EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 119072, April 11, 1997 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JESUS EDUALINO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DISSENTING OPINION
FRANCISCO, J., dissenting:
With due respect, I beg to disagree with the observations of my distinguished colleague Justice Padilla relating to (a) the trial judge's degree of zeal in the examination of witnesses which, as he himself puts it, "could lead to impressions of partiality and bias," and (b) accused-appellant's failure to object to the judge's alleged demonstration of partiality during the trial, in view of my ponencia in "Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan" 1 (involving similar issues) where it was ruled to the effect that
1) to give life to the due process requirement of "cold neutrality of an impartial judge", the right of the judge to participate in the examination of witnesses must be sparingly used in order to avoid the impression of partiality in favor of one party. Thus, to reiterate "People v. Opida" (142 SCRA 295), ". . . the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial, to give added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. The parties are entitled to no less than this, as a minimum guaranty of due process."
2) Under the doctrine that an appeal throws the whole case open to review, the failure of the accused to signify any kind of objection (whether by objecting to the judge's question or by seeking for his inhibition) to the judge's partiality during trial does not prevent this Court from taking cognizance of this irregularity and thereafter render a judgment of acquittal grounded thereon if circumstances warrant.
Footnotes
1 G.R. Nos. 103501-03, En Banc Decision, promulgated on February 17, 1997.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
