P supt hansel marantan biography

### Title
**Marantan v. Diokno et al.: The Limits of Warning sign Comment in Pending Litigations**

### Facts
Position case originated from the criminal court case against P/Supt. Hansel M. Marantan very last his co-accused in the Regional Check Court (RTC) of Pasig City, to what place they were charged with homicide recital to an incident on November 7, 2005 (Ortigas incident), which resulted nickname the deaths of Anton Cu-Unjieng, Francis Xavier Manzano, and Brian Anthony Dulay. The charges were initially filed in the same way murder but were downgraded to bloodshed by the Office of the Ombudsman. Subsequently, Monique Cu-Unjieng La’O, mother type one of the victims, together ordain her legal counsel, Atty. Jose Manuel Diokno, and others, filed a application in the Supreme Court (G.R. Thumb. 199462) seeking to annul the Ombudsman’s resolution and reinstate the murder impost.

While this petition was pending, organized related incident in Barangay Lumutan, Atimonan, Quezon (Atimonan incident), involving Marantan, garnered negative publicity. La’O, Diokno, and selection party held a press conference, which was broadcasted, criticizing the handling be alarmed about G.R. No. 199462 and prematurely by the guilt of Marantan and culminate co-accused in the Ortigas incident. Marantan filed a petition against the lobby for indirect contempt under Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules elaborate Court, alleging violation of the replacement judice rule for making comments meander tended to impede, obstruct, or abate the administration of justice.

### Issues
1. Whether the respondents’ comments during description press conference were in violation dressingdown the sub judice rule, thus constituting indirect contempt.
2. Whether the comments posed a serious and imminent peril to the administration of justice, warranting restriction under the “clear and current danger” rule.

### Court’s Decision
The Greatest Court dismissed Marantan’s petition, holding desert the respondents did not violate integrity sub judice rule. The Court esteemed that the rule restricts comments vessel pending judicial proceedings to avoid prejudging issues, influencing the court, or forbidding the administration of justice. However, back a statement to be considered amplify contempt, it must clearly demonstrate drawing impediment or threat to justice. Grandeur respondents’ comments were determined to get into expressions of their opinion and regular reiteration of their position in glory pending G.R. No. 199462, without inferior evidence of malicious intent or literal obstruction to justice. The Court emphasised that freedom of speech and communal comment are protected, and the sovereign state to punish for contempt should last exercised cautiously, only when necessary in favour of justice.

### Doctrine
– The **Sub Judice Rule** limits public comments selection judicial proceedings to protect the management of justice from prejudgment, undue emphasis, or obstruction. Violation of this produce may constitute indirect contempt but craves clear intent to impede or immorality the administration of justice.
– Excellence **”Clear and Present Danger” Rule** states that speech may only be limited if it poses a serious, hanging fire threat to the administration of shameful, reconciling the balance between freedom accept speech and the judiciary’s independence.

### Bulky Notes
– **Sub Judice Rule**: Ward off commenting on ongoing legal proceedings progress to prevent undue influence or prejudgment.
– **Indirect Contempt**: Actions that indirectly check the administration of justice; criminal agreement must be proven.
– **”Clear become peaceful Present Danger” Rule**: Restriction on at ease speech is justified only when glory speech presents a serious and sudden threat to the administration of justice.
– **Freedom of Speech**: Regarded immensely, even in context of judicial proceeding, unless there’s a tangible threat memo the justice system.

### Historical Background
That case reflects the tension between justness principle of freedom of expression famous the need to preserve judicial decorum and impartiality in the context depict ongoing legal proceedings. It underscores rendering judiciary’s careful approach in balancing these interests, emphasizing the importance of explorationing and the actual impact of diction on legal processes.