where he wo#ld not be a candidate? his statement that he only wanted the
5ve-day period promised by 2hie o )ta3 Angelo 1eyes? his statements that he wo#ld leave by Monday i the second
envelope wo#ld be opened by Monday and Pagod na pagod na a4o. Ayo4o na" masyado nang masa4it. Pagod na a4o
sa red tape" b#rea#cracy" intriga. :7 am very tired. 7 don!t want any more o this S it!s too pain#l. 7!m tired o the red
tape" the b#rea#cracy" the intrig#e;. 7 *#st want to clear my name" then 7 will go. 9e noted that days beore"
petitioner had repeatedly declared that he wo#ld not resign despite the growing clamor or his resignation. +he reason
or the meltdown is obvio#s S - S his will not to resign has wilted.
I# is, ho72521, !18'2( #h!# #h2 An8!1! Di!1$ is no# #h2 (i!1$ o6 #h2 "2#i#ion21, h2n2, non-&in(in8 on
hi%. +he arg#ment o5214oo9s the doctrine o !(o"#i52 !(%ission. An adoptive admission is a party!s reaction to a
statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the party!s reaction !s !n !(%ission o6
so%2#hin8 s#!#2( o1 i%"4i2( &$ #h2 o#h21 "21son.
.A
Jones e,plains that the basis or admissibility
o !(%issions %!(2 5i!1io's4$ is that arising rom the 1!#i:!#ion o1 !(o"#ion by the party o the statements
which the other person had made.
.&
+o #se the bl#nt lang#age o M#eller and Uir4patric4" #his "1o2ss o6
!##1i&'#ion is no# %'%&o 3'%&o &'# o%%on s2ns2.
.B
7n the An8!1! Di!1$" the options o the petitioner
started to dwindle when the armed orces withdrew its s#pport rom him as President and commander-in-chie. +h#s"
E,ec#tive )ecretary Angara had to as4 )enate President Pimentel to advise petitioner to consider the option o
(i8ni:2( 2@i# o1 12si8n!#ion. Petitioner did not ob*ect to the s#ggested option b#t simply said he co#ld never
leave the co#ntry. Petitioner!s silence on this and other related s#ggestions can be ta4en as an admission by him.
.F
Petitioner #rther contends that the #se o the An8!1! (i!1$ against him violated the r#le on 12s in#21 !4ios
!#!. +he r#le is e,pressed in section 'H o 1#le .A( o the 1#les o 2o#rt" vi@0 +he rights o a party cannot be
pre*#diced by an act" declaration" or omission o another" 2@2"# !s h212in!6#21 "1o5i(2(.
Again" petitioner errs in his contention. +he res inter alios acta r#le has s2521!4 2@2"#ions. %ne o them is
provided in section '/ o 1#le .A( with respect to !(%issions &$ ! o-"!1#n21 o1 !82n#.
E,ec#tive )ecretary Angara as s#ch was an !4#21 28o o the petitioner. $e was the <ittle President. 7ndeed" h2 7!s
!'#ho1iC2( &$ #h2 "2#i#ion21 #o !# 6o1 hi% in #h2 1i#i!4 ho'1s !n( (!$s &26o12 h2 !&!n(on2(
M!4!!H!n8 P!4!2. +h#s" according to the An8!1! Di!1$" the petitioner told )ecretary Angara0 M#la #mpisa pa
lang ng 4ampanya" Ed" i4aw na lang pina4i4inggan 4o. At hanggang sa h#li" i4aw pa rin. :)ince the start o the
campaign" Ed" yo# have been the only one 7!ve listened to. And now at the end" yo# still are.;
.G
This s#!#2%2n# o6
6'44 #1's# 7!s %!(2 &$ #h2 "2#i#ion21 !6#21 S212#!1$ An8!1! &1i262( hi% !&o'# #h2 "1o812ss o6 #h2 :1s#
n28o#i!#ion. +r#e to this tr#st" the petitioner had to as4 )ecretary Angara i he wo#ld already leave Malaca>ang ater
ta4ing their 5nal l#nch on Jan#ary '(" '((. at abo#t .0(( p.m. +he An8!1! Di!1$ C#otes the petitioner as saying to
)ecretary Angara0 ed" 4ailangan 4o na bang #malisM :=o 7 have to leave nowM;
.H
)ecretary Angara told him to go and
he did. Petitioner cannot deny that )ecretary Angara headed his team o negotiators that met with the team o the
respondent Arroyo to disc#ss the peace#l and orderly transer o power ater his relinC#ishment o the powers o the
presidency. +he Di!1$ shows that petitioner was always brieed by )ecretary Angara on the progress o their
negotiations. S212#!1$ An8!1! !#2( 6o1 !n( in &2h!46 o6 #h2 "2#i#ion21 in the cr#cial days beore respondent
Arroyo too4 her oath as President. 2onseC#ently" "2#i#ion21 is &o'n( &$ #h2 !#s !n( (24!1!#ions o6 S212#!1$
An8!1!.
Un(21 o'1 1'42s o6 25i(2n2, !(%issions o6 !n !82n# AS212#!1$ An8!1!B !12 &in(in8 on #h2 "1ini"!4
A"2#i#ion21B.
./
Jones very well e,plains the 12!sons 6o1 #h2 1'42" vi@0 9hat is done" by agent" is done by the
principal thro#gh him" as thro#gh a mere instr#ment. )o" whatever is said by an agent" either in ma4ing a contract or
his principal" or at the time and accompanying the perormance o any act within the scope o his a#thority" having
relation to" and connected with" and in the co#rse o the partic#lar contract or transaction in which he is then engaged"
or in the lang#age o the old writers" dum fervet opus is" in legal e3ect" said by his principal and admissible in
evidence against s#ch principal.
'(
Moreover" #h2 &!n on h2!1s!$ 25i(2n2 (o2s no# o521 in(2"2n(2n#4$ 12425!n# s#!#2%2n#s. +hese are
statements which are 12425!n# in(2"2n(2n#4$ o6 7h2#h21 #h2$ !12 #1'2 o1 no#. +hey belong to #7o A;B
4!ss2s0 :.; those statements which are the very acts in iss#e" and :'; those statements which are i1'%s#!n#i!4
25i(2n2 o6 #h2 6!#s in iss'2. +he second class incl#des the ollowing0
'.
a. S#!#2%2n# o6 ! "21son showing his s#!#2 o6 %in(" that is" his mental condition" 4nowledge" belie" intention" ill
will and other emotions?
b. )tatements o a person which show his physical condition" as illness and the li4e?
c. S#!#2%2n#s o6 ! "21son rom which an inerence may be made as to the s#!#2 o6 %in( o6 !no#h21" that is" the
4nowledge" belie" motive" good or bad aith" etc. o the latter?
d. )tatements which may identiy the date" place and person in C#estion? and
e. )tatements showing the lac4 o credibility o a witness.
Again" Jon2s #244s 's 7h$ #h2s2 in(2"2n(2n#4$ 12425!n# s#!#2%2n#s !12 no# o5212( &$ #h2 "1ohi&i#ion
!8!ins# h2!1s!$ 25i(2n2E
''
V .(HH. Mental )tate or 2ondition S Proo o Unowledge.- +here are a n#mber o common iss#es" orming a general
class" in proo o which hearsay is so obvio#sly necessary that it is not c#stomary to reer to its admissibility as by
virt#e o any e,ception to the general e,cl#sionary r#le. Admissibility" in s#ch cases" is as o co#rse. For
e,ample" 7h212 !n$ %2n#!4 s#!#2 o1 on(i#ion is in iss'2" s#ch as motive" malice" 4nowledge" intent" assent or
dissent" #nless direct testimony o the partic#lar person is to be ta4en as concl#sive o his state o mind" the on4$
%2#ho( o6 "1oo6 !5!i4!&42 is #2s#i%on$ o6 o#h21s #o #h2 !#s o1 s#!#2%2n#s o6 s'h "21son. 9here his acts
or statements are against his interest" they are plainly admissible within the r#les hereinabove anno#nced as to
admissions against interest. And even where not against interest" i they are so closely connected with the event or
transaction in iss#e as to constit#te one o the very acts in controversy" #h2$ &2o%2 !(%issi&42 o6 n22ssi#$.
As aoredisc#ssed" +he An8!1! Di!1$ contains statements o the petitioner which reNect his state o mind and are
circ#mstantial evidence o his intent to resign. 7t also contains statements o )ecretary Angara rom which we can
reasonably ded#ce petitioner!s intent to resign. +hey are admissible and they are not covered by the r#le on
hearsay. +his has long been a C#iet area o o#r law on evidence and petitioner!s attempt to oment a belated tempest
cannot receive o#r imprimat#r.
P2#i#ion21 !4so on#2n(s #h!# #h2 1'42s on !'#h2n#i!#ion o6 "1i5!#2 71i#in8s !n( &2s# 25i(2n2 were
violated in o#r =ecision" vi@0
+he #se o the Angara diary palpably breached several hornboo4 r#les o evidence" s#ch as the r#le on a#thentication
o private writingsR
, , ,
A. 1#le on Proo o Private 9ritings Jiolated
+he r#le governing private doc#ments as evidence was violated. +he law provides that beore any private writing
o3ered as a#thentic is received in evidence" its d#e e,ec#tion and a#thenticity m#st be proved either0 a; by anyone
who saw the doc#ment e,ec#ted or written" or b; by evidence o the gen#ineness o the signat#re or handwriting o
the ma4er.
, , ,
E. Eest Evidence 1#le 7nringed
2learly" the newspaper reprod#ction is not the best evidence o the Angara diary. 7t is secondary evidence" o d#bio#s
a#thenticity. 7t was however #sed by this $onorable 2o#rt witho#t proo o the #navailability o the original or
d#plicate original o the diary. +he Eest Evidence 1#le sho#ld have been applied since the contents o the diary are
the s#b*ect o inC#iry.
+he r#le is that" e,cept in o#r :&; speci5c instances" w hen the s#b*ect o inC#iry is the contents o a doc#ment" no
evidence shall be admissible other than the original doc#ment itsel.
'A
Petitioner!s contention is witho#t merit. 7n regard to the -2s# E5i(2n2 1'42" the 1#les o 2o#rt provides in sections '
to & o 1#le .A(" as ollows0
)ec. '. =oc#mentary evidence. S =oc#ments as evidence consist o writings or any material containing letters" words"
n#mbers" 5g#res or other modes o written e,pressions o3ered as proo o their contents.
)ec. A. %riginal doc#ment m#st be prod#ced? e,ceptions. S 9hen the s#b*ect o inC#iry is the contents o a doc#ment"
no evidence shall be admissible other than the original doc#ment itsel" e,cept in the ollowing cases0
:a; 9hen the original has been lost or destroyed" or cannot be prod#ced in co#rt" witho#t bad aith on the part o the
o3eror?
:b; 9hen the original is in the c#stody or #nder the control o the party against whom the evidence is o3ered" and the
latter ails to prod#ce it ater reasonable notice?
:c; 9hen the original consists o n#mero#s acco#nts or other doc#ments which cannot be e,amined in co#rt witho#t
great loss o time and the act so#ght to be established rom them is only the general res#lt o the whole? and
:d; 9hen the original is a p#blic record in the c#stody o a p#blic o6cer or is recorded in a p#blic o6ce.
)ec. &. %riginal o doc#ment. S :a; +he original o a doc#ment is one the contents o which are the s#b*ect o inC#iry.
:b; 9hen a doc#ment is in two or more copies e,ec#ted at or abo#t the same time" with identical contents" all s#ch
copies are eC#ally regarded as originals.
:c; 9hen an entry is repeated in the reg#lar co#rse o b#siness" one being copied rom another at or near the time o
the transaction" all the entries are li4ewise eC#ally regarded as originals.
7t is tr#e that the 2o#rt relied not #pon the original b#t only copy o the An8!1! Di!1$ as p#blished in the Philippine
=aily 7nC#irer on Febr#ary &-F" '((.. 7n doing so" #h2 Co'1#, (i( no#, ho72521, 5io4!#2 #h2 &2s# 25i(2n2 1'42.
Fi8%o12" in his boo4 on evidence" states that0
Prod#ction o the original may be dispensed with" in the trial co#rt!s discretion" whenever in the case in hand #h2
o""on2n# (o2s no# &on! :(2 (is"'#2 #h2 on#2n#s o6 #h2 (o'%2n# and no other #se#l p#rpose will be served
by reC#iring prod#ction.
'&
, , ,
7n several 2anadian provinces" the principle o #navailability has been abandoned" or certain doc#ments in which
ordinarily no real disp#te arised. +his meas#re is a sensible and progressive one and deserves #niversal adoption
:post" sec. .'AA;. 7ts essential eat#re is that a op! ma! "e #sed #nonditionall!" i6 #h2 o""on2n# h!s &22n 8i52n
!n o""o1#'ni#$ #o ins"2# i#. :emphasis s#pplied;
,1!niso<s opinion is o the same tenor" vi@0
Generally spea4ing" an ob*ection by the party against whom secondary evidence is so#ght to be introd#ced is
essential to bring the best evidence r#le into application? and reC#ently" where secondary evidence has been
admitted" the r#le o e,cl#sion might have s#ccess#lly been invo4ed i proper and timely ob*ection had been
ta4en. Do general r#le as to the orm or mode o ob*ecting to the admission o secondary evidence is set orth. )#6ce
it to say here that #h2 o&32#ion sho'4( &2 %!(2 in "1o"21 s2!son ? #h!# is, 7h2n2521 i# !""2!1s #h!# #h212
is &2##21 25i(2n2 #h!n #h!# 7hih is oD212( !n( &26o12 #h2 s2on(!1$ 25i(2n2 h!s &22n !(%i##2(. +he
ob*ection itsel sho#ld be s#6ciently de5nite to present a tangible C#estion or the co#rt!s consideration.
'B
$e adds0
)econdary evidence o the content o the writing will be received in evidence i no ob*ection is made to its
reception.
'F
7n regard to the !'#h2n#i!#ion o6 "1i5!#2 71i#in8s" the 1#les o 2o#rt provides in section '( o 1#le .A'" vi@0
)ec. '(. Proo o private doc#ment. S Eeore any private doc#ment o3ered as a#thentic is received in evidence" its
d#e e,ec#tion and a#thenticity m#st be proved either0
:a; Ey anyone who saw the doc#ment e,ec#ted or written? or
:b; Ey evidence o the gen#ineness o the signat#re or handwriting o the ma4er.
Any other private doc#ment need only be identi5ed as that which it is claimed to be.
%n the r#le o a#thentication o private writings" Francisco states that0
A proper o#ndation m#st be laid or the admission o doc#mentary evidence? that is" the identity and a#thenticity o
the doc#ment m#st be reasonably established as a pre-reC#isite to its admission. :1o#w v. Arts" .G& Ar4. G/" '/& ).9.
//A" B' A.<.1. .'FA" and others; $owever" ! "!1#$ 7ho (o2s no# (2n$ #h2 82n'in2n2ss o6 ! "1oD212(
ins#1'%2n# %!$ no# o&32# #h!# i# 7!s no# "1o"214$ i(2n#i:2( &26o12 i# 7!s !(%i##2( in 25i(2n2. :)trand
v. $alverson" ''( 7owa .'GF" 'F& D.9. 'FF" .(A A.<.1. HAB;.
'G
Petitioner cites the case o S#!#2 P1os2'#o1s v. M'1o"
'H
which rowned on reliance by co#rts on newspaper
acco#nts. 7n that case" J#dge M#ro was dismissed rom the service or relying on a newspaper acco#nt in dismissing
eleven :..; cases against Mrs. 7melda 1om#alde@ Marcos. +here is a si8ni:!n# (iD212n2" however" between
the Muro case and the cases at bar. 7n the M'1o case" J#dge M#ro dismissed the cases against Mrs. Marcos on the
basis o a newspaper acco#nt 7i#ho'# !Do1(in8 #h2 "1os2'#ion the basic opport#nity to be heard on the matter
by way o a written comment or on oral arg#ment. . .:this is; not only a blatant denial o elementary d#e process to the
Government b#t is palpably indicative o bad aith and partiality. 7n the instant cases" however" the "2#i#ion21 h!(
!n o""o1#'ni#$ #o o&32# to the admissibility o the An8!1! Di!1$ when he 5led his Memorand#m dated Febr#ary
'(" '((." 1eply Memorand#m dated Febr#ary ''" '((." )#pplemental Memorand#m dated Febr#ary 'A" '((." and
)econd )#pplemental memorand#m dated Febr#ary '&" '((.. $e was thereore not denied d#e process. 7n the words
o 9igmore" s#pra" petitioner had been given an opport#nity to inspect the An8!1! Di!1$ b#t did not ob*ect to its
admissibility. 7t is already too late in the day to raise his ob*ections in an %mnib#s Motion" ater the An8!1! Di!1$ has
been #sed as evidence and a decision rendered partly on the basis thereo.
III
T2%"o1!1$ In!&i4i#$
Petitioner arg#es that the 2o#rt misinterpreted the meaning o section .." Article J77" o the 2onstit#tion in that
congress can only decide the iss#e o inability when there is a variance o opinion between a ma*ority o the 2abinet
and the President. +he sit#ation presents itsel when ma*ority o the 2abinet determines that the President is #nable
to govern? later" the President inorms 2ongress that his inability has ceased b#t is contradicted by a ma*ority o the
members o the 2abinet. 7t is also #rged that the president!s *#dgment that he is #nable to govern temporarily which
is thereater comm#nicated to the )pea4er o the $o#se and the President o the )enate is the political C#estion which
this 2o#rt cannot review.
9e cannot s#stain the petitioner. *2s# "2#i#ion21 6o182#s, h2 hi%s246 %!(2 #h2 s'&%ission in G.1. Do. .&FGAH
that Con812ss h!s #h2 '4#i%!#2 !'#ho1i#$ 'n(21 #h2 Cons#i#'#ion #o (2#21%in2 7h2#h21 #h2 P12si(2n# is
in!"!&42 o6 "216o1%in8 his 6'n#ions in #h2 %!nn21 "1o5i(2( 6o1 in s2#ion 11 o6 A1#i42 +II.
'/
F2
s's#!in2( #his s'&%ission and held that by its many acts" 2ongress has already determined and dismissed the
claim o alleged temporary inability to govern pro3ered by petitioner. 7 petitioner now eels aggrieved by
the %!nn21 2ongress e,ercised its power" it is inc#mbent #pon him to see4 redress rom 2ongress itsel. Th2 "o721
is on2(2( &$ #h2 "2#i#ion21 #o &2 7i#h Con812ss !n( i#s !44282( 211on2o's 2@21is2 !nno# &2 o112#2(
&$ #his Co'1#. +he recognition o respondent Arroyo as o#r de ure president made by 2ongress is #nC#estionably
a "o4i#i!4 3'(8%2n#. 7t is signi5cant that $o#se 1esol#tion Do. .GF cited as the bases o its *#dgment s#ch actors
as the "2o"42<s 4oss o6 on:(2n2 on the ability o ormer President Joseph E*ercito Estrada to e3ectively govern
and the members o the in#21n!#ion!4 o%%'ni#$ had e,tended their recognition o $er E,cellency" Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo as President o the 1ep#blic o the Philippines and it has a constit#tional d#ty o ealty to
the s'"12%2 7i44 o6 #h2 "2o"42 , , ,. This "o4i#i!4 3'(8%2n# %!$ &2 1i8h# o1 71on8 &'# Con812ss is
!ns721!&42 on4$ #o #h2 "2o"42 6o1 i#s 3'(8%2n#. 7ts wisdom is 5t to be debated beore the trib#nal o the people
and not beore a co#rt o *#stice. Deedles to state" the doctrine o s2"!1!#ion o6 "o721 constit#tes an ins2"!1!&42
&!1 against this co#rt!s interposition o its power o *#dicial review to review the *#dgment o 2ongress re*ecting
petitioner!s claim that he is still the President" al"eit on leave and that respondent Arroyo is merely an acting
President.
Petitioner attempts to e,tricate himsel rom his s#bmission that 2ongress has the #ltimate a#thority to determine his
inability to govern" and whose determination is a political C#estion by now arg#ing that 7h2#h21 on2 is ! de
ure o1 de facto P12si(2n# is ! 3'(ii!4 >'2s#ion. Petitioner!s change o theory" ill disg#ised as it is" does not at all
impress. +he cases at bar do not present the 82n21!4 iss'2 o whether the respondent Arroyo is the de $#re or a de
%ato President. S"2i: iss'2s were raised to the 2o#rt or resol#tion and 72 1'42( on !n iss'2 &$ iss'2
&!sis. %n the iss#e o resignation #nder section H" Article J77 o the 2onstit#tion" we held that the iss#e is legal and
r#led that petitioner has resigned rom o6ce beore respondent Arroyo too4 her oath as President. %n the iss#e o
inability to govern #nder section .." Article J77 o the 2onstit#tion" we held that the 2ongress has the #ltimate
a#thority to determine the C#estion as opined by the petitioner himsel and that the determination o 2ongress is a
political *#dgment which this 2o#rt cannot review. P2#i#ion21 !nno# &4'1 #h2s2 s"2i: 1'4in8s &$ #h2
82n21!4iC!#ion #h!# 7h2#h21 on2 is ! (2 3'12 o1 (2 6!#o P12si(2n# is ! 3'(ii!4 >'2s#ion.
P2#i#ion21 no7 !""2!1s #o 6!'4# Con812ss 6o1 i#s 5!1io's !#s 2@"12ss2( #h1' 12so4'#ions 7hih &1'sh2(
oD his #2%"o1!1$ in!&i4i#$ #o 8o521n !n( P12si(2n#-on-42!52 !18'%2n#. $e asserts that these acts o
2ongress sho#ld not be accorded any legal signi5cance beca#se0 :.; they are "os# 6!#o and :'; a declaration o
presidential incapacity cannot be implied.
9e disagree. +here is nothing in section .. o Article J77 o the 2onstit#tion which states that the declaration by
2ongress o the President!s inability %'s# !47!$s &2 ! "1io1i or beore the Jice-President ass#mes the
presidency. 7n the cases at bar" special consideration sho#ld be given to the act that the events which led to the
resignation o the petitioner happened at e,press speed and c#lminated on a )at#rday. Con812ss 7!s #h2n no# in
s2ssion !n( h!( no 12!son!&42 o""o1#'ni#$ to act ! "1io1i on petitioner!s letter claiming inability to govern. +o
be s#re" however" the petitioner cannot strictly maintain that the President o the )enate" the $onorable AC#ilino
Pimentel" Jr. and the then )pea4er o the $o#se o 1epresentatives" the $onorable Arn#lo P. F#entebella" recogni@ed
respondent Arroyo as the constit#tional s#ccessor to the presidency "os# 6!#o. Petitioner himsel states that his
letter alleging his inability to govern was received by the %6ce o the )pea4er on Jan#ary '(" '((. !# /E.0 A.M. and
the %6ce o the )enate at / P.M. o the same day.
A(
1espondent too4 her oath o o6ce a ew min#tes past .' o!cloc4
in the aternoon o Jan#ary '(. Eeore the oath-ta4ing" )enate President Pimentel" Jr. and )pea4er F#entebella had
prepared a Joint )tatement which states0
A.
Joint )tatement o )#pport
and 1ecognition rom the
)enate President and the )pea4er
% the $o#se o 1epresentatives
9e" the elected leaders o the )enate and the $o#se o 1epresentatives" are called #pon to address the constit#tional
crisis a3ecting the a#thority o the President to e3ectively govern o#r distressed nation. 9e #nderstand that the
)#preme 2o#rt at that time is iss#ing an en banc resol#tion recogni@ing this political reality. 9hile we may di3er on
the means to e3ect a change o leadership" we however" cannot be indi3erent and m#st act resol#tely. Th's, in 4in2
7i#h o'1 s7o1n ('#$ #o 12"12s2n# o'1 "2o"42 !n( in "'1s'i# o6 o'1 8o!4s 6o1 "2!2 !n( "1os"21i#$ #o !44,
72, #h2 S2n!#2 P12si(2n# !n( #h2 S"2!921 o6 #h2 Ho's2 o6 R2"12s2n#!#i52s, h212&$ (24!12 o'1 s'""o1#
!n( 12o8ni#ion #o #h2 ons#i#'#ion!4 s'2sso1 #o #h2 P12si(2n$. 9e similarly call on all sectors to close
ran4s despite o#r political di3erences. May God bless o#r nation in this period o new beginnings.
Mab#hay and Pilipinas at ang mamamayang Pilipino.

:)gd.; AL87<7D% P7MED+E<" J1.
)enate President
:)gd.; A1D8<F% P. F8ED+EEE<<A
)pea4er o the $o#se o 1epresentatives
+his ! "1io1i 12o8ni#ion by the President o the )enate and the )pea4er o the $o#se o 1epresentatives o
respondent Arroyo as the constit#tional s#ccessor to the presidency 7!s 6o44o72( "os# 6!#o by vario#s
resol#tions o the )enate and the $o#se" in e3ect" con5rming this recognition. +h#s" 1esol#tion Do. .GF e,pressed ,
, , the s#pport o the $o#se o 1epresentatives to the ass#mption into o6ce by Jice-President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo as President o the 1ep#blic o the Philippines" e,tending its congrat#lations and e,pressing its s#pport or her
administration as a partner in the attainment o the nation!s goal #nder the 2onstit#tion.
A'
1esol#tion Do. H' o the
)enate and 1esol#tion Do. .GH o the $o#se o 1epresentatives both con5rmed the nomination o then )enator +eo5sto
G#ingona" Jr." as Jice-President.
AA
7t also passed 1esol#tion Do. HA declaring the impeachment co#rt 6'n#'s
o=io.
A&
Eoth $o#ses sent bills to respondent Arroyo to be signed by her into law as President o the
Philippines.
AB
Th2s2 !#s o6 Con812ss, ! "1io1i !n( "os# 6!#o, !nno# &2 (is%iss2( !s %2124$ i%"4i2(
12o8ni#ions o6 12s"on(2n# A11o$o, !s #h2 P12si(2n# o6 #h2 R2"'&4i. Petitioner!s insistence that respondent
Arroyo is *#st a (2 6!#o President beca#se said acts o 2ongress , , , are mere circ#mstances o acC#iescence
calc#lated to ind#ce people to s#bmit to respondent!s e,ercise o the powers o the presidency
AF
is a g#esswor4 ar
divorced rom reality to deserve #rther disc#ssion.
)imilarly way o3 the mar4 is petitioner!s point that while the 2onstit#tion has made 2ongress the national board o
canvassers or presidential and vice-presidential elections" this $onorable 2o#rt nonetheless remains the sole *#dge in
presidential and vice presidential contests.
AG
$e th#s post#lates that s#ch constit#tional provision
AH
is in(i!#i52 o
the desire o the sovereign people to 4eep o#t o the hands o 2ongress C#estions as to the legality o a person!s claim
to the presidential o6ce.
A/
S'=2 #o s#!#2 #h!# #h2 in6212n2 is i44o8i!4. 7ndeed" there is no room to resort to
inerence. +he 2onstit#tion clearly sets o#t the str#ct#re on how vacancies and election contest in the o6ce o the
President shall be decided. +h#s" s2#ion 7 o6 A1#i42 +II covers the instance when :a; the President-elect ails to
C#aliy" :b; i a President shall not have been chosen and :c; i at the beginning o the term o the President" the
President-elect shall have died or shall have become permanently disabled. S2#ion / o6 A1#i42 +II covers the
sit#ation o the death" permanent disability" removal rom o6ce or resignation o the President. S2#ion 11 o6
A1#i42 +II covers the case where the President transmits to the President o the )enate and the )pea4er o the $o#se
o 1epresentatives his written declaration that he is #nable to discharge the powers and d#ties o his o6ce. In 2!h
!s2, #h2 Cons#i#'#ion s"2i:2s #h2 &o($ #h!# 7i44 12so452 #h2 iss'2s #h!# %!$ !1is2 61o% #h2
on#in82n$. 7n case o election contest" section &" Article J77 provides that the contests shall be resolved by this
2o#rt sitting en banc. 7n case o resignation o the President" it is not disp#ted that this 2o#rt has *#risdiction to decide
the iss#e. 7n case o inability to govern" section .. o Article J77 gives the 2ongress the power to ad*#dge the iss#e and
petitioner himsel s#bmitted this thesis which was shared by this 2o#rt. 7n light o these clear provisions o the
2onstit#tion" it is inappropriate" to say the least" or petitioner to ma4e inerences that simply distort their meanings.
I+
I%"2!h%2n# !n( A&so4'#2 I%%'ni#$
Petitioner contends that this 2o#rt disregarded section A :G; o Article I7 o the 2onstit#tion which provides0
:G; J#dgment in cases o impeachment shall not e,tend #rther than removal rom o6ce and disC#ali5cation to
hold any o6ce #nder the 1ep#blic o the Philippines" b#t the party convicted sho#ld nevertheless be liable and s#b*ect
to prosec#tion" trial and p#nishment according to law.
Petitioner reiterates the arg#ment that h2 %'s# &2 :1s# on5i#2( in the impeachment proceedings beore he co#ld
be criminally prosec#ted. A plain reading o the provision will not yield this concl#sion. +he provision conveys two
#ncomplicated ideas0 :1s#, it tells #s that *#dgment in impeachment cases has a 4i%i#2( 12!h. . .i.e., it cannot
e,tend #rther than removal rom o6ce and disC#ali5cation to hold any o6ce #nder the 1ep#blic o the Philippines"
and s2on(, it tells #s the ons2>'2n2 o the limited reach o a *#dgment in impeachment proceedings considering
its nat#re" i.e., that the party convicted shall still be liable and s#b*ect to prosec#tion" trial and p#nishment according
to law. Do amo#nt o manip#lation will *#stiy petitioner!s non se!uitur s#bmission that the provision reC#ires that
his conviction in the impeachment proceedings is a condition sine !ua non to his prosec#tion" trial and p#nishment
or the o3enses he is now acing beore the respondent %mb#dsman.
Petitioner contends that the private and p#blic prosec#tors! wal4 o#t rom the impeachment proceedings sho#ld be
considered 6!i4'12 #o "1os2'#2 on the part o the p#blic and private prosec#tors" and the termination o the case by
the )enate is 2>'i5!42n# #o !>'i##!4.
&(
$e e,plains ail#re to prosec#te as the ail#re o the prosec#tion to
prove the case" hence dismissal on s#ch gro#nds is a dismissal on the merits.
&.
$e then concl#des that dismissal o a
case or ail#re to prosec#te !%o'n#s #o !n !>'i##!4 6o1 "'1"os2s o6 !""4$in8 #h2 1'42 !8!ins# (o'&42
32o"!1($.I
&'
Fi#ho'# 1'4in8 on #h2 n!#'12 o6 i%"2!h%2n# "1o22(in8s, 72 1232# "2#i#ion21<s s'&%ission.
+he records will show that the prosec#tors 7!492( o'# in the J!n'!1$ 16, '((. hearing o the impeachment cases
when by a vote o ..-.(" the )enator-*#dges re#sed to open the second envelope allegedly containing the PA.A billion
deposit o the petitioner in a secret ban4 acco#nt #nder the name Jose Jelarde. +he ne,t day" J!n'!1$ 17, the
p#blic prosec#tors s#bmitted a letter to the )pea4er o the $o#se tendering thei r12si8n!#ion. +hey also 5led
their M!ni62s#!#ion o6 Fi#h(1!7!4 o6 A""2!1!n2 with the impeachment trib#nal. )enator 1a#l 1oco immediately
moved or the in(2:ni#2 s's"2nsion o the impeachment proceedings'n#i4 #h2 Ho's2 o6 R2"12s2n#!#i52s sh!44
h!52 12so452( #h2 12si8n!#ion o6 #h2 "'&4i "1os2'#o1s. +he 1oco motion was then 81!n#2( by 2hie J#stice
=avide" Jr. -26o12 the $o#se co#ld resolve the iss#e o resignation o its prosec#tors or on J!n'!1$
;0, '((." petitioner relinC#ished the presidency and respondent Arroyo too4 her oath as President o the
1ep#blic. +h#s" on ,2&1'!1$ 7, '((." the )enate passed R2so4'#ion No. /. declaring that the impeachment co#rt
is 6'n#'s o=io.
P12sin(in8 61o% #h2s2 6!#s, "2#i#ion21 !nno# in5o92 (o'&42 32o"!1($. =o#ble *eopardy attaches only0 :.;
#pon a valid complaint? :'; beore a competent co#rt? :A; ater arraignment? :&; when a valid plea has been entered?
and :B; when the deendant was acC#itted or convicted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated witho#t the
e,press consent o the acc#sed.
&A
Ass#ming arguendo that the 5rst o#r reC#isites o do#ble *eopardy were complied
with" petitioner ailed to satisy the 5th reC#isite or h2 7!s no# !>'i##2( no1 7!s #h2 i%"2!h%2n#
"1o22(in8 (is%iss2( 7i#ho'# his 2@"12ss ons2n#. Petitioner!s claim o do#ble *eopardy cannot be predicated
on prior conviction or he was not convicted by the impeachment co#rt. At best" his claim o previo#s acC#ittal may be
scr#tini@ed in light o a violation o his right to speedy trial" which amo#nts to a ail#re to prosec#te. As Eernas points
o#t" a ail#re to prosec#te" which is what happens when the acc#sed is not given a speedy trial" means ail#re o the
prosec#tion to prove the case. $ence" dismissal on s#ch gro#nds is a dismissal on the merits.
&&
+his 2o#rt held in "sme#a v. Pogo$
&B
, &i':
7 the deendant wants to e,ercise his constit#tional right to a speedy trial" he sho#ld as4" not or the dismissal" b#t
or the trial o the case. Ater the prosec#tion!s motion or postponement o the trial is denied and #pon order o the
co#rt the 5scal does not or cannot prod#ce his evidence and" conseC#ently ails to prove the deendant!s g#ilt" the
co#rt #pon deendant!s motion shall dismiss the case" s#ch dismissal amo#nting to an acC#ittal o the deendant.
7n a more recent case" this 2o#rt held0
7t is tr#e that in an #nbro4en line o cases" we have held that the dismissal o cases on the gro#nd o ail#re to
prosec#te is eC#ivalent to an acC#ittal that wo#ld bar #rther prosec#tion o the acc#sed or the same o3ense. 7t m#st
be stressed" however" that these dismissals were predicated on the lear right o the acc#sed to speedy trial. +hese
cases are not applicable to the petition at bench considering that the right o the private respondents to speedy trial
has not been violated by the )tate. For this reason" private respondents cannot invo4e their right against do#ble
*eopardy.
&F
P2#i#ion21 (i( no# %o52 6o1 #h2 (is%iss!4 o6 #h2 i%"2!h%2n# !s2 !8!ins# hi%. Even
ass#ming arguendo that there was a move or its dismissal" not every invocation o an acc#sed!s right to speedy trial
is meritorio#s. 9hile the 2o#rt accords d#e importance to an acc#sed!s right to a speedy trial and adheres to a policy
o speedy administration o *#stice" this right cannot be invo4ed loosely. 8n*#sti5ed postponements which prolong the
trial or an #nreasonable length o time are what o3end the right o the acc#sed to speedy trial.
&G
+he ollowing
provisions o the 1evised 1#les o 2riminal Proced#re are apropos0
1#le ..B" )ection .:h;. Rig(ts o% a#sed at t(e trial. ) 7n all criminal prosec#tions" the acc#sed shall be entitled to
the ollowing rights0
:h; +o have speedy" impartial and p#blic trial.
1#le ../" )ection '. 2ontin#o#s trial #ntil terminated? postponements.S +rial once commenced shall contin#e rom
day to day as ar as practicable #ntil terminated. 7t may be postponed or a reasonable length o time or good ca#se.
+he co#rt shall" ater cons#ltation with the prosec#tor and deense co#nsel" set the case or contin#o#s trial on a
wee4ly or other short-term trial calendar at the earliest possible time so as to ens#re speedy trial. 7n no case shall the
entire trial period e,ceed one h#ndred eighty :.H(; days rom the 5rst day o trial" e,cept as otherwise a#thori@ed by
the )#preme 2o#rt.
P2#i#ion21 #h2126o12 6!i42( #o sho7 #h!# #h2 "os#"on2%2n# o6 #h2 i%"2!h%2n# "1o22(in8s 7!s
'n3's#i:2(, %'h 42ss #h!# i# 7!s 6o1 !n 'n12!son!&42 42n8#h o6 #i%2. 1ecalling the acts" on Jan#ary .G"
'((." the impeachment proceeding was s#spended #ntil the $o#se o 1epresentatives shall have resolved the iss#e
on the resignation o the p#blic prosec#tors. +his was *#sti5ed and #nderstandable or an impeachment proceeding
witho#t a panel o prosec#tors is a moc4ery o the impeachment process. $owever" three :A; days rom the
s#spension or Jan#ary '(" '((." petitioner!s resignation s#pervened. 9ith the s#dden t#rn o events" the
impeachment co#rt became functus o%cio and the proceedings were thereore terminated. Ey no stretch o the
imagination can the o#r-day period rom the time the impeachment proceeding was s#spended to the day petitioner
resigned" constit#te an #nreasonable period o delay violative o the right o the acc#sed to speedy trial.
No1 !n #h2 4!i% o6 (o'&42 32o"!1($ &2 81o'n(2( on #h2 (is%iss!4 o1 #21%in!#ion o6 #h2 !s2 7i#ho'# #h2
2@"12ss ons2n# o6 #h2 !'s2(. 9e reiterate that the impeachment proceeding was closed only ater the
petitioner had resigned rom the presidency" thereby rendering the impeachment co#rt functus o%cio. Ey resigning
rom the presidency" petitioner more than consented to the termination o the impeachment case against him" or h2
&1o'8h# !&o'# the termination o the impeachment proceedings. 9e have consistently r#led that when the
dismissal or termination o the case is made at the instance o the acc#sed" there is no do#ble *eopardy.
&H
Petitioner st#bbornly clings to the contention that he is entitled to !&so4'#2 i%%'ni#$ 61o% s'i#. $is arg#ments are
merely recycled and we need not prolong the longevity o the debate on the s#b*ect. 7n o#r =ecision" we e,ha#stively
traced the origin o e,ec#tive imm#nity in o#r *#risdiction and its bends and t#rns #p to the present time. 9e held that
given the intent o the ./HG 2onstit#tion to breathe lie to the policy that a p#blic o6ce is a p#blic tr#st" #h2
"2#i#ion21, !s ! non-si##in8 P12si(2n#, !nno# 4!i% 2@2'#i52 i%%'ni#$ 6o1 his !44282( 1i%in!4 !#s
o%%i##2( 7hi42 ! si##in8 P12si(2n#. Petitioner!s rehashed arg#ments incl#ding their thinly disg#ised new spins
are based on the re*ected contention that he is still President" al"eit" a President on leave. $is stance that his
imm#nity covers his entire term o o6ce or #ntil J#ne A(" '((& disregards the reality that he has relinC#ished the
presidency and there is now a new de $#re President.
Petitioner goes a step #rther and avers that even a non-sitting President en*oys imm#nity rom s#it d#ring his #21% o
o6ce. $e b#ttresses his position with the deliberations o the 2onstit#tional 2ommission" &i':
Mr. )#are@. +han4 yo#.
+he last C#estion is with reerence to the 2ommittee!s omitting in the drat proposal the imm#nity provision or the
President. 7 agree with 2ommissioner Dolledo that the 2ommittee did very well in stri4ing o#t this second sentence" at
the very least" o the original provision on imm#nity rom s#it #nder the ./GA 2onstit#tion. E#t wo#ld the 2ommittee
members not agree to a restoration o at least the 5rst sentence that the President shall be imm#ne rom s#it d#ring
his #2n'12" considering that i we do not provide him that 4ind o an imm#nity" he might be spending all his time
acing litigations" as the President-in-e,ile in $awaii is now acing litigations almost dailyM
Fr. Eernas0 +he reason or the omission is that we consider it #nderstood in present *#rispr#dence that d#ring
his #2n'12 he is imm#ne rom s#it.
Mr. )#are@0 )o there is no need to e,press it here.
Fr. Eernas0 +here is no need. 7t was that way beore. +he only innovation made by the ./GA 2onstit#tion was to ma4e
that e,plicit and to add other things.
Mr. )#are@? %n the #nderstanding" 7 will not press or any more C#ery" madam President.
7 than4 the 2ommissioner or the clari5cation.
&/
P2#i#ion21, ho72521, 6!i4s #o (is#in8'ish &2#722n #21% !n( #2n'12. +he #21% means the time d#ring which the
o6cer may claim to hold the o6ce as o right" and 5,es the interval ater which the several inc#mbents shall s#cceed
one another. +he ten#re represents the term d#ring which the inc#mbent act#ally holds o6ce. +he #2n'12 may be
shorter than the term or reasons within or beyond the power o the inc#mbent.
B(
,1o% #h2 (24i&21!#ions, #h2
in#2n# o6 #h2 61!%21s is 42!1 #h!# #h2 i%%'ni#$ o6 #h2 "12si(2n# 61o% s'i# is on'112n# on4$ 7i#h his
#2n'12 !n( no# his #21%.
7ndeed" petitioner!s st#bborn stance cannot b#t bolster the belie that the cases at bar were 5led not really or
petitioner to reclaim the presidency b#t *#st to ta4e advantage o the imm#nity attached to the presidency and th#s"
derail the investigation o the criminal cases pending against him in the %6ce o the %mb#dsman.
+
P123'(ii!4 P'&4ii#$ on #h2 O%&'(s%!n
Petitioner hangs to#gh on his s#bmission that his d#e process rights to a air trial have been pre*#diced by pre-trial
p#blicity. 7n o#r =ecision" we held that there is not eno#gh evidence to s#stain petitioner!s claim o pre*#dicial
p#blicity. 8nconvinced" petitioner alleges that the vivid narration o events in o#r =ecision itsel proves the
pervasiveness o the pre*#dicial p#blicity. $e then posits the thesis that do#btless" the national 5,ation with the
probable g#ilt o petitioner #eled by the hate campaign la#nched by some high circ#lation newspaper and by the b#lly
p#lpit o priests and bishops let indelible impression on !44 sectors o the citi@enry and !44 regions" so harsh and so
pervasive that the prosec#tion and the *#diciary can no longer ass#re petitioner a sporting chance.
B.
+o be s#re"
petitioner engages in 2@!8821!#ion when he alleges that !44 sectors o the citi@enry and !44 regions have been
irrevocably inN#enced by this barrage o pre*#dicial p#blicity. This 2@!8821!#ion o44i(2s 7i#h "2#i#ion21<s 4!i%
#h!# h2 s#i44 2n3o$s #h2 s'""o1# o6 #h2 %!3o1i#$ o6 o'1 "2o"42, 2s"2i!44$ #h2 %!ss2s.
Petitioner pleads that we apply the doctrine o res ipsa lo!uitur :the thing or the transaction spea4s or itsel; to
s#pport his arg#ment. 8nder the res ipsa lo!uitur r#le in its broad sense" the act o the occ#rrence o an in*#ry"
ta4en with the s#rro#nding circ#mstances" may permit an inerence or raise a pres#mption o negligence" or ma4e o#t
a plainti3!s prima %aie case" and present a C#estion o act or deendant to meet with an e,planation.
B'
7t is not a
r#le o s#bstantive law b#t more a proced#ral r#le. 7ts mere invocation does not e,empt the plainti3 with the
reC#irement o proo to prove negligence. 7t merely allows the plainti3 to present along with the proo o the accident"
eno#gh o the attending circ#mstances to invo4e the doctrine" creating an inerence or pres#mption o negligence and
to thereby place on the deendant the b#rden o going orward with the proo.
BA
9e hold that it is in!""1o"1i!#2 to apply the r#le on res ipsa lo!uitur, a r#le #s#ally applied only in tort cases" to
the cases at bar. In(22(, #h212 is no o'1# in #h2 7ho42 7o14( #h!# h!s !""4i2( #h2 res ipsa lo!uitur 1'42 #o
12so452 #h2 iss'2 o6 "123'(ii!4 "'&4ii#$. 9e again stress that the iss#e beore #s is whether the alleged
pervasive p#blicity o the cases against the petitioner has pre*#diced the minds o the members o the panel o
investigators. 9e reiterate the test we laid down in P2o"42 5. T22h!n922,
B&
to resolve this iss#e" &i':
9e cannot s#stain appellant!s claim that he was denied the right to impartial trial d#e to pre*#dicial p#blicity. 7t is
tr#e that the print and broadcast media gave the case at bar pervasive p#blicity" *#st li4e all high pro5le and high
sta4e criminal trials. T(en and no*, *e r#le t(at t(e rig(t o% an a#sed to a %air trial is not inompati"le to a %ree
press. +o be s#re" responsible reporting enhances an acc#sed!s right to a air trial or" as well pointed o#t " a
responsible press has always been regarded as the handmaiden o e3ective *#dicial administration" especially in the
criminal 5eld , , ,. +he press does not simply p#blish inormation abo#t trials b#t g#ards against the miscarriage o
*#stice by s#b*ecting the police" prosec#tors" and *#dicial processes to e,tensive p#blic scr#tiny and criticism.
Pervasive p#blicity is not per se pre*#dicial to the right o an acc#sed to air trial. +he mere act that the trial o
appellant was given a day-to-day" gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by itsel prove that the p#blicity so permeated the
mind o the trial *#dge and impaired his impartiality. For one" it is impossible to seal the minds o members o the
bench rom pre-trial and other o3-co#rt p#blicity o sensational criminal cases. +he state o the art o o#r
comm#nication system brings news as they happen straight to o#r brea4ast tables and right to o#r bedrooms. +hese
news orm part o o#r everyday men# o the acts and 5ctions o lie. For another" o#r idea o a air and impartial
*#dge is not that o a hermit who is o#t o to#ch with the world. 9e have not installed the *#ry system whose members
are overly protected rom p#blicity lest they lost their impartiality. , , , , , , , , ,. %#r *#dges are learned in the law
and trained to disregard o3-co#rt evidence and on-camera perormances o parties to a litigation. +heir mere
e,pos#re to p#blications and p#blicity st#nts does not per se atally inect their impartiality.
At best" appellant can only con*#re possi"ilit! o% pre$#die on the part o the trial *#dge d#e to the barrage o p#blicity
that characteri@ed the investigation and trial o the case. 7n +artelino, et al. &. Ale$andro, et al., we re*ected this
standard o possibility o pre*#dice and adopted the test o at#al pre$#die as we r#led that to warrant a 5nding o
pre*#dicial p#blicity" there m#st be allegation and proo that the *#dges have been #nd#ly inN#enced" not simply that
they might be" by the barrage o p#blicity. 7n the case at bar" the records do not show that the trial *#dge
developed at#al "ias against appellant as a conseC#ence o the e,tensive media coverage o the pre-trial and trial o
his case. +he totalit! o% ir#mstanes o% t(e ase does not prove that the trial *#dge acC#ired a ,-ed opinion as a
res#lt o pre*#dicial p#blicity which is incapable o change even by evidence presented d#ring the trial. Appellant has
the b#rden to prove this act#al bias and he has not discharged the b#rden.
P2#i#ion21 922"s on "o'n(in8 on #h2 !(521s2 "'&4ii#$ !8!ins# hi% &'# 6!i4s #o "1o52 ho7 #h2 i%"!1#i!4i#$
o6 #h2 "!n24 o6 in52s#i8!#o1s 61o% #h2 O=2 o6 #h2 O%&'(s%!n h!s &22n in62#2( &$ i#. As we held beore
and we hold it again" "2#i#ion21 h!s o%"42#24$ 6!i42( to add#ce any proo o !#'!4 "123'(i2 developed by the
members o the Panel o 7nvestigators. +his act m#st be established by clear and convincing evidence and cannot be
let to loose s#rmises and con*ect#res. 7n act" petitioner did not even identiy the members o the Panel o
7nvestigators. 9e cannot replace this test o !#'!4 "123'(i2 with the r#le o res ipsa lo!uitur as s#ggested by the
petitioner. +he latter r#le ass#mes that an in*#ry :i.e." pre*#dicial p#blicity; has been s#3ered and then shits the
b#rden to the panel o investigators to prove that the impartiality o its members has been a3ected by said
p#blicity. )#ch a r#le will overt#rn o#r case law that pervasive p#blicity is not "21 s2 pre*#dicial to the right o an
acc#sed to air trial. +he cases are not wanting where an acc#sed has been acC#itted despite pervasive
p#blicity.
BB
For this reason" we contin#e to hold that it is no# 2no'8h or petitioner to on3'12 "ossi&i4i#$ o6
"123'(i2 b#t m#st "1o52 !#'!4 "123'(i2 on the part o his investigators or the 2o#rt to s#stain his plea. 7t is
plain that petitioner has ailed to do so.
Petitioner again s#ggests that the 2o#rt sho#ld order a ;-%on#h oo4in8 oD period to allow passions to s#bside and
hope#lly the alleged pre*#dicial p#blicity against him wo#ld die down. 9e regret not to acC#iesce to the
proposal. +here is no ass#rance that the so called '-month cooling o3 period will achieve its p#rpose. +he
investigation o the petitioner is a nat#ral media event. 7t is the 5rst time in o#r history that a President will be
investigated by the %6ce o the %mb#dsman or alleged commission o heino#s crimes while a sitting President. $is
investigation will even be monitored by the oreign press all over the world in view o its legal and historic
signi5cance. 7n other words" petitioner cannot avoid the 4leiglight o p#blicity. -'# 7h!# is i%"o1#!n# 6o1 #h2
"2#i#ion21 is #h!# his ons#i#'#ion!4 1i8h#s !12 no# 5io4!#2( in #h2 "1o2ss o6 in52s#i8!#ion. For this reason"
we have warned the respondent %mb#dsman in o#r =ecision to cond#ct petitioner!s preliminary investigation in a
circ#s-ree atmosphere. Petitioner is represented by brilliant legal minds who can protect his right as an acc#sed.
+I
R2's!#ion
Finally" petitioner prays that the members o this $onorable 2o#rt who went to E=)A p#t on record who they were
and consider rec#sing or inhibiting themselves" partic#larly those who had e,-parte contacts with those e,erting
press#re on this $onorable 2o#rt" as mentioned in o#r Motion o March /" '((." given the need or the cold ne#trality
o impartial *#dges.
BF
F2 ho4( #h!# #h2 "1!$21 4!9s %21i#. +here is no gro#nd to inhibit the twelve :.'; members o the 2o#rt who
merely accepted the invitation o the respondent Arroyo to attend her oath ta4ing. As %212 s"2#!#o1s o a historic
event" said members o the 2o#rt (i( no# "123'(82 the legal basis o the claim o respondent Arroyo to the
presidency at the time she too4 her oath. 7ndeed" the 2o#rt in its en banc resol#tion on Jan#ary ''" '((." the 5rst
wor4ing day ater respondent Arroyo too4 her oath as President" held in Administrative Matter Do. (.-.-(B )2" to wit0
A.M. Do. (.-.-(B-)2 S 7n re0 1eC#est or Jice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to +a4e $er %ath o %6ce as
President o the 1ep#blic o the Philippines beore the 2hie J#stice S Acting on the #rgent reC#est o Jice President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to be sworn in as President o the 1ep#blic o the Philippines" addressed to the 2hie J#stice
and con5rmed by a letter to the 2o#rt" dated Jan#ary '(" '((." which reC#est was treated as an administrative matter"
the co#rt 1esolved #nanimo#sly to con5rm the a#thority given by the twelve :.'; members o the 2o#rt then present
to the 2hie J#stice on Jan#ary '(" '((. to administer the oath o o6ce to Jice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as
President o the Philippines" at noon o Jan#ary '(" '((..
+his resol#tion is witho#t pre*#dice to the disposition o any *#sticiable case that may be 5led by a proper party.
Th2 !&o52 12so4'#ion 7!s 'n!ni%o's4$ "!ss2( &$ #h2 15 %2%&21s o6 #h2 Co'1#. 7t sho#ld be clear rom the
resol#tion that the 2o#rt did not treat the letter o respondent Arroyo to be administered the oath by 2hie J#stice
=avide" Jr." as a case b#t as an administrative matter. I6 i# 7212 onsi(212( !s ! !s2, #h2n "2#i#ion21 h!s
12!son #o 62!1 #h!# #h2 Co'1# h!s "12(2#21%in2( #h2 428i#i%!$ o6 #h2 4!i% o6 12s"on(2n# A11o$o #o #h2
"12si(2n$. To (is"24 #h2 211on2o's no#ion, #h2 Co'1# "12is24$ #12!#2( #h2 42##21 !s !n !(%inis#1!#i52
%!##21 !n( 2%"h!siC2( #h!# i# 7!s J7i#ho'# "123'(i2 #o #h2 (is"osi#ion o6 !n$ 3's#ii!&42 !s2 #h!# %!$
&2 :42( &$ ! "1o"21 "!1#$.I 7n #rther clari5cation" the 2o#rt on Febr#ary '(" '((. iss#ed !no#h21 12so4'#ion to
inorm the parties and the p#blic that it ,,, did not iss#e a resol#tion on Jan#ary '(" '((. declaring the o6ce o the
President vacant and that neither did the 2hie J#stice iss#e a press statement *#stiying the alleged resol#tion. Th's,
#h212 is no 12!son 6o1 "2#i#ion21 #o 12>'2s# 6o1 #h2 s!i( #72452 A1;B 3's#i2s #o 12's2 #h2%s2452s. To &2
s'12, ! %o#ion #o inhi&i# :42( &$ ! "!1#$ !6#21 4osin8 his !s2 is s's"2# !n( is 128!1(2( 7i#h 82n21!4
(is6!5o1.
Moreover" to disC#aliy any o the members o the 2o#rt" partic#larly a ma*ority o them" is nothing short o pro
tanto depriving the 2o#rt itsel o its *#risdiction as established by the #ndamental law. =isC#ali5cation o a *#dge is
a deprivation o his *#dicial power. And i that *#dge is the one designated by the 2onstit#tion to e,ercise the
*#risdiction o his co#rt" as is the case with the J#stices o this 2o#rt" the deprivation o his or their *#dicial power is
eC#ivalent to the deprivation o the *#dicial power o the co#rt itsel. 7t a3ects the very heart o *#dicial
independence.
BG
+he proposed mass disC#ali5cation" i sanctioned and ordered" wo#ld leave the 2o#rt no alternative
b#t to abandon a d#ty which it cannot law#lly discharge i shorn o the participation o its entire membership o
J#stices.
BH
IN +IEF FHEREO,, petitioner!s Motion or 1econsideration in G.1. Dos. .&FG.(-.B and his %mnib#s Motion in G.1.
Do. .&FGAH are =ED7E= or lac4 o merit.
SO ORDERED.