Rule 5.01- 5.
05 EQUALITY OF TREATMENT
People v Ibasan, et.al.
192 SCRA 695 (1985)
FACTS
Alejandro Ibasan ,Sr., together with three others, were charged with the crime of Murder for
mauling Leoncio Balolong until he died. The lower court found them guilty of the crime and
sentenced each of them to suffer medim penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the
heirs of Balolong.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision, so Ibasan and his co-accused appealed
before the Supreme Court, citing among others, that the appellate court erred in actively
participating in conducting the examination of witnesses as though it were the prosecution, and
in depriving the defense from presenting other material witnesses by giving hope and
impressions which turned out to be false after all.
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
The Court found such assignment of error to be without merit.
RATIO OF THE RULING:
It is not denied that the court had at certain points conducted its own questioning during the
proceedings. The records, however, show that the court's questions did not amount to
interference as to make the case for the prosecution and deprive the accused of their defense.
The questions of the judge addressed to the witnesses and the accused were merely to clarify
certain points and confirm certain statements. The number of times that a judge intervenes is
not necessarily an indication of bias. It cannot be taken against a judge if the clarificatory
questions he propounds happen to reveal certain truths which tend to destroy the theory of one
party.
Judges are not mere referees like those of a boxing bout, only to watch and decide the results
of a game; they should have as much interest as counsel in the orderly and expeditious
presentation of evidence, calling attention of counsel to points at issue that are overlooked,
directing them to ask questions that would elicit the facts on the issues involved, clarifying
ambiguous remarks by witnesses, etc."
A judge may properly intervene in the trial of a case to promote expedition and avoid
unnecessary waste of time or to clear up some obscurity. In this respect, the record shows no
irregularity in the conduct of the trial judge.
As to the alleged deprivation of the appellants' right to present other material witnesses, we find
the same without basis. The appellants alleged that they had intended to present two witnesses,
namely: Atty. Gubatan and Atty. Esteves. However, the judge had expressed displeasure
against the appearance of the two witnesses when the defense requested that they be
subpoenaed.
The second assignment of error has no merit but nonetheless we take this opportunity to remind
members of the bench that judges' undue interference, impatience, or participation in the
examination of witnesses or a severe attitude on the court's part towards the witnesses,
especially those who are excited or terrified by the unusual circumstances of a trial may tend to
prevent the proper presentation of the cause or ascertainment of the truth in respect thereto.
Thus, a judge should exercise more care and patience in conducting a case, his right to
intervene to be used sparingly, if at all. He must bear in mind that witnesses may be easily
intimidated by an overly inquisitive judge considering the unusual circumstances which they find
themselves in, especially when testifying in criminal cases.
Rule 6.01 PRECEDENCE OF DUTIES
OCA v Judge Lansang
186 SCRA 646 (1990)
FACTS
An administrative complaint, dated February 26, 1990, was filed against Judge Virgilio S.
Lansang, Metropolitan Trial Court, Clark Field, Angeles City, based on the following findings of
the Judiciary Planning Development and Implementation Office and the Deputy Court
Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez in the course of an investigation conducted in his court, as
follows:
1. Cases deemed submitted for decision, some of which had been submitted since 1979 and
1982 had remained undecided as of January 3, 1990, contrary to his monthly certification that
he has no pending civil and criminal cases under submission for decision or determination
beyond the 90-day period.
2. Cases calendared for hearing during the month of June 1989 to December 1989, show that
for the month of October 1989, only one (1) hearing was conducted; for November, only one (1)
hearing also; for December, also one (1) hearing; for the month of January 1990, only two (2)
days have been set for trial hearing; for the month of February 1990, only one (1) and for the
month of August 1989, it appears that no case has been disposed of.
3. While it has been verified from reports and records in his office that he has been solemnizing
several marriages between Filipino citizens and Americans or foreigners on an average of about
three (3) marriages a day aside from notarizing public documents for a fee, his monthly reports
for 1989 to the Statistic Division of this Court do not show any marriage solemnized or
document notarized by him.
4. The accumulated caseload of 182 cases has remained invariably a back log which has not
been reduced over the year despite the few cases that are filed averaging from 4 to 6 cases a
month only. (Complaint, pp. 1-2)
Judge Lansang then submitted his irrevocable resignation, which was summed up in the
following portion:
“my failure to decide, to settle cases load was the non-apprehension or arrest of the accused,
the existence of rift between me and the Clerk of Court, became almost irreconcilable, as
manifested in the inconsistent monthly report, which was full of intrigue and inaccuracy, which
lead me to say I could no longer stay, and happy worlding with them. That even before this
controversy, I have nursed the Idea of resigning.”
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Court found Judge Lansang guilty of the aforementioned charges. The Court further
decided not to accept his resignation, but had considered him retired, with all benefits and
gratuities forteited.
RATIO OF THE RULING
His actuations, practices and conduct are unbecoming of a judicial officer; his acts of
commission and omission having been committed through admitted negligence on his part,
failure to report to the Supreme Court or to the Court Administrator, his grievances against his
own Clerk of Court against whom he never filed any formal complaints regarding the latter's
alleged irregularities; his apparent acceptance of the accuracy of the reports submitted by his
Clerk of Court; and unmitigated failure to ask for administrative remedies from the Supreme
Court and Court Administrator and the existence up to now of 182 pending cases which
according to the Court Administrator had been submitted for decision, and not merely pending
trial.
