CRESENCIO MARTINEZ vs. LEOPODO B. GIRONELLA

CASE DIGEST

(LEGAL ETHICS: DUTY OF A JUDGE)

EN BANC

[ A.M. Nos. R-278-RTJ & R-309-RTJ, May 30, 1986 ]

CRESENCIO MARTINEZ, petitioner,
vs.
LEOPODO B. GIRONELLA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Abra, Branch II, respondent.

FACTS:

                In Criminal Case No. 21 of the Court of First Instance of Abra, Branch II, Cresencio Martinez, as principal, and Viernes Duclan and Arnold Bayongan, as accessories after the fact, were charged with the murder of one Alfredo Batoon. As the first two were not apprehended, trial proceeded with respect to the third, Arnold Bayongan. In the decision of the respondent judge, Arnold Bayongan was ACQUITTED to the effect, based on the wordings of the decision, that the “crime was committed by Cresencio Martinez”, the petitioner.

                Subsequent to the acquittal of Bayongan, petitioner surrendered to the authorities and later was arraigned before the same CFI. After having pleaded "not guilty" to the charge, and before the prosecution started to present its evidence, counsel for accused Cresencio Martinez moved that the trial Judge inhibit himself from hearing the case on its merits on the grounds "(1) that the respondent had the chance to pass upon the issue and has formed an opinion as to who committed the crime of murder; (2) that it would not be fair that he would sit, hear and pass judgment; and (3) that the respondent is no longer impartial," and prayed that the case be transferred to Branch I of the same Court.

ISSUE:   Whether or not respondent judge should be allowed to decide petitioner’s case.

HELD: NO.

                A Judge has the duty not only to render a just and impartial decision, but also render it in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality, and also as to the judge's integrity. 2 While we grant respondent's capacity to render a just and impartial decision, his statement in the decision acquitting Arnold Bayongan to the effect that the "crime was committed by Cresencio Martinez" renders it impossible for respondent to be free from the suspicion that in deciding petitioner's case, respondent will be biased and prejudiced. We therefore hold that under these circumstances petitioner has the right to have his case decided by another Judge.

                       WHEREFORE, the petition for prohibition is granted. Respondent is ordered to transmit the records of Criminal Case No. 21 of the Court of First Instance of Abra to Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, and the Judge presiding the said court will decide the same.