People v. Marcos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to nullify resolutions of Sandiganbayan Justice Gregory S. Ong denying the People of the Philippines' motion for inhibition and motion for reconsideration. These resolutions pertained to ten consolidated criminal cases against Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos for violation of Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). These criminal cases were related to a forfeiture case concerning alleged ill-gotten funds deposited in Swiss bank accounts. Procedural History: The forfeiture case was initially decided by the First Division of the Sandiganbayan, granting the Republic's motion for summary judgment. However, this decision was reversed by the Special First Division, with public respondent writing a concurring opinion. This reversal was later set aside by the Supreme Court. The criminal cases were initially heard by different divisions of the Sandiganbayan. After consolidation, they were assigned to the Third Division, but due to the chairperson's recusal, they were re-raffled to the Fourth Division, chaired by public respondent. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, through Special Prosecutor Wendell E. Barreras-Sulit, filed a motion for inhibition against Justice Ong. This motion was based on an alleged extrajudicial remark made by Justice Ong to Prosecutor Sulit, stating, "Actually, ayaw ko sa kasong yan, idi-dismiss ko ‘yan, puro hearsay lang naman ang sinasabi ni Chavez nong umupo ako minsan sa trial nyo." Petitioner argued this remark showed predisposition to dismiss the cases and bias against Atty. Chavez, a key witness. Petitioner also cited Justice Ong's alleged judicial record of favoring the Marcoses in the forfeiture case and other alleged hostile remarks towards Atty. Chavez. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion for inhibition and the subsequent motion for reconsideration, prompting the filing of the present petition.
Issue(s)
Whether public respondent Justice Gregory S. Ong acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and gravely abused his discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he denied the motion to inhibit himself from trying the consolidated criminal cases against Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos; and whether the alleged extrajudicial remark made by Justice Ong, coupled with his alleged judicial record and hostility towards the prosecution witness, constitutes sufficient grounds for his inhibition.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED. Public respondent Justice Gregory S. Ong is DIRECTED to recuse himself from participating in Criminal Cases Nos. 17287 to 17291, 19225 and 22867 to 22870 of the Sandiganbayan.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of inhibition and the alleged extrajudicial remark and judicial record: The Supreme Court granted the petition, directing Justice Ong to recuse himself from the cases. The Court found that while the existence of the alleged extrajudicial remark was disputed, the declarations of Prosecutor Sulit and Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio cast doubt on Justice Ong's impartiality. The Court emphasized that judges must be like Caesar's wife – above suspicion, and that appearance of impropriety must be avoided. The Court noted that even if the remark was not sufficient to compel inhibition, it should have been considered by Justice Ong as sufficient ground for voluntary inhibition, given the sensitive nature of the cases. The Court reiterated that judges must not only administer justice but also conduct themselves in a manner that avoids any suspicion of irregularity to promote confidence in the judicial system. The Court also considered the petitioner's contention regarding Justice Ong's alleged judicial record of favoring the private respondent, stating that while rulings in previous cases do not normally prove bias, when taken together with an extrajudicial remark showing bias against a key witness, it strengthens the ground for inhibition. The Court stressed that the right of a party to seek inhibition must be balanced with the judge's duty to decide cases without fear, but the movant must prove grounds for bias and prejudice by clear and convincing evidence. However, in this instance, the Court found that the circumstances warranted inhibition to maintain public trust. The Court acknowledged that the primary evidence relied upon by the petitioner was the remark attributed to Justice Ong by Prosecutor Sulit, which purportedly showed a predisposition to dismiss the cases based on his characterization of Atty. Chavez's testimony as hearsay. Although the remark's actual making was disputed, the Court found that the declarations of Prosecutor Sulit and Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio were sufficient to cast doubt on Justice Ong's impartiality. The Court highlighted that such an extrajudicial remark, made outside the context of judicial proceedings, is different from opinions formed during trial based on evidence. The Court stated that judges must avoid even the appearance of impropriety, as appearance is an essential manifestation of reality. Therefore, the remark, regardless of whether it was definitively proven to have been made, created a situation where Justice Ong should have voluntarily inhibited himself to uphold the principle of impartiality and public trust in the judiciary. The petitioner argued that Justice Ong had a judicial record of favoring the Marcoses, citing his concurring opinion in the forfeiture case. While the Court generally holds that bias or partiality cannot be inferred solely from a judge's ruling in a previous case, it considered this contention in conjunction with the alleged extrajudicial remark. The Court stated that when a judge's past rulings are combined with an extrajudicial remark demonstrating bias against a key witness, it strengthens the grounds for inhibition. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining public trust in the fairness and impartiality of magistrates, particularly in cases with far-reaching consequences. Therefore, the alleged judicial record, when viewed alongside the other circumstances, contributed to the Court's decision that Justice Ong should have voluntarily declined to participate in the cases to avoid any perception of bias or prejudice.
Main Doctrine
A judge's extrajudicial remark, even if disputed, when coupled with a judicial record of favoring a party, may warrant inhibition to preserve the people's trust in the impartiality of the judiciary, especially in sensitive cases. Judges must be above suspicion, avoiding not only impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety.