G.R. No. 127262 - Webb vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 127262)

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Petitioners assailed the Court of Appeals decision (June 21, 1996) and its November 15, 1996 resolution insofar as they denied the petition for inhibition of Judge Tolentino. They sought certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to set aside interlocutory orders of the trial judge (including denial of hospitalization, exclusion of an affidavit from cross-examination, and denial of other reliefs) and sought disqualification of the trial judge for alleged bias and prejudice.

Core Factual Background

Information was filed against petitioners on August 8, 1995. The case was raffled to Branch 274, RTC-Parañaque. Prior to arraignment, petitioners moved for the judge’s disqualification based on alleged public statements to the media implying guilt or hostile disposition; these motions were denied. Petitioners were arraigned on September 4, 1995, and subsequently filed motions for bail and other interlocutory reliefs.

Testimony of Star Witness and Exclusion of Affidavit

During bail hearings beginning October 9, 1995, prosecution witness Jessica Alfaro testified identifying petitioners as perpetrators. Defense cross-examination sought to impeach Alfaro using an April 28, 1995 NBI affidavit and to show inconsistencies with a May 21, 1995 affidavit and in-court testimony. The prosecution objected to use of the April 28 affidavit under Article III, Section 12(1) and (3) of the 1987 Constitution. The trial judge sustained the objection and, by order dated October 30, 1995, ruled the April 28 affidavit inadmissible because it was not executed in the presence of counsel.

Other Evidentiary and Cross-Examination Rulings

The defense attempted to probe Alfaro’s motives by questioning her about family members and to impeach statements about her educational attainment; the trial judge sustained prosecution objections on irrelevancy grounds. Petitioners filed another motion to disqualify the judge on November 9, 1995, which the judge denied on November 28, 1995.

Petitions Filed in the Supreme Court and Referral to the Court of Appeals

Petitioners filed petitions with the Supreme Court in November and December 1995 challenging several interlocutory orders of the trial court, including the exclusion of Alfaro’s April 28 affidavit and denial of hospitalization. In a January 22, 1996 resolution, the Supreme Court referred the petitions to the Court of Appeals for disposition.

Additional Trial Proceedings and Evidentiary Offers

The trial court ordered an ocular inspection of the former Webb residence on December 5, 1995 over petitioners’ objections. Petitioner Webb’s request for depositions of U.S.-based witnesses was denied (reason: failure to allege inability of witnesses to attend trial). At the conclusion of bail hearings, the trial judge admitted only 10 of 142 exhibits offered by petitioners in an October 1, 1996 ruling; subsequently, the record reflects that the judge later admitted the previously excluded 132 exhibits after finding their defects cured.

Court of Appeals Disposition

On June 21, 1996, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge’s exclusion of Alfaro’s April 28 affidavit but denied other reliefs sought by petitioners. The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration in its November 15, 1996 resolution.

Arguments Advanced by Petitioners in the Supreme Court Petition

Petitioners contended (1) the trial judge displayed consistent bias and hostility; (2) the earlier rejection of 132 exhibits effectively led to denial of bail and prejudiced eventual guilt determination; and (3) a reported visit by the judge to the Vizconde residence indicated improper consorting with the complainant. A February 5, 1997 supplemental petition added allegations that the trial judge improperly allowed character testimony by a prosecution witness, disallowed impeachment of that witness, and struck a defense proffer.

Legal Standards Governing Disqualification

Under the 1987 Constitution, due process requires a hearing before an impartial tribunal (Article III, Section 14(1)). Rule 137, Section 1, Revised Rules of Court, sets out disqualification grounds and permits voluntary recusal by a judge for just or valid reasons other than specified relations or pecuniary interest. The party moving for disqualification based on bias and prejudice must prove it by clear and convincing evidence. Bias sufficient for disqualification must ordinarily stem from an extrajudicial source and not from opinions formed during judicial participation based on the evidence and conduct in the case.

Burden of Proof and Nature of Evidence Required

The petitioners bore a heavy burden to show extrinsic evidence of malice, bad faith, or corrupt purpose beyond palpable error in rulings. Repeated adverse rulings, however erroneous, are generally insufficient to establish personal bias unless accompanied by extrinsic proof. An exception exists only where an error is so gross and patent as to create an ineluctable inference of bad faith or malice.

Application of Legal Standards to the Present Record

The Court found that petitioners failed to present extrinsic evidence demonstrating that Judge Tolentino was motivated by malice or bad faith. The allegations before the Court relied principally on a series of adverse interlocutory rulings; such a record, without extraneous proof of improper motive, did not satisfy the clear-and-convincing standard required for disqualification. The Court acknowledged that some trial rulings were erroneous but emphasized that erroneous rulings arising from judicial participation and evidence evaluation do not establish personal bias.

Corrective Actions and Administrative Adjudicati

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 127262)

Citation and Judicial Posterior

Reported at 342 Phil. 206, Second Division, G.R. No. 127262, decided July 24, 1997.
Decision authored by Justice Puno.
Decision lists Regalado (Chairman), Romero, and Mendoza, JJ., as concurring; Justice Torres, Jr., was on official leave.
The Court of Appeals Decision that was assailed was penned by Justice Ricardo P. Galvez with the concurrence of Justices Antonio M. Martinez and Hilarion L. Aquino (see Annex “A” to the Petition, Rollo, pp. 51-68).
The petitioners originally included Gerardo Biong in the original petition but subsequently filed a Manifestation of Partial Withdrawal dated December 19, 1996, dropping Biong from the petition (Rollo, pp. 259-260).

Parties

Petitioners: Hubert Webb, Antonio Lejano, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada and Michael Gatchalian (original petition also included Gerardo Biong who later withdrew).
Respondents: People of the Philippines, The Honorable Amelita G. Tolentino (Presiding Judge, RTC-Paranaque, Branch 274), and Lauro Vizconde.
Criminal case involved: People of the Philippines v. Hubert Webb, et al., docketed as Criminal Case No. 95-404 before Branch 274, RTC-Paranaque.

Facts of the Alleged Offense

On the evening of June 29 to the early morning of June 30, 1991, at the Vizconde residence in BF Homes, Parañaque, petitioners were alleged to have raped Carmela Vizconde and, on that occasion, killed Carmela and her mother Estrellita and sister Jennifer (Information, Annex “D” to the Petition, Rollo, pp. 138-140).
On August 8, 1995, petitioners were charged by information with the crime of rape with homicide in Criminal Case No. 95-404.

Pretrial and Motions to Disqualify the Trial Judge

The case was raffled to Branch 274, RTC-Parañaque, presided over by Judge Amelita G. Tolentino.
Prior to arraignment:
- August 21, 1995: Hubert Webb filed a motion to disqualify Judge Tolentino alleging that she told the media that “failure of the accused to surrender following the issuance of the warrant of arrest is an indication of guilt.” The motion was denied.
- August 23, 1995: Webb filed a second motion to disqualify alleging the judge told the media the accused “should not expect the comforts of home,” during a pending motion to commit him to PNP custody at Camp Ricardo Papa, Bicutan, Parañaque. The judge denied this motion as well.
- September 4, 1995: Gerardo Biong filed a motion to disqualify on the ground of bias and partiality; this was likewise denied.
November 9, 1995: Petitioners filed a motion to disqualify or inhibit Judge Tolentino due to bias and prejudice.
November 28, 1995: Judge Tolentino denied the motion for lack of merit (Annex “F” to the Petition, Rollo, pp. 151-161).
December 8, 1995: Petitioners filed petitions with the Supreme Court seeking certiorari to set aside certain orders of Judge Tolentino (docketed as G.R. No. 122488 and G.R. No. 122504 for related petitions).

Arraignment, Bail Hearings and Evidentiary Matters

Petitioners were arraigned on September 4, 1995, and filed separate petitions for bail.
October 9, 1995: Hearing on petitions for bail commenced. The prosecution presented its key witness, Jessica Alfaro, who identified petitioners as perpetrators.
Defense sought to impeach Alfaro by cross-examining her on the contents of an April 28, 1995 NBI affidavit and discrepancies with her May 21, 1995 affidavit and court testimony; prosecution objected.
October 30, 1995: Judge Tolentino issued an order holding Alfaro’s April 28 affidavit inadmissible for purposes of cross-examination because it was not executed in the presence of counsel (Annex “E” to the Petition, Rollo, pp. 142-150).
Defense also cross-examined Alfaro on motives (involving her brother Patrick and uncle Roberto Alfaro) and on educational attainment; prosecution objected, and the judge sustained objections on relevance at various points.
September 25, 1995: Prosecution filed Comment/Objection to petitioners’ Formal Offer of Evidence (which included 142 exhibits).
October 1, 1996: Judge Tolentino ruled on petitioners’ Formal Offer of Evidence, admitting only 10 of 142 exhibits (Annex “J” to the Petition, Rollo, pp. 190-196).
October 11, 1996: Judge Tolentino denied petitioners’ petitions for bail (Annex “K” to the Petition, Rollo, pp. 197-199).
During the bail hearings, the prosecution presented Mila Gaviola, a former maid of the Webb residence, who testified seeing Webb in the early morning of June 30, 1991.
December 5, 1995: Over petitioners’ objection, Judge Tolentino ordered an ocular inspection of the former Webb residence to verify Gaviola’s testimony regarding a secret door.
January 12, 1996: Webb filed a motion for deposition of witnesses in the United States to establish his presence abroad on the date of the offense; on February 6, 1996, the judge denied the motion for failure to allege that those witnesses could not travel to the trial (Annex “G” and “H” to the Petition, Rollo, pp. 162-176).
Petitioners later made a Formal Offer of Evidence upon conclusion of bail hearings; the judge admitted only 10 of 142 exhibits initially but later admitted the 132 exhibits after finding defects cured during trial on the merits (see Order dated June 18, 1997 in Criminal Case No. 95-404, cited at footnote 24).

Petitions to the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court

Petitioners filed petitions with the Supreme Court (docketed G.R. Nos. 122488 and 122504) and a supplemental petition including an attack on the November 28, 1995 denial of the inhibition motion.
January 22, 1996: The Supreme Court referred the petitions and supplemental petition to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition.
June 21, 1996: The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision reversing Judge Tolentino’s ruling refusing to admit Alfaro’s April 28 affidavit, but denied the other reliefs sought by petitioners (Annex “A” to the Petition, Rollo, pp. 51-68).
November 15, 1996: The Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration (Annex “C” to the Petition, Rollo, pp. 82-89).

Reliefs Sought in the Present Petition to the Supreme Court

Petitioners contended, inter alia:
- I: The Court of Appeals e
  ...continue reading