This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-06-21 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| We agree with petitioner that the use of falsified and forged documents is a contumacious act. However, it constitutes indirect contempt not direct contempt. Pursuant to the above provision, such act is an improper conduct which degrades the administration of justice. In Santos v. Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch VI,[12] we ruled that the imputed use of a falsified document, more so where the falsity of the document is not apparent on its face, merely constitutes indirect contempt, and as such is subject to such defenses as the accused may raise in the proper proceedings. Thus, following Section 3, Rule 71, a contemner may be punished only after a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity has been given to the accused to be heard by himself and counsel.[13] Moreover, settled is the rule that a contempt proceeding is not a civil action, but a separate proceeding of a criminal nature in which the court exercises limited jurisdiction.[14] Thus, the modes of procedure and the rules of evidence in contempt proceedings are assimilated as far as practicable to those adapted to criminal prosecutions.[15] Perforce, petitioner judge erred in declaring summarily that respondents are guilty of direct contempt and ordering their incarceration. She should have conducted a hearing with notice to respondents. | |||||