|
THE
Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed for lack of merit the
letter-complaint of former congressman Ricardo Quintos
accusing two Court of Appeals associate justices of
“unwarranted haste and unfair treatment” in disposing
the appeal of his political rival Jose Villarosa who had
been sentenced to death along with two others for the
killings of the Quintos’s two sons—Paul and Michael—in
1997.
In an
eight-page en banc resolution, the Court noted that the
Quintos failed to prove his allegations that Associate
Justices Edgardo Cruz, of the 13th Division and
Associate Justice Noel Tijam, of the 7th Division,
treated Quintos unfairly.
“We
reviewed the various resolutions issued by Justice Cruz
and found no indication that he acted hastily in
disposing of the appealed case,” the SC said.
The SC
noted that based on the records, it took Justice Cruz
almost one year to complete the records and to consider
the case submitted for decision.
The
Court, on the other hand, said it could not discern “any
taint of unwarranted haste and unfair treatment” on his
part.
“His
division has not yet rendered a decision. Obviously, he
or the members of his division could not have acted
hastily as claimed by complainant,” the Court added.
Quintos
sent Chief Justice Reynato Puno the letter-complaint on
April 24, accusing the justices of favoring Villarosa in
the disposition of his case.
He said
in his letter-complaint that during the pendency of the
appeal, he has been receiving reliable reports that
Villarosa’s wife Amelita is boasting in Mindoro that he
would be acquitted by the Court of Appeals; and that the
Court of Appeals “has been bought.”
Quintos
in citing the supposed whitewash also said the solicitor
general without filing for a motion for extension to
filed appellee’s brief, hastily filed with the CA a
manifestation recommending the acquittal of Villarosa,
and other appellants Ruben Balaguer, Gelito Bautista
and Mario Tobias despite sufficient evidence which
warrants their conviction.
The complainant added that the resolution of the Court
of Appeals on April 13, 2007 holding that the Solicitor
General’s manifestation can be considered in its
decision rendered moot his omnibus motion dated January
26, 2007 to strike out the said manifestation.
In the
same resolution, Quintos, noted that the appeal was
considered submitted for decision. However, upon his
verification, the appeal was raffled off to the 7th
division of the CA prior to that date.
On June
12, 2007 the Court en banc issued a resolution referring
the above letter-complaint to Presiding Justice Ruben
Reyes of the CA for action.
In his
comment Cruz explains that the completion stage of the
appeal was conducted regularly and in accordance with
the interim rules of the CA.
He
denied that there was unwarranted haste and unfair
treatment that blemished the proceedings and there was
nothing anomalous in the Office of the Solicitor
General making a recommendation for the acquittal of an
accused.
Tijam,
on the other hand, received the records of the case for
decision on April 18, 2007. Quintos filed a motion
seeking the recusation of the members of Justice Tijam’s
division from resolving the case.
Quintos
cited the boast of Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino Rep.
Amelita Villarosa of Occidental Mindoro that her husband
will be acquitted by the CA justices.
“While
Justice Tijam denied the motion for inhibition, such
action does not constitute ‘unfair treatment’ against
the complainant. As explained by Justice Tijam, the
complainant failed to prove the allegations in his
motion; they are mere innuendos,” the SC said in junking
Quintos’s complaint. |
