Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 103501-03 & G.R. No. 103507 268 Scra 332 (1997) Digested
Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 103501-03 & G.R. No. 103507 268 Scra 332 (1997) Digested
has for its purpose partial payment of the liability of one government
agency (MIAA) to another (PNCC).
A more compelling reason for their acquittal is the violation of the
accuseds basic constitutional right to due process. Sandiganbayan
actively took part in the questioning of a defense witness and of the
accused themselves. The questions of the court were in the nature of
cross examinations characteristic of confrontation, probing and
insinuation. A trial judge should not participate in the examination of
witnesses as to create the impression that he is allied with the
prosecution. Time and again this Court has declared that due process
requires no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. Bolstering
this requirement, we have added that the judge must not only be
impartial but must also appear to be impartial, to give added assurance to
the parties that his decision will be just. The parties are entitled to no
less than this, as a minimum guaranty of due process.