Nelson Lai was accused of shooting and killing Enrico Villanueva. The judge presiding over Lai's trial, Judge Elumba, had previously served as the public prosecutor in the same case before being appointed to the bench. The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Elumba should have disqualified himself due to bias, as section 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits a judge from presiding over a case that they previously prosecuted. The Supreme Court annulled the decision and ordered a new trial with a different judge.
Nelson Lai was accused of shooting and killing Enrico Villanueva. The judge presiding over Lai's trial, Judge Elumba, had previously served as the public prosecutor in the same case before being appointed to the bench. The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Elumba should have disqualified himself due to bias, as section 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits a judge from presiding over a case that they previously prosecuted. The Supreme Court annulled the decision and ordered a new trial with a different judge.
Nelson Lai was accused of shooting and killing Enrico Villanueva. The judge presiding over Lai's trial, Judge Elumba, had previously served as the public prosecutor in the same case before being appointed to the bench. The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Elumba should have disqualified himself due to bias, as section 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits a judge from presiding over a case that they previously prosecuted. The Supreme Court annulled the decision and ordered a new trial with a different judge.
PEOPLE July 1, 2014 | Bersamin J. | Rights of the Accused Digester: Bea, Alexis
prosecutor (Judge Elumba) in this case before he was
appointed to the bench CA: Affirmed RTC decision
SUMMARY: Nelson Lai was accused to have shot Villanueva. The
public prosecutor for this case eventually became the trial judge to decide it. Judge says that it was actually a private prosecutor who personally prosecuted the case and his participation was merely passive. SC held that Judge Elumba could not be said to have decided the case without bias and with impartiality. DOCTRINE: Sec. 5 Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct pertinently demands the disqualification of a judge who previously served as a lawyer for any of the parties CRIME: Homicide ACTION: Assails the affirmance of his conviction by the CA (did not say WON petition for certiorari) FACTS: The victim (Enrico Villanueva Jr.) with his friends were seated inside the passenger jeepney owned by Nelson Lai which was parked in a corner while waiting for a female friend who was supposed to arrive at 9pm Lai suddenly approached the vehicle and ordered all who were seated inside to alight therefrom After all of them have alighted, Lai grabbed Villanueva by the arm and accused the latter of stealing the antenna o Villanueva freed himself and ran away to the house of Cristopher Padigos where he stayed until 11pm to go to a benefit dance At the dance (while Villanueva was dancing the cha-cha), Lai stood immediately in front of Villanueva A brownout suddenly occurred and after the lights went out, a spark was seen and a gunshot rang out o Villanueva was found bloodied Lai was identified by witnesses as the shooter RTC: Guilty of homicide Appeal to CA: Lai was deprived of due process when this case was decided by the honorable presiding judge who acted as the public
RULING: Court ANNULS and SETS ASIDE promulgated decision
of the CA; Instructs the new trial judge to resume the trial Whether or not due process was denied because of the nondisqualification of Judge Elumba prejudiced the petitioners right to a fair and impartial trial YES Petitioner (Lai) pointed out the need for said Judge to be disqualified in his MR but the latter ignored his concerns upon the excuse that he had appeared only after the Prosecution had rested its case o Judge Elumba: did not personally prosecute the case o Petitioner should have sought disqualification prior to the rendition of judgment conviction An essential part of the right is to due process of law is the right to be afforded a just and fair trial before his conviction of any crime: o Any violation of the right cannot be condoned for the impartiality of the judge who sits and hears a case is an indispensable requisite of procedural due process Adoption of the rules for the disqualification of judges from hearing and deciding cases should there be any cause that diminishes or negates their impartiality is a firm means of ensuring their impartiality as judges Rule 137, Sec. 1 of ROC embodies the rule on self disqualification by a sitting judge Under said rule, there are two kinds of self-disqualification o 1st paragraph is compulsory because judge is conclusively presumed to be incapable of impartiality o 2nd paragraph seeks voluntary inhibition: this is left to his discretion, depending on the existence of just and valid reasons not included in the first paragraph Sec. 5 Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct pertinently demands the disqualification of a judge who previously served as a lawyer for any of the parties Given the foregoing, the CAs justifications contravened the letter and spirit of said rules:
The mere appearance of his name as the public
prosecutor in that specific case sufficed to disqualify Judge Elumba from sitting and deciding the case o Having represented the State in the prosecution of the petitioner, he could not sincerely claim neutrality or impartiality as the trial judge who would continue to hear the case That his participation was passive or that he entered his appearance long after the Prosecution had rested its case against petitioner did not really matter o
The evil sought to be prevented by the rules on
disqualification had no relation whatsoever with the judges degree of participation in the case before becoming the judge The fact that it was a private prosecutor who personally appeared in the case is irrelevant since said private prosecutor was still under his direct control and supervision