Sandiganbayan denies Revilla’s motion for reconsideration seeking justice’s inhibition

MANILA – The Sandiganbayan’s Third Division on Thursday denied the motion for reconsideration seeking the inhibition of Associate Justice Karl Miranda from the malversation case of former Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr over the alleged ghost flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan.

The resolution, which affirmed the earlier denial of Revilla’s motion, said the former senator offered “no new or additional act, conduct, or circumstance” that could serve as clear and convincing evidence of bias that would require the justice to recuse himself. 

Revilla earlier asked the court to reconsider its Sept. 24 resolution denying his second motion for inhibition. 

He previously argued that former Public Works Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, who is a witness in the case, is a former client of Miranda’s brother, Atty. Buenaventura Miranda. 

He also said Miranda relied heavily on Bernardo’s “uncorroborated” testimony in his separate opinion on bail, and that the justice’s remarks to the accused on the Good Conduct Time Allowance law suggested he had prejudged the case.

Prosecutors argued that the motion was a “mere rehash” of earlier arguments and that Bernardo’s testimony is supported by other evidence.

The court said Revilla’s arguments suggest “the only correct way” for Miranda to resolve the case is to give no credit to Bernardo’s testimony. This is not in accord with the standards of reasonableness and fair-mindedness, it said. 

It also noted that neither Miranda nor his law firm appeared in the case. The court said that Bernardo’s status as a state witness depends on the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman, not on the Sandiganbayan.

It added that a motion for inhibition was not the proper time to assess if Bernardo’s testimony was corroborated.

Miranda’s advocacy for persons deprived of liberty was also cited by the court in dismissing concerns that his GCTA remarks prejudged the accused.

“The judge’s duty to appear impartial is not a license to infer partiality from his adverse rulings,” the court said. 

“Unjustified assumptions and mere misgivings cannot overcome the presumption that a judge shall decide on the merits of a case with an unclouded vision of its facts,” it added.