G.R. No. 162130-39, May 5, 2006
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HON. JUSTICE GREGORY S. ONG, Chairman, Fourth Division, Sandiganbayan, and MRS. IMELDA R. MARCOS, Respondents.

FACTS

The People of the Philippines filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to nullify two Sandiganbayan resolutions that denied its motion for the inhibition of Justice Gregory S. Ong from presiding over ten consolidated criminal cases against Imelda Marcos for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The prosecution moved for inhibition based on alleged bias and prejudgment. It cited a statement attributed to Justice Ong, made in his office to Special Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit, that he did not want the cases and would dismiss them as the testimony of key witness Atty. Francisco Chavez was “puro hearsay.” The prosecution further alleged hostility from Justice Ong towards Atty. Chavez and pointed to his judicial record in a related civil forfeiture case, where he had concurred in a resolution favorable to the Marcoses before it was reversed by the Supreme Court.
Justice Ong denied the motion for inhibition. He explained that his alleged statement was made in a private, informal setting and was a mere expression of frustration over a procedural matter, not a prejudgment of the cases’ merits. He asserted he was not biased against the witness and that his prior participation in the related forfeiture case, where he acted as a collegial body member, did not indicate partiality. The Sandiganbayan upheld his decision, prompting the prosecution’s petition to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for the inhibition of Justice Gregory S. Ong.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centered on the standard for voluntary inhibition under Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, which requires a judge to recuse when there is a genuine doubt about their impartiality. The Court emphasized that the appearance of bias is as crucial as its actual existence to preserve public confidence in the judiciary.
The Court found that Justice Ong’s alleged statement, expressing an intent to dismiss the cases based on his assessment of the key witness’s testimony as hearsay, revealed a predisposition regarding a critical evidentiary issue before the trial could be fully heard. This created a well-grounded belief that he might not decide the cases with the required neutrality. While judges can make preliminary assessments, such a definitive declaration on the evidence’s weight, made outside of court proceedings, crossed the line. This, coupled with the perception of animosity towards a principal prosecution witness, justified inhibition to dispel any suspicion of partiality. The Sandiganbayan’s failure to recognize this clear basis for a loss of trust in the judge’s impartiality constituted an error so grave and patent as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, warranting the grant of the extraordinary writ of certiorari.