Daily TribuneThe Sandiganbayan concurred with the prosecution, contending that the mere imputation that the subject resolutions were erroneous did not warrant the recusal of the justices of the Third Division from the case.
(File photo)
Magistrates of the Sandiganbayan Third Division have swept aside the plea of businessman Ernest Escaler to inhibit themselves from the forfeiture case he is facing with former Justice Secretary Hernando Perez, alleging they were biased against him.
In a resolution dated 29 April, the anti-graft court’s Third Division ruled that there were no “just and valid” grounds for the recusal of its members from the case.
Escaler was named a co-respondent in the case filed by the Ombudsman in 2014 against Perez over the latter’s $2 million unexplained wealth.
The forfeiture case arose from Perez’s alleged extortion of $2 million from the late Manila Rep. Mario Crespo, a.k.a. Mark Jimenez, in 2001 in exchange for the latter’s exclusion from the plunder case filed against former President Joseph Estrada in connection with the multibillion-peso Caliraya-Botocan-Kalayaan power plant project.
Escaler was accused of giving instructions on how the extorted money should be transferred to Perez’s bank account through a series of bank transfers.
In his appeal, Escaler asserted that the Third Division’s denial of his two motions in October 2023 and January 2024 raised “reasonable suspicions,” causing him to “lose faith and trust in the partiality” of the division.
The prosecution, however, countered that while the resolution may have been unfavorable to Escaler, it was not a valid ground for the voluntary inhibition of the members of the Third Division from the case.
The Sandiganbayan concurred with the prosecution, contending that the mere imputation that the subject resolutions were erroneous did not warrant the recusal of the justices of the Third Division from the case.
In denying Escaler’s bid, the Sandiganbayan said he failed to adduce even a scintilla of evidence that would prove, even tangentially, that the subject resolutions were issued in bad faith, with malice, or for corrupt purposes, which are the basis for establishing bias and partiality for the inhibition of judges.
“Assuming arguendo that the subject resolutions are erroneous, there is an appropriate remedy for it but definitely it is not through the vehicle of the voluntary inhibition of the members of this division,” the court said.
Moreover, the Sandiganbayan said the automatic grant of a motion for voluntary inhibition would open the floodgates to a form of forum shopping, where “litigants would be allowed to shop for a judge more sympathetic to their cause, that would prove antithetical to the speedy and fair administration of justice.”
