10.1 HON. ROBERT Z. BARBERS v. JUDGE PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, JR.

A.M. No. RTJ-00-1568

February 15, 2001
Procedural Due Process
FACTS:
Respondent judge Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr. acquitted Lawrence Wang, a Hong Kong
national who was allegedly a big-time drug lord of three criminal cases*. Tech and Junio, who
were previously arrested hours before Wang, admitted that they worked for Lawrence Wang and
that a big transaction of shabu was about to be made at an apartment along Maria Orosa St.,
Malate, Manila. The police conducted surveillance in the said place and Wang was apprehended
as he opened the trunk compartment of the car, revealing the bags of shabu inside it. A search
was done and firearms were also found.
Respondent judge granted Wangs Demurrer to Evidence* and acquitted him in the three
(3) cases. In his decision, he stated that the warrantless arrest and search were unlawful as none
of the circumstances where a peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant, as provided in
the New Rules of Court, were attendant when Wang was arrested. Suspicions arose that the
proceeding was already rigged in favor of Wang. Because of this acquittal, petitioners filed
administrative charges against respondent judge.
ISSUES:
1 Whether the respondent judge prematurely resolved the Demurrer to Evidence without
giving the prosecution ample opportunity to prove its three (3) cases.
2 Whether the respondent judges propounding questions during the clarificatory hearing
revealed his alleged partiality in favor of the accused.
HELD:
Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint against the respondent judge as it is
premature given that the questioned decision is still pending on appeal.
1 NO
It was noted that prosecution rested the Peoples case and it was only then that defense filed a
Demurrer to Evidence. However, perhaps realizing that it rested prematurely, the prosecution
filed a motion for further hearing which the court granted. This fact belies the petitioners claim
that they were denied their day in court. Furthermore, contrary to petitioners contention, it was
clearly prayed that the Demurrer to Evidence prayed for the dismissal of all the three (3) cases.
As the court pointed, even if the caption of the Demurrer to Evidence stated only Criminal Case
No. 96-149990, a plain reading of the entire Demurrer to Evidence leaves no doubt that it also
covered Criminal Case Nos. 96-149991 and 96-149992.
2 NO
The court noted that the respondent judges conduct of the trial was not by itself condemnable.
Just because he asked clarificatory questions during the trial do not mean he is already a biased
judged. The questions asked were entirely proper as their only purpose was to clarify certain
obscure phases of the case. As stated by the court, questions to clarify points and to elicit

additional relevant evidence are not improper. The judge being the arbiter may properly
intervene in the presentation of evidence to expedite and prevent unnecessary waste of time.
Given that the questioned judgment is still on appeal, the filing of administrative charges is
premature. Following the established judicial doctrine, it is only after the available judicial
remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality, that the door
to an inquiry into his criminal, civil or administrative liability may be said to have opened, or
closed.
Main point: The filing of an administrative complaint is not the proper remedy for the
correction of actions of a judge perceived to have gone beyond the norms of propriety, where a
sufficient judicial remedy exists
*Notes:
1. Wang was arrested in three (3) criminal cases: violation of Dangerous Drugs Act, illegal
possession of firearms, and violation of the COMELEC Gun Ban
2. Demurrer of Evidence - It is an objection or exception by one of the parties in an action at
law, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary had produced was insufficient in
point of law (whether true or not) to make out his case or sustain the issue.

10.2 PEOPLE VS HERIDA

FACTS: Julio Herida y Bernabe, alias Jun Tagay is charged with murder him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua. Accused/appellant avers that the trial court judge exhibited bias or
prejudice against him. Appellant points out that over seventy percent (70%) of the testimonies of
the prosecutions material witnesses were elicited by the judge, while the cross-examination of
the defense witnesses was to a large extent conducted by the judge himself. He submits that
under these circumstances, his right to a fair and impartial trial was violated.
ISSUE: w/n the lower court seriously erred when it denied the accused-appellant [with] his
constitutional right to due process of law by acting with obvious bias and prejudice during the
trial of this case.
RULING: NO. The transcripts of the proceedings show that the trial court did intensively
question the witnesses. For instance, of the 182 questions asked of prosecution eyewitness Tomas
Baniquid, 79 or roughly 43% of the total came from the judge. However, we note that the judge
also intensively questioned witnesses of the defense. The intensive questioning of the witnesses,
however, was necessary. Since affidavits are generally taken ex parte* and are often incomplete
or even inaccurate for lack of searching inquiries by the investigating officer, the trial court had
to ask many questions to clarify important matters. The judges behavior under this circumstance
cannot be considered biased or prejudiced. Judges are, after all, not mere referees in a boxing
bout, whose only task is to watch and decide the results. Judges have as much interest as
counsel in the orderly and expeditious presentation of evidence and have the duty to ask
questions that would elicit the facts on the issues involved, clarify ambiguous remarks by
witnesses, and address the points that are overlooked by counsel
Main point: underscored
NOTE:

Specific details of murder acc to city prosec: That on or about the 14th day of May, 1995
in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together, confederating with
two (2) other persons whose true names, identities and personal whereabouts have not yet
been ascertained and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, qualified by
treachery and with evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength, did,
then and there wilfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ
personal violence upon the person of HERLITO DELARA[2] y VILLAS, by then and
there mauling and stabbing him with the use of knives and bolos, hitting him on the
different parts of the body, thereby inflicting upon said Herlito Delara serious and mortal
stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and
prejudice of the heirs of said Herlito Delara.
Ex parte- Done by, for, or on the application of one party alone.

10.3 PEOPLE VS MEDENILLA

FACTS: On 16 April 1996, Loreto Medenilla y Doria was caught for illegal possession and
unlawfully selling 5.08g of shabu (Criminal Case 3618-D), was in unlawful possession of 4
transparent plastic bags of shabu weighing 200.45g (Criminal Case 3619-D) in Mandaluyong
City. Versions of facts leading to the arrest are conflicting; the prosecution alleging buy-bust
operations, while defense claim illegal arrest, search and seizure. Arraigned on 25 June 1996,
Medenilla pleaded not guilty. The judge therein, for the purpose of clarification, propounded a
question upon a witness during the trial. On 26 November 1997, the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig (Branch 262) found Medenilla, in Criminal Cases 3618-D and 3619-D, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Sections 15 and 16 of RA 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972). 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 accusedappellant of due process
RULING: No. 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.
Main point: The trial judge must be accorded a reasonable leeway in putting such questions to
witnesses as may be essential to elicit relevant facts to make the record speak the truth. It cannot
be taken against him if the clarificatory questions he propounds happen to reveal certain truths
which tend to destroy the theory of one party.

10.4 PEOPLE VS RIVERA

FACTS: Rolando Rivera was charged for raping his 13 year old daughter, Erlanie D. Rivera.
Accused-appellant invokes his right to due process of law. He claims that he was denied the
same because: (a) the trial judge disallowed his lawyer from cross-examining Erlanie Rivera
concerning the latters sworn statements on the ground of irrelevance and immateriality; (b) the
trial court denied the motion made by accused-appellants counsel de oficio to postpone the crossexamination of Dr. Barin, the examining physician, because of which the said counsel
consequently waived the cross-examination of Dr. Barin; (c) the judge propounded numerous
questions to accused-appellant during his cross-examination by the prosecutor; and (d) the trial
courts decision was promulgated just one day after accused-appellant submitted his
memorandum.
ISSUE: did the lower court fail to observe the constitutional right of the Accused-Appellant to
due process and right to counsel?
RULING: No. Where the trial court is judge both of the law and of the facts, it is oftentimes
necessary in the due and faithful administration of justice for the presiding judge to re-examine a
witness so that his judgment, when rendered, may rest upon a full and clear understanding of the
facts. The trial judge merely wanted to clarify certain points relating to the defense of accusedappellant and not to establish his guilt. It is a judges prerogative to ask questions to ferret out the
truth. It cannot be taken against him if the questions he propounds reveals certain truths which, in
turn, tend to destroy the theory of one party.
Main point: Procedural due process simply means that a person must be heard before he is
condemned. The due process requirement is a part of a persons basic rights, not a mere formality
that may be dispensed with or performed perfunctorily. Considering both the evidence and the
law applicable to this case, we hold that accused-appellant has been accorded his right to due
process.

10.5 PEOPLE VS BASQUES

FACTS: Accused was found guilty for raping a 7 year old girl, named Jiggle. Thus this appel.
Appellant contends that the trial judge showed manifest bias and partiality against him by acting
as a virtual prosecutor
ISSUE: W/N the judge showed manifest bias and partiality against accused.
HELD: The participation of judges in the conduct of trials cannot be condemned outrightly. They
cannot be expected to remain always passive and stoic during the proceedings. After all, they are
not prohibited from asking questions when proper and necessary. In fact, this Court has
repeatedly ruled that judges "must be accorded a reasonable leeway in asking questions to
witnesses as may be essential to elicit relevant facts and to bring out the truth."17
Judges are not mere boxing referees, whose only task is to watch the bout and decide the results.
They are duty-bound to conduct an orderly trial and an expeditious presentation of the evidence.
In the performance of their responsibility, they may ask questions that would elicit the facts of
the issues involved, clarify ambiguous remarks by witnesses, and address the points that are
overlooked by counsel.
Main point: underscored