12. Soriano v.

Angeles
G.R. No. 109920 | 31 August 2000 | Mendoza, J.
Aggy | TOPIC: Speedy, Impartial, Public Trials

Doctrine:
Mere suspicion that a judge is partial is NOT enough. Bias and prejudice cannot be presumed, especially
weighed against a judge’s sacred allegation under oath of office to administer justice. There must be a
showing of bias stemming from an extrajudicial source resulting in an opinion in the merits on some basis
other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.

Facts:
Complainant: Ceferino Soriano (a barangay captain in Caloocan)
Respondent: Ruel Garcia (member of the Caloocan police)

PROSECUTION VER (Ceferino’s)

• Ruel and his uncle, Pedro, barged into the barangay hall and looked for Ceferino (petitioner). Ruel
punched Ceferino on the face 4 times while he poked his gun at him with his other hand. There were
4 barangay tanods present, but they did not aid him because Pedro allegedly kept them at bay.
(Sobrang tanga lang eh apat sila LOL) Afterwards, Ruel and Pedro left, while Ceferino was brought
to the hospital

DEFENSE VER (Ruel’s)

• Ruel went to the barangay hall because he heard his brother was arrested and beaten up by Ceferino.
When he saw Ceferino, he asked where his brother was, Ceferino lay him off angrily thinking he was
trying to intervene (since Ruel was a police). When Ruel insisted going inside the barangay hall,
Ceferino blocked and pushed him. Ruel pushed him back and Ceferino fell on a pile of nightsticks
and injured himself.

• Ruel is charged with direct assault in the RTC.

• RTC Judge Adoracion Angeles acquitted Ruel holding that the testimonies of the prosecution was
not credible because she found it absurd that the Ceferino would not resist when he’s being attacked,
that his injuries should have been more serious if his allegations were true, and that it was odd that
the 4 tanods did not came to his aid at all. (SAME SIZ)
• Ceferino filed petition for certiorari praying for a mistrial and alleging that the RTC decision is
void because the judge was partial. To prove his claim, Ceferino gave the following arguments:
o On August 26, 1992, before Ruel was arraigned, Judge Angeles called the parties and their
counsels to her chambers and urged them to settle the case, and when Ceferino refused, she
did not set the hearing until 3 weeks after to provide a “cooling-off” period.
o At the initial trial on September 15 & 16, judge called the parties again to settle the case. She
even postponed the Sept. 15 trial a day later to give petitioner another opportunity to settle
the case.
o Judge excluded the testimony of Ceferino and another tanod on the grounds that the
prosecution failed to formally offer them as evidence, even when the defense essentially
waived the objection since the defense cross-examined Ceferino and the tanod.
o Judge acquitted Ruel despite there having been testimonies of 3 eyewitnesses.
• Ruel argues that if Ceferino doubted the impartiality of the judge, he should have sought her inhibition.
Likewise, he contends that Ceferino does not have the legal personality to question the decision since
it does not have the consent and conformity of the public prosecutor (since only the OSG can file or
question criminal cases, the private complainants can only assail the civil aspect of the criminal case)
Issues/Holding:
1. [PRELIMINARY LANG SO MAY CONTEXT AS TO THE ISSUE ON IMPARTIALITY BUT NOT THE
MAIN TOPIC] W/N the petitioner should be dismissed outright because it was filed without the
intervention of the OSG? – No.
a. Ceferino filed a special civil action for certiorari assailing the decision of the RTC judge. The
private complainant has an interest on the civil aspect of the criminal case. He may question
the decision on jurisdictional grounds or when there’s grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the judge. But this is subject to the limitation that the accused’s right to double jeopardy is not
violated.
b. In short, Ceferino must establish that the acquittal of Ruel resulted from a mistrial (by proving
that judge was indeed biased) so as not to place private respondent in double jeopardy.
c. (So I’m not sure about this but from what I understand, an acquittal is immediately final so you
can’t appeal it, esp not as a private complainant, because to do such would be to once again
prosecute the accused who was already acquitted. Thus, what Ceferino needs to do is to
prove that there was a mistrial and that the decision was indeed void due to judge’s partiality)
2. [MAIN] W/N the judge was partial? – No. (Oof, sorry cap)
a. SC held that the judge was NOT partial. Ceferino cannot just invoke that the judge is biased.
There must be clear and convincing proof that there was indeed partiality on the part of the
judge. (See doctrine. Also, flashback to Webb case)
b. SC provided:
i. Cooling off period allegation
a) Effort of the judge to have the parties arrive at an amicable settlement is NOT
evidence of partiality. She could have been motivated by other factors (e.g.
clearing her court docket, setting good example since both Ceferino and Ruel
are public officers)
ii. Trial being held 3 weeks after the arraignment
a) It has been shown that the scheduling of cases was done by the Clerk of Court,
and NOT by the respondent judge.
iii. Postponement of Sept 15 trial
a) Postponement was to give the counsel of Ruel time to prepare for trial. (It was
argued din by Ceferino that the counsel didn’t need time to prepare since she
already appeared on behalf of Ruel prior to Sept 15 trial; SC held that the prior
appearance was due to Ruel’s main counsel being absent during the
arraignment and that on Sept 15, she was appearing as Ruel’s new counsel)
iv. Exclusion of the testimonies
a) Divergence of opinion between the counsel and the judge as to the
admissibility of evidence is NOT a proof of partiality. (Also it was shown that
judge still considered their testimonies because it was referred to by the other
witnesses)
v. Acquittal despite eyewitness testimony
a) The finding of the judge that the defense’s evidence as more credible is not
partiality. It simply means that she found them more convincing after evaluating
and hearing the arguments of the parties.
b) Lastly, the alleged misappreciation of facts by the judge does not deprive the
court of its jurisdiction.
c. BASICALLY SABI NG SC KAILANGAN MACONVINCE MO SILA NA YES PARTIAL NGA SI
JUDGE HINDI PWEDENG PURO KA SUSPICION THERE MUST BE CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE. BUT POOR CEFERINO WAS NOT ABLE TO DO THIS.

Ruling:
Petition is dismissed.