Ombudsman prosecutors have sought the inhibition of Senior Associate Justice Ronald Moreno from the malversation case against former Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. in relation to an alleged ghost flood control project in Bulacan.
In seeking Moreno’s recusal, the prosecution cited his court remarks as allegedly showing that he had prejudged the case and disrespected witnesses, adding that his questions made him appear more like a defense counsel for Revilla.
“Justice Moreno’s active questioning crossed the line from being merely clarificatory into acting like a defense counsel attempting to shield accused Revilla from liability,” it said.
Moreno is one of the two justices who voted to grant Revilla bail in the case.
In their motion, the prosecution described Moreno’s questions to the witnesses as “unfair, unreasonable, disrespectful, and lacking in judicial restraint.”
“His line of questioning and his public pronouncements also show that he might have already prejudged not only the credibility of the witnesses but also the credibility of their respective testimonies. And he did these things in open court with the members of the press and other objective observers in attendance,” it said.
It said that during the testimony of witness former Department of Public Works and Highways official Henry Alcantara, Moreno appeared to be questioning the credibility of another witness, former DPWH Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, who had yet to be presented.
It said Moreno had a prejudged conclusion that it was Bernardo who profited from the scheme and had fooled Alcantara.
The prosecution also alleged that Moreno was “cynical” toward Alcantara who admitted to his complicity in the illegal activities in the DPWH.
His remarks about Alcantara’s admission to the Witness Protection Program also showed his lack of “cold neutrality of an impartial judge,” it added.
It also alleged that Moreno’s partiality and prejudgment of the case were shown when he said that there was no evidence of the money being delivered to Revilla and that the payments did not come from public funds.
When Bernardo was put on the stand, the prosecution said Moreno made “improper, intimidating and insulting side remarks.”
It contended that his questions to Bernardo were no longer clarificatory and were for cross-examination meant to discredit the witness and dismantle the prosecution’s case.
“Justice Moreno’s active questioning crossed the line from being merely clarificatory into acting like a defense counsel attempting to shield accused Revilla from liability,” it said.
It said Moreno declared in court that there was no evidence to show that Revilla received “commitments” or kickbacks, despite Bernardo’s admission that he made the deliveries.
The prosecution also noted that Moreno questioned the grant of immunity to the witnesses and called one of them a “disgrace.”
Another concern it raised was the sheer number of questions he asked during the bail hearings, which was more than the lawyers of all seven accused combined asked.
“To the mind of the prosecution, it appears that the questioning of the Honorable Justice is no longer motivated by the search for the truth but, rather, to confirm his own premature conclusion on the case, especially with respect to the involvement of Senator Revilla,” it said.
The prosecution said it is not questioning the integrity, competence, or good faith of Moreno, but is seeking to preserve the fundamental right of every litigant to have his or her case resolved by a tribunal whose impartiality is beyond reasonable question.