REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO CITY 6
th
JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 28
ADRIAN GORILLAZETA, Petitioner,
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-41863
- versus JOE NATHAN PAVILLION ET AL., Respondents. x-------- ----------- ----x ,
For: INDIRECT CONTEMPT with PRAYER FOR PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION
PRE TRIAL BRIEF
PETITIONER, through counsel and before this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits the following PRE-TRIAL BRIEF:
A. STATEM STATEMENT ENT OF OF WILLI WILLINGN NGNESS ESS TO SETTLE THE CASE: ---The Petitioner is willing to have this case settled under such terms and conditions the parties may find beneficial to agree.
B. BRIEF BRIEF STATE STATEMEN MENT T OF THE CASE: CASE:
a. On March March 30, 2009, 2009, Criminal Criminal Cases Cases Nos. Nos. 374-09, 374-09, 375-09, 375-09, 376-09 376-09 for Light Oral Oral Defamation, Simple Slander by Deed and Slight Physical Injuries were filed by JMA 7 and Respondent Tsarlyn Tsarlyn Pelvis against Petitioner. Petitioner. These cases are presently pending trial before the sala of the Honorable Judge Nere Conchavez of MTCC, Branch 7, Iloilo City;
b. During the Preliminary Conference of these criminal cases, an “ edited video footage” Of the incident subject of these cases was presented by Respondent Tsarlyn Pelvis for the appreciation of the court;
c. Petitioner Petitioner initia initially lly objected objected to the admiss admission ion of the said said “edited “edited video footage” footage” because it literally deleted portions of the incident which are not favorable to JMA 7
and Respondent Tsarlyn Pelvis and showed only the portions of the footage which apparently pictured the Petitioner as the aggressor;
d. To afford the Presiding Judge a more complete account of the incident, Petitioner requested for the submission by Respondent Tsarlyn Pelvis and JMA 7 of the “unedited video footage” of the incident subject of the aforesaid cases;
e. Every time that there is a trial in all the aforesaid cases, JMA 7, through its Area Manager Joe Nathan Pavillion, and its Reporters Respondents Tsarlyn Pelvis, Joe Nathan Hellamargarine, Butod Tsarlot Fan-Tocilog and Park Atik Purobiro-Munieka would always show the aforesaid “edited video footage” over its tv programs “Atsara” and “Barakada” to refresh the memory of the viewing public about the incident which brought about these cases and seek their sympathy. Worse, they would always end the program with malicious co mments imputing guilt to Petitioner even if they are aware that the matters they are talking about on television are clearly “SUBJUDICE”;
f. From March 30, 2009 to February 9, 2011, JMA 7 and it’s Anchormen/Reporters Respondents Tsarlyn Pelvis, Joe Nathan Hellamargarine, Butod Tsarlot Fan-Tocilog and Park Atik Purobiro-Munieka have maliciously shown the “edited video footage” of the incident subject of the Criminal Cases Nos. 37 4-09, 375-09, 376-09 more than 20 times on their TV programs Atsara and Barakada , thus literally abusing and undermining the proceedings of the court in these cases and openly violating the rule on “SUBJUDICE” under Section 3 (b) and (d) of Rule 71 (see supplemental opinion of Justice Arturo Brion of the Supreme Court in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Hubert Jeffrey Webb, G.R. No. 176864 );
g. On March 10, 2011, the attention of Respondent Tsarlyn Pelvis and her lawyer, Atty. Vertigo Squirrel, was called by the Hon. Presiding Judge Nere Conchavez because of the very alarming propensity of JMA 7 and Respondent Tsarlyn Pelvis to repeatedly show on their TV Programs the “edited video footage” of the incident subject of the Criminal Cases every time there is a hearing. They were appraised by the Court that they are doing a violation of the RULE ON SUBJUDICE, and that a repetition of the said abuse will be sanctioned by the Court.
h. After the court gave the said warning to Respondent Tsarlyn Pelvis and Atty. Vertigo Squirrel, Petitioner’s lawyer moved to present her next witness in the person of Dr.
Dizzy Tokwa Dela Pena, a psychiatrist. In view of the fact that the testimony of the said witness would center on Petitioner’s private life and her being a “battered child” and her previous intake of prohibited drugs like metamphetamine and marijuana, and the fact that she come from a “broken family” and had been under psychiatric treatment since 1997, Atty. Gorriceta requested for the exclusion o f the public to protect Petitioner’s privacy and reputation as a person and to protect the reputation and social standing of her parents and her only child, Tory Anne Patrice.
i.
On March 31, 2011, Dr. Dizzy Tokwa Dela Pena was again presented as Petitioner’s witness. And like the March 10, 2011 hearing, Atty. Gorriceta requested for the exclusion of the public and even the lawyers because the matter to be testified to is so sensitive and private, or one which, if not properly kept confidential, would most likely to destroy Petitioner’s reputation as a person and those of her family and her only child.
j.
Noting the very delicate nature of the testimony of Dr. Dizzy Tokwa Dela Pena, the Hon. Judge Nere Conchavez granted the request of Atty. Gorriceta and directed the exclusion of the public in the trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 374-09, 375-09, 376-09.
k. In the aforesaid March 31, 2011 trial, Dr. Dizzy Tokwa-Dela Pena testified that Petitioner has been under treatment for 14 years. Thereafter, she identified the “CASE ABSTRACT” she prepared for the Court about Petitioner’s psychiatric condition as a battered child one who had been using “drugs” for a time to cope with a dysfunctional family atmosphere brought about by her parents who were both suffering from – “IMPULSE CONTROL PROBLEM”. The Court and Respondent Tsarlyn Pelvis, through her lawyer, Atty. Vertigo Squirrel, were given copies of the said –“CASE ABSTRACT” during the trial.
l.
Notwithstanding the order issued by Judge Nere Conchavez excluding the public from listening to the testimony of Dr. Dizzy Tokwa Dela Pena, Respondents maliciously aired over their tv programs Atsara and Barakada the testimony of the said doctor to the prejudice of the Petitioner. Worse, they distorted the testimony by omitting vital facts and information regarding the psychiatric profile of the Petitioner if only to picture the Petitioner as one who becomes violent without provocation and one who had been in drugs for some time. Thus this case.
C. ISSUES:
Factual Issues :
1.Whether or not the open and public pronouncement of Judge Nere Conchavez of MTCC, Branch 7 , in Criminal Cases Nos. 374-09, 375-09, 376-09 in directing the public from hearing the testimony of Dr.Dizzy Dela Pena pertaining to the case abstract or psychiatric profile of the Petitioner was in the nature of a GAG order designed to keep private and confidential the said case abstract.
2.Whether or not the news reports in Atsara and Barakada on March 31, 2011 and April 1, 2011, respectively, violated the aforesaid court order of Judge Nere Conchavez.
3.Whether or not the news reports in Atsara and Barakada on March 31, 2011 and April 1, 2011, respectively, contain deliberate omissions and destroy her family.
Legal Issue :
4.Whether or not the Respondents are guilty of Indirect Contempt for airing the above news reports in Atsara on March 31, 2011 and Barakada on April 1, 2011.
D. EVIDENCE: Documentary Evidence:
Exhibit A – March 10, 2011 Transcript of Stenographic Notes in Crim. Cases Nos. 374-09, 375-09, 376-09 reflecting the “stern warning” of the Court in these criminal cases. Exhibit B –March 10, 2011 Transcript of Stenographic Notes in Crim. Cases Nos. 374-09, 375-09, 376-09. Exhibit C –March 31, 2011 Transcript of Stenographic Notes reflecting the Order of Judge Nere Conchavez to exclude the public from the trial of the aforesaid Criminal Cases. Testimonial Evidence: E. Petitioner will adopt the testimony she has given before Branch 23 of this Court last May 4, 2011 in Civil Case No. 22-41863. She will adopt the testimony of her witness. To further substantiate her case, Petitioner will present Rolly Tuvilla, Tristan Akino, and Liezl Joy Tantazar.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Iloilo City, February 27, 2013.
By:
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Copy furnished : Counsel for the Defendant Reg. Rec. No. ______ Date: _______________
WRITTEN EXPLANATION Service of the foregoing Pre-Trial Brief was made to Atty. through registered mail and not by personal service as personal service was rendered impracticable due to distance.
