Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People Vs Medenilla

    Uploaded by

    Chaneen Abolucion
    191 views3 pages
    The case involved Loreto Medenilla y Doria who was criminally charged for violating drug laws after police conducted a buy-bust operation where Medenilla sold and possessed methamphetamines. Medenilla claimed a violation of due process during his trial. The Supreme Court ruled that Medenilla's right to due process was not violated as the trial judge's questioning of witnesses was meant to clarify testimony and arrive at a just determination, and did not demonstrate bias against Medenilla. The Court affirmed the verdict of guilty but modified the penalties imposed.

    Original Description:

    Constitutional Law 2

    Original Title

    9. People vs Medenilla

    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
    The case involved Loreto Medenilla y Doria who was criminally charged for violating drug laws after police conducted a buy-bust operation where Medenilla sold and possessed methamphetamines. Medenilla claimed a violation of due process during his trial. The Supreme Court ruled that Medenilla's right to due process was not violated as the trial judge's questioning of witnesses was meant to clarify testimony and arrive at a just determination, and did not demonstrate bias against Medenilla. The Court affirmed the verdict of guilty but modified the penalties imposed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    191 views3 pages

    People Vs Medenilla

    Uploaded by

    Chaneen Abolucion
    The case involved Loreto Medenilla y Doria who was criminally charged for violating drug laws after police conducted a buy-bust operation where Medenilla sold and possessed methamphetamines. Medenilla claimed a violation of due process during his trial. The Supreme Court ruled that Medenilla's right to due process was not violated as the trial judge's questioning of witnesses was meant to clarify testimony and arrive at a just determination, and did not demonstrate bias against Medenilla. The Court affirmed the verdict of guilty but modified the penalties imposed.

    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 3

    USA College of Law

    Abolucion 1-F

    Case
    People vs Medenilla
    Name
    Topic General Concept of Due Process
    Case No. |
    G.R. Nos. 131638-39 | March 26, 2001
    Date
    Ponente Kapunan, J.
    Judges have as much interest as counsel in the orderly and
    expeditious presentation of evidence, and have the duty to ask
    Doctrine questions that would elicit the facts on the issues involved, clarify
    ambiguous remarks by witnesses, and address the points overlooked
    by counsel. –Nachura, J.

    RELEVANT FACTS
     Accused-appellant Loreto Medenilla y Doria was criminally charged for
    violating Section 151 and 162, Article 3 of R.A No. 6425, as amended,
    otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
     On or about April 16, 1996, Medenilla did then and there and there willfully,
    unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to 5.08 grams and had
    in his possession and/or under his custody four (4) transparent plastic bags
    containing white crystalline substance with a total weight of 200.45 grams,
    which were found positive to the test for methampetamine hydrochloride
    (shabu).
     Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges against him.
     The prosecution presented the testimonies of the two police officers who
    conducted the buy-bust operation. Meanwhile, Medenilla presented different
    version of the events leading to his arrest.
     The trial court found the accused-appellant guilty as charged. Hence, the
    appeal.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the accused was accorded his right to due process
    (procedural).

    RULING:

    YES.
    The accused cited in his appeal brief a single instance when the judge
    allegedly revealed his bias.

     The Court, however, failed to see how this single noted instance of
    questioning can justify a claim that the trial judge was biased. They have
    exhaustively examined the transcript of stenographic notes and determined
    that the trial judge was more than equitable in presiding over the hearings
    1
    USA College of Law
    Abolucion 1-F

    of this case. Moreover, 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 in this jurisdiction 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.
     In the exercise of sound discretion, he may put such question to the witness
    as will enable him to formulate a sound opinion as to the ability or the
    willingness of the witness to tell the truth.
     A judge may examine or cross-examine a witness. He may propound
    clarificatory questions to test the credibility of the witness and to extract
    the truth. He may seek to draw out relevant and material testimony though
    that testimony may tend to support or rebut the position taken by one or the
    other party. 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. 

    RULING
    WHEREFORE , the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig is hereby
    AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant Loreto Medenilla y Doria
    is hereby found GUILTY of violating Sections 15 and 16 of Republic Act No. 6425, as
    amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and hereby sentenced: (a) in Criminal Case No.
    3618-D, to suffer an indeterminate sentence of 6 months of arresto mayor to 4 years
    and 2 months of prision correccional; and (b) in Criminal Case No. 3619-D, to suffer
    the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of Two Million Pesos
    (P2,000,000.00).

    NOTES

    2
    1
    SEC. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. The penalty of
    reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed
    upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport, or distribute any regulated drug.
    Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a
    regulated drug involved in any offense under this Section should be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof,
    the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed.

    2
    SEC. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
    hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall possess or use any regulated
    drug without the corresponding license or prescription, subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.

    You might also like