Court junks Revilla motion to inhibit justice who denied his bail bid

MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan Third Division on Tuesday announced that it has junked the move of former Sen. Bong Revilla to bar its chairperson, Associate Justice Karl Miranda — the sole judge who denied his bail — from participating in the trial of his malversation case.

In a resolution dated Sept. 24, the anti-graft court denied Revilla’s second Motion for Inhibition to prevent  Miranda from participating in the trial of the former senator and six of his co-accused stemming from an alleged ghost flood control project of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in Pandi, Bulacan worth P92.8 million.

“The court found Revilla’s Second Motion for Inhibition to be without merit, and Justice Miranda must therefore proceed with his duty to sit and hear the subject case,” the Third Division said in its media briefer.

Article continues after this advertisement

In his motion, Revilla cited that: chairperson Miranda is related to counsel of state witness and former DPWH Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo; that the justice “relied heavily on Bernardo’s testimony; and that he allegedly showed prejudgment before voting to deny the former senator’s bail.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

READ: Groups stage prayer rally in front of Sandiganbayan over Revilla’s bail

On alleged link, ‘bias’ for Bernardo

Revilla reiterated that Miranda is the brother of lawyer Buenaventura Miranda, counsel of state witness and former DPWH Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, according to the court.

But the court said: “The relationship between Justice Miranda and Atty. Miranda does not suffice as clear and convincing evidence of Justice Miranda’s bias or prejudice against Revilla which would warrant his inhibition.”

Article continues after this advertisement

The Third Division reiterated its resolution dated February 10 which denied the first motion for inhibition filed by Revilla.

In that resolution, the court ruled that Bernardo is not a party to the case but a witness; and that it is the prosecutors — not attorney Miranda — who presented Bernardo as a witness. 

Article continues after this advertisement

According to the court resolution, Revilla claimed that the chairperson “relied heavily” on the allegedly uncorroborated testimony of Bernardo in issuing his dissenting opinion when he voted to deny the bail application of Revilla. 

“With regard to the issuance of Justice Miranda’s Separate Opinion, the court noted that such Separate Opinion was replete with citations of testimonies of other witnesses and other documentary evidence of the prosecution, contrary to the claim of Revilla that Justice Miranda merely treated Usec. Bernardo’s testimony as gospel truth,” the court said. “[A]dverse rulings, without more, do not prove bias or partiality warranting inhibition.”

On GCTA remarks

As for the alleged prejudgment, Revilla cited the chairperson’s visit to the accused sometime in February, when he encouraged them to look into the benefits available under the Good Conduct and Time Allowance (GCTA) Law. 

“He (Revilla) averred that Justice Miranda’s statements appeared to assume that the accused in this case would be penalized with lengthy periods of imprisonment and gave the impression that Justice Miranda had already prejudged the case,” the court said.

The Third Division said that  its chairperson indeed made remarks pertaining to GCTA Law.

The Third Division said its chairperson, however, said that those remarks were preceded by a statement to the effect that: “If you are acquitted, well and good for you – but in the possibility that you might get convicted, it will be best to know your rights as PDLs (persons deprived of liberty) and the benefits of the GCTA Law.”

“The court found that Justice Miranda made these remarks not because of prejudice against Revilla and the other accused, but because of his long history as a staunch advocate for restorative justice, prison reform, and the rights of all PDLs,” the court said.

Another justice faces motion for inhibition

Revilla is out on P1 million bail after the Third Division voted 2-1 for the former senator’s provisional liberty.

Associate Justice Ronald Moreno and Associate Justice Fritz Bryn Delos Santos voted to grant Revilla’s bail. 

On the other hand, Office of the Ombudsman prosecutors also filed a motion urging Moreno to voluntarily inhibit from the case, citing  “unwarranted conduct” against prosecution’s witnesses against Revilla.

READ: Sandigan justice who approved Revilla bail asked to inhibit over ‘bias’

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

The Third Division has yet to resolve the motion against Moreno.  /gsg