Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People V Herida - Due Process

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Deceda
    189 views1 page
    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.

    Original Description:

    People v Herida - due process

    Original Title

    People v Herida - due process

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    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.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    189 views1 page

    People V Herida - Due Process

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Deceda
    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.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    57 People v.

    Herida 353 SCRA 650


    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.

    You might also like