Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/331308189/Tan-v-Gallardo
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:01:05+00:00

Document:
Nos. L­41213­14. October 5, 1976.
Tacloban City, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
“an offended party may intervene in the proceedings. Gallardo purpose of enforcing civil liability for criminal action and not of demanding punishment of accused; Exceptions. vs. the offended party may not intervene in the prosecution of the offense. OCTOBER 5. subject to the provisions of section 4 of the same Rule that all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the Fiscal. Same; Same; Same; Offended party may not intervene in prosecution where from nature of offense or where law defining and punishing offense charged does not provide for indemnity. in which case he loses his right to intervene upon the theory that he is deemed to have lost his interest in its prosecution. personally or by attorney.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015717982df51f9a5529003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/13 .” As explained in Herrero vs. his intervention must always be subject to the direction and control of the prosecuting official.9/11/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073 _______________ * SECOND DIVISION 307 VOL.—Since the Solicitor General alone is authorized to represent the State or the People of the Philippines the interest of the private prosecutors is subordinate to that of the State and they cannot be allowed to take a stand inconsistent with that of the Solicitor General. 489) the “intervention of the offended party of his attorney is authorized by section 15 of Rule 106 of the Rules of Court.—The role of the private prosecutors is to represent the offended party with respect to the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense. specially in case of offenses which cannot be prosecuted except at the instance of the offended party. unless the offended party either expressly waives the civil action or reserves to institute it separately.” Same; Same; Same; Offended party cannot take a stand inconsistent with prosecuting officer. The only exceptions to this are when the offended party waives his right to civil action or expressly reserves his right to institute it after the termination of the case.central. for that would be tantamount to giving the latter the direction and control of the criminal http://www.—Whether an offended party intervenes in the prosecution of a criminal action. 1976 307 Tan.—Where from the nature of the offense. (75 Phil. Jr. or where the law defining and punishing the offense charged does not provide for an indemnity. Same; Same; Same; Intervention of offended party subject to control and direction of prosecuting officer. 73. Diaz.com. Thus. This civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal action.
impartial and independent.” Thus. the “appearance of impartiality is an essential manifestation of its reality. according to Justice Castro. now Chief Justice of this Court. Ruperto Kapunan. Mendoza. for petitioner Teofanis Bondoc Amadeo Seno. It is a state of mind” and. Faylona & Associates for petitioner Cesar Tan. for “impartiality is not a technical conception. V. Assistant Solicitor General Alicia Simpio­Diy and Solicitor Eduardo L. impartial and independent.9/11/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073 proceedings.com. disinterested. Solicitor General Estilito P. http://www. Artemio Derecho & Manuel Quimbo for petitioners Librado Isode.—A judge. Jr. Osmundo. Courts; Purpose of. Jr. consequently. K. Estanislao A. contrary to the provisions of law and the settled rules on the matter. ORIGINAL ACTION for certiorari and prohibition. therefore. Elementary due process requires a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal.central. Gallardo Philippines or the State in criminal proceedings pending either in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court.—The sole purpose of courts of justice is to enforce the laws uniformly and impartially without regard to persons or their circumstances or the opinions of men. Jr. should strive to be at all times “wholly free. disinterested. it is more important that they should act and behave in such a manner that the parties before them should have confidence in their impartiality. Tolentino and Mariano Bartido. Judges; Duty of judges to be wholly free.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015717982df51f9a5529003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/13 . Fernandez and Dakila F. that while judges should possess proficiency in law in order that they can competently construe and enforce the law.” It must be obvious.—The Solicitor General represents the People of the 308 308 SUPREME COURT REPORT ANNOTATED Tan. Jalandoni & Adriano for petitioner Jorge P. Tan. Solicitor General; Solicitor General represents Government in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings. Kilayko for respondents. Castro & Associate as private prosecutors. A judge has both the duty of rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner completely free from suspicion as to its fairness and as to his integrity. it has always been stressed that judges should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial. vs. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court Pelaez.
Tacloban City. denying petitioners’ Motion for New Trial and/or Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for New Trial; and (c) Order of July 25.com. submitted his Comment to the petition. Rizal. CCC—XIII­50­L­S’72 and CCC­XIII­51­L­ 309 VOL. ordering the transfer of the accused (petitioners herein) from Camp Bumpus. a temporary restraining order was issued to enjoin the respondent from further proceeding with the afore­mentioned criminal cases. therefore. 1975. PC headquarters. 1975. the seriousness of the charges and counter­charges and the nature of the evidence on hand to support them. thus: that they are “persuaded that there are bases for stating that the rendition of respondent Judge’s decision and his resolution on the motion for new trial were not free from suspicion of bias and prejudice * * *. and in connection therewith. 1976. 1976 309 Tan. J. Considering the circumstances of the instant case. It is likewise sought. they interpose no objection to the remand of the aforementioned criminal cases “for the rendition of a new decision by http://www.: In this Special Civil Action for Certiorari with Prohibition. Jr. Gallardo 1 S’72. therefore. The petition was subsequently amended to include the People of the Philippines and thereafter. on January 14. OCTOBER 5. petitioners seek the annulment of respondent Judge’s Orders in Criminal Cases Nos. denying petitioners’ motion for respondent Judge to disqualify or to inhibit himself from hearing and acting upon their Motion for New Trial and/or Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for New Trial; (b) Order of July 23. By Resolution of this Court dated August 27. The Solicitor General informed this Court. vs. it was the submission of said official “that the case should be remanded to the trial court for the rendition of a new decision and with instruction to receive additional evidence preferred by the accused with the right of the prosecution to present rebuttal evidence as may be warranted” and. by way of prohibition.central. to the National Penitentiary. on behalf of the People of the Philippines. 73. Muntinlupa.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015717982df51f9a5529003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/13 . to compel respondent Judge to desist from further proceeding with the afore­mentioned criminal cases. New Bilibid Prisons. 1975. the respondent Judge was required to file his answer within ten (10) days from notice. 1975.9/11/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073 ANTONIO. the Solicitor General. to wit: (a) Order of July 21. we feel that respondent Judge ‘appeared to have been heedless of the oft­reiterated admonition addressed to trial judges to avoid even the impression of the guilt or innocence of the accused being dependent on prejudice or prejudgment’ “ and.
Plaintiff. hence. et al. Osmundo Tolentino. Tan. As stressed in 3 Suarez v.” To collaborate means to cooperate with and to assist the Solicitor General. it is but natural that the representatives of the State should direct and control the prosecution. There is no question that since a criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereignty of the State. 1975.” On January 30. but of a sovereignty whose obligation to http://www. There are important reasons which support the view that in the present proceedings. private prosecutors submitted their Comment in justification of the challenged Orders of the respondent Judge and objected to the remand of this case.9/11/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073 _______________ 1 Entitled “People of the Philippines. Cesar Tan. after the parties shall have adduced such additional evidence as they may wish to make. On February 12. thus: “to collaborate with the Solicitor General in the preparation of the Answer and pleadings that may be required by this Court..” 310 310 SUPREME COURT REPORT ANNOTATED Tan. the private prosecutors cannot intervene independently of and take a position inconsistent with that of the Solicitor General. 1976..central. 1976. and Librado Sode. vs. The issue before Us is whether or not the private prosecutors have the right to intervene independently of the Solicitor General and to adopt a stand inconsistent with that of the latter in the present proceedings. Jr. and to adopt a position in contravention to that of the Solicitor General. without any personality to have any paper of his entertained by this Tribunal * * *” The private prosecutors now contend that they are entitled to appear before this Court. to take part in the proceedings. Gallardo another trial judge. Accused. Platon.com. versus Jorge P. under such terms and 2 conditions as this Honorable Court may deem fit to impose. To begin with. Mariano Bartido. It was never intended that the private prosecutors could adopt a stand independent of or in contravention of the position taken by the Solicitor General. the petitioners moved to strike out the “Motion to Admit Attacked Comment” and the “Comment” of the private prosecutor on the ground that the latter has “absolutely no standing in the instant proceedings before this Honorable Court and. Teofanis Bonjoc.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015717982df51f9a5529003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/13 . Jr. for Frustrated Murder and Double Murder. it will be noted that the participation of the private prosecution in the instant case was delimited by this Court in its Resolution of October 1. the prosecuting officer ‘“is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy.
et al..” It is for the purpose of realizing the afore­mentioned objectives that the prosecution of offenses is placed under the direction.” Thus. Thus. And in any event. But. Rollo. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor—indeed. 1976 311 Tan. Gallardo govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest. that there is an absolute necessity for prosecuting attorneys to lay “before the court the pertinent facts at their disposal with methodical and meticulous attention. this is the prosecution’s prime duty to the court.central. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one. http://www. pp. As such. to the end that the court’s mind may not be tortured by doubts. This civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal action. in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case. vs. therefore. and responsibility of the prosecuting officer. clarifying contradictions and filling up gaps and loopholes in their evidence. he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. 311 VOL. pp. unless the offended party either expressly waives the civil action or reserves to 5 institute it separately. Obvious to all. but that justice shall be done. OCTOBER 5. is to represent the offended party with respect to the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability arising from the offense. 459. it was stressed in 4 People v. 6­8. 295­ 297. control.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015717982df51f9a5529003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/13 . 73. the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. upon the other hand. “an offended party may intervene in the proceedings. The only exception to this is when the offended party waives his right to civil action or expressly reserves his right to institute it after the termination of the case. specially in case of offenses which can not be prosecuted except at the instance of the offended 6 party. whether an offended party _______________ 4 82 Phil.com. 3 69 Phil. 453. that the innocent may not suffer and the guilty not escape unpunished. 564­565.9/11/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073 _______________ 2 Comments of the Solicitor General. he should do so. in which case he lost his right to intervene upon the theory that he is deemed to have lost his interest 7 in its prosecution. Jr. to the accused. personally or by attorney. The role of the private prosecutors. while he may strike hard blows. and to the state. Esquivel. 556. he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law.
or to control the proceeding once it is commenced. the continuation of the offended party’s intervention depends upon the continuation of the proceeding. sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Evia. 77 Phil. the “intervention of the offended party or his attorney is authorized by section 15 of Rule 106 of the Rules of Court. 312 312 SUPREME COURT REPORT ANNOTATED Tan.com.9/11/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073 5 People v. 7 People v. the intervention of the person injured by the commission of the offense ceases by virtue of the principle that the accessory follows the principal.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015717982df51f9a5529003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/13 . 6 People v.” As explained in Herrero v. 11 Orais: ‘“* * * the position occupied by the offended party is subordinate to that of the promoter fiscal because. vs. 823. and their interests are subordinate to those of the People of the Philippines represented by 9 the fiscal. 90 Phil. although the private prosecutors may be permitted to intervene. et al. 91 Phil. Jr. as the offended party is not entitled to represent the People of the Philippine Islands in the prosecution of a public offense. except when the case is pending in the Court of First Instance. as the promotor fiscal alone is authorized to represent the public prosecution. being at liberty to commence it or not or to refrain from prosecuting it or not. if the promotor fiscal desists from pressing the charge or asks the competent Court of First Instance in which the case is pending for the dismissal thereof. Diaz. supra. Capistrano.central. and as it is discretionary with him to institute and prosecute a criminal proceeding. or the People of the Philippine Islands. As explained in People v. 489. in the prosecution of offenders. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Consequently. The right which the procedural law reserves to the injured party is that of intervening in the prosecution for the sole purpose of enforcing the civil liability for the criminal action and not of 10 demanding punishment of the accused. 672. in his opinion. they are not in control of the case. 62 Phil. 1026; People v. 75 Phil.) Therefore. depending upon whether or not there is.Consequently. subject to the provisions of section 4 of the same Rule that all criminal actions “either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the Fiscal..” (Italics supplied. 267; Herrero v. 44 Phil. 546; Tan v. and to control the proceeding. Velez. his intervention must always be subject to the direction and control of the 8 prosecuting official.. and said court grants the petition. Gallardo intervenes in the prosecution of a criminal action. Dizon. Diaz. and as his right _______________ http://www.
”’ Consequently. “Defining the Powers and Functions of the Office of the Solicitor General”. 94 Phil. which right belongs exclusively to the promotor fiscal by virtue of the provisions of section 44 of General Orders. Gallardo to intervene therein is subject to the promotor fiscal’s right of control. No. shall discharge duties requiring the services of a lawyer. and as such. 58.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015717982df51f9a5529003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/13 . Thus. where from the nature of the offense. * * * The office of the Solicitor General shall constitute the law office of the Government. Cruz.. proceeding. Italics supplied.com. it cannot be stated that an order of dismissal decreed upon petition of the promotor fiscal himself deprives the offended party of his right to appeal from an order overruling a complaint or information. 679. 73. It shall have the following specific powers and functions: (a) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court. or where the law defining and punishing the offense charged does not provide for an indemnity. investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. Maceda. etc. 200. the offended party may not intervene in the 12 prosecution of the offense. * * * * * * * * * http://www.9/11/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073 8 Lim Tek Goan v. Court of first Instance. 652. (1) The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines. OCTOBER 5. 11 65 Phil. 58. Jr. 197. its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation. 846. provides: “SECTION 1. Function and Organization. 744. 855­856. 478. There is no question that the Solicitor General represents the People of the Philippines or the State in criminal proceedings pending either in the Court of Appeals or in this Court. Yatco. 313 VOL. 63 Phil. Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. To permit a person injured by the commission of an offense to appeal from an order dismissing a criminal case issued by a Court of First Instance upon petition of the promotor fiscal. 9 Leriom v. vs. 87 Phil. and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is the party. 73 Phil. would be tantamount to giving said offended party of the direction and control of a criminal proceeding in violation of the provisions of the above­cited section 107 of General Orders. 1976 313 Tan. No. the Court of Appeals. 746­747; Gonzales v.central. 10 People v.
* * * * * * * * *” _______________ 12 People v. two bottles of whisky from Mayor Iñaki Larrazabal. supra. Thus. after which the latter received from one of the private prosecutors a bottle of wine wrapped in a newspaper which was ‘thick’ and ‘bulky’ and which allegedly contained ‘something else inside’; (d) Respondent judge prepared the decision in the Tan cases based on the memorandum of the prosecution which was literally copied in http://www. that since the Solicitor General alone is authorized to represent the State or the People of the Philippines the interest of the private prosecutors is subordinate to that of the State and they cannot be allowed to take a stand inconsistent with that of the Solicitor General. Moreover. therefore.com. in support of his contention that the rendition of the decision and the resolution on the subsequent motions by the respondent Judge were not free from suspicion of bias and prejudice.central. body or commission in any matter. Mayor Larrazabal had a short talk with respondent judge. action or proceeding which. brother and uncle of the deceased victims Feliciano and Francisco Larrazabal; (c) On one occasion. contrary to the provisions of law and the settled rules on the matter. petitioners assert that: (a) Respondent judge kept improper contact with and was illegally influenced by the Larrazabals in connection with the decision of the two cases against petitioners herein; (b) In the latter part of 1973. with the trial of the Tan cases still in progress. the position taken by the Solicitor General in recommending the remand of the case to the trial court is not without any plausible justification. for that would be tantamount to giving the latter the direction and control of the criminal proceedings. affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require. vs. Jr. the Solicitor General stated: “In alleging bias and manifest partiality on the part of respondent judge.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015717982df51f9a5529003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/13 .9/11/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073 Act and represent the Republic and/or the people before any court. Maceda. in his opinion. (k) tribunal. 314 314 SUPREME COURT REPORT ANNOTATED Tan. Gallardo It is evident. respondent judge received. through one of his court stenographers.
73. “Considering the circumstances of the instant case. the facts alleged as constituting the grounds for disqualifying the respondent judge in the instant petition are disputed. 50 SCRA 191 (1973). Makinano. after they were illegally furnished a copy of the draft of his decision of conviction by the same court stenographer Gerardo A. at 252. Gallardo who tried to bribe him into acquitting them in the aforesaid criminal cases.. respondent judge amended his already prepared decision in the two criminal cases involved herein by changing the penalty of double­life sentence for the double murder charge against the petitioners to the death penalty. Gironella.9/11/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073 said decision although with some corrections; and (e) After an alleged meeting with Mayor Iñaki Larrazabal. Unlike in the cases of Mateo vs. Villaluz. Tacloban City (Annex ‘E’. and we are unable to do so. 1975]). Petition). “Apart from the sworn statements submitted before this Court in support or in denial of the alleged bribery of respondent judge. 12­13). we feel that respondent Judge ‘appeared to have been heedless to the oft­reiterated admonition addressed to trial judges to avoid even the impression of the guilt or innocence of the accused being dependent on prejudice or prejudgment (Fernando. however. according to Justice http://www. * * *” It is undisputed that the sole purpose of courts of justice is to enforce the laws uniformly and impartially without regard to persons or their circumstances or the opinions of men. OCTOBER 5. Makinano.. we have been informed of evidence obtained by the National Bureau of Investigation when it cannot appropriate for us at this time. Jr. A judge. court stenographer of the Circuit Criminal Court. Martinez vs.central. (please see Answer of respondent judge. Jr.com. But we are persuaded that there are bases for stating that the rendition of respondent Judge’s decision and his resolutions on the motions for new trial were not free from suspicion of bias and prejudice (See Martinez vs. who in turn claims that it was petitioners 315 VOL. Gironella. 1975). the seriousness of the charges and counter­charges and the nature of the evidence on hand to support them. Concurring opinion. vs. pp. J. The truth of the charges made in such affidavit are denied by respondent judge (in his answer to the instant petition dated October 11. and Castillo vs. Juan. 62 SCRA 124 (1974) relied upon mainly by herein petitioners. “The foregoing alleged irregularities are mainly supported by an affidavit executed on June 26.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015717982df51f9a5529003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/13 . 1976 315 Tan. Jr. supra. 1975 by Gerardo A. An exhaustive inquiry and open hearing should perhaps precede the making of categorical conclusions. to submit to this Court definite conclusions on the charges and counter­ charges. 65 SCRA 245 [July 22.
therefore. should strive to be at all times “wholly free. consequently. 299 U. the question as to whether or not he should be disqualified from further proceeding with the aforementioned criminal cases has already become moot. Gonzales. and Concepcion Jr. 14 U.S. (Chairman). vs. Jr. WHEREFORE.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015717982df51f9a5529003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/13 . it is more important that they should act and behave in such a manner that the parties before them should have confidence in their impartiality. that while judges should possess proficiency in law in order that they can competently construe and enforce the law. it has always been stressed that judges should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial. concur. Barredo. however. now Chief Justice of this Court. Gallardo “appearance of impartiality is an essential manifestation of its 15 reality. Notes. Elementary due process requires a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal. Fernando. the _______________ 13 Geotina v. He belongs to the executive department rather than to the judiciary. If indeed. hence. It appears. v. For “impartiality is not a technical 14 conception. his salary is paid by the corresponding local governments. impartial and independent. JJ. disinterested. 41 SCRA 66. Petition granted. a) Functions performed by fiscal basically executive. in some instances.. 245.central.9/11/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073 Castro. No special pronouncement as to costs. this Court grants the petition and hereby remands the case to the trial court in order that another Judge may hear anew petitioners’ motion for new trial and to resolve the issue accordingly on the basis of the evidence. Aquino.com. the functions that he discharges as an officer of the government are basically executive. 316 316 SUPREME COURT REPORT ANNOTATED Tan.S. It is a state of mind” and. A judge has both the duty of rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner completely free from 13 suspicion as to its fairness and as to his integrity. that respondent Judge is no longer in the judicial service.” Thus. he does http://www. 123.” It must be obvious. Wood.— While it is true that a fiscal in exercising his discretion as to whether or not to prosecute somebody for an offense performs a quasi­ judicial act.
powers and functions (Noblejas vs. 73. in which case he loses his right to intervene upon the theory that he is deemed to have lost his interest in its prosecution. Salas. September 15. 200).—While criminal actions as a rule are prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal however. 1975). specially in cases of offenses which cannot be prosecuted except at the instance of the offended party. personally or by attorney.S. for he is always within the ambit of the national authority when it comes to the supervision and control of his office.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015717982df51f9a5529003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/13 .9/11/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073 not thereby become a part thereof. Liggayu. L­ 31792. 162. c) Prosecution of criminal actions by fiscal. (People vs. To permit an offended party to appeal from an order dismissing a criminal case upon a petition of the fiscal would be tantamount to giving said party as much right to the direction and control of a criminal proceeding as that of the fiscal. 97 Phil.—The right to appeal from an order of dismissal granted by the court on motion of the fiscal may now be challenged under the theory that the right of an offended party to intervene in a criminal action is subject to the fiscal’s right of control. 339 U. whether an offended party intervenes in the prosecution of a criminal action. OCTOBER 5. (Lim Tek Goan vs. 94 Phil. his intervention must always be subject to the direction and control of the prosecuting official. vs. 182.com. an offended party may intervene in the proceeding.central. And in any event. Gallardo case. 197. Yatco. United States. b) Intervention of offended party. Jr. 865) ——o0o—— 318 http://www. 1976 317 Tan. 317 VOL. The only exception to this rule is when the offended party waives his right to civil action or expressly reserves his right to institute it after the termination of the _______________ 15 Dennis v.
All rights reserved. Inc.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015717982df51f9a5529003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/13 .com.9/11/2016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 073 © Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply.central. http://www.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.