CANON 1

GO V. COURT OF APPEALS
Facts:
Accused presented himself before the police to verify reports that he was being hunted by the police. He was
thereafter detained. The prosecutor then informed accused of his right to preliminary investigation but that he must first sign a
waiver of the provision of Art.125 of the RPC. Accused refused to execute such waiver. The prosecutor filed an information
for murder with no recommended bail and a certification that no preliminary investigation was conducted because accused
did not sign a waiver of the provisions of Art.125 of the RPC. Counsel of accused however later filed a motion for release and
proper preliminary investigation. After the case was raffled to the RTC, Judge Pelayo initially allowed the release of accused
on a cash bond and issued an order granting the leave to conduct preliminary investigation. Later on however, Pelayo motu
proprio issued an order recalling the granting of bail and proceeded to trial. Accused and his counsel continuously opposed
this.
Held:
(Note: What is related to ethics is actually found in the concurring opinion of Justice Gutierrez)
I am at a loss for reasons why an experienced Judge should insist on proceeding to trial in a sensational murder
case without a preliminary investigation despite vigorous and continued objection and reservation of rights of the accused
and notwithstanding the recommendation of the prosecutor that said rights be respected I agree with Justice Isagani Cruz
that the trial court has apparently been moved by a desire to cater to public opinion to the detriment of the impartial
administration of justice. Mass media has its duty to fearlessly but faithfully inform the public about events and persons.
However, when a case has received wide and sensational publicity, the trial court should be doubly careful not only to be fair
and impartial but also to give the appearance of complete objectivity in its handling of the case.