Case Summary (G.R. No. 67422-24)
Procedural Background
The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari addressed to the Supreme Court, claiming serious irregularities in the proceedings conducted by the respondent judge. The petition was mailed on March 22, 1984, and received on April 26, 1984. Following the petition's filing, a temporary restraining order was issued on May 21, 1984, barring Judge Aquilizan from proceeding with the cases, which had already resulted in the conviction of the petitioner on April 2, 1984.
Allegations of Irregularities
The petitioner alleged that the promulgation of the court's decision occurred without the presence of his counsel or the Fiscal, and that no notice was given regarding the promulgation. Importantly, he also claimed that his counsel did not receive a copy of the decision. Irregularities were highlighted by the petitioner's legal representatives, who argued that crucial procedural rights were disregarded throughout the trial.
Examination of Witnesses by the Judge
During the hearings, particularly on the dates of May 26 and June 23, 1983, the respondent judge conducted what he referred to as "cross-examinations" of the private complainant in the absence of the petitioner's counsel. Notably, the judge’s questioning appeared to construct the prosecution’s case rather than merely seeking clarifications. Such actions raised concerns regarding the impartiality expected of a judge, as they seemed to compromise the defense’s opportunity to conduct its examination.
Conduct of Hearings
The respondent judge continued hearings in the absence of the petitioner's counsel multiple times, insisting on conducting the proceedings in his chambers to avoid perceived bias, described as "delicadeza." This choice further deprived the accused of his right to defend himself effectively during the trial, as he was not physically present in the chamber despite requests from his legal team.
Decision-Making Process of the Respondent Judge
The judge issued a decision on the cases after the petition questioning his conduct was already received. The manner in which the judge handled the proceedings, particularly in not suspending actions on the cases until the Supreme Court reviewed the motions, was viewed as not only imprudent but reflective
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 67422-24)
Case Background
- The case concerns a petition for certiorari filed by petitioner Fernando Valdez, also known as Wilson Valdez, against Honorable Judge Gregorio U. Aquilizan, who presides over the Regional Trial Court in Kabacan, North Cotabato.
- The petition was posted on March 22, 1984, but was received by the court on April 26, 1984.
- Valdez is accused of rape in three separate criminal cases (Criminal Case Nos. 13, 14, and 15), with allegations involving the same private complainant and different dates of offense: February 10, 1982; March 17, 1982; and April 10, 1982.
- The petition seeks to annul the proceedings conducted by Judge Aquilizan and to disqualify him from presiding over the cases.
Procedural History
- After the verified petition alleged serious irregularities by Judge Aquilizan, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on May 21, 1984, preventing further proceedings in the three criminal cases.
- Judge Aquilizan submitted a comment indicating that he had already decided the cases, convicting Valdez in each, with sentences of reclusion perpetua and indemnity, dated April 2, 1984.
- Valdez claimed that the promulgation of the decision occurred on May 3, 1984, without his counsel or the Fiscal present, and without any notification or copy of the decision provided to his defense counsel.
Allegations of Irregularities
- At a hearing on August 6, 1984, counsel for Valdez detailed several alleged irregularities committed by Judge Aquilizan