AFFINITY AND CONSANGUINITY AS BASIS FOR DISQUALIFIFCATION UNDER

CANON 3 SECTION 5(F)

1. Siawan v. Judge Inopiquez
FACTS: In this case, respondent Judge got entangled in his own maneuverings in
favoring the complainant and those who were helping him. Although those involved here
were his in-laws, who were not directly related to him within the 4 th degree of
consanguinity or affinity, bias was established.
In this case, the refusal of respondent to inhibit himself from the conduct of the case and
his doing so only after being threatened with an administrative case could not but create
the impression that he had ulterior motives in wanting to try the case.
To maintain the appearance of impartiality in his court, at the first instance, respondent
should have stopped his father-in-law from meddling in the proceedings. If he did not
want to offend or displease him, he should have outrightly inhibited himself from further
trying the case. However, he even denied the motion for inhibition filed by the accused.
It was held that although the disqualification of judges is limited only to cases where the
judge is related to counsel within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, the Rules
nonetheless provide that a judge may, in the exercise of his discretion, disqualify himself
from sitting in a case for other just and valid reasons.[16] A judge should not handle a
case where he might be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be susceptible to bias and
impartiality, which axiom is intended to preserve and promote public confidence in the
integrity and respect for the judiciary.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr. is hereby ORDERED to pay
a fine of P20,000.00 for violation of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court and is SUSPENDED
without pay for a period of three months for abuse of authority and ignorance of the law.
2. LATORRE V. JUDGE ANSALDO (accused allegedly killed husband of
complainant)
FACTS: A complaint was filed against Judge Ansaldo for bias and partiality, grave
misconduct and gross ignorance of the law in relation with a criminal case for murder.
First, (1) he did not act when a motion for bail was filed, likewise, (2) he failed to act
upon the motion of one party to discipline the jail guards, (Re: check in of accused in a
hotel and attending worship services). (3) Sudden suspension or ordering of hearings.
In factual, respondent judge failed to take into account the loss of trust on the part of the
complainant as to his impartiality.
It has been held that when it comes to inhibition of judges, each case must be treated
differently and based on the peculiar circumstances. And since the complainant in the

case lost her faith and trust on Judge Ansaldo, it was only proper that the Judge should
have had considered the motion for inhibition.
The Court considered the age of Judge Ansaldo. Thus, he was merely reprimanded with
a fine.
WHEREFORE, Judge LEONARDO P. ANSALDO, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial
Court, Marinduque, Branch 94, Boac, is declared guilty of simple ignorance of the law
and FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) to be deducted from his
retirement benefits.
3. Yalung v. Judge Pascua
FACTS: Allegedly, Judge Pascua (1) delayed the decision in cases (2) refused to
recused himself given that the defense counsel on the case was the father of his
nephews wife. Though not directly connected by affinity or consanguinity, it was
deemed that such may cloud his judgment. Likewise, there were other anomalies
involved.
Respondent contends that the question is now moot and academic as he inhibited
himself from both the criminal and civil cases concerning the same. According to
respondent, he did so although the motion had no merit because the fact was that he
was not related to counsel of the accused in the criminal case although counsels
daughter is the wife of his (respondents) nephew.
HELD: The Court considered the issue on inhibition to be without merit since Judge
Pascua inhibited himself on the cases involved. Likewise, the complainants failed to
determine or provide other supporting grounds to support their motion as to the possible
partiality of the judge. It is clear that, per the Code, the Judge was not related with the
counsel of the accused, regardless of whether his nephew is married to the counsels
daughter.
The first is not a ground for mandatory disqualification of judges under Rule 137, since
respondent is not even related to counsel for the accused.
4. PP vs. Raul Berana
FACTS: In factual, this is a rape case wherein the accused is the husband of the
victims sister.
Affinity is defined as "the relation which one spouse because of marriage has to
blood relatives of the other. Consequently, to effectively prosecute accused-appellant
for the crime of rape committed by a relative by affinity within the third civil degree, it
must be established that a) he is legally married to complainant's sister and b)
complainant and accused-appellant's wife are full or half blood siblings.

In this case, the presentation of proof as to the relationship of the accused and the
complainant must be clearly established not by mere words or testimonies. The failure
of the prosecution to present constrained the Court to reduce the penalty by one degree
to reclusion perpetua.
5. PP v. Atop
FACTS: This is another case involving rape wherein the accused is the live-in partner of
the victims grandmother. The trial court sentenced the appellant to death, holding that
his common-law relationship with the victims grandmother aggravated the penalty.
Sec. 11 of RA 7659 prescribes the capital penalty in rape, only when the victim is
under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree,
or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim, and not by reason of any
other kinship.
The affinity of the accused is important to be established so that aggravating
circumstance may be applied. Blood line or legal bond must be confirmed.
The scope of relationship as defined by law encompasses (1) the spouse, (2) an
ascendant, (3) a descendant, (4) a legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or (5)
a relative by affinity in the same degree. [17]
Relationship by affinity refers to a relation by virtue of a legal bond such as
marriage. Relatives by affinity therefore are those commonly referred to as in-laws, or
stepfather, stepmother, stepchild and the like.
Relatives by consanguinity or blood relatives refers to the ascendant, descendant,
legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister.
RULING: Neither is appellant the victims parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. It is a basic rule of
statutory construction that penal statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the
accused.[18] Courts must not bring cases within the provision of a law which are not
clearly embraced by it.
6. Intestate Estate of Gonzales v. People, et al
FACTS: William Sato, the son-in-law of Manolita Carungcong (who was already 79
years old and blind). induced the latter to sign and thumbmarked an SPA in favor of his
daughter. Wendy. The old woman believed that the SPA involved only her taxes, while in
fact, it authorized Wendy to sell Manolitas properties.
ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the death of Williams wife and Manolitas daughter, Zenaida,
extinguished the relationship by affinity between William and Manolita.
Relationship by affinity between the surviving spouse and the kindred of the deceased
spouse continues even after the death of the deceased spouse, regardless of whether
the marriage produced children or not.