Case Digest (G.R. No. 129120)
Facts:
The case involves the People of the Philippines as the petitioner and Arturo F. Pacificador, the private respondent, alongside the Court of Appeals. The events leading to this appeal unfolded in Antique, specifically stemming from a violent incident on May 13, 1989, when an ambush occurred at the Pangpang Bridge, resulting in the deaths of seven individuals connected to political rivals of Pacificador. Pacificador was accused along with six others who acted as his bodyguards, of multiple murder and frustrated murder. Following the ambush, Pacificador fled and evaded authorities for about nine years. Meanwhile, his co-accused were tried separately and sentenced for their roles in the crimes, with the trial court concluding that there was conspiracy among the accused.
Upon his surrender on March 8, 1995, Pacificador sought bail, which was granted by Judge Nery G. Duremdes on May 14, 1996. This was met with protests from the prosecution, who filed a motion for reconsideration, arg
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 129120)
Facts:
- Background and Context
- The case involves criminal charges of multiple murder and frustrated murder allegedly committed against supporters of Arturo F. Pacificador’s political rivals.
- The ambush occurred at the Pangpang Bridge in Sibalom, Antique on May 13, 1989, which resulted in the death of seven persons.
- Pacificador and his six alleged bodyguards (co-accused) were implicated in these heinous crimes.
- Pretrial Developments
- Prior to trial, Pacificador fled, whereas his six co-accused were apprehended, tried separately, and later convicted.
- The co-accused received indeterminate sentences ranging from nine years, four months and one day of prision mayor to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal for frustrated murder, in addition to seven reclusion perpetua each for murder.
- The trial court’s conviction highlighted the finding of conspiracy among the accused.
- After a nine-year evasion, Pacificador surrendered on March 8, 1995.
- Upon his surrender and subsequent trial initiation, Pacificador filed a petition for bail before Judge Nery G. Duremdes, which was granted on May 14, 1996.
- Judicial Actions and Motions
- The trial court, with Judge Duremdes at the helm, issued two significant sets of orders:
- An initial order granting bail to Pacificador on May 14, 1996.
- A subsequent resolution denying the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration (filed on July 19, 1996), which had aimed both at reconsidering bail and inhibiting the judge.
- In response, the prosecution (petitioner) filed a petition seeking certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with an urgent prayer for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.
- The petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 2691 before the Court of Appeals.
- The petition challenged both the grant of bail and the judge’s potential bias, arguing that the language used in the bail resolution evidenced prejudgment and partiality in favor of Pacificador.
- Key excerpts from the bail order were cited by the petitioner to demonstrate that the judge’s findings—such as describing the prosecution’s evidence as “shrouded with ambiguity” and “nebulous”—reflected an inclination to acquit Pacificador.
- Appellate Proceedings
- The Court of Appeals rendered a decision on February 11, 1997, which involved two rulings:
- It set aside the bail order issued on May 14, 1996.
- It denied the petitioner’s prayer for inhibiting Judge Duremdes from presiding over the case.
- Subsequent motions and filings included
- A motion for partial reconsideration filed by the petitioner which was also denied on July 19, 1996.
- The overall appellate resolution was later taken up for review by the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
- Allegations of Judicial Bias and Timeliness of the Appeal
- Petitioner alleged that Judge Duremdes showed inherent bias and prejudgment due to:
- His language in the bail order, indicating that Pacificador’s participation in the criminal act could not be “conjectured” on the basis of the evidence presented.
- His disregard for two categorical depositions of ambush witnesses and even Pacificador’s own admissions.
- Respondent countered these allegations by noting:
- The prosecution’s suggestion that Pacificador should be convicted because his co-accused were convicted did not logically warrant a determination of bias.
- An order allowing bail, even if erroneous, did not automatically prove bias.
- Independently, respondent raised the issue of jurisdiction due to the petition’s late filing (26 days beyond the period generally considered “three months”).
- The petitioner did not contest the dates.
- The late filing was justified as being due to delays in transmitting case records from Antique to Manila.
- The appellate court found that a 26-day delay did not automatically preclude jurisdiction, invoking the principle that a “reasonable time” is context-dependent and that the primary concern is the primordial interest of justice.
Issues:
- Whether the trial judge, Judge Duremdes, exhibited manifest prejudgment, bias, and partiality against the prosecution’s portrayal in his bail order, thus warranting his inhibition.
- Does the language in the bail resolution sufficiently establish a predisposition toward acquitting Pacificador?
- Are the categorical depositions and Pacificador’s own admission enough to demonstrate bias on the part of the trial judge?
- Whether the appellate court erred in denying the petitioner’s motion to inhibit Judge Duremdes, in light of the claim of judicial bias.
- What degree of evidence is necessary to prove clear and convincing bias?
- Did the mere expression of opinion in the bail order amount to grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction?
- Whether the petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals should be dismissed for being filed beyond the standard period, thereby raising issues of jurisdiction.
- Is a delay of 26 days beyond three months sufficient to establish a lack of jurisdiction?
- How do the “reasonable time” and exceptions provided by prior jurisprudence (e.g., Paderanga and Philgreen) affect the timeliness issue?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)