G.R. No. L-67422-24 October 31, 1984
Fernando Valdez alias Wilson Valdez, petitioner, vs. Honorable Judge Gregorio U. Aquilizan, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, 12th Judicial Region, Branch XVI, Kabacan, North Cotabato, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Fernando Valdez was accused in three separate rape cases before the court of respondent Judge Gregorio U. Aquilizan. The petition for certiorari sought to annul the proceedings and disqualify the judge, alleging serious irregularities. This Court issued a temporary restraining order. In his comment, the respondent judge revealed he had already convicted Valdez and sentenced him to three penalties of reclusion perpetua. The petitioner claimed the decision was promulgated without notice and without the presence of his counsel or the fiscal, and no copy was furnished to his counsel of record.
During hearings, the respondent judge actively examined the private complainant. On May 26, 1983, despite the private prosecutor’s absence, the judge stated he was cross-examining the witness but proceeded to ask questions that built up the prosecution’s case, such as having the witness identify and demonstrate the use of a pair of scissors as the weapon. On June 23, 1983, with the defense counsel absent, the judge continued his examination of the complainant, claiming it was to clarify facts and protect the accused’s right to a speedy trial.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction through his irregular conduct during trial and his precipitous decision-making, thereby violating the petitioner’s right to due process.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental requirement of judicial impartiality and the accused’s right to due process. A trial judge, while empowered to ask clarificatory questions, must maintain neutrality and must not assume the role of an advocate. Here, the respondent judge’s questioning of the complainant was not clarificatory but instead direct and searching, effectively building the case for the prosecution, especially during hearings where the defense counsel was absent. This conduct departed from the cold neutrality required of a judge.
Furthermore, the judge’s decision to proceed with the trial in the absence of defense counsel and his denial of a defense request to recall the accused for additional testimony on material exhibits, despite the gravity of the charges, demonstrated a lack of impartiality. His act of deciding and promulgating the judgment with undue haste after receiving the petition questioning his impartiality, instead of prudently awaiting this Court’s action, constituted grave abuse of discretion. These collective irregularities substantively prejudiced the petitioner’s right to a fair trial, thus vitiating the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. The case was remanded for a new trial before a different branch.