The Supreme Court (SC) has denied the plea of former Ilocos Sur First District Rep. Salacnib Baterina to remove the three justices of the Sandiganbayan’s Second Division from handling the graft case and other criminal cases filed against him involving the alleged misuse of his pork barrel fund amounting to P35 million.
In a 13-page decision, the SC’s Second Division through Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting held that the Sandiganbayan Associate Justices Michael Frederick Musngi, Oscar Herrera Jr., and Lorifel Pahimna “acted will within the scope of their jurisdiction” in denying Salacnib’s petition for their inhibition.
“There is no showing of bias or prejudice on the part of respondents that will necessitate the grant of the extraordinary writ of certiorari and prohibition…As things stand, petitioner failed to sufficiently show in the present petition that respondents gravely abused their discretion denying his request,” the SC ruled.
Baterina sought the inhibition of three anti-graft court magistrates following the release of a resolution on Dec. 18, 2017 that erroneously contained a dispositive portion implicating his name.
The resolution pertained to the joint omnibus motion of his co-accused former Department of Budget Management undersecretary Mario Relampagos and several others seeking judicial determination of probable cause; to hold in abeyance the issuance of warrant of arrest; for Bill of Particulars; and motion for reduction of bail.
Baterina argued that the respondent justices already prejudged the case against him because the Sandiganbayan Resolution dated Dec. 18, 2017 wrongfully included his name in the dispositive portion even if he was not one of the parties who filed the joint omnibus motion being resolved.
The Sandigabayan justices denied appeal in a resolution issued on March 13, 2018 and his motion for reconsideration on April 23, 2018, prompting him to elevate the matter before the SC.
In ruling against Baterina, SC stressed that the lawmaker failed to substantiate his allegation of bias and partiality on the part of the justices.
“However, in the case before the Court, petitioner failed to satisfy the burden and merely imputed bias based on conjectures and speculations. In other words, petitioner did not show strong and compelling evidence to establish that there was actual bias and partiality on the part of respondents,” the SC held.
It pointed out that its reading of the assailed resolution dated Dec. 18, 2017 showed that the Sandiganbayan meticulously discussed the issues raised by accused Relampagos and the other accused in their Joint Omnibus Motion.
It added that it was also clear that what the Sandiganbayan ordered was the denial for lack of merit of the issues raised therein.
“Therefore, the dispositive portion of the Resolution dated December 18, 2017 which pertained to petitioner was a mere act of inadvertence on the part of respondents and does not in any way qualify as proof of respondents’ bias or partiality against petitioner,” the high court said.