This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-11-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's claim that his testimony was virtually "hijacked" by the Sandiganbayan justices during the November 29, 1994 trial deserves scant consideration. In propounding clarificatory questions upon petitioner, the justices merely exercised one of the inherent rights of a judge in the exercise of judicial function. The right of a trial judge to question the witnesses with a view to satisfying his mind upon any material point which presents itself during the trial of a case over which he presides is well established to merit further discussion. The 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 fact upon which the judgment of the case should turn.[16] | |||||
|
2003-06-18 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The trial judge may even be considered negligent in the performance of his duties if he permits a miscarriage of justice as a result of a failure to propound a proper question to a witness which might develop some material facts upon which the judgment in the case should turn.[12] In an effort to ascertain the truth, a judge may examine or cross-examine a witness by leading questions. He may even 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.[13] Questions designed to clarify points and to elicit additional relevant evidence are not improper. | |||||