NO AMOUNT OF perseverance would ever be enough to haul crooks behind bars with a concocted justice system, says the Office of the Ombudsman, as it called on a magistrate to “recuse” himself from a multi-million malversation case filed against a former senator.
In a 69-page motion filed before the Sandiganbayan Third Division, the Ombudsman particularly hinted at the alleged “partiality” of Sandiganbayan Third Division Associate Justice Ronald Moreno on the P92.8-million malversation trial against former senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr. and six others.
According to the Ombudsman prosecutors, Moreno’s demeanor and questions to the witnesses were unfair, unreasonable, disrespectful, and lacking in judicial restraint.
In a news article posted on GMA News Online, Ombudsman prosecutors also cited instances during the bail hearings when Moreno questioned the credibility of state witness and former Public Works undersecretary Roberto Bernardo even before taking the witness stand.
Moreno also claimed that another state witness, Henry Alcantara, was just being fooled by Bernardo.
The Ombudsman also flagged Moreno’s remark “Nabukulan ka lang” in reference to Alcantara, and his questioning of Alcantara’s inclusion as a state witness under the Witness Protection Program (WPP).
“Justice Moreno’s remarks and line of questioning regarding Engr. Alcantara’s admission to the WPP is alarming and potentially demonstrative of the Justice’s lack of ‘cold neutrality of an impartial judge’,” the Ombudsman said.
“This apprehension was bolstered when he implied, albeit prematurely, that Bernado was the mastermind of the scheme. Furthermore, he even unfairly asked Alcantara if there was a legal basis for the 30 percent share of the proponent, just to make a point that Alcantara’s knowledge was based on hearsay,” it added.
Moreno voted to grant Revilla bail, with the decision stating that the prosecution failed to present evidence linking him to the non-existent P92.8-million flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan.
Interestingly, the Ombudsman clarified that their motion is not intended to question Moreno’s integrity, competence, or good faith, but to ensure that their case will be given a fair shake.
“Even where actual bias is wanting, but where there are circumstances that reasonably create perception of partiality and bias, the same warrant an inhibition. Hence, the appearance of impartiality is essential in maintaining confidence in the administration of justice,” the Ombudsman said.
“The matter of inhibition is not only based on a judge’s personal belief that he or she can remain impartial, but also whether the circumstances would reasonably cause a party or an objective observer to entertain doubts on his or her impartiality. Given all of the above, the prosecution is left with no other recourse but to seek the recusal of Justice Moreno.”
