SUPREME COURT UPDATE SA KASO NI DR. IGGY AGBAYANI TIKTOKnatin: https://www.tiktok.com/@batasnatin https://www.tiktok.com/@attylibayan Eto po bagong FB natin para sa videos: https://www.facebook.com/BATASnatin-107860591437195 https://www.facebook.com/Atty-Ranny-Randolf-B-Libayan-154012243457531 Alternate YT channel po for livestreams: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCskZGSV52krMvXgb8OXXx1g WEBSITE: https://batasnatin.com/ LAW FIRM: https://firm.batasnatin.com/ FACEBOOK PAGE: https://www.facebook.com/BATASnatin/ INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/batasnatin/ YOUTUBE CHANNEL: https://youtube.com/BATASnatinLive TWITTER: https://twitter.com/BATASnatin LAWYERS: Atty. Kristina Louise Magalong Atty. Ranny Randolf B. Libayan FIRM ADDRESS: #31 Gen. Luna St., Tuktukan, Taguig City, NCR (Across Taguig City Hall) Email: BATASnatin@gmail.com Telephone nos: +63915-954-6080 (+632)359-4203 We are a full-service Law Firm We handle and are experienced in litigatin

Video Transcript / Subtitles:( AI generated. About AI subtitles » )

* AI ("Artificial Intelligence") subtitles on Tagalog.com are generated using "Whisper" by OpenAI (the same company that created ChatGPT and DallE2). Results and accuracy may vary.
* The subtitles do include errors occasionally and should only be used as a tool to help with your listening practice.
* You can request this website to create a transcript for a video if one doesn't already exist by clicking the "Request AI Subtitles" button below a video. Transcribing usually takes 30-40% of the length of a video to complete if there are no other videos in the queue. For example, a 21 minute video will take 7-8 minutes to transcribe.
* Running a super fast cloud GPU server to do these transcriptions does cost money. If you have the desire and financial ability, consider becoming a patron to support these video transcriptions, and the other tools and apps built by Tagalog.com

Alright, yan. Magandang araw mga kabatas natin at welcome sa isinamang live stream.

Mga kabatas natin, ito ho ay update doon sa kaso ni Dr. Iggy Agbayani.

Alam naman natin na sa kasamaang palad, mga kabatas natin, itong si Dr. Iggy Agbayani ay pumanaw sa loob ng kulungan.

Okay? Ito ay pagkatapos siyang makonvict, mga kabatas natin, ng isang criminal case ng negligence resulting to...

Eto, tignan natin, mga kabatas natin.

Yan, resulting to physical injuries, mga kabatas natin.

Eto, eto, mga kabatas natin. Nakonvict si Dr. Iggy Agbayani, mga kabatas natin.

Tapos, nag-comment po dito yung Supreme Court.

Ito ay galing sa isang article ni Artemio V. Panganiban, mga kabatas natin.

Ang title niya, Dispenser of Justice, Not Just of Rules.

Okay?

Ang nakalagay dito, mga kabatas natin, sabing ganyan,

The sad saga of Dr. Iggy Agbayani taken up in this space on November 13 was followed on November 27 and December 4

by a discussion of the new Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.

Ito po yung CPRA, ano?

With the aim of giving readers a glimpse of the lapses of Agbayani's lawyer.

So, parang yung sinasabi ko sa inyo, mga kabatas natin, ano?

Yun din ang tingin ng Supreme Court, no?

Yung lapses ng lawyer niya.

Parang sinabi ko rin, ho, kasi sa inyo, yung aking punto de vista in relation sa kasong yun.

Okay?

No?

For seemingly unjust conviction, unfair incarceration, and sudden death,

due to heart attack of the respected orthopedic surgeon.

Okay?

So, ang dami kasi nagsasabi na parang unfair, unfair.

Pero sabi ko nga sa inyo, parang error ng lawyer, eh.

Kaya lang, mga kabatas natin, itong Supreme Court ngayon, no?

Has taken cognizance of his plight.

Nagkaroon ng press release, mga kabatas natin.

Nakulay ng isang press briefing noong December 13, si Chief Justice,

Alexander G. Gismundo.

Ito po yung ating Chief Justice.

Anong sabi niya?

No?

We, referring to justices, will check what really happened.

So, titignan nila kung ano yung nangyari doon sa kaso.

Okay?

Sabi niya, we will review it and based on the results,

we may establish new instructions or new rules

so that we can avoid a repeat on the same situation.

So, pag titignan yung mga kabatas natin,

yung nangyari talaga,

ay isang hindi magandang pangyayari.

Kaya nga, i-review nila at gagawa sila ng mga batayan,

mga rules, mga kabatas natin,

upang hindi na maulit yung nangyari kay Dr. Iggy Agbayani.

Okay?

Ngayon,

apparently, there were some lapses committed by the lawyer.

Diba?

Yun kasi ang sinasabi ko sa inyo, eh.

Na, ang parang sinasabi nila,

ganun yung nangyari sa kanya,

parang may problema ba doon sa criminal justice system natin?

May problema ba doon sa substantive law?

Sinabi ko naman sa inyo, mga kabatas natin,

na sa tingin ko, medyo nagkaroon lang ng problema kasi

doon sa finial ng abogado na grave abuse of discretion.

Samantalang, tama naman yung ginawa ng judge.

Ang problema, hindi ho nag-submit ng memorandum.

Itong abogado ni Dr. Iggy Agbayani,

wala nga evidence na naipasok,

kaya hindi pwedeng mag-rule yung mga judges.

Bakit wala po silang basis?

Diba?

So, ito mga kabatas natin, sinabi ng Supreme Court,

no other than the Chief Justice himself,

na meron ngang lapses committed by the lawyer.

So, gagawa sila ng paraan para macheck ito.

Sabi dito mga kabatas natin,

obviously, the esteemed Chief Justice was referring to the disciplinary responsibility.

Okay?

Of the unnamed lawyer under the strict provisions of the CPRA

and the penalty that can and should be meted out to him after due process.

So, ito parang siyempre ano ba yung disciplinary responsibility na pwede niyang harapin diyan.

Yung disbarment, pwede rin suspension, pwede rin reprimand.

Okay?

Sabi pa dito, obviously, also, this is something that under the CPRA,

the court could motu proprio undertake on its own initiative,

without need of any complaint by anyone.

Kasi makikita naman sa mga, ano e, sa transcript of records ng mga korte,

kung ano yung nangyari talaga doon.

So, malalaman kung meron talagang lapses na nangyari.

Kapag hindi ho, ano, hindi,

anong tawag diyan, justifiable yung ginawa ng abogado,

pwede ho siyang ma-punish.

Okay?

Sabi dito naman, yung si Artemio Panganiban,

dating justice din ho ito,

I wrote that the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila convicted Ibuyani of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.

So, ito po, no, reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries.

And that his appeal was denied by the Regional Trial Court of Manila,

the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, their division, based on the same ground.

The lawyer's failure to file an appeal memorandum.

In the RTCN to append the documents required by the Rules of Court,

to enable the CIA and the Supreme Court to understand his appeal.

O di tama po yung sinabi ko sa inyo, mga kabatas natin,

na the point here is there is no basis of the courts to reverse the decision if the decision is reversible.

Kasi he is just attributing na may grave abuse of discretion.

At mga kabatas natin,

tinuro ko rin sa inyo kung ano yung ano.

Tinuro ko rin sa inyo yung sa tingin ko,

dapat gawin if you will ask the court to admit documents,

you include the documents na agad.

Diba?

Ayun ang maganda.

Ngayon, mga kabatas natin,

sabi niyang ganyan,

laudable as to the court's mode of proper action,

may be, yet it falls short of what the Agbayani family yearns for.

So okay na nga, mga kabatas natin,

maganda naman talaga yung aksyon ng Supreme Court dito.

Nakukunin nila yung kaso,

motto propio, at pag-aaralan ito para hindi na ito maulit.

Pero ano ba yung gusto ng pamilya ng Agbayani?

Ito, a reversal of his conviction and a judicial pronouncement of his innocence.

Ito ang problema natin dito, mga kabatas natin.

For a reversal of his conviction, there must be basis.

Ngayon, sinong i-require na mag-submit ng mga evidence

o kaya arguments in relation to the side of Dr. Iggy Agbayani

kung patay na siya?

Sabi niya, to be fair, however,

this desideratum cannot be taken motto proprio by the court

because there is an adverse party that equally deserves objective justice.

Lawyer Saul Q. Jolifena Jr., the offended party.

Yun nga, mga kabatas natin.

Kasi nga, tulad ng sinasabi ko sa inyo,

sa bawat kaso, dalawang partido.

Doon sa dalawang partido na iyon, mga kabatas natin,

kailangan pakinggan din yung isa.

Hindi naman pwedeng yung justice ay i-effort lang doon sa isang banta.

So kailangan itong si Lawyer Saul Q. Jolifena Jr.

ay maging privy o party.

Privy o party rin dito sa nangyayari na ito

bago magkaroon ng reversal.

Ngayon, mga kabatas natin, paano magkakaroon ng...

Kasi siguro pwedeng buksan itong kasong ito

tapos ipa-remand doon sa regional trial court

o kaya doon sa metropolitan trial court

para magkaroon o mag-proceed again sa trial.

Kaya lang ang problema, mga kabatas natin,

eh patay na si Dr. Iggy Agbayani.

Okay?

So sabi niya,

Thus, in my honest opinion,

the family of Agbayani needs to initiate a petition with due notice

to the offended party and to the Office of the Solicitor General,

the Council of the Plaintiff People of the Philippines,

to reopen the case.

Ito nga yung sinasabi ko.

Pero yung problema talaga doon eh.

Eh mag-reopen sila ng kaso pero ang problema pa rin doon,

wala na yung lilitisin nila eh.

The overarching question is may a decision that had become final

and had been executed via the actual inquiry.

May be the actual incarceration of the accused be reopened.

The normal answer of jurisprudence is no.

Decisions have been become final,

are revocable despite occasional errors.

Sabi niya,

Undeniably, however, several final and revocable judgments have been revoked.

Ang sinasabi ho dito ni former Justice Artemio Panganiban na

yung mga disisyon ng Korte, they are final and executory.

If they are final and executory, hindi na ho pwedeng baguhin yan.

Pero meron naman talaga.

Ginawa naman talaga ng Supreme Court yan.

Kasi after all, mga kabatas natin,

the court is after justice.

Okay?

Ngayon, ang example niya dito,

yung December 2, 1985 decision of the Sandigan Bayan

penned by Justice Manuel Pamaran acquitting all the accused

including then Armed Forces Chief of Staff Fabian Vera

of the daring broad daylight murder of former Senator Ninoy Aquino

at the tarmac of the Manila International Airport.

on August 21, 1983.

However, after Corrie took over the presidency in 1986,

the Supreme Court reopened the final Pamaran verdict,

fined the trial to be a sham and authorized a retrial

in the 177-page decision penned by Justice Reginao C. Hermosissima, Jr.

The Sandigan Bayan found conspiracy among the 16 accused soldiers

including Brigadier General Luther Custodio

and held them guilty of the double murder of Ninoy and Ronaldo Galman.

Yan, mga kabatas natin.

So binuksan.

Pero this is a very rare case, mga kabatas natin.

This is a very rare case.

Tapos ang problema pa dito, mga kabatas natin,

kung magkakaroon ng...

kung bubuksan yung kaso na iyon,

tapos i-declare na innocent itong si...

ano, mga kabatas natin, si Dr. Iggy Agbayani,

will it...

will it actually be beneficial to anyone?

Ang isa pang issue kasi dito, mga kabatas natin,

alam naman natin lahat na nakalagay sa batas natin

na one way of extinguishing criminal liability

is the death of a person.

Ngayon, mga kabatas natin, kung patay na ang isang tao,

ibig sabihin wala na siyang criminal liability,

madidismiss na yung kaso.

Ngayon, mga kabatas natin,

kapag magpuporsigi pa rin yung trial kahit patay na yung tao,

then magkakaroon siya ng conflict doon sa rule

kung saan one way of extinguishing, no,

extinguishing the criminal liability of a person is the death.

Diba? So ibig sabihin, kung itatry mo ulit siya,

ibig sabihin meron siyang criminal liability.

Tapos ang problema dito kung magkakaroon ulit ng trial,

how are you sure na reversal ang mga kaso?

Diba? So I think, mga kabatas natin,

kapag magkakaroon ng retrial dito sa kaso na ito,

it's just a waste of time.

I'm sorry to the ano, mga kabatas natin,

I'm sorry to the family of Dr. Iggy Agbayani,

pero I think it's just a waste of time.

And it will violate some of the rules set already

under our criminal justice system.

Diba?

Kasi nga, it's one of those rules,

kasi nga, it's one of the modes of extinguishing criminal liability.

Nung namatay na siya, wala na rin naman siyang criminal liability.

So there is no need for a trial anymore.

Yun ang problema dyan eh.

Ngayon, mga kabatas natin, kung ano naman,

kung kunwari, itatrial ito nga, tapos nangyari yun,

pag acquitted siya, so yun lang kasi ang gusto nila, magkaroon ng acquittal.

Sigurado ba sila na acquittal yung mangyayari?

Kung sigurado naman sila na acquittal ang mga kaso,

kung sigurado naman sila na acquittal ang mangyayari,

bakit hindi nalang mag-pronounce yung Supreme Court ng acquittal?

Diba?

At itong sabi ni Donato, pura-pura, parang sayang lang siya sa pera at panahon.

Oo nga.

Diba?

Ito sabi niya,

While Ver was indicted, he could not be included in the guilty verdict because he fled the country,

could not be served with court processes, and was, therefore, beyond the local court.

or beyond the local court's jurisdiction.

Through the example referred to the accused who were freed of criminal responsibility

and subsequently found guilty despite the finality of their prior acquittal,

this is really the more uncommon example.

The more common ones are convictions which were later reversed and the accused acquitted

because of subsequent proof showing the impossibility of their guilt.

The most common of these are rapes in which subsequent DNA evidence conclusively established

that the accused could have not been the culprit

because the semen found inside the vagina of the victim belonged to the man other than the accused.

Ito mga kabasa natin sa Amerika, nangyayari ito.

Nangyayari ito. Pero ito nung panahon wala pang DNA.

Tapos nung nagkaroon na ng DNA doon sa Amerika, ginagawa yun.

Ito,

Also, while the writ of habeas corpus is not normally used to free those detained by reason of a valid court order,

the extraordinary writ have been allowed in cases where the ordering court had not been allowed.

The ordering court had not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused or the subject of the case

or imposed an excessive penalty or deprived the accused of constitutional rights.

Okay. So alam din kasi natin mga kabatas natin ng penalty o pagpapataw ng penalty mga kabatas natin,

part of due process is also to impose the right property, proper penalty to the accused.

Di ba?

Yun.

To conclude, I believe the Supreme Court is both a court of law and a court of equity.

Well, ganun naman talaga din.

Rules of procedure should never be used as stumbling blocks to common sense, fairness, and equity.

The court cannot be constrained by technicalities and procedural niceties.

It is a dispenser of liberating justice, not of suffocating rules.

It is neither a machine nor a robot.

It is human and humane.

Ang ganda nung sinabi niya dito ha.

Being compassionate and just,

cannot be replaced by the computing power of technology and artificial intelligence.

Yun.

Ngayon mga kabatas natin.

Well, I think naipalawanag ko na rin naman na lahat.

Maganda itong sinulat dito ni ex-justice Artemio Pangaliban.

Dispenser of justice, not just of rules.

Ibig sabihin yung Supreme Court hindi lang dapat sumusunod sa rules yan.

Actually, ganun naman na talaga eh.

Kaya nga,

kaya nga mga kabatas natin,

kung maaalala nyo yung kaso,

doon kay

Rafi Tulfo.

Diba?

Doon sa

doon sa

disqualification case.

Diba?

Yung technicalities, mga kabatas natin,

they can be dispensed with

if it is,

no?

Mahindrance towards achieving justice.

Diba?

Ganun lang mga kabatas natin.

Pwede namang ano,

pwede namang hindi sundin yung rules

kapag ito ay sagabal sa pag-commit ng hostisya.

Maraming salamat mga kabatas natin at

siyempre tulad ng lagi kong sinasabi,

matulog po tayo ng mahimbing dahil alam natin

na yung natutulog ng mahimbing,

siya yung laging panalo.

Paalam po.

Pansamantala.