LAI v.

PEOPLE
July 1, 2014 | Bersamin J. | Rights of the Accused
Digester: Bea, Alexis

prosecutor (Judge Elumba) in this case before he was

appointed to the bench
CA: Affirmed RTC decision

SUMMARY: Nelson Lai was accused to have shot Villanueva. The

public prosecutor for this case eventually became the trial judge to
decide it. Judge says that it was actually a private prosecutor who
personally prosecuted the case and his participation was merely
passive. SC held that Judge Elumba could not be said to have
decided the case without bias and with impartiality.
DOCTRINE: Sec. 5 Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
pertinently demands the disqualification of a judge who previously
served as a lawyer for any of the parties
CRIME: Homicide
ACTION: Assails the affirmance of his conviction by the CA (did
not say WON petition for certiorari)
FACTS:
The victim (Enrico Villanueva Jr.) with his friends were seated
inside the passenger jeepney owned by Nelson Lai which was
parked in a corner while waiting for a female friend who was
supposed to arrive at 9pm
Lai suddenly approached the vehicle and ordered all who were
seated inside to alight therefrom
After all of them have alighted, Lai grabbed Villanueva by the
arm and accused the latter of stealing the antenna
o Villanueva freed himself and ran away to the house of
Cristopher Padigos where he stayed until 11pm to go to
a benefit dance
At the dance (while Villanueva was dancing the cha-cha), Lai
stood immediately in front of Villanueva
A brownout suddenly occurred and after the lights went out, a
spark was seen and a gunshot rang out
o Villanueva was found bloodied
Lai was identified by witnesses as the shooter
RTC:
Guilty of homicide
Appeal to CA:
Lai was deprived of due process when this case was decided by
the honorable presiding judge who acted as the public

RULING: Court ANNULS and SETS ASIDE promulgated decision

of the CA; Instructs the new trial judge to resume the trial
Whether or not due process was denied because of the nondisqualification of Judge Elumba prejudiced the petitioners
right to a fair and impartial trial YES
Petitioner (Lai) pointed out the need for said Judge to be
disqualified in his MR but the latter ignored his concerns upon
the excuse that he had appeared only after the Prosecution
had rested its case
o Judge Elumba: did not personally prosecute the case
o Petitioner should have sought disqualification prior
to the rendition of judgment conviction
An essential part of the right is to due process of law is the
right to be afforded a just and fair trial before his
conviction of any crime:
o Any violation of the right cannot be condoned for the
impartiality of the judge who sits and hears a case is
an indispensable requisite of procedural due process
Adoption of the rules for the disqualification of judges from
hearing and deciding cases should there be any cause that
diminishes or negates their impartiality is a firm means of
ensuring their impartiality as judges
Rule 137, Sec. 1 of ROC embodies the rule on self
disqualification by a sitting judge
Under said rule, there are two kinds of self-disqualification
o 1st paragraph is compulsory because judge is
conclusively presumed to be incapable of
impartiality
o 2nd paragraph seeks voluntary inhibition: this is left
to his discretion, depending on the existence of just
and valid reasons not included in the first paragraph
Sec. 5 Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
pertinently demands the disqualification of a judge who
previously served as a lawyer for any of the parties
Given the foregoing, the CAs justifications contravened the
letter and spirit of said rules:

The mere appearance of his name as the public

prosecutor in that specific case sufficed to disqualify
Judge Elumba from sitting and deciding the case
o Having represented the State in the prosecution of
the petitioner, he could not sincerely claim neutrality
or impartiality as the trial judge who would continue
to hear the case
That his participation was passive or that he entered his
appearance long after the Prosecution had rested its case
against petitioner did not really matter
o

The evil sought to be prevented by the rules on

disqualification had no relation whatsoever with the judges
degree of participation in the case before becoming the
judge
The fact that it was a private prosecutor who personally
appeared in the case is irrelevant since said private
prosecutor was still under his direct control and
supervision