ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 149453.� March 25, 2003]

PEOPLE vs. LACSON

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 25 2003 .

G.R. No. 149453 (People of the Philippines , et al. vs. Panfilo M. Lacson.)

Before the Court is a motion captioned Recusation filed by the respondent praying that Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. voluntarily inhibit himself or, in the alternative, the Court recluse him from deliberating, discussing, participating in whatever manner in the resolution of the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's May 28, 2002 Resolution upon the ground that while the case was still pending with the Court of Appeals, Justice Callejo, Sr. admitted to being related to the police officer who conducted an investigation on the Kuratong Baleleng killings prior to its referral by the then Director General Leandro Mendoza of the PNP and the Free Legal Assistance Group to the Department of Justice.

It must be noted that shortly after his appointment to this Court, Justice Callejo, Sr. informed the Court that while this case was pending in the Court of Appeals, he had inhibited himself therein because he thought that the investigation of the criminal cases involving the Kuratong Baleleng killings was being conducted by his nephew-in-law who was under the direct supervision and control of one of the complainants, then Director General Leandro Mendoza. However, upon his review of the complete records of the case, he sees no need to inhibit himself therein. The Court has deferred to the decision of Justice Callejo, Sr.

During the deliberation on the respondent's motion, Justice Callejo, Sr. assured the Court that he has absolutely no personal interest in the present case, and that he can render justice fairly and in good faith. In his submission to the Court, he said that in his career of almost seventeen (17) years in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, the Court of Appeals, and in this Court, he has resolved all his cases with absolute impartiality, totally unaffected by extraneous considerations and the personalities involved, basing his decisions solely on the evidence and the applicable laws and jurisprudence. The Court has no reason to doubt the submission of Justice Callejo, Sr.

In Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 147062-64, a motion was filed with the Court for the inhibition of Justice Antonio T. Carpio on the ground that he was one of the petitioners in another case involving the coconut levy funds and that prior to his joining the Court, Justice Carpio supposedly wrote in his column in the Sunstar Manila issues of December 19, 20, and 22, 2000 that coconut levy funds were public funds. A motion was also filed in the said case for the inhibition of Justice Santiago M. Kapunan on the ground that his son-in-law, Atty. Adel A. Tamano, was an associate of the counsel of one of the parties. Another motion was filed in the same case for the inhibition of Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago on the ground of close personal relations between one of the respondents and her brother and sister-in-law. In its 11 December 2001 resolution, the Court denied the motion for the inhibition of Justice Carpio and even directed him to vote. The Court likewise denied the motions for the inhibition of Justices Kapunan and Consuelo Ynares-Santiago. In its 26 February 2002 resolution in the same case, the Court ruled that:

(3) Voluntary inhibitions are addressed to the sound discretion of the justice concerned. In the present case, the magistrates concerned believe in good faith that, notwithstanding the allegations in the three Motions, they can render justice fairly and in good faith in the present proceedings. The Court does not doubt this.

(4) Being collegiate in nature, the Supreme Court allows greater leeway to its members in applying the rule on inhibition/disqualification. In case of doubts, it defers to the sound judgment of the individual magistrate, believing that all members of the Court are capable of discharging their sacred duty to administer justice without fear or favor. "It is for him alone, therefore, to determine his disqualification.

Accordingly, the Court resolved to DENY the motion.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE