PEOPLE VS PASUDAG, PEOPLE VS ZUELA, PEOPLE VS ABE VALDEZ PEOPLE VS PASUDAG, PEOPLE VS ZUELA, PEOPLE VS ABE VALDEZ CasesFull description
Full description
People v WebbFull description
A.M. No. MTJ-94-989. April 18, 1997Full description
case digestFull description
yu
My Digest :D I take credit for it haha XD
Republic Planters Bank vs Court of AppealsFull description
Geagonia vs. CA
Case DigestFull description
Geagonia vs. CAFull description
constiFull description
By affirming this ruling of the trial court, respondent appellate court, in effect, compels American Air to extend its personality to Orient Air. Such would be violative of the principles and essen...Full description
crim digestFull description
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS respondent Supreme Court September 26, 1996 G.R No. 118882 FACTS:
-
-
-
The case is a petition for review with an urgent prayer for injunction and/or restraining order which seeks to: (a)Annul and set aside the decision of the case People of the Philippines vs Hon Pedro Espina et al. insofar as it denied the Peoples prayer to inhibit respondent Judge Ped ro Espina of the RTC of Tacloban from hearing the criminal case entitled Peo ple of the Philippines vs Cristela Reyes. And (b) enjoin the said judge from conducting further fu rther proceedings in the aforesaid criminal case The court required the respondents to comment on the sad prayer of the petitioners within 10 days from notice. The respondents however failed to do so. Until now, the respondents have not yet submitted their comments on the because the delays of the proceedings may benefit the respondents and sanctions against them would not be that much since most of the respondents are detained. The The court then proceeded to dispense the comments and proceed with the disposition of the petition.
ISSUE:
-
W/N Judge Espino should be inhibited from presiding on the Criminal Case, People vs Cristela Reyes.
HELD:
YES
REASONING:
-
-
-
Judge Espina, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, cannot be considered to adequately possess such cold neutrality of an impartial judge as to fairly fairly assess the both the evidence to be presented by the prosecution and defense in view of his previous decision wherein he enjoined the preliminary investigation at the Regional State Prosecutor’s office level against herein respondent Jane Go, the principal accused in the killing of her husband Dominador Go. Espina’s decision in favor of respondent Jane Go, serves as sufficient sufficient and reasonable basis for the prosecution to seriously doubt his impartiality in handing the cases. One of the essential requirements of procedural due process in a judicial proceeding is that there must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it. The court consistently demands the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. The litigants should be sure that when their thei r rights are violated they can go to a judge who shall give them justice.
