Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1


FACTS: Now we have the case of Marantan v Diokno, here Marantan is a policeman he was charged in a prior case for homicide for killing someone
captured in a CCTV. Now they were out on bail so they were still doing their job when eventually another shoot-out happened in Atimonan
somewhere in the province of Quezon. And because this siya ang in charged of that police station in other words he was remised in his duties.
Naay syay reason to be complicit or to be neglectful rather of his duties because of this kadtong mga victims in the first criminal case held a press

Riding on the popularity of this recent incident they made a press conference stating that Marantan et al they were never disciplined nor jailed
for their participation in the previous shoot-out- the homicide case. They murdered people but still they were promoted so naay ing ato na
presscon conducted by the lawyer and the heirs or the parents of the victims in the first criminal case. And because of this Manrantan filed an
action before the court for contempt against Diokno and relatives of the victim in the first criminal charge because they violated the subjudice
rule.there was a pending case against them and they made a publication purportedly saying their guilty and so they filed that charge for that

ISSUE: So, were the parents of the victims here as well as the lawyers were they held guilty for indirect contempt?


RULING: The court said that no. Now this case explains what the subjudice rule is, it restricts comments and disclosures aiming to the judicial
proceedings in order to avoid pre-judging the issue or influencing the court or obstructing the administration of justice. You violate this rule if
there is a pending case and then sige kay yawyaw dra “guilty, guilty na sya” that would it has the tendency to influence the judge, “I would never
get justice” you could be held liable for indirect contempt.

Now going to the matter which is the speech, uttered by Atty Dioko here and the parents of the victim here, they were sought to be restricted
using this subjudice rule.

Can this be restricted-their utterances?

The court said that for contempt for this language for this is considered for contempt in court it must really appear that such does interfere and
embarrass the administration of justice. And in order to test whether it does impair the independence of the judiciary gi-apply sa supreme court
here ang clear and present danger test.

Does this bring about the danger of bailing the administration of justice? Does the language used have that effect?

The evil consequence or the comment must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence should be high before an utterance can be
punished. So using that very strict test vis a vis the utterances made by the lawyer here.

The court said here na dili sya that speech that could prevail. It could not produce this clear and present danger which is sought to be prevented
by the content proceedings. The comments here were expressions of their opinions that their loved ones were murdered by the accused in this