FACTS:
Complainant is the defendant in a criminal case which arose
from a shooting incident involving the latter and the former Mayor Rafael
Benemerito resulting to his death. Complainant surrendered to police
authorities. Respondent Judge conducted the preliminary investigation and
issued an order finding probable cause for charging complainant with murder.
Complainant then moved for the inhibition of the judge in taking cognizance of
the criminal case on the ground that the respondent’s wife, Susana Benemerito
Calvan, is the neice of the deceased. Respondent is a relative of the deceased
within the third degree of affinity, and also of the wife of the deceased, who
is the complaining witness in the criminal complaint.
ISSUE: Whether or not
respondent Judge should inhibit himself in handling the case.
HELD: YES.
The rule on compulsory disqualification of a judge to hear
a case where the judge is related to either party within the sixth degree of
consanguinity rests on the salutary principle that no judge should preside in a
case which he is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent. The
appropriate step for respondent to take would have been to immediately desist
from hearing the case, even at the preliminary investigation stage. His failure
to do so is a glaring violation not only of the Rules of Court but also of the
Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates in Canon 3, Rule 3.12.
The proceedings on preliminary investigation now consist of
only one stage; Judicial competence requires that judges keep abreast of
developments in law and jurisprudence, otherwise, it might result in what
appears to be gross ignorance of the law.
Comments
Post a Comment