Baterina v. Musngi
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case originates from Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel fund misuse allegations against petitioner Salacnib F. Baterina, then Representative of the 1st District of Ilocos Sur (1997-2007). On November 29, 2013, the NBI filed OMB-C-C-13-0409 for P35 million under SARO 07-00710. On May 29, 2015, the Ombudsman's FIO filed OMB-C-C-15-0150, adding SAROs D-07-03368 and ROCS 07-03009, alleging funds released to TRC, then transferred to Philippine Development Foundation, Inc. and Kaagapay Magpakailanman Foundation, Inc. for fictitious livelihood projects. On May 4, 2016, Ombudsman found probable cause for three counts of RA 3019 Sec. 3(e), three counts of malversation (Art. 217 RPC), and one count of direct bribery (Art. 210 RPC) against petitioner and co-accused Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario S. Nuñez, Lalaine N. Paule, and Marilou D. Bare. Petitioner's June 24, 2016 Motion for Reconsideration was denied on November 7, 2016. Seven Informations were filed with Sandiganbayan on March 17, 2017, raffled to Second Division. Procedural History: On March 28, 2017, Relampagos et al. filed Joint Omnibus Motion for judicial probable cause determination, hold on warrants, bill of particulars, and bail reduction. Petitioner filed May 25, 2017 Omnibus Motion to quash Informations for due process violation, denied September 22, 2017; reconsideration denied December 12, 2017. Relampagos et al.'s Joint Omnibus Motion denied December 18, 2017, but dispositive erroneously included petitioner's name; corrected nunc pro tunc January 15, 2018. Petitioner filed February 22, 2018 Request for Inhibition alleging bias from erroneous naming. At February 23, 2018 arraignment, petitioner refused plea; not guilty entered. Request denied March 13, 2018; reconsideration denied April 23, 2018. The Petition: Petitioner sought certiorari and prohibition to nullify the March 13 and April 23, 2018 Resolutions, alleging grave abuse via (1) erroneous inclusion in December 18, 2017 dispositive proving prejudgment; (2) ordering plea despite pending Request; (3) rejecting Request on technicality without following A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC (18-day delay vs. 2-day guideline); also prayed for TRO and consolidation/supplemental to G.R. No. 236408.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan Second Division acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying petitioner's Request for Inhibition based on alleged bias from clerical error, arraignment despite pendency, and procedural delay. Whether certiorari lies against the denial of inhibition and related interlocutory orders.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Resolutions dated March 13, 2018 and April 23, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan Second Division are AFFIRMED. No grave abuse of discretion attended the denial of the Request for Inhibition, as allegations of bias were unsubstantiated speculations.
Ratio Decidendi
On Alleged Bias from Erroneous Dispositive Portion, Arraignment Despite Pending Request, and Procedural Delay: Petitioner's claim of prejudgment from the December 18, 2017 Resolution erroneously naming him in denying Relampagos et al.'s Joint Omnibus Motion is mere speculation unsupported by proof. The body of the Resolution discussed only movants' issues, indicating inadvertence in the dispositive, cured by the January 15, 2018 nunc pro tunc Resolution correcting it to name only proper parties. Nunc pro tunc, meaning 'now for then,' retrospectively enters omitted acts due to mistake, making the record reflect actual judicial action without correcting errors or supplying non-action, provided no prejudice (Mercury Drug Corp. v. Sps. Huang, 817 Phil. 434 [2017]; Lichauco v. Tan Pho). Petitioner omitted mentioning the corrective Resolution, rendering bias claims nugatory. Under Rule 137, Sec. 1, par. 2, voluntary inhibition for other just reasons is discretionary, not compelled by unproven predisposition. Pendency of Request filed a day before February 23, 2018 arraignment did not suspend proceedings absent a writ prohibiting further action; petitioner was duly arraigned per Rules, with not guilty plea entered upon refusal. The 18-day resolution period under A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC guideline does not per se delay proceedings, as no evidence of prejudice shown. Inhibition requires clear, convincing evidence of actual bias (Marcos, Jr. v. Robredo); conjectures insufficient, as courts rule on realities (Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, 506 Phil. 1 [2005]). On Certiorari: Certiorari under Rule 65 demands grave abuse—capriciousness or arbitrariness beyond discretion—or patent error without appeal (Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, 671 Phil. 320 [2011]); other issues like consolidation outside Rule 65 scope.
Main Doctrine
Under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, judicial disqualification is mandatory only for specific grounds like pecuniary interest or close relations, while voluntary inhibition for other just and valid reasons lies in the judge's sound discretion, relying on conscience without compulsion. Allegations of bias or prejudice must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, not mere speculation or conjectures, as courts deal with realities, not fancies. A clerical error in a resolution's dispositive portion, such as erroneously naming a non-party movant, does not evince prejudgment and is curable by a nunc pro tunc resolution, which retrospectively corrects inadvertent omissions to make the record speak the truth without altering substantive judicial action or prejudicing parties. The pendency of an inhibition request does not suspend arraignment or ordinary proceedings absent a restraining order, and minor delays in resolution do not per se constitute grave abuse. Certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 require proof that the tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess thereof, with no adequate remedy at law; bare allegations fall short.