CA junks hazing accused’s inhibition plea

The Court of Appeals has denied the plea of one of the accused in the fatal hazing of University of Santo Tomas freshman law student Horacio Castillo III seeking to compel   Regional Trial Court of Manila City Branch 20 acting presiding judge Shirley Magsipoc- Pagalilauan to inhibit from the case.

In a 75-page decision promulgated on 22 September 2023 and written by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio Santos, the appellate court's First Division held that the claim of Ralph Trangia that the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to inhibit has no basis.

The CA also did not give weight to Trangia's claim the alleged failure of the judge to address the issues he raised in his demurrer to evidence shows that she would not be able to decide with utmost partiality.

It added that after a careful review of the record of the case and the applicable laws and jurisprudence, it finds that petitioner failed to prove his allegation that the court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied his motion for inhibition.

"Rather it is evident that petitioner's claim of bias and partiality is merely based on the denial of his Demurrer to Evidence, which in itself is not sufficient to prove that the court a quo acted with bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose," said the CA's decision.

"For these reasons, the Court rules that petitioner miserably failed establish that the court a quo acted with manifest impartiality in issuing the assailed Orders," it added.

In denying Trangia's demurrer, the Manila RTC in an order dated 4 February 2022 held that the evidence presented by the prosecution established all the elements of the offense of hazing as well as the presence and participation of all accused, including petitioner, during the hazing of Castillo by members of the Aegis Juris Fraternity.

To recall, Trangia — one of the accused in the death of Castillo — has sought the inhibition of Pagalilauan at the CA on the ground of alleged partiality in denying his motion for demurrer evidence last 24 February 2022, which seeks the immediate dismissal of the case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.

On 10 March 2022, the respondent judge issued an order denying  Trangia's motion prompting the latter to move for the reconsideration of the said order but the same was denied on 28 March 2022.

This prompted Trangia to elevate his plea before the CA arguing that Pagalilauan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying his motion for inhibition and the subsequent motion for reconsideration considering that she showed partiality in denying his demurrer to evidence despite clear showing that the prosecution failed to prove its case against him.