Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 222 views

    People of The Philippines Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Kobe Lawrence Veneracion
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the impartiality of judges. The Court ruled that Judge Espina did not demonstrate the "cold neutrality of an impartial judge" when handling criminal cases against respondents accused of killing Dominador Go. Specifically, Judge Espina had previously issued a decision in favor of one of the respondents. This created reasonable doubt about his impartiality. As a result, the Supreme Court disqualified Judge Espina from the criminal cases to ensure procedural due process and an impartial tribunal for the State and litigants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People of The Philippines Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Kobe Lawrence Veneracion
    222 views1 page
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the impartiality of judges. The Court ruled that Judge Espina did not demonstrate the "cold neutrality of an impartial judge" when handling criminal cases against respondents accused of killing Dominador Go. Specifically, Judge Espina had previously issued a decision in favor of one of the respondents. This created reasonable doubt about his impartiality. As a result, the Supreme Court disqualified Judge Espina from the criminal cases to ensure procedural due process and an impartial tribunal for the State and litigants.

    Original Title

    People of the Philippines vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the impartiality of judges. The Court ruled that Judge Espina did not demonstrate the "cold neutrality of an impartial judge" when handling criminal cases against respondents accused of killing Dominador Go. Specifically, Judge Espina had previously issued a decision in favor of one of the respondents. This created reasonable doubt about his impartiality. As a result, the Supreme Court disqualified Judge Espina from the criminal cases to ensure procedural due process and an impartial tribunal for the State and litigants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    222 views1 page

    People of The Philippines Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Kobe Lawrence Veneracion
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the impartiality of judges. The Court ruled that Judge Espina did not demonstrate the "cold neutrality of an impartial judge" when handling criminal cases against respondents accused of killing Dominador Go. Specifically, Judge Espina had previously issued a decision in favor of one of the respondents. This created reasonable doubt about his impartiality. As a result, the Supreme Court disqualified Judge Espina from the criminal cases to ensure procedural due process and an impartial tribunal for the State and litigants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    People of the Philippines vs.

    Court of Appeals
    G.R. No. 118882 | Sep. 26, 1996
    MELO, J.

    Roles and Standards of Judges: Impartiality

    FACTS

    Petition for Review with an urgent prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order
    • The court resolved to require respondents, all of whom are accused in the criminal cases, to reply
    within 10 days from notice to issue to TRO, as well as to enjoin respondent Judge Espina from
    taking further action in the aforementioned cases
    • All respondents did not file their comments, and so the comments are dispensed by the court and
    disposition will proceed

    ISSUES AND HOLDING

    1. Whether or not there was the cold neutrality of an impartial judge in the aforementioned cases.
    No.
    • One of the essential requirements of procedural due process in judicial proceedings
    is that there must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to
    hear and determine the issues before it
    • Every litigant, including the State, is entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial
    judge
    • This neutrality is the indispensable imperative of due process, wherein the judge
    must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial
    • In the case, Judge Pedro Espina, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, cannot be
    considered to possess such cold neutrality of an impartial judge because in his
    previous decision, he enjoined the preliminary investigation at the Regional State
    Prosecutor’s Office level against respondent Jane Go, the principal accused in the
    killing of her husband, Dominador Go
    • Judge Espina’s decision in favor of respondent serves as sufficient and reasonable
    basis for the prosecution to seriously doubt his impartiality in handling the criminal
    cases
    Petition is GRANTED. JUDGE ESPINA is DISQUALIFIED from taking COGNIZANCE of the
    CRIMINAL CASES.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy