G.R. No. 175999 , July 1, 2015
NELSON LAI y BILBAO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

The petitioner, Nelson Lai y Bilbao, was convicted of Homicide by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 42, Bacolod City, for the killing of Enrico Villanueva, Jr. The prosecution’s version established that on December 16, 1995, the victim and his friends were seated inside Lai’s parked jeepney when Lai approached, ordered them out, accused the victim of stealing his car antenna, and grabbed him. The victim freed himself and ran away. Later that evening, both were at a nearby dancehall. During a brownout, a gunshot was heard, and the victim was found bloodied. Before his death, the victim identified Nelson Lai as his assailant to several witnesses and responding police. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Lai was at home, heard a gunshot, and later voluntarily went with the police after being named. A paraffin test on Lai was negative. The RTC convicted Lai. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. A critical procedural issue arose: the RTC judge who rendered the conviction, Judge Fernando R. Elumba, had previously been assigned as the public prosecutor in the same case before his appointment to the bench. The petitioner raised this as a denial of due process in his motion for reconsideration and appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner was denied due process of law because the trial judge, who previously participated as a public prosecutor in the same criminal case, did not disqualify himself, thereby rendering the proceedings void.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was denied due process. Judge Elumba was compulsorily disqualified under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, which mandates disqualification if the judge has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, or if he has been a counsel in the case, or is related to either party within the sixth degree, or has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee, or counsel. The Court held that Judge Elumba’s prior participation as a public prosecutor, even if he entered his appearance after the prosecution had rested and a private prosecutor handled the cross-examination, fell under the prohibition of having “been counsel in the case.” His role as a public prosecutor placed him under the direction and control of the prosecution office, making him part of the prosecutorial team. His non-disqualification violated the petitioner’s fundamental right to an impartial judge and a fair trial, a denial of due process that rendered the proceedings void. Consequently, the decisions of the RTC and CA were annulled and set aside. The case was remanded to the RTC of Bacolod City for a new trial before a different judge, to start from the stage just prior to Judge Elumba’s assumption as trial judge.