You are on page 1of 4

AFFINITY AND CONSANGUINITY AS BASIS FOR DISQUALIFIFCATION UNDER

CANON 3 SECTION 5(F)
1. Siawan v. Judge Inopiquez
FACTS: In this case, respondent Judge got entangled in his own maneuverings in
favoring the complainant and those who were helping him. Although those involved here
were his in-laws, who were not directly related to him within the 4 th degree of
consanguinity or affinity, bias was established.
In this case, the refusal of respondent to inhibit himself from the conduct of the case and
his doing so only after being threatened with an administrative case could not but create
the impression that he had ulterior motives in wanting to try the case.
To maintain the appearance of impartiality in his court, at the first instance, respondent
should have stopped his father-in-law from meddling in the proceedings. If he did not
want to offend or displease him, he should have outrightly inhibited himself from further
trying the case. However, he even denied the motion for inhibition filed by the accused.
It was held that although the disqualification of judges is limited only to cases where the
judge is related to counsel within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, the Rules
nonetheless provide that a judge may, in the exercise of his discretion, disqualify himself
from sitting in a case for other just and valid reasons.[16] A judge should not handle a
case where he might be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be susceptible to bias and
impartiality, which axiom is intended to preserve and promote public confidence in the
integrity and respect for the judiciary.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr. is hereby ORDERED to pay
a fine of P20,000.00 for violation of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court and is SUSPENDED
without pay for a period of three months for abuse of authority and ignorance of the law.
2. LATORRE V. JUDGE ANSALDO (accused allegedly killed husband of
complainant)
FACTS: A complaint was filed against Judge Ansaldo for bias and partiality, grave
misconduct and gross ignorance of the law in relation with a criminal case for murder.
First, (1) he did not act when a motion for bail was filed, likewise, (2) he failed to act
upon the motion of one party to discipline the jail guards, (Re: check in of accused in a
hotel and attending worship services). (3) Sudden suspension or ordering of hearings.
In factual, respondent judge failed to take into account the loss of trust on the part of the
complainant as to his impartiality.
It has been held that when it comes to inhibition of judges, each case must be treated
differently and based on the peculiar circumstances. And since the complainant in the

According to respondent. Judge Pascua (1) delayed the decision in cases (2) refused to recused himself given that the defense counsel on the case was the father of his nephew’s wife. he did so although the motion had no merit because the fact was that he was not related to counsel of the accused in the criminal case although counsel’s daughter is the wife of his (respondents) nephew. HELD: The Court considered the issue on inhibition to be without merit since Judge Pascua inhibited himself on the cases involved. Though not directly connected by affinity or consanguinity. since respondent is not even related to counsel for the accused. . this is a rape case wherein the accused is the husband of the victim’s sister. PP vs. per the Code. The Court considered the age of Judge Ansaldo. Judge Pascua FACTS: Allegedly. Consequently. it must be established that a) he is legally married to complainant's sister and b) complainant and accused-appellant's wife are full or half blood siblings. Boac. Thus. Yalung v. It is clear that. WHEREFORE. Respondent contends that the question is now moot and academic as he inhibited himself from both the criminal and civil cases concerning the same.case lost her faith and trust on Judge Ansaldo. The first is not a ground for mandatory disqualification of judges under Rule 137. it was only proper that the Judge should have had considered the motion for inhibition. there were other anomalies involved. he was merely reprimanded with a fine. Judge LEONARDO P. 3. 4. Marinduque. Likewise. Raul Berana FACTS: In factual. Likewise. it was deemed that such may cloud his judgment.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits. to effectively prosecute accused-appellant for the crime of rape committed by a relative by affinity within the third civil degree. regardless of whether his nephew is married to the counsel’s daughter. Affinity is defined as "the relation which one spouse because of marriage has to blood relatives of the other. Branch 94. Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court. ANSALDO. the Judge was not related with the counsel of the accused. is declared guilty of simple ignorance of the law and FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5. the complainants failed to determine or provide other supporting grounds to support their motion as to the possible partiality of the judge.000.

The failure of the prosecution to present constrained the Court to reduce the penalty by one degree to reclusion perpetua. The affinity of the accused is important to be established so that aggravating circumstance may be applied. the presentation of proof as to the relationship of the accused and the complainant must be clearly established not by mere words or testimonies. 11 of RA 7659 prescribes the capital penalty in rape. [17] Relationship by affinity refers to a relation by virtue of a legal bond such as marriage.In this case. legitimate. Sec. stepchild and the like. ISSUES: . (3) a descendant. the son-in-law of Manolita Carungcong (who was already 79 years old and blind). natural or adopted brother or sister. it authorized Wendy to sell Manolita’s properties. guardian. Wendy. holding that his common-law relationship with the victim’s grandmother aggravated the penalty. The trial court sentenced the appellant to death. Relatives by consanguinity or blood relatives refers to the ascendant. descendant. or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. Blood line or legal bond must be confirmed. It is a basic rule of statutory construction that penal statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the accused. (4) a legitimate. Relatives by affinity therefore are those commonly referred to as in-laws. The scope of relationship as defined by law encompasses (1) the spouse. guardian. Intestate Estate of Gonzales v. ascendant. step-parent. induced the latter to sign and thumbmarked an SPA in favor of his daughter. stepmother. stepparent. natural or adopted brother or sister. People. RULING: Neither is appellant the victims parent. ascendant. et al FACTS: William Sato. relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. only when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent. 5. Atop FACTS: This is another case involving rape wherein the accused is the live-in partner of the victim’s grandmother. or (5) a relative by affinity in the same degree. The old woman believed that the SPA involved only her taxes.[18] Courts must not bring cases within the provision of a law which are not clearly embraced by it. relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. or stepfather. 6. (2) an ascendant. while in fact. and not by reason of any other kinship. PP v.

extinguished the relationship by affinity between William and Manolita. Relationship by affinity between the surviving spouse and the kindred of the deceased spouse continues even after the death of the deceased spouse. regardless of whether the marriage produced children or not.1. Zenaida. . Whether or not the death of William’s wife and Manolita’s daughter.