G.R. Nos. 103501-03
February 17, 1997
Facts
Tabuena and Peralta were convicted with the crime of malversation. In the trial proceedings, the Sandiganbayan actively participated in cross-examining the accused as well as the witnesses. Moreover, the evidence shows that the Sandiganbayan asked a total of sixty-seven questions which is five times more than the questions asked by the prosecutor.
Issue
Whether or not the act of the respondents violated the due process clause?
Held
Yes. Respect for the Constitution is more important than securing a conviction by violating the rights of the accused. The cold neutrality of an impartial judge as a requirement for due process provides that that the trial judge has the right to question witnesses with a view to satisfying his mind upon any material point which presents itself during the trial of a case over which he presides. However, such questions shall only be clarificatory and such right shall be sparingly and judicially used. With that, the court should not interfere nor intervene in the conduct of a trial.
In the case at bar, the requirement was not observed since the court, with its overzealousness, assumed the dual role of magistrate and advocate. Aside from being numerous, the questions itself are not clarificatory when it clearly border more on cross-examination questions. In other words, the questions of the court were in the nature of cross examinations characteristic of confrontation, probing and insinuation.
Hence, the Sandiganbayan violated the cold neutrality of an impartial judge by participating actively in the cross-examination of the accused. The accused were therefore acquitted.