SECOND DIVISION
[ G. R. No. L-37635, July 22, 1975 ]
CRESENCIO MARTINEZ, petitioner, vs. LEOPOLDO B. GIRONELLA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Abra, Branch II, respondent.
CONCEPCION JR., J.:
In Criminal Case No. 21 of the Court of First Instance of Abra, Branch II, Cresencio Martinez, as principal, and Viernes Duclan and Arnold Bayongan, as accessories after the fact, were charged with the murder of one Alfredo Batoon. As the first two
were not apprehended, trial proceeded with respect to the third, Arnold Bayongan. Thereafter, decision was rendered, the pertinent and dispositive portions of which are as follows
Subsequent to the acquittal of Arnold Bayongan, Cresencio Martinez surrendered to the Philippine Constabulary and later was arraigned before Branch II of the same Court of First Instance. After having pleaded "not guilty" to the charge, and before the prosecution started to present its evidence, counsel for accused Cresencio Martinez moved that the trial Judge inhibit himself from hearing the case on its merits on the grounds "(1) that the respondent had the chance to pass upon the issue and has formed an opinion as to who committed the crime of murder; (2) that it would not be fair that he would sit, hear and pass judgment; and (3) that the respondent is no longer impartial," and prayed that the case be transferred to Branch I of the same Court.
Respondent denied the oral motion. Petitioner did not move for a reconsideration of the denial of the motion so the trial proceeded. When the trial was already in the rebuttal stage for the government, this Petition for Prohibition was filed. In his petition, Cresencio Martinez asks for a writ of prohibition commanding respondent Judge to desist from hearing and deciding Criminal Case No. 21 of the Court of First Instance of Abra; declaring the hearing heretofore had as a mistrial; and ordering that said criminal case be heard anew by the presiding Judge of Branch I of the said Court or any other Court within the Judicial District.
On being required to comment, the Solicitor General did so, and, citing the cases of Dais vs. Torres, et al., 57 Phil. 897, 903; Luque vs. Kayanan, 29 SCRA 165; and Geotina vs. Gonzales, 41 SCRA 66, opined "that it would be in the best interest of justice and in keeping with the clear intendment and pronouncements of the Honorable Court that the case should be tried anew by another judge and that the respondent Judge should desist from further taking cognizance of the case."
On the other hand, respondent Judge maintains that the trial was fair, impartial and liberal to the herein accused-petitioner as can be gleaned from the records of Criminal Case No. 21. Respondent explains that the statement that the "crime was committed by Cresencio Martinez" appearing in the decision acquitting Arnold Bayongan after a separate trial "was based merely on the prosecution evidence where petitioner was not on trial, therefore did not confront witnesses, did not submit his defense evidence and surely will not in any way affect or apply to him. The decision to be rendered shall be based upon the evidence adduced and submitted by both parties."
The trial of the case has already been terminated and the case submitted for decision.
Two issues are presented before us first, whether or not to order a new trial for petitioner; and second, whether or not respondent judge should be allowed to decide petitioner's case.
It cannot be denied that elementary due process requires that a case be heard by a tribunal that is impartial and disinterested. And if an accused has been the victim of an unfair and partial trial, this court will certainly not hesitate to order a new trial in the interest of justice.[1] In asking that the case be tried by another Judge, petitioner alleges in general that respondent would not be impartial as contemplated in the New constitution. No specific resolution, order, or ruling of respondent is cited in particular as one of partiality. It should be noted that after petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty, and after respondent had denied petitioner's motion for the former to inhibit himself from trying the case, petitioner did not move for a reconsideration of the denial of the motion. Instead the trial proceeded. Petitioner took no further action towards the disqualification of respondent until the trial was already in the rebuttal stage for the government at which time the present Petition for Prohibition was filed. The only conclusion we can draw from these circumstances is that the trial was fair and impartial. We are, therefore, not inclined to order a new trial for petitioner.
As to the second issue: A judge has the duty not only to render a just and impartial decision, but also render it in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality, and also as to the judge's integrity.[2] While we grant respondent's capacity to render a just and impartial decision, his statement in the decision acquitting Arnold Bayongan to the effect that the "crime was committed by Cresencio Martinez" renders it impossible for respondent to be free from the suspicion that in deciding petitioner's case, respondent will be biased and prejudiced. We therefore hold that under these circumstances petitioner has the right to have his case decided by another Judge.
WHEREFORE, the petition for prohibition is granted Respondent is ordered to transmit the records of Criminal Case No. 21 of the Court of First Instance of Abra to Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, and the Judge presiding the said court will decide the same. Without pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.
Antonio and Aquino, JJ., concur.
Fernando (Chairman), and Barredo, JJ., concurs in a separate opinion.
[1] Geotina vs. Gonzales 41 SCRA 66
[2] Idem.
xxx xxx xxx
"It is worthy to state, however, that the offense of murder was clearly established and was committed by Cresencio Martinez, from the evidence on record, there is no showing that Arnold Bayongan is an accessory after the fact. The evidence as a whole, however, tends to allude Gregorio Banawa, the then incumbent Mayor of Sallapadan to have knowledge of the perpetrator and commission of the crime but did not take any action. It is further informed that Gregorio Banawa to date is hiding the principal accused Cresencio Martinez.
"In view of the foregoing consideration, the Court hereby dismisses the charge against Arnold Bayongan and is therefore ordered ACQUITTED.
"The Provincial Fiscal is hereby directed to investigate this case further to avoid miscarriage of justice and the possibility of including Gregorio Banawa and for the prompt apprehension of the principal accused Cresencio Martinez." (pp. 10-11, rollo).
xxx xxx xxx
Subsequent to the acquittal of Arnold Bayongan, Cresencio Martinez surrendered to the Philippine Constabulary and later was arraigned before Branch II of the same Court of First Instance. After having pleaded "not guilty" to the charge, and before the prosecution started to present its evidence, counsel for accused Cresencio Martinez moved that the trial Judge inhibit himself from hearing the case on its merits on the grounds "(1) that the respondent had the chance to pass upon the issue and has formed an opinion as to who committed the crime of murder; (2) that it would not be fair that he would sit, hear and pass judgment; and (3) that the respondent is no longer impartial," and prayed that the case be transferred to Branch I of the same Court.
Respondent denied the oral motion. Petitioner did not move for a reconsideration of the denial of the motion so the trial proceeded. When the trial was already in the rebuttal stage for the government, this Petition for Prohibition was filed. In his petition, Cresencio Martinez asks for a writ of prohibition commanding respondent Judge to desist from hearing and deciding Criminal Case No. 21 of the Court of First Instance of Abra; declaring the hearing heretofore had as a mistrial; and ordering that said criminal case be heard anew by the presiding Judge of Branch I of the said Court or any other Court within the Judicial District.
On being required to comment, the Solicitor General did so, and, citing the cases of Dais vs. Torres, et al., 57 Phil. 897, 903; Luque vs. Kayanan, 29 SCRA 165; and Geotina vs. Gonzales, 41 SCRA 66, opined "that it would be in the best interest of justice and in keeping with the clear intendment and pronouncements of the Honorable Court that the case should be tried anew by another judge and that the respondent Judge should desist from further taking cognizance of the case."
On the other hand, respondent Judge maintains that the trial was fair, impartial and liberal to the herein accused-petitioner as can be gleaned from the records of Criminal Case No. 21. Respondent explains that the statement that the "crime was committed by Cresencio Martinez" appearing in the decision acquitting Arnold Bayongan after a separate trial "was based merely on the prosecution evidence where petitioner was not on trial, therefore did not confront witnesses, did not submit his defense evidence and surely will not in any way affect or apply to him. The decision to be rendered shall be based upon the evidence adduced and submitted by both parties."
The trial of the case has already been terminated and the case submitted for decision.
Two issues are presented before us first, whether or not to order a new trial for petitioner; and second, whether or not respondent judge should be allowed to decide petitioner's case.
It cannot be denied that elementary due process requires that a case be heard by a tribunal that is impartial and disinterested. And if an accused has been the victim of an unfair and partial trial, this court will certainly not hesitate to order a new trial in the interest of justice.[1] In asking that the case be tried by another Judge, petitioner alleges in general that respondent would not be impartial as contemplated in the New constitution. No specific resolution, order, or ruling of respondent is cited in particular as one of partiality. It should be noted that after petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty, and after respondent had denied petitioner's motion for the former to inhibit himself from trying the case, petitioner did not move for a reconsideration of the denial of the motion. Instead the trial proceeded. Petitioner took no further action towards the disqualification of respondent until the trial was already in the rebuttal stage for the government at which time the present Petition for Prohibition was filed. The only conclusion we can draw from these circumstances is that the trial was fair and impartial. We are, therefore, not inclined to order a new trial for petitioner.
As to the second issue: A judge has the duty not only to render a just and impartial decision, but also render it in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality, and also as to the judge's integrity.[2] While we grant respondent's capacity to render a just and impartial decision, his statement in the decision acquitting Arnold Bayongan to the effect that the "crime was committed by Cresencio Martinez" renders it impossible for respondent to be free from the suspicion that in deciding petitioner's case, respondent will be biased and prejudiced. We therefore hold that under these circumstances petitioner has the right to have his case decided by another Judge.
WHEREFORE, the petition for prohibition is granted Respondent is ordered to transmit the records of Criminal Case No. 21 of the Court of First Instance of Abra to Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, and the Judge presiding the said court will decide the same. Without pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.
Antonio and Aquino, JJ., concur.
Fernando (Chairman), and Barredo, JJ., concurs in a separate opinion.
[1] Geotina vs. Gonzales 41 SCRA 66
[2] Idem.