Relleno y Compactación 6

FACTS:

- State prosecutor Formaran charged Yu Yuk Lai, together with her nephew before the RTC Manila with violation of RA 6425 - Accused of a non-bailable offense, both the accused were

held at the detention cell of PNP Narcotics Group in Camp Crame

- Yu Yuk Lai filed a petition for bail on the ground that the evidence against her was not strong. Denied!

- Upon receiving information that the accused had been playing regularly in the casinos of Heritage Hotel and Holiday Inn Pavilion, Formaran filed an urgent ex-parte motion to transfer the detention of the accused to the city jail. Motion was granted by Judge Laguio

- Accused filed a Motion for Inhibition arguing that Laguio do not inspire the belief that its decision would be just and impartial. Laguio inhibited himelf

- Case was re-raffled to Branch 53 which was handled by Judge Muro.

- Muro granted accused motion to order the confinement of the accused in a hospital for a period not exceeding 7 days. He also granted the extension of medical confinement of the accused for a period of 1 month or until such time that she is fit to be discharged from the hospital

- Muro also grnated the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence with motion to admit demurrer to evidence.

- Rumors started to circulate that Muro was partial towards the accused

- Also, unidentified employees of the RTC manila calling themselves concerned court employees wrote to the Secretary of Justice alleging that Muro ordered the hospitalization of the accused even if she was not sick and there was already a rumor circulating that Muro had given the go signal to the counsel of the accused to file a motion to quash which would be granted for a consideration of millions of pesos and that the contact person is the daughter of the judge who is an employee in the said branch

- Formaran filed a motion for inhibition praying that Muro inhibit himself from further handling the case

- Thereafter, yu Yuk lai was arrested inside the VIP room of the Casino Filipino at the Holiday Inn Pavilion while playing bacarrat unescorted.

- The motion for inhibition against Muro was submitted for resolution when Formaran‘s secretary informed Formaran that Demetria called and that he wanted to speak to Formaran. - Demetria, Go Teng Kok and a close friend friend of Demetria

went to the office of Formaran in the DOJ. But even prior to that meeting, Go Teng Kok was already asking Formaran to go easy on Muro and that Formaran has been politely declining the request. But in this meeting, he told them that he would bring the matter to his superior Zuno. When Demetrio heard this, he said:‖iyon pala,‖ and left the office. - Zuno then received a call from Demetrio requesting him to instruct Formaran to withdraw his motion for inhibition aginst

Page 181 of 203

Muro so that the judge could already issue an order. Zuno politely replied that he would see what he can do.

- The Philippine Daily Inquirer reported that Justice Demetria and Go Teng Kok are ―drug lawyers‖

ISSUE:

- W/N Justice Demetria is guilty HELD:

- YES! And is dismissed from service with prejudice to re- employment in any government agency and GOCC with the forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits

- The timely call to Zuno was a logical follow up and no one could have made that call except Justice Demetria. - Even the requested ―help‖ for Go Teng Kok, whom Demetria

claims he did not know and met only that time, could not have meant any other assistance but the withdrawal of the motion to inhibit Muro

170 MARTINEZ v GIRONELLA

Facts:

 Martinez was the principal accused in a murder case. Duclan and Bayongan were alleged to be accessories after the fact. Gironella is the Judge of CFI of Abra that tried the case.

 Bayongan was the only one arraigned so trial proceeded only against him. Bayongan was acquitted.

 Thereafter, Martinez surrendered to the police. He pleaded not guilty to the charge.

 Counsel for Martinez moved that the Gironella inhibit himself on the grounds that Gironella already had a chance to pass upon the issue and has formed an opinion as to who committed the murder. That the judge is no longer fair and impartial. Motion was denied.

 During the rebuttal stage, this petition for prohibition was filed. Issue:

 W/N there should be a new trial for Martinez Held:

 No.

 Due process requires that a case be heard by a tribunal that is impartial and disinterested.

 In this case, there was no proof shown that the judge was unfair and impartial.

 After the motion for inhibition was denied, petitioner no longer filed a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner no longer took any action until the rebuttal stage.

 The conclusion that can be inferred is that the trial was fair and impartial.

Issue:

 W/N the judge should inhibit himself from proceeding in the case

Held:

 Yes.

 A judge has the duty not only to render a just and impartial decision, but also to render it in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality and as also to the judge‘s integrity.

 The statement of the judge in the decision acquitting Bayongan to the effect that ―the crime was committed by Martinez‖ render it impossible for the judge to be free from suspicion of impartiality.

171 COJUANGCO v PCGG 172 LUQUE v KAYANAN

FACTS:

Civil Case 4871 was commenced in the CFI of Quezon by Ilao, Enriquezes against Ona, Luque (petitioner herein), Africao, Castillo, and the Baldeos. Ilao etc., sought to set aside the decision in civil cases 6 and 26 approving the parties‘ compromise agreement which was alledgedly procured thru duress and intimidation.

Civil case 4871 was set for trial before Branch I of the CFI of Quezon presided over by Judge Valero. On the date set for hearing, Judge Kayanan first took cognizance of said Civil Case 4871. It was alleged by the Ilao‘s attorney that he found that civil case 4871 was not included in the calendar of cases scheduled for Branc I and that he found the case in the sala of Judge Kayanan. Defendant Luque (petitioner) was absent therein. Luque alleged that he was at Branch I. Hearings were rescheduled many times.

Petitioner lodged a motion to dismiss the case upon the ground of estoppel. The motion was dismissed. Petitioner then moved to disqualify Judge Kayanan. He claimed that the judge doctored the records of the case in that he suppressed the true and genuine proceedings in open court in that the judge did not state that he moved the case to be dismissed.

Petitioner was then ordered by Judge Kayanan to explain why he should not be cited for contempt. Petitioner‘s explanations were filed and later on declared by the judge unsatisfactory to warrant his disqualification from trying the case.

At a hearing, judge asked Luque to withdraw his pleading moving for the judge‘s disqualification. Luque refused. Judge then verbally ordered a guard to commit petitioner to jail. Petitioner was restrained for 2 hrs. ISSUE:

W/n Judge Kayanan should be disqualified… W/n Luque a lawyer, should be disciplined… HELD:

YES. The act of the judge ordering the restraint of Luque; that at one instance judge irately told him ―I will have you disbarred!‖; that Judge Kayanan would not give Luque leeway to speak in court, interrupting him and continuing to say things against him in a derisive tone and in a humiliating and abusive manner; that after the judge became tired of talking, the judge told petitioner, who wasn not given the chance to speak fully: ―that is enough, sit down,‖ and strongly banged the gavel…

Page 182 of 203

There was also an irregularity in the venue of the case as stated above. Taken all together, respondent judge is ordered to refrain from taking cognizance of the case.