Julio Herida was charged with murder along with another individual. At trial, the judge intensively questioned witnesses for both the prosecution and defense, asking around 40% of the total questions for some witnesses. Herida appealed, arguing that the judge exhibited bias by this questioning. The court ruled that the judge's intensive questioning was necessary to clarify information from sworn affidavits that were often incomplete. The court found that the judge's behavior was not biased, as judges have a duty to clarify evidence and address overlooked issues, not just act as referees. Therefore, Herida's right to a fair trial was not violated.
Julio Herida was charged with murder along with another individual. At trial, the judge intensively questioned witnesses for both the prosecution and defense, asking around 40% of the total questions for some witnesses. Herida appealed, arguing that the judge exhibited bias by this questioning. The court ruled that the judge's intensive questioning was necessary to clarify information from sworn affidavits that were often incomplete. The court found that the judge's behavior was not biased, as judges have a duty to clarify evidence and address overlooked issues, not just act as referees. Therefore, Herida's right to a fair trial was not violated.
Julio Herida was charged with murder along with another individual. At trial, the judge intensively questioned witnesses for both the prosecution and defense, asking around 40% of the total questions for some witnesses. Herida appealed, arguing that the judge exhibited bias by this questioning. The court ruled that the judge's intensive questioning was necessary to clarify information from sworn affidavits that were often incomplete. The court found that the judge's behavior was not biased, as judges have a duty to clarify evidence and address overlooked issues, not just act as referees. Therefore, Herida's right to a fair trial was not violated.
Facts: Julio Herida and Nonito Jamila, Jr., were charged with murder. Herida and Jamila, Jr., were arraigned. They respectively pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. the Court finds accused JULIO HERIDA y BERNABE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER. Hence, the instant appeal. 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: Whether or not THE LOWER COURT DENIED THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT 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. When appellant took the stand, 63 questions were added, with 27 or approximately 43% asked by the judge. The intensive questioning of the witnesses, however, was necessary. The sworn affidavits of the material witnesses were adopted as their direct testimonies, subject to cross-examination. 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.