G.R. No. 127262 July 24, 1997
HUBERT WEBB, ANTONIO LEJANO, HOSPICIO FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, PETER ESTRADA and MICHAEL GATCHALIAN, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE HONORABLE AMELITA G. TOLENTINO, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 274, and LAURO VIZCONDE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, charged with rape with homicide for the deaths of Carmela, Estrellita, and Jennifer Vizconde, assail the Court of Appeals’ decision and resolution which denied their petition for the inhibition of respondent Judge Amelita G. Tolentino. The case was pending before her court. Prior to arraignment, motions to disqualify Judge Tolentino were filed, alleging bias based on her reported media statements (e.g., that failure to surrender indicates guilt, and that the accused should not expect home comforts). These motions were denied. During the bail hearing, Judge Tolentino issued several contested rulings: she disallowed the cross-examination of the prosecution’s star witness, Jessica Alfaro, on the contents of her April 28, 1995 affidavit, deeming it inadmissible for lack of counsel; she sustained objections to questions regarding Alfaro’s brother’s departure to the U.S. and her educational attainment; she denied petitioner Webb’s motion for hospitalization; she ordered an ocular inspection of the Webb residence; she denied Webb’s motion to depose witnesses in the U.S.; and she admitted only 10 out of 142 exhibits offered by the defense. Petitioners filed petitions for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which were referred to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling on the inadmissibility of Alfaro’s affidavit but denied all other reliefs, including the plea for inhibition. Petitioners then filed the present petition, contending the Court of Appeals erred in not finding sufficient grounds for disqualification due to bias and hostility, as shown by the adverse rulings and an alleged reported trip to the Vizconde residence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Amelita G. Tolentino should inhibit herself from hearing Criminal Case No. 95-404 on the ground of bias and prejudice.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The Court held that for a judge to be disqualified on the ground of bias and prejudice, the movant must prove the same by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioners failed to discharge this heavy burden. The adverse and erroneous rulings of a judge, by themselves, are not sufficient proof of bias and prejudice to justify inhibition, especially when they are subject to review and correction by higher tribunals. A judge has a duty to decide cases without fear of repression. The Court found that the assailed orders and actions of respondent judge were judicial in nature and did not prove a charge of bias. The right to a fair trial before an impartial judge is guaranteed, but it must be balanced with the judge’s duty to decide cases. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.