Case Digest (G.R. No. 153650)
Facts:
Fidel V. Amarillo, Jr. v. The People of the Philippines and Raul Hermo, G.R. No. 153650, August 31, 2006, Supreme Court Third Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Fidel V. Amarillo, Jr. was charged by two informations filed on November 15, 1994, arising from an incident on September 3, 1994 at the Amihan Hotel and Restaurant in Baler, Aurora. In Criminal Case No. 1932 he was accused of illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition under Presidential Decree No. 1866 (as amended by R.A. No. 8294). In Criminal Case No. 1933 he was accused of frustrated homicide for allegedly shooting private respondent Raul Hermo in the forehead.
Upon arraignment Amarillo pleaded not guilty and joint trial followed. The prosecution’s evidence portrayed a confrontation between two groups at the establishment, culminating in Amarillo allegedly drawing a .38 revolver and firing at close range; several witnesses, including the victim, positively identified Amarillo as the shooter. Amarillo claimed he was attacked, that another person’s gun “exploded,” and that he regained consciousness later in a police vehicle.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baler, Branch 66, found Amarillo guilty in both cases. In Criminal Case No. 1932 the RTC convicted him of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition and imposed an indeterminate penalty under P.D. 1866 as amended. In Criminal Case No. 1933 the RTC found him guilty of frustrated homicide and imposed an indeterminate term, and ordered civil indemnity.
Amarillo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a decision dated January 31, 2001, modified the RTC judgment: it set aside the conviction in Criminal Case No. 1932 (acquitting Amarillo of illegal possession) and affirmed/modified the frustrated homicide conviction in Criminal Case No. 1933, treating the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance offset by voluntary surrender and imposing an adjusted indeterminate term pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law and Section 1 of...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the judge a quo disqualified under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court from hearing and deciding Amarillo’s case by reason of having acted as counsel de oficio during arraignment?
- Did the proceedings before the judge a quo amount to a mistrial or otherwise result in a gross miscarriage of justice?
- Was petitioner’s constitutional right to a fair and impartial tribunal violated by the judge a quo’s conduct?
- Did the judge a quo fail to display the cold neutrality of an impartial judge?
- Is the judge a quo guilty of gross ignorance of the law in his handling of the case?
- Did the prosecution prove peti...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)