Sandiganbayan Denies Inhibition Bid in Co Malversation Case

THE Sandiganbayan’s Sixth Division denied accused Lerma D. Cayco’s motion seeking the court’s voluntary inhibition from further proceeding in the malversation case against former Party-list Rep. Elizaldy “Zaldy” S. Co and his co-accused, ruling that her allegations of judicial bias were unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. In a five-page resolution dated July 3, penned by Associate Justice Sarah Jane T. Fernandez, the Sandiganbayan’s Sixth Division denied Ms. Cayco’s motion, which sought to have the case re-raffled to another division, for lack of merit, Ms. Cayco argued that the court had effectively prejudged the prosecution’s case after denying her motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence and her subsequent motion for reconsideration despite her claim that the prosecution failed to present direct evidence linking her to the alleged conspiracy. She claimed the repeated denial of procedural relief created a reasonable perception that further proceedings would no longer be guided solely by the evidence. The Sixth Division rejected the argument, citing Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, the 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability, and Supreme Court jurisprudence. It said allegations of bias or partiality must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, stressing that “speculations and surmises of bias and prejudice on the part of judges or justices are not valid bases for voluntary inhibition.” The court said it had already explained the basis for denying the accused’s motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence and subsequent motion for reconsideration in its June 1 and June 23 resolutions, making further discussion unnecessary. It added that repeated adverse rulings alone are not grounds for disqualifying a judge on the basis of bias or prejudice. Citing Zamora v. Mahinay, the court said seeking a judge’s inhibition is not the proper remedy for unfavorable rulings, quoting the Supreme Court as saying: “If a party is prejudiced by the orders of a judge, his [or her] remedy is not to file for the judge’s inhibition.” It added that frivolous motions for inhibition constitute an abuse of court processes that disrupt, rather than promote, the orderly administration of justice. Finding that Ms. Cayco failed to prove bias or partiality on the part of the Sixth Division, the court denied her motion for lack of merit. Ms. Cayco, a Department of Public Works and Highways Accountant IV, is among the co-accused in the malversation and falsification case against Mr. Co over the alleged P289.5-million flood control project in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. — Mark Joseph M. Sanchez