Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARTHUR TE v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 167899 2008-08-06	WILLIE ONG v. LUCIA N. BASCO QUISUMBING, J.
Third, we cannot indulge on the unfounded assumptions of bias, prejudice and partiality hurled by petitioner against Judge Reyes. While those grounds have been recognized as valid reasons for the voluntary inhibition of a judge under Section 1, paragraph 2,[14] of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, the rudimentary rule is that the mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough.[15] Petitioner cannot validly argue that Judge Reyes acted with bias and partiality simply because Judge Reyes decided the case against him.
	GR NO. 148072 2007-07-10	FRANCISCO MAGESTRADO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. The rationale behind the principle of suspending a criminal case in view of a prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions.[27]
	GR No. 159218 2004-03-30	SALVADOR S. ABUNADO v. PEOPLE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
A prejudicial question has been defined as one based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. The rationale behind the principle of suspending a criminal case in view of a prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions.[16]
	GR No. 124498 2001-10-05	EDDIE B. SABANDAL v. FELIPE S. TONGCO PARDO, J.
If both civil and criminal cases have similar issues or the issue in one is intimately related to the issues raised in the other, then a prejudicial question would likely exist, provided the other element or characteristic is satisfied.[14] It must appear not only that the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would be necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[15] If the resolution of the issue in the civil action will not determine the criminal responsibility of the accused in the criminal action based on the same facts, or there is no necessity "that the civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal case," therefore, the civil case does not involve a prejudicial question.[16] Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each other.[17]
	GR No. 100633 2001-08-28	SOCORRO ABELLA SORIANO v. CA PARDO, J.
For any other reason, a litigant may not demand that a judge inhibit himself. Specially so in this case where there is a finding of fact that "respondent judge has not as yet crossed the line that divides partiality from impartiality."[76] Besides, the test for determining the propriety of the denial of a motion to inhibit is whether the movant was deprived of a fair and impartial trial.[77] In this case, there was no such deprivation.