This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2000-08-22 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| or that he had intimidated the witnesses for the defense.[72] 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.[73] 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.[74] 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.[75] A judge may examine or cross-examine a witness.[76] He may propound clarificatory questions to test the credibility of the witness and to extract the truth.[77] 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.[78] 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.[79] To prop up their theory of bias, the defense claims that the judge in asking questions to prosecution witnesses SPO3 Gilbert Santos,[80] SPO1 Gerico Bacani,[81] SPO3 Noel Castañeto,[82] and Leslie | |||||