ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.M. No. 98-12-390-RTC. January 19, 1999]

RE: REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION OF A JUDGE TO TRY CRIM. CASE NO. C-2465.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 19, 1999.

A.M. No. 98-12-390-RTC (Re: Request for designation of a Judge to try Criminal Case No. C-2465.)

Acting on the Letter, dated 11 November 1998, of Atty. Alfredo Ampuan, counsel for the accused in Criminal Case No. C-2465 (People vs. Neptali Aliganza), requesting the designation of another judge to try the criminal case, with attached inhibition order dated 30 October 1998 of Judge Cesar R. Cinco, Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Catarman, Northern Samar, for the reasons stated therein, the Court Resolved to: (a) SET ASIDE the inhibition order of Judge Cinco and (b) DIRECT him to proceed with trial of the case and dispose of the same with dispatch for the following reasons that:

1. the order of inhibition shows that the only ground relied upon in the motion for inhibition is the private prosecutor's belief that Judge Cinco is biased towards the defense, which is not one of the grounds specifically enumerated in Sec. I of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court;

2. Judge Cinco himself considers the motion for inhibition to be without any basis if not a grave misconception against his capability to administer and dispose justice;

3. to allow Judge Cinco to inhibit himself without any strong and compelling reason would unjustifiably delay the termination of the case taking into account that the accused is a detention prisoner;

4. likewise, the inhibition of a judge on the mere motion without any strong or compelling reason alleged therein, would give the party litigant the option to choose the judge who will try his case;

5. it would be easier and faster for Judge Cinco to decide the case because he already had the occasion to observe the demeanor of the prosecution witnesses and taken notes during the earlier proceedings than a judge-designate who will only have the opportunity to hear the testimony and observe the conduct of the last prosecution witness and the defense; and

6. the motion for inhibition must have been a welcome relief for Judge Cinco, because it would lessen his caseload, especially so if the case is controversial since the accused is allegedly a local newspaper reporter. On the other hand, the judge-designate may resent the arrangement because apart from the designation being made without his consent, it is an added burden since he has to travel to the place where the case is pending instead of taking care of the pending cases in his own court.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE