REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH-121
CALOOCAN

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Complainant,
- versus - Criminal Case No. C–79537
For:Kidnapping for Ransom
(Violation of Art. 267 of RPC as
amended by RA 7659)
PO1 MICHAEL CHRISTOFFERSON
PACLEB y PAGADUAN,ET.AL.,
Accused.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MOTION FOR INHIBITION

COMES NOW, the private COMPLAINANT, by and through

the undersigned private prosecutor, respectfully states:

1. That, at the outset, for the interest of Justice and fairplay,

complainant herein humbly begs for the inhibition of the Honorable
Presiding Judge ROSALIA I. HIPOLITO-BUNAGAN, because he
loses his confidence in the competence and impartiality of the
Honorable Presiding Judge.

a. The Hon. Presiding judge allowed accused Pacleb to post

bail without any hearing despite the fact the crime imputed
against him is non bailable;

b. In the decision dated June 30, 2017, the Hon. Presiding

judge says in her decision that three was no testimony from
a competent that Johnny Sy “was actually and unlawfully
taken”. No one saw how he was kidnapped. However, on
the same decision, the Honorable Presiding judge that PO3
Archibald Tejero testified in open court that he saw the
subject – named Johnny Sy- riding a motorcycle. He
introduced himself as a police officer and immediately
handcuffed him. He brought Johnny Sy inside the police
vehicle.

c. The Hon. Presiding Judge also concluded in her decision

that the police officers who testified for the prosecution do
not have personal knowledge of the commission of the
offense. They merely testified on the fact of arrest.
Apparently, the Hon. Presiding Judge only relied on the facts
 laid down by the defense, wherein it was clear in the factual
findings of the prosecution that the Jun-jun Amar – recited
the names of his cohorts, including their whereabouts. With
this lead, the police conducted a follow-up operation in
Pasong Tamo, Quezon City. On their way to this place, four
armed male individuals were signted on board two motor
vehicles. They were Armando Mariano, PO1 Samuel Derije,
Jr., PO1 Freddie Dumaguing and Augusto Tabuno, Jr. All of
them were frisked and apprehended.

d. Moreover, the Hon. Judge stated that there were no proof

that the Accused were actually restraining Johnny Sy’s
liberty, but she well taken the fact that Johnny Sy was
arbitrarily detained for five hours and he was only released
to settle the demand of huge amount by the Accused,
because he was the only one who knows the account.
Complainant kept his silence, because of the fear of the lives
of his family, since Accused threatened him that they will
take the life of his children if he would not heed what the
Accused was compelling him to do. He kept his silence for
the moment and chose not to report the crime until he found
the right chance for him to do. That this conveys that the
crime committed was continuous and the complainant even
if he was no longer in the custody of the Accused they were
still restraining his liberty to act normally and extorting
money from him.

e. With regards to the findings that there was no conspiracy on

the part of the Accused. It was crystal clear that the Accused
had planned the offense committed as can be discerned by
the circumstances, and apparently, all the Accused were
common to each other and they admitted in open court that
they needed money for themselves, which they led them to
orchestrate the kidnapping of the complainant to divide
among themselves whatever money they could get from the
complainant. The guilt beyond reasonable doubt was
established by the Prosecution through the candid admission
of the Accused of the conspiracy.

2. Based on the foregoing observation, there was already a

prejudgment in the instant case and most likely than not, the
Presiding Judge will eventually acquit the accused .

3. That, as a member of the legal profession, the

Undersigned Counsel is also aware of the mindless deliberation in
the disposition of the case by the Honorable Judge, that in this
instance, the Honorable Judge is not upholding the interests of
justice.

4. That, the overly protracted proceedings that have

attended this case have fostered great disillusionment and cynism
with regards to Complainant’s pursuit of justice.

5. That, it has been a BIG question to the Complainant on

what are the reasons why the Honorable Judge acquitted the
Accused, where in fact, the Accused themselves had admitted before
the Open Court and in their Judicial Affidavits their guilt of kidnapping
the complainant for ransom, and all the circumstances surrounding
said fact was proven by the Prosecution on an independent evidence.

6. That, not only the Accused but even the Accused’s

counsel were perplexed to know that his clients were acquitted, as
they were expecting for conviction.

7. That, to scrutinize the evidence presented before the

Honorable Court, there is indeed a great anticipation of conviction,
because even an ordinary person could discerned that the Judge is
not impartial in issuing her Decision of the case.

8. In the case of Judge Martonino R. Marcos (Retired) vs.

Hon. Perla V. Cabrera-Faller, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472, the Supreme
Court held that there was gross ignorance of the law and in
competence on the part of the Presiding Judge in displaying her
careless disposition of the case, to wit:

“Although judges are generally not accountable for

erroneous judgments rendered in good faith, such defense
in situations of infallible discretion adheres only within the
parameters of tolerable judgment and does not apply
where the basic issues are so simple and the applicable
legal principle evident and basic as to be beyond
permissible margins of error.

Time and again, the Court has earnestly reminded

judges to be extra prudent and circumspect in the
performance of their duties. This exalted position entails a
lot of responsibilities, foremost of which is proficiency in
the law. They are expected to exhibit more than just a
cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules
and to apply them properly in all good faith. When the law
is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to
 simply apply it; anything less than that would be
constitutive of gross ignorance of the law.

Moreover, judges are duty bound to render just,

correct and impartial decisions at all times in a manner
free of any suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality or
integrity. The records must be free from the slightest
suspicion that the trial court seized upon an opportunity to
either free itself from the usual burdens of presiding over a
full-blown court battle or worse, to give undue advantage
or favors to one of the litigants. Public confidence in the
Judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of
judges. The appearance of bias or prejudice can be as
damaging to public confidence and the administration of
justice as actual bias or prejudice.

Thus, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct

requires a judge to be the embodimentofcompetence,
integrity and independence. They are likewise mandated
to be faithful to the law and to maintain professional
competence at all times. A judge owes the public and the
court the duty to be proficient in the law. He is expected to
keep abreast of the laws and prevailing
jurisprudence. Basic rules must be at the palmsoftheir
hands54 for ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be
the mainspring of injustice.

Unfortunately, Judge Cabrera-Faller fell short of this

basic canon. Her utter disregard of the laws and rules of
procedure, to wit: the immediate archiving of Criminal
Case No. 11862-13, the recall of the warrant of arrest
which she claimed were issued inadvertently and the hasty
dismissal of the case displayed her lack of competence
and probity, and can only be considered as grave abuse of
authority. All these constitute gross ignorance of the law
and incompetence.”

9. For the foregoing reasons and to restore the private

complainants’ faith and confidence in the courts, may the
Honorable Presiding Judge be inhibited from further trying this
case based on the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137 of the
Rules of Court, which provides:

“Section 1. Disqualification of judges.—

 No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which
he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir,
legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to
either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or
affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed
according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been
executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in
which he has been presided in any inferior court when his
ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the
written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them
and entered upon the record.

A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion,

disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid
reasons other than those mentioned above.”

10. This move is also predicated on Article III, Section 16 of

the 1987 Constitution which entitles not only the Accused, but also
herein Complainant, to a “speedy disposition of their cases before
all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.”

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Private Prosecutor

respectfully prays that an Order be issued granting this motion for the
Honorable Presiding Judge, ROSALIA I. HIPOLITO-BUNAGAN, to
voluntarily inhibit herself from further trying the above cited case, and
causing the re-raffling of the said case to another branch of the
Honorable Court.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

City of Manila for City of Caloocan, __ November 2017.

ATTY. ROMEO N. BARTOLOME

Counsel for the Private Complainant
Unit 2-C, 2nd Floor, Dahlia Tower
Suntrust Parkview Condominium
No.181 N. Lopez St., Ermita, Manila
IBP No.1006009/1-05-17/Mla.
PTR No. 6003227/1-05-17/Mla.
Roll No. 37717
MCLE Compliance No. V-0003125
 July 25, 2014

EXPLANATION

This is to certify as an officer of the court that a copy of the

MOTION was served, not by personal service, but through registered
mail due to time constraint, distance, lack of manpower and/or
urgency.

ATTY. ROMEO N. BARTOLOME

NOTICE

To: PROSECUTOR RHODORA SALAZAR RUBA

Department of Justice, Padre Faura, Manila

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Hall of Justice, Caloocan City

ATTY. NESTOR IFURUNG

No.4149 Olivares Street
Palanan, Makati City

ATTY. BRIAN B. PELLAZAR

Block 3 Lot 45 Pili Street
Phase 1, Camella West, Molino III
Bacoor, Cavite

ATTY. JOJO SORIANO VIJIGA

IBP Office, Caloocan City

Greetings.

Please take notice that Undersigned will submit the foregoing

Motion for the kind consideration and approval of the Honorable
Court immediately upon receipt hereof without further arguments.
 ATTY. ROMEO N. BARTOLOME

Copy Furnished:

PROSECUTOR RHODORA SALAZAR RUBA

Department of Justice, Padre Faura, Manila

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Hall of Justice, Caloocan City

ATTY. NESTOR IFURUNG

No.4149 Olivares Street
Palanan, Makati City

ATTY. BRIAN B. PELLAZAR

Block 3 Lot 45 Pili Street
Phase 1, Camella West, Molino III
Bacoor, Cavite

ATTY. JOJO SORIANO VIJIGA

IBP Office, Caloocan City