Case Summary (G.R. No. 129120)
Procedural History
The appeal arises from an order granting bail set by Judge Duremdes on May 14, 1996, which was contested by the prosecution. The prosecution filed for reconsideration of this order and sought to inhibit Judge Duremdes from presiding over the case, citing concerns of bias. The trial court denied these motions, which resulted in the prosecution elevating the case to the Court of Appeals under CA-G.R. SP No. 42691.
Court of Appeals Decision
On February 11, 1997, the Court of Appeals granted the petition by the prosecution to set aside Judge Duremdes's order granting bail to Pacificador. However, the appellate court denied the motion to inhibit Judge Duremdes, ruling that there was insufficient evidence of bias. The Court of Appeals found that the language used by the trial judge did not inherently demonstrate bias and that an erroneous ruling on bail could be corrected.
Issue of Inhibition
The primary legal issue addressed was whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion for inhibition of Judge Duremdes. The petitioner argued that the trial judge's comments reflected a prejudgment and bias that could result in an acquittal for Pacificador. However, the Court emphasized the standard for proving bias, asserting that mere allegations are insufficient; rather, there must be clear and convincing evidence of actual bias or prejudice arising from extrajudicial sources.
Standard of Proof for Bias
The Court iterated that allegations of bias must be supported by substantial evidence, and that the burden of proof lies with the party asserting bias. The Court cited precedents establishing that the suspicion of bias does not amount to a legally sufficient basis for disqualifying a judge. Furthermore, the perception of bias or prejudgment must be substantiated by concrete proof rather than mere conjecture based on a judge’s remarks or decisions.
Delayed Filing and Jurisdiction
Respondent Pacificador also challenged the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, claiming that the petition was filed late. The petitioner had a three-month period to file the petition after the order was received, yet it was submitted 26 days beyond this timeframe. The Court discussed relevant jurisprudence indicating that while a delay could affect the Court's jurisdiction, exceptions exist when warranted by the demands of justice.
Conclusion on Jurisdiction and Justice
The Supreme Court determined that the delay in filing could be justified by ci
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 129120)
Case Citation
- Citation: 369 Phil. 150; 96 OG No. 46, 7313 (November 13, 2000)
- G.R. No.: 129120
- Decision Date: July 02, 1999
- Division: Second Division
Parties Involved
- Petitioner: People of the Philippines
- Respondents: Court of Appeals and Arturo F. Pacificador
Procedural History
- This case involves an appeal by way of Petition for Review on Certiorari against the decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 11, 1997, and its resolution of May 2, 1997, in CA-G.R. SP No. 42691.
- The Court of Appeals set aside the orders of Judge Nery G. Duremdes of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, San Jose Antique, which had granted bail to private respondent Pacificador.
Background Facts
- Pacificador, along with six co-accused, faced charges of multiple murder and frustrated murder related to an ambush on political rivals' supporters at the Pangpang Bridge in Sibalom, Antique, on May 13, 1989, resulting in seven fatalities.
- After evading arrest for nine years, Pacificador surrendered on March 8, 1995.
- Upon his trial, he filed for bail, which was granted on May 14, 1996, leading to the prosecution's motion for reconsideration and a motion to inhibit Judge Duremdes.
Court of Appeals Decision
- On February 11, 1997, the Court of Appeals granted the prosecution's petition, setting aside the bail order and enjoining the trial judge from enforcing it.
- However, the appellate court denied the motion for inhibition against Judge Duremdes, which asserted prejudgment and bias.