Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LUIS A. TABUENA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 211543 2015-12-09	DOMINGO G. PANGANIBAN v. PEOPLE. PEREZ, J.
And even granting that it was malversation which petitioner was alleged to have committed, it has been ruled that good faith is a valid defense in a prosecution for malversation of public funds as it would negate criminal intent on the part of the accused.[36] Petitioner's full liquidation of his cash advance by means of an arrangement allowed by the COA ultimately translated into the good faith he interposed as a defense.
	GR No. 209195 2014-09-17	MANUEL J. JIMENEZ v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
We note that the severity of the penalty imposed is part of the substantive criminal law which should not be equated with the procedural rule on the discharge of the particeps criminis. The procedural remedy of the discharge of an accused is based on other considerations, such as the need for giving immunity to one of several accused in order that not all shall escape, and the judicial experience that the candid admission of an accused regarding his participation is a guaranty that he will testify truthfully.[53]
	GR Nos. 153304-05 2012-02-07	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN BRION, J.
We take this opportunity to remind the prosecution that this Court is as much a judge in behalf of an accused-defendant whose liberty is in jeopardy, as it is the judge in behalf of the State, for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of society.[92] Therefore, unless the petitioner demonstrates, through evidence and records, that its case falls within the narrow exceptions from the criminal protection of double jeopardy, the Court has no recourse but to apply the finality-of-acquittal rule.
	GR No. 188104 2010-04-23	PEOPLE v. BENANCIO MORTERA Y BELARMINO MENDOZA, J.
The Court is not unaware of the case of Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan,[13] where it was written: The Court has acknowledged the right of a trial judge to question 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. But not only should his examination be limited to asking clarificatory questions, the right should be sparingly and judiciously used; for the rule is that the court should stay out of it as much as possible, neither interfering nor intervening in the conduct of trial... hardly in fact can one avoid the impression that the Sandiganbayan had allied itself with, or to be more precise, had taken the cudgels for the prosecution in proving the case against Tabuena and Peralta.... The "cold neutrality of an impartial judge" requirement of due process was certainly denied Tabuena and Peralta when the court, with its overzealousness, assumed the dual role of magistrate and advocate... A substantial portion of the TSN was incorporated in the majority opinion not to focus on "numbers" alone, but more importantly to show that the court questions were in the interest of the prosecution and which thus depart from the common standard of fairness and impartiality. (emphasis added)
	AM No. RTJ-07-2043 2007-09-05	JUAN DE LA CRUZ v. JUDGE RUBEN B. CARRETAS CORONA, J.
A judge may properly intervene in the presentation of evidence to expedite and prevent unnecessary waste of time and clarify obscure and incomplete details in the course of the testimony of the witness or thereafter.[32] Questions designed to clarify points and to elicit additional relevant evidence are not improper.[33] But the judge should limit himself to asking clarificatory questions and the power should be sparingly and judiciously used. The rule is that the court should stay out of it as much as possible, neither interfering nor intervening in the conduct of the trial.[34] A judge must always maintain cold neutrality and impartiality for he is a magistrate, not an advocate.[35]
	GR NO. 171397 2006-09-27	PEOPLE v. VICENTE SY Y MADLANGBAYAN GARCIA, J.
That he is hard to talk to and that he is very strict. We do not disturb factual findings of the CA unless there are compelling and justifiable reasons therefor. Here, we find none. In fact, judging from the aforequoted questions of the trial judge, those questions had not reached nor approximated the level of relentless questionings struck down by this Court in Tabuena v. Sandigan[20] for being clearly prejudicial to the accused.
	GR Nos. 137542-43 2004-01-20	PEOPLE v. REYNAN SANTIAGO Y CASTILLO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Relative to the second assigned error, appellant laments the trial judge's active participation in the proceedings by conducting cross-examination, in violation of his constitutional right to due process as enunciated in Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan.[10]
	AM No. MTJ-03-1471 2003-01-22	PROSECUTOR ROBERT M. VISBAL v. JUDGE MARINO S. BUBAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
However, Deputy Court Administrator Elepaño stated that respondent's false entries in his Certificates of Service were based on his belief, though erroneous, that he had then no pending matter to resolve. She concluded that there can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting.[13]