G.R. No. 181354 - Flores vs. People

Complainant: Coronacion P. Biaban
Respondent: Judge Amelia K. Del Rosario, Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Aklan, Branch II at Kalibo

The complaint originated from Criminal Case No. 2489 for Malicious Mischief, wherein the complainant alleged that the respondent demonstrated bias in handling the appeal.
The underlying criminal case was instituted by the complainant against Bibiana P. Bautista, her husband Longinos Bautista, and their four sons (Ely, Godofredo, Eduardo, and Reynaldo).

The criminal case was first heard before the Municipal Court of New Washington, Aklan.
Findings and Decisions:

Bibiana P. Bautista was dismissed from the case on the basis that she was exempt from criminal liability due to her familial relation (sister) with the complainant.
The remaining accused were convicted and sentenced to twenty (20) days of imprisonment along with an order to indemnify the complainant in the sum of Fifty Pesos (P50.00).

On appeal, the case was re-examined by the Court of First Instance, presided over by the respondent Judge Amelia K. Del Rosario.
The appellate court acquitted all the accused.
Evidentiary Findings:

It was determined that any damage – specifically, the cutting down of a star apple tree and harm to vegetable plants – was a consequence of Bibiana Bautista transferring the house of her son, Godofredo Bautista, to a portion of land belonging to her.
This evidence pointed to the damage occurring without malice, revenge, hate, or any other evil motive.

The complainant contended that the respondent judge exhibited partiality and bias in her decision on the appeal.
An investigation and review of the record revealed no evidence to substantiate the claim that the judge acted with bias or partiality in adjudicating the case.

Whether the respondent Judge Amelia K. Del Rosario demonstrated bias in the decision rendered on appeal in Criminal Case No. 2489 for Malicious Mischief.
Whether the dismissal of the malicious mischief charge on appeal was justified given the evidentiary findings regarding the absence of malice.
Whether the factual circumstances, namely the transfer of property resulting in damage, preclude a criminal liability for malicious mischief and render the matter a civil obligation instead.