The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed the petition of former Ilocos Sur Rep. Salacnib F. Baterina to inhibit three Sandiganbayan justices in the graft, malversation, and direct bribery cases filed against him in 2017 in connection with his alleged misuse of P35 million in Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).
Baterina would have wanted Sandiganbayan Associate Justices Michael Frederick L. Musngi, Oscar C. Herrera Jr. and Lorifel L. Pahimna to inhibit themselves for alleged bias and partiality.
He claimed that 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 motion that was resolved by the anti-graft court.
When the three Sandiganbayan justices denied Baterina’s motion to inhibit them, he elevated the case to the SC.
In the decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC ruled that the three Sandiganbayan justices “acted within the scope of their jurisdiction.”
“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 (Baterina) failed to sufficiently show in the present petition that respondents (the three Sandiganbayan justices) gravely abused their discretion denying his request,” the SC ruled.
The legal dispute arose from the PDAF cases filed against Baterina, then Budget Undersecretary Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario S. Nunez, Lalaine N. Paule, and Marilou D. Bare.
On Nov. 29, 2013, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed a complaint against Baterina involving alleged misuse of his P35 million PDAF allotment for 2007.
On May 29, 2015, the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the 0MB filed a complaint alleging that the P35 million PDAF was released to Technology Resource and Livelihood Center (TRC). The TRC transferred the whole amount to Philippine Development Foundation, Inc. and Kaagapay Magpakailanman Foundation, Inc. allegedly to cover the implementation of various livelihood projects in the 1st District of llocos Sur.
On May 4, 2016, the 0MB issued a resolution to indict Baterina and the other respondents for three counts of graft, three counts of malversation, and one count of direct bribery. Baterina’s motion to reconsider the indictment was denied.
On March 17, 2017, seven criminal cases were filed by the OMB before the Sandiganbayan and were raffled to the anti-graft court’s second division.
Relampagos and the other accused filed a motion to, among other pleas, hold in abeyance the issuance of arrest order, determine probable cause, and issue bill of particulars.
On May 25, 2017, Baterina filed a motion to quash the criminal charges for alleged violation of his constitutional right to due process. On Sept. 22, 2017, the Sandiganbayan denied Baterina’s motion.
On Dec. 18, 2017, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution on the joint omnibus motion of Relampagos and the other accused. The resolution included Baterina.
However, on Jan. 15, 2018, the Sandiganbayan issued another resolution that clarified its Dec. 18, 2017 resolution and corrected the error of including Baterina.
During the Feb. 23, 2018 arraignment, Baterina refused to enter his plea to the charges and thus, the court entered a “not guilty” plea on the records. He then sought the inhibition of the three justices. His plea was denied in the March 13, 2018 and April 23, 2018 resolutions.
Baterina filed a petition before the SC challenging the Sandiganbayan’s denial of his plea to inhibit the three anti-graft court justices.
In dismissing his petition, the SC said:
“To stress, petitioner's allegation that respondents acted with bias when the dispositive portion of the Resolution dated Dec. 18, 2017 included his name is merely based on speculations and conjectures unsupported by proof.
“The Resolution dated Dec.18, 2017 pertained to the Joint Omnibus Motion of accused Relampagos and the other accused. It erroneously contained a dispositive portion implicating the name of petitioner.
”However, the subsequent issuance of Resolution dated Jan. I 5, 2018, in the nature of nunc pro tunc (now for then), cured the error in the dispositive portion. In fact, a careful reading of the Resolution dated Dec.18, 2017 shows that the Sandiganbayan meticulously discussed the issues raised by accused Relampagos and the other accused in their Joint Omnibus Motion.
“It is likewise 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 Dec.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.
“Petitioner Baterina needs to be reminded that the Court ‘does not rule on allegations which are manifestly conjectural, as these may not exist at all. The Court deals with facts, not fancies; on realities, not appearances. When the Court acts on appearances instead of realities, justice and law will be short-lived.’
“As things stand, petitioner failed to sufficiently show in the present petition that respondents gravely abused their discretion in denying his Request.
“WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The Resolutions dated March 13, 2018 and April 23, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan, Second Division, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.”