Case Summary (G.R. No. 239203-09)
Factual Background
The case arose from the PDAF prosecutions involving alleged misuse of Special Allotment Release Order No. 07-00710 and two other SAROs which, in 2007, purportedly released PHP 35,000,000 to the Technology Resource and Livelihood Center (TRC). The TRC allegedly transferred the funds to Philippine Development Foundation, Inc. and Kaagapay Magpakailanman Foundation, Inc. for projects in the first district of Ilocos Sur while petitioner served as Representative. The National Bureau of Investigation filed a complaint on November 29, 2013; the Office of the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office filed a related complaint on May 29, 2015. After investigation, the Ombudsman on May 4, 2016 found probable cause to indict petitioner for three counts under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and three counts of malversation, and a separate information for direct bribery was filed.
Procedural History in the Sandiganbayan
Seven Informations were filed in the Sandiganbayan and raffled to the Second Division on March 17, 2017. Accused Relampagos and co-accused moved for several reliefs by Joint Omnibus Motion on March 28, 2017. Petitioner separately filed an Omnibus Motion to quash, which the Sandiganbayan denied on September 22, 2017 and again denied on December 12, 2017 on motion for reconsideration. On December 18, 2017 the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denying the Joint Omnibus Motion but inadvertently included petitioner’s name in the dispositive portion. The Sandiganbayan issued a corrective resolution nunc pro tunc on January 15, 2018 to excise petitioner’s name from the dispositive portion.
The Request for Inhibition
Petitioner filed a Request for Inhibition on February 22, 2018, alleging bias, partiality, and prejudice by the Sandiganbayan Second Division. He relied principally on the prior December 18, 2017 resolution that erroneously included his name, the continuation of his arraignment the day after he filed the Request, and the Sandiganbayan’s alleged failure to observe the two-day disposition guideline under A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC. At arraignment on February 23, 2018 petitioner refused to enter a plea and the Sandiganbayan entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf. The Sandiganbayan denied the Request on March 13, 2018 and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on April 23, 2018.
Issues Presented
Petitioner framed the central questions as whether respondents acted with bias when they (1) inadvertently mentioned him in the December 18, 2017 resolution denying a Joint Omnibus Motion that he did not file; (2) ordered him to enter a plea despite the pendency of his Request for Inhibition; and (3) rejected his Request on grounds of alleged technicality and without observing A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC. The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether respondents committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in denying the Request, thereby warranting certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65.
Parties’ Contentions
Petitioner contended that the inclusion of his name in the dispositive portion of the December 18, 2017 resolution demonstrated prejudgment and predisposition by the Sandiganbayan, that proceeding with arraignment while his Request was pending disadvantaged him, and that the respondents failed to comply with the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases. The Sandiganbayan’s action, as reflected in its resolutions, was that the December 18, 2017 clerical error was inadvertent and was corrected by the January 15, 2018 nunc pro tunc resolution, and that denial of inhibition rested on lack of merit and on the exercise of judicial discretion.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition for lack of merit and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions dated March 13, 2018 and April 23, 2018. The Court held that petitioner failed to establish bias or grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondents and that respondents acted within their jurisdiction in denying the Request for Inhibition.
Legal Reasoning and Basis
The Court applied Rule 137, Section 1, Rules of Court, distinguishing mandatory disqualification in its first paragraph from voluntary inhibition in its second paragraph, the latter resting on the judge’s sound discretion and conscience. The Court emphasized that requests for inhibition based on alleged predisposition require clear and convincing proof of bias and that mere speculation or conjecture would not suffice. The December 18, 2017 resolution’s erroneous inclusion of petitioner’s name was characterized as an inadvertent clerical error remedied by the January 15, 2018 corrective resolution, and the Court invoked the doctrine governing nunc pro tunc entries as explained in Mercury Drug Corp., et al. v. Sps. Huang, et al., to hold that the correction made the record speak the truth of the judicial action actual
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 239203-09)
Parties and Posture
- petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65, Rules of Court seeking to nullify two Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan, Second Division dated March 13, 2018 and April 23, 2018.
- respondents are the three justices composing the Sandiganbayan, Second Division who denied petitioner's Request for Inhibition and his Motion for Reconsideration.
- The petition assailed the denial of a motion to inhibit the members of the Division and sought extraordinary relief on grounds of alleged bias, partiality, and procedural irregularity.
Key Facts
- petitioner served as Representative of the First District of Ilocos Sur from 1997 to 2007 and was implicated in the PDAF cases arising from alleged misuse of a SARO covering P35,000,000.00.
- The NBI filed a complaint on November 29, 2013 docketed OMB-C-C-13-0409 and the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) Field Investigation Office filed another complaint on May 29, 2015 docketed OMB-C-C-15-0150 covering the same SARO and additional SAROs.
- The funds were alleged to have been released to Technology Resource and Livelihood Center (TRC) and thereafter transferred to Philippine Development Foundation, Inc. and Kaagapay Magpakailanman Foundation, Inc. for alleged livelihood projects.
- On May 4, 2016, the OMB issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause for three counts under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and three counts of Malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, and a separate Information for Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code.
Procedural History
- petitioner filed motions to quash and other pretrial motions which the Sandiganbayan denied in a September 22, 2017 Resolution and denied his motion for reconsideration on December 12, 2017.
- On December 18, 2017 the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution on a Joint Omnibus Motion that inadvertently included petitioner's name in its dispositive portion.
- The Sandiganbayan issued a corrective Resolution dated January 15, 2018 in the nature of nunc pro tunc clarifying that the December 18, 2017 dispositive portion pertained only to the movants identified therein.
- petitioner filed his Request for Inhibition on February 22, 2018, was arraigned on February 23, 2018 when a not guilty plea was entered for him, and the Sandiganbayan denied his Request by Resolution dated March 13, 2018 and denied his motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated April 23, 2018.
Issues Presented
- petitioner raised whether the respondents acted with bias when they mentioned his name in denying a Joint Omnibus Motion he did not file.
- petitioner raised whether the respondents acted with bias when they ordered him to enter his plea despite the pendency of his Request for Inhibition.
- petitioner raised whether the respondents acted with bias when they rejected his Reque