PEOPLE v.

MEDENILLA

Facts: RTC of Pasig found accused-appellant Loreto Medenilla y Doria guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Sec. 15&16 of RA 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 after selling, delivering and giving
away 5.08g of white crystalline substance positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride
(shabu) and having in his possession 4 transparent plastic bags containing 200.45g of the same on
Apr.16, 1996, in the City of Mandaluyong after a buy-bust operation. Arraigned on June 25, 1996,
accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges and presented a different version of events for his
defense. After being found guilty, he appealed alleging that he was denied due process, among other
things.

Issue: whether or not the questioning of the trial judge shows bias that deprived accused-appellant of
due process

Held: after exhaustive examining of the transcript of stenographic notes, it was determined that the trial
judge was more than equitable in presiding over the hearing of the case. A judge is not prohibited from
propounding clarificatory questions on a witness if the purpose of which is to arrive at a proper and just
determination of the case. Trial judges are judges of both the law and the facts, and they would be
negligent in the performance of their duties if they permitted a miscarriage of justice as a result of a
failure to propound a proper question to a witness which might develop some material bearing upon the
outcome. It cannot be taken against him if the clarificatory questions happen to reveal certain truths
which tend to destroy the theory of one party. The decision of the RTC is affirmed with modifications.