This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2000-11-29 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| The Court also finds it necessary to correct petitioner's misimpression that by denying his demurrer to evidence in view of the existence of a prima facie case against him, the trial court was already making a pronouncement that he is liable for the offense charged. As correctly held by the Court of Appeals, the order of the RTC denying the demurrer was not an adjudication on the merits but merely an evaluation of the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence to determine whether or not a full-blown trial would be necessary to resolve the case.[35] The RTC's observation that there was a prima facie case against petitioner only meant that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to sustain its proposition that petitioner had committed the offense of bigamy, and unless petitioner presents evidence to rebut the same, such would be the conclusion.[36] Said declaration by the RTC should not be construed as a pronouncement of petitioner's guilt. It was precisely because of such finding that the trial court denied the demurrer, in order that petitioner may present evidence in his defense and allow said court to resolve the case based on the evidence adduced by both parties. | |||||
|
2000-11-29 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| We agree with the appellate court that the grounds raised by petitioner against Judge Peralejo did not conclusively show that the latter was biased and had prejudged the case.[37] In People of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals,[38] this Court held that while bias and prejudice have been recognized as valid reasons for the voluntary inhibition of a judge under Section 1, Rule 137, the rudimentary rule is that the mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality.[39] | |||||