31.

SALVADOR
Due Process: In General
People v. Castillo

Facts: Herein appellant was convicted of murder in the RTC of Quezon City. During
trial, the judge participated in the examination of the witnesses. They now question the
trial judge’s assessment of the credibility of the witness. They also argued that the judge
has been biased against the accused hence the judgement of conviction as shown by
his action of participating in the examination of witnesses in a leading manner and
favorable to the prosecution.

Issue: Whether or not the Judge was biased in his interruption during the examination

Ruling: No, the court ruled that there was no showing that the judge had an interest,
personal or otherwise, in the prosecution of the case at bar. The petitioner failed to
show that they are prejudiced by the questions. He is therefore, presumed to have
acted regularly and in the manner [that] preserve[s] the ideal of the 'cold neutrality of an
impartial judge' implicit in the guarantee of due process.

Main point: It is the prerogative and duty of a judge to ask clarificatory questions to
ferret out the truth to clear up dubious points and bring out additional relevant evidence.

32. SALVADOR
Due Process: In General
Cosep v. People

Facts: Petitioner was found guilty violating the Anti-graft and corruption practices act.
He then filed a petition arguing that he was not accorded an impartial trial by the
Sandiganbayan as the justice of the SB actively participated in propounding no less
than 68 questions which they argue are indications of partiality or prejudgment of guilt.

Issue: Whether or not Petitioner was accorded an impartial trial by the SB

Ruling: Yes. The court ruled that every person is entitled to a due process which
embraces within it the impartiality of judge however it does not mean that judges must
remain passive or silent during the proceedings. It is only natural for judges to ask
questions to elicit facts with a view to attaining justice for the parties.

Main point: Questions designed to clarify points and to elicit additional relevant
evidence are not improper. Also, the judge, being the arbiter, may properly intervene in
the presentation of evidence to expedite and prevent unnecessary waste of time.

(In this trial however, Cosep was acquitted since his guilt was not proven BRD)
 33. SALVADOR
Due Process: In General
Rodrigo v. SB

Facts: Provincial Auditor released a Notice of Disallowance to petitioners, who found

that as per COA evaluation of the electrification project, only 60% of the project was
actually accomplished. Petitioners filed for a motion for reinvestigation before the SB;
but such charges were maintained. Petitioners contend that the institution by the
Provincial Auditor of the complaint despite the pendency of their opposition to the notice
of disallowance violates their right to due process.

Issue: Whether petitioner's right to due process was violated by the filing of the
complaint against them by the Provincial Auditor.

Ruling: NO. The court ruled that the right to due process of the petitioners to the
complaint, insofar as the criminal aspect of the case is concerned, is not impaired by
such institution. The petitioners will still have the opportunity to confront the accusations
contained in their motion to lift the disallowance, as well as other defenses, in the
preliminary investigation.

Main point: The exoneration of petitioners in the audit investigation does not mean the
automatic dismissal of the complaint against them. The preliminary investigation is
independent from the investigation conducted by COA.

DISALLOWANCE - the disapproval of a credit to an account officer's accountability due

to non-compliance with law or regulations.

SUSPENSION - deferment of action to debit/credit the account/accountable officer's

accountability pending compliance with certain requirements.