This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-06-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The Court was able to observe the demeanor of the private complainant when she was examined in open court; she was spontaneous in her giving of answers to questions propounded by counsel for the accused and her answers were clothed with sincerity and in fact she was crying when she gave her testimony.[10] The efficacy of a decision is not necessarily impaired by the fact that its writer took over from a colleague who had earlier presided at the trial, unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion in the factual findings reached by him.[11] The fact that the judge who prepared, signed and promulgated the decision was not the one who heard the evidence does not render the judgment void per se.[12] However, respondent judge should have exercised caution and carefully scrutinized the draft decision to make the necessary corrections before affixing his signature thereon. His failure to do so betrays his carelessness and laziness, which are anathema to the professional competence and diligence required of judges, to wit:CANON 3 A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE. | |||||