Case Digest (G.R. No. L-34756-59)
Facts:
Manuel Mateo, Jr., Roberto Martinez alias Ruben Martinez, Enrique Concepcion and Esmeraldo Cruz v. Hon. Onofre Villaluz, G.R. Nos. 34756-59, March 31, 1973, the Supreme Court En Banc, Fernando, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners were criminally charged with robbery in band with homicide and were being tried before respondent judge, the presiding judge of the Circuit Criminal Court, Seventh Judicial District.The preliminary and trial proceedings proceeded in Cavite: motions to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence and for suppression of identification were filed by the accused and remained pending. Another suspect, Rolando Reyes, executed an extrajudicial statement on October 1, 1971 in which he implicated petitioners; that statement was subscribed and sworn to before respondent Judge Villaluz. The trial judge deferred resolution of petitioners' motion to dismiss until after the prosecution had presented and rested its evidence against Reyes, and later granted the prosecution's motion to present additional evidence. On February 3, 1972 Reyes, called as an additional prosecution witness, repudiated his prior extrajudicial statement, claiming it was executed under threat by a government agent.
Upon Reyes's repudiation, petitioners orally moved to suspend proceedings to allow filing of a motion to disqualify Judge Villaluz; they then filed a Joint Motion for Disqualification (invoking the second paragraph of Rule 137, Sec. 1). Respondent Judge denied the motion on February 12, 1972. Petitioners then filed a petition for prohibition in the Supreme Court (a special civil action), challenging the denial as a violation of their constitutional right to due process. The Court required comment from respondent Judge and issued...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Judge Villaluz’s refusal to disqualify himself constitute a grave abuse of discretion correctible by prohibition (procedural issue)?
- Do the circumstances — the judge’s attestation of an extrajudicial confession later repudiated by its affiant who alleged coercion — suffice to negate the degree of judicial objectivity required by due process and warrant disqualification under Rul...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)