This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-03-14 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The allegation that the State Prosecutor was not impartial in conducting the preliminary investigation is merely speculative a bare allegation unworthy of credence. Such accusation is worthless in light of our finding that there is, indeed, probable cause against petitioner. Moreover, bias and partiality can never be presumed.[34] The mere fact that State Prosecutor Formaran was also a member of the PAOCTF is insignificant. The now defunct PAOCTF was created to investigate and prosecute all crime syndicates. It was a convergence and collaboration of the different agencies of the government, including the Philippine National Police and the DOJ.[35] Unsupported statements of partiality will not suffice in the absence of contrary evidence that will overcome the presumption that the State Prosecutor regularly performed his duty. | |||||
|
2007-02-05 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As to petitioner's allegation that the Court of Appeals was selective in choosing what issues to resolve, it bears to stress again that "a judge's appreciation or misappreciation of the sufficiency of evidence x x x adduced by the parties, x x x, without proof of malice on the part of respondent judge, is not sufficient to show bias and partiality."[34] We also emphasized that "repeated rulings against a litigant, no matter how erroneously, vigorously and consistently expressed, do not amount to bias and prejudice which can be bases for the disqualification of a judge."[35] | |||||
|
2006-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Finally, complainant failed to present evidence to show the alleged bias of respondent judge; mere suspicion that a judge was partial is not enough.[20] Bare allegations of partiality will not suffice in an absence of a clear showing that will overcome the presumption that the judge dispensed justice without fear or favor. It bears to stress again that a judge's appreciation or misappreciation of the sufficiency of evidence adduced by the parties, or the correctness of a judge's orders or rulings on the objections of counsels during the hearing, without proof of malice on the part of respondent judge, is not sufficient to show bias or partiality.[21] The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon erring members of the bench. At the same time, however, the Court should not hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. | |||||