Scribd
Upload
33 views1 page

People VS

The appellants were charged with murder and sentenced to death. During the trial, the judge took on the role of interrogator, prosecution, and impeachment of witnesses rather than remaining impartial. The appellants claimed their extrajudicial confessions were obtained without legal counsel. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were denied an impartial trial as the judge disregarded their rights and seemed intent on convicting them despite their entitlement to the presumption of innocence.

Uploaded by

Ulyssis Bangsara
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
33 views1 page

People VS

The appellants were charged with murder and sentenced to death. During the trial, the judge took on the role of interrogator, prosecution, and impeachment of witnesses rather than remaining impartial. The appellants claimed their extrajudicial confessions were obtained without legal counsel. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were denied an impartial trial as the judge disregarded their rights and seemed intent on convicting them despite their entitlement to the presumption of innocence.

Uploaded by

Ulyssis Bangsara
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

29.PEOPLE VS.

OPIDA, June 13, 1986


Facts:

Appellants were charged with murder as and was sentenced to death. During the trial, the
judge conducted the interrogation of the appellants, asking adversarial and sometimes irrelevant
questions and belaboring their criminal activities and tattoos, cross-examined the lone defense
witness and took over the task of impeaching appellants’ credibility.

On direct examination, Opida challenged his extrajudicial confession, claiming it had been
obtained without observance of the rights available under Article IV, Section 20 of the
Constitution, particularly the right to counsel. Parenthetically, the extrajudicial confession of
Marcelo was also made without assistance of counsel. Opida also testified, under questioning
from his counsel, that he had been repeatedly hit with a "dos por dos" by a police officer while
he was being investigated.

The judge disregarded their rights and was in fact all too eager to convict the accused, who had
manifestly earned his enmity

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not appellants were tried by an impartial judge.

Held: NO. Convictions are based not on the mere appearance of the accused but on his actual
commission of crime, to be ascertained with the pure objectivity of the true judge who must
uphold the law for all without favor or malice and always with justice. The accused are
admittedly notorious criminals who were probably even proud of their membership in a gang
even as they flaunted their tattoos as a badge of notoriety. Nevertheless, they were entitled to
be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved and had a right not to be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law.

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