Go v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eldon Maguan was shot and later died from his injuries. Rolito Go was identified as the prime suspect, arrested, and a complaint for frustrated homicide was filed. An information for murder was subsequently filed. Go's counsel filed an omnibus motion for release and preliminary investigation. The trial court initially approved a cash bond and ordered Go's release, also granting leave for a preliminary investigation. However, the trial court motu proprio issued an order recalling the bail, directing surrender, cancelling the leave for preliminary investigation, and treating the omnibus motion as a petition for bail. Procedural History: Go filed petitions questioning the trial court's orders. He surrendered and was initially detained at CAPCOM, then transferred to NBI custody for another investigation, and eventually ordered detained at the Rizal Provincial Jail. Go filed a Motion for Recusation, which was denied. He also filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings and Transfer Venue, which was also denied. Go was arraigned and entered a plea of 'Not Guilty.' The Supreme Court, in G.R. No. 101837, reversed the Court of Appeals, ordered a preliminary investigation, and allowed Go's release without prejudice to the trial court's action on bail cancellation. The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause for murder, leading to a motion to cancel Go's bail and resume trial. Go's subsequent appeals and petitions to reverse the prosecutor's resolution and to annul orders denying his motion for recusation and motion to suspend proceedings were unsuccessful. The Petition: This case involves a Motion for Reconsideration of the Supreme Court's Resolution denying Go's petition, which affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision upholding the trial judge's denial of Go's Motion for Recusation and Motion to Suspend Proceedings and Transfer Venue. The motion for reconsideration alleged "supervening events demonstrating partiality to the prosecution" and "hostility against petitioner."
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge's continuation of the trial during the pendency of the petition for recusation constituted proof of partiality. Whether the respondent judge's order overruling the objection to the admissibility of an extrajudicial statement constituted proof of bias. Whether the respondent judge's act of considering the cancellation of bail proceedings ripe for resolution and refusing to allow further witnesses constituted proof of bias. Whether the respondent judge's order allowing arraignment and trial without a preliminary investigation was proof of partiality. Whether the language used by petitioner's counsel towards the respondent judge warranted disciplinary action.
Ruling
The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY. Attys. Raymundo A. Armovit, Miguel R. Armovit and Rafael R. Armovit are ordered to pay a FINE of P500.00 each with a stern WARNING against repetition of similar acts. The Supreme Court reiterated its holding that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in affirming the respondent judge's denial of the Motion for Recusation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the continuation of trial during the pendency of the petition for recusation: The Court reiterated that if a judge denies a motion for disqualification, it is their duty to proceed with the trial unless restrained by a higher court. The mere filing of a motion for inhibition or a petition challenging its denial does not deprive the judge of authority. In this case, no temporary restraining order was issued by the Supreme Court enjoining the judge from proceeding, thus, his continuation of the hearing was in accordance with the Rules and jurisprudence, not proof of partiality. On the admissibility of the extrajudicial statement: The Court held that the mere fact that a trial judge overruled an objection to the admissibility of evidence is not proof of bias. Divergence of opinions between a judge and counsel regarding laws and jurisprudence is not sufficient ground for disqualification. The judge was merely ruling on admissibility at that stage, not appreciating the merits of the evidence. Petitioner's conclusion of a "sinister concert to simulate evidential strength" was deemed an overreaction. On considering bail proceedings ripe for resolution: The Court affirmed that bail proceedings are summary in nature and the judge has discretion to limit the number of witnesses. The judge correctly appreciated the nature of bail proceedings and it was within his discretion to limit witnesses when he believed the evidence was sufficient to rule on the bail issue after both parties had an opportunity to present evidence. The judge's ruling was not motivated by bias or prejudice. On arraignment and trial without preliminary investigation: The Court acknowledged that the judge's earlier order allowing arraignment without a preliminary investigation was erroneous and was later nullified by the Supreme Court. However, erroneous rulings do not always constitute evidence of bias. The fact that the erroneous order was remedied and corrected militates against disqualification on the ground of bias or partiality. On the language used by petitioner's counsel: The Court found the language used by petitioner's lawyers in their pleadings to be highly derogatory, offensive, and contemptuous. Such language violates the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to observe and maintain respect for courts and judicial officers. The Court imposed a fine and a stern warning on the lawyers for their disrespectful conduct.
Main Doctrine
The mere filing of a motion for inhibition or a petition challenging an order denying such motion does not automatically deprive a judge of authority to proceed with the case. Bias and prejudice cannot be presumed and require clear and convincing evidence. Erroneous rulings do not necessarily constitute evidence of bias.