REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 13
DAVAO CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
- versus - Criminal Case No. C–88888
For: Kidnapping for Ransom
(Violation of Art. 267 of RPC
as amended by RA 7659)
PO1 LINK ZELDA, ET.AL.,
Accused.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MOTION FOR INHIBITION

COMES NOW, the private PLAINTIFF, by and through the

undersigned private prosecutor, respectfully states:

1. That, at the outset, for the interest of Justice and fairplay,

Plaintiff herein humbly begs for the inhibition of the Honorable Presiding
Judge MIA KHALIFA, because he loses his confidence in the competence
and impartiality of the Honorable Presiding Judge.

a. The Hon. Presiding judge allowed accused Pacleb to post bail

without any hearing despite the fact the crime imputed against him
is non-bailable;

b. In the decision dated June 30, 2017, the Hon. Presiding judge says
in her decision that there was no testimony from a competent
witness that Johnny Sy “was actually and unlawfully taken”. No
one saw how he was kidnapped. However, on the same decision,
the Honorable Presiding judge stated that PO3 Archibald Tejero
testified in open court that he saw the subject – named Johnny Sy-
riding a motorcycle. He introduced himself as a police officer and
immediately handcuffed him. He brought Johnny Sy inside the
police vehicle.

c. The Hon. Presiding Judge also concluded in her decision that the
police officers who testified for the prosecution do not have
personal knowledge of the commission of the offense. They merely
testified on the fact of arrest. Apparently, the Hon. Presiding Judge
only relied on the facts laid down by the defense, wherein it was
clear in the factual findings of the prosecution that Jun-jun Amar –
 recited the names of his cohorts, including their whereabouts. With
this lead, the police conducted a follow-up operation in Ponciano
Reyes St., Davao City. On their way to this place, four armed male
individuals were sighted on board two motor vehicles. They were
Armando Mariano, PO1 Samuel Derije, Jr., PO1 Freddie
Dumaguing and Augusto Tabuno, Jr. All of them were frisked and
apprehended.

d. Moreover, the Hon. Judge stated that there were no proof that the
Accused were actually restraining Johnny Sy’s liberty, but she took
the fact that Johnny Sy was arbitrarily detained for five hours and
he was only released to settle the demand of huge amount by the
Accused, because he was the only one who knows the account.
Plaintiff kept his silence, because of the fear of the lives of his
family, since Accused threatened him that they will take the life of
his children if he would not heed what the Accused was
compelling him to do. He kept his silence for the moment and
chose not to report the crime until he found the right chance for
him to do. That this conveys that the crime committed was
continuous and the Plaintiff, even if he was no longer in the
custody of the Accused, they were still restraining his liberty to act
normally and extorting money from him.

e. With regards to the findings that there was no conspiracy on the

part of the Accused, it was crystal clear that the Accused had
planned the offense committed as can be discerned by the
circumstances, and apparently, all the Accused were common to
each other and they admitted in open court that they needed money
for themselves, which led them to orchestrate the kidnapping of the
Plaintiff to divide among themselves whatever money they could
get from the Plaintiff. The guilt beyond reasonable doubt was
established by the Prosecution through the candid admission of the
Accused of the conspiracy.

2. Based on the foregoing observation, there was already a

prejudgment in the instant case and most likely than not, the Presiding Judge
will eventually acquit the accused .

3. That, as a member of the legal profession, the Undersigned

Counsel is also aware of the mindless deliberation in the disposition of the
case by the Honorable Judge, that in this instance, the Honorable Judge is
not upholding the interest of justice.

4. That, the overly protracted proceedings that have attended this

case have fostered great disillusionment and cynism with regards to
Plaintiff’s pursuit of justice.
 5. That, it has been a BIG question to the Plaintiff on what are the
reasons why the Honorable Judge acquitted the Accused, where in fact, the
Accused themselves had admitted before the Open Court and in their
Judicial Affidavits their guilt of kidnapping the Plaintiff for ransom, and all
the circumstances surrounding said fact was proven by the Prosecution on an
independent evidence.

6. That, not only the Accused but even the Accused’s counsel
were perplexed to know that his clients were acquitted, as they were
expecting for conviction.

7. That, to scrutinize the evidence presented before the Honorable

Court, there is indeed a great anticipation of conviction, because even an
ordinary person could discern that the Judge is not impartial in issuing her
Decision of the case.

8. In the case of Judge Martonino R. Marcos (Retired) vs. Hon.

Perla V. Cabrera-Faller, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472, the Supreme Court held
that there was gross ignorance of the law and in competence on the part of
the Presiding Judge in displaying her careless disposition of the case, to wit:

“Although judges are generally not accountable for

erroneous judgments rendered in good faith, such defense in
situations of infallible discretion adheres only within the
parameters of tolerable judgment and does not apply where the
basic issues are so simple and the applicable legal principle
evident and basic as to be beyond permissible margins of error.

Time and again, the Court has earnestly reminded judges

to be extra prudent and circumspect in the performance of their
duties. This exalted position entails a lot of responsibilities,
foremost of which is proficiency in the law. They are expected
to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes
and procedural rules and to apply them properly in all good
faith. When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his
office to simply apply it; anything less than that would be
constitutive of gross ignorance of the law.

Moreover, judges are duty bound to render just, correct

and impartial decisions at all times in a manner free of any
suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality or integrity. The records
must be free from the slightest suspicion that the trial court
seized upon an opportunity to either free itself from the usual
burdens of presiding over a full-blown court battle or worse, to
give undue advantage or favors to one of the litigants. Public
confidence in the Judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or
 improper conduct of judges. The appearance of bias or prejudice
can be as damaging to public confidence and the administration
of justice as actual bias or prejudice.

Thus, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires

a judge to be the embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence. They are likewise mandated to be faithful to the
law and to maintain professional competence at all times. A
judge owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient in
the law. He is expected to keep abreast of the laws and
prevailing jurisprudence. Basic rules must be at the palms of
their hands for ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the
mainspring of injustice.

Unfortunately, Judge Cabrera-Faller fell short of this basic

canon. Her utter disregard of the laws and rules of procedure, to
wit: the immediate archiving of Criminal Case No. 11862-13,
the recall of the warrant of arrest which she claimed were issued
inadvertently and the hasty dismissal of the case displayed her
lack of competence and probity, and can only be considered as
grave abuse of authority. All these constitute gross ignorance of
the law and incompetence.”

9. For the foregoing reasons and to restore the private Plaintiffs’ faith
and confidence in the courts, may the Honorable Presiding Judge be
inhibited from further trying this case based on the second paragraph of
Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

“Section 1. Disqualification of judges.—

No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or

his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor
or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the
sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the
fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or
in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or
counsel, or in which he has been presided in any inferior court
when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the
written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered
upon the record.

A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify

himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than
those mentioned above.”
 10.This move is also predicated on Article III, Section 16 of the 1987
Constitution which entitles not only the Accused, but also herein
Plaintiff, to a “speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative bodies.”

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Private Prosecutor

respectfully prays that an Order be issued granting this motion for the
Honorable Presiding Judge, MIA KHALIFA, to voluntarily inhibit herself
from further trying the above cited case, and causing the re-raffling of the
said case to another branch of the Honorable Court.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

City of Davao, February 28, 2020.

(SGD)ATTY. AKIBA SASAKI

Private Prosecutor
Roll of Attorneys No. 99999
IBP No.09988; 12/13/2020; Davao City
PTR No.068575C;12/13/2020; Davao City
MCLE Compliance No.: 111-005483
Buhangin, Davao City

NOTICE OF HEARING
Branch Clerk of Court
RTC 13, Davao City

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Hall of Justice, Davao City

ATTY. MARIO LUIGI

Counsel for the Accused
No.4149 Gov. Duterte Street
Davao City

For the convenience and for the economy of time and expense of all
concerned, and with the kind indulgence of the Court, we shall present the
foregoing motion to the Court on March 15, 2020 at 8:30 AM, a previous
setting which has been earlier scheduled by the Court for the preliminary
conference of the instant case. Thank you.

ATTY. AKIBA SASAKI

Private Prosecutor

Copy Furnished:

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Hall of Justice, Davao City

ATTY. MARIO LUIGI

Counsel for the Accused
No.4149 Gov. Duterte Street
Davao City