This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-09-05 |
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] | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| "It would be preposterous to assume that the victim, whose intelligence quotient is admittedly low, could have concocted the grave charge of rape, or that she and her mother would go into the trouble of having her medically examined, going to court and advertising to the whole world she had been raped, if the charge was merely invented." We reject appellant's contention that Janice was coached by her mother and witness Rolando Ayad. It bears stressing that "no young and decent lass will publicly cry rape if such were not the truth."[39] In fact, no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial, along with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation, were it not to condemn an injustice and to have the offender apprehended and punished.[40] Also, it is highly unnatural for a mother, virtuous or not, to use her own daughter as "an engine of malice, especially if it will subject her to embarrassment and even stigma."[41] | |||||