Tabuena Vs.

Sandiganbayan

Facts: The Sandiganbayan rendered its decision convicting Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta of
malversation for having malversed 55m of the MIAA as Gen. Manager and Finance Service Manager
respectively. During the trial, the Sandiganbayan Justices asked numerous questions among the
witnesses. Tabuena and Peralta filed a motion for reconsideration contending that they could not be
convicted under the information for intentional malversation because they acted in good faith complying to
the order of Pres. Marcos to pay the Philippine National Construction Corporation thru his office.

Issue: WON the decision of the Sandiganbayan is not binding on the ground that the accused were
denied due process based on impartiality of the Sandiganbayan.

Held: yes it is not binding

-Justices cross- examining the witnesses, creating an impression that he is an ally of the prosecution

-The number of questions

-should be clarificatory questions only, or questions to expedite justice, to clear some obscurity

-they assume the function of the prosecution

-cold neutrality of an impartial judge- due process requires no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial
judge. Bolstering this requirement, we have added that the judge must not only be impartial but must also
appear to be impartial, to give added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. The parties are
entitled to no less than this, as a minimum guaranty of due process.

- Our courts, while never unmindful of their primary duty to administer justice, without fear or favor, and to
dispose of these cases speedily and in as inexpensive a manner as is possible for the court and the
parties, should refrain from showing any semblance of one-sided or more or less partial attitude in order
not to create any false impression in the minds of the litigants. For obvious reasons, it is the bounden duty
of all to strive for the preservation of the people's faith in our courts.

( PINAY- Court itself raises the contention that the case involves a violation of the accuseds right to due
process in the sense that it was obvious that the Sandiganbayan was overzealous in its attempt to convict
parties involved as seen in the volume of questions asked, and the manner the same were posed (cross
examinations characteristic of confrontation, probing and insinuation). To quote Justice Cruz, Respect for
the Constitution is more important that securing a conviction based on a violation of the rights of the
accused. Sandiganbayan was obviously biased, denying Tabuena and parties involves the requirement
of the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. As a consequence of such violation of due process, the order
of Sandiganbayan was found void. )