THE Court of Appeals (CA) has junked a motion filed by one of the accused in the 2017 fatal fraternity hazing of University of Sto. Tomas freshman law student Horacio “Atio” Castillo III that sought the inhibition of the acting judge of Branch 20 of the Manila Regional Trial Court after she denied the accused’s demurrer to evidence.
In a 75-page decision promulgated on September 22, 2023, the appellate court’s First Division held that the motion filed by Ralph Tringia against acting judge Shirley Magsipoc- Pagalilauan, which accused her grave abuse of discretion, has no basis.
“After a careful review of the record of this case, as well as the applicable laws and jurisprudence, the Court finds that petitioner failed to prove his allegation that a court a quo committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied his motion for inhibition,” said the CA ruling penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio Santos, with concurrences from Acting President Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Associate Justice Lorenza Bordios.
“Petitioner failed to prove his allegation that the court a quo acted with bias and partiality when it denied his demurrer to evidence. Aside from his bare allegations, petitioner failed to adduce any extrinsic evidence to prove that the court a quo was biased and partial against him,” the CA added.
A demurrer to evidence is essentially a motion to junk the case due to lack of evidence against the accused.
In denying Trangia’s demurrer, the Manila RTC in an order dated February 24, 2022 held that the evidence presented by the prosecution established all the elements of the offense of hazing, as well as the presence and participation of all accused, including petitioner, during the hazing of Castillo by members of the Aegis Juris Fraternity.
The appellate court noted the testimony of prosecution witness Mark Anthony Ventura who identified Trangia as the Master Initiator 2 who was among the fraternity members who were present during the final hazing rites, and even pinpointed him as one of the fraternity members who paddled Castillo.
Ventura was also among the members of the Aegis Juris who was present during the hazing rites.
“The Court finds that there was sufficient basis for the court a quo to deny petitioner’s demurrer to evidence considering that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the offense charged through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly prosecution witness Ventura, who was both an eyewitness and a participant during the subject hazing incident, and the documentary evidence,” the CA explained.
With this, the appellate court held that Trangia was not able to prove that the acting trial court judge abused her discretion or was biased and partial against him.
The CA also pointed out that Trangia failed to show any palpable error committed by the RTC in denying his demurrer to evidence, much more presented any evidence to prove that the court had been motivated by malice or prejudice in issuing the order.
“Rather it is evident that petitioner’s claim of bias and partiality is merely based on the denial of his demurrer to evidence, which in itself is not sufficient to prove that the court a quo acted with bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose. For these reasons, the Court rules that petitioner miserably failed establish that the court a quo acted with manifest impartiality in issuing the assailed orders,” the CA said.
