G.R. No. 127400 November 16, 1998
Victorio Aleria, Jr., petitioner, vs. Hon. Alejandro M. Velez, in his official capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC-Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City, and the People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Victorio Aleria, Jr. is accused in Criminal Case No. 95-394 for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Criminal Case No. 95-395 for Murder, both arising from the same incident and jointly tried. He filed a Petition to Admit Bail. Respondent Judge conducted bail hearings and issued an Order dated July 19, 1996, denying the petition, stating the prosecution’s evidence was “sufficiently strong to hold the accused criminally liable.” Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing the order lacked specific grounds and a summary of evidence. Respondent Judge denied the motion via an Order dated September 2, 1996, reiterating that the evidence was strong, citing facts such as the victim’s death occurring while with the accused, the presentation of the gun, and proof the victim did not fire it. Petitioner then filed this Petition for Certiorari assailing the orders, praying to be allowed to post bail and for respondent Judge’s inhibition. The Office of the Solicitor-General submitted that the orders were defective for lacking a summary of evidence and conclusion, and the judge should issue a proper order, but opposed inhibition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Orders dated July 19, 1996 and September 2, 1996 denying bail are valid.
2. Whether the Supreme Court should review the evidence to determine if guilt is strong for bail purposes.
3. Whether respondent Judge should be ordered to inhibit himself.

RULING

1. The Orders denying bail are invalid. The constitutional right to bail, except for those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, requires the trial court, in granting or refusing bail for capital offenses, to issue an order containing a summary of the evidence for the prosecution followed by its conclusion on whether the evidence of guilt is strong. The questioned orders lacked this requisite specificity and were fatally flawed. They are hereby set aside.
2. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. The determination of whether evidence of guilt is strong is a matter for the trial court. While the Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals, the hierarchy of courts dictates that petitions for extraordinary writs against Regional Trial Courts should be filed with the Court of Appeals. Petitioner is not without recourse in the Court of Appeals.
3. The prayer for inhibition is denied. The questioned orders, by themselves, do not sufficiently prove bias and prejudice to disqualify respondent Judge. Bias and prejudice to be a ground for disqualification must stem from an extrajudicial source. Opinions formed in the course of judicial proceedings, based on evidence presented and conduct observed, do not prove personal bias. Petitioner did not sufficiently adduce extrinsic evidence to warrant inhibition.
The Court directed respondent court to state in its order denying bail a summary of the prosecution’s evidence, denied the prayer for inhibition, and remanded the criminal cases to the trial court for further proceedings.