This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-09-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| On July 27, 2000, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition[22] with this Court, docketed as G.R. Nos. 143618-41. He assailed the orders of the Sandiganbayan (1) denying his motion to quash and his oral motion for reconsideration; (2) ordering the termination of the preliminary investigation; and (3) setting his arraignment on July 28, 2000. He claimed that the criminal cases against him were based on void informations, hence, the Sandiganbayan must be enjoined from arraigning him on July 28, 2000. | |||||
|
2001-03-26 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| In any case, a severe examination by a trial judge of some of the witness for the defense in an effort to develop the truth and to get at the real facts affords no justification for a charge that he has assisted the prosecution with an evident desire to secure a conviction, or that he had intimidated the witnesses for the defense. The trial judge must be accorded a reasonable leeway in putting such questions to witnesses as may be essential to elicit relevant facts to make the record speak the truth. Trial judges in this jurisdiction are judges of both the law and the facts, and they would be negligent in the performance of their duties if they permitted a miscarriage of justice as a result of a failure to propound a proper question to a witness which might develop some material bearing upon the outcome. In the exercise of sound discretion, he may put such question to the witness as will enable him to formulate a sound opinion as to the ability or the willingness of the witness to tell the truth. A judge may examine or cross-examine a witness. He may propound clarificatory questions to test the credibility of the witness and to extract the truth. He may seek to draw out relevant and material testimony though that testimony may tend to support or rebut the position taken by one or the other party. It cannot be taken against him if the clarificatory questions he propounds happen to reveal certain truths which tend to destroy the theory of one party.[69] The sale of less than 200 grams of methampethamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, is punishable with a penalty ranging from prision correccional to reclusion temporal, depending on the quantity.[70] Thus, if the regulated drug weighs less than 66.67 grams, then the penalty is prision correctional, if 66.67 grams or more but less than 133.33 grams then the penalty is prision mayor, and if 133.33 grams or more but less than 200 grams then the penalty is reclusion temporal. In Criminal Case No. 3618-D, the amount of shabu involved weighs 5.08 grams, as such the appropriate penalty is prision correccional. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period or from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum penalty shall be within the range of prision correccional medium and the minimum penalty shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed or, in this case, arresto mayor. It is, therefore, clear from the foregoing that the trial committed an error in imposing an indeterminate sentence of 1 year, 8 months and 20 days, as minimum, to 4 years and 2 months, as maximum, of prision correccional. Accordingly, this must be modified. | |||||