Scribd
Upload
229 views

People V Adora

The document discusses a case where a woman named Cecilia Cotorno was raped four times by Marieto Adora, who she was entrusted to as he was married to her aunt. She did not reveal the rapes until she became pregnant. Adora was convicted of rape by the trial court. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge did not show bias in his questioning of witnesses, but rather appropriately sought to clarify facts and the witness' demeanor.

Uploaded by

Melissa S. Chua
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
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
229 views

People V Adora

The document discusses a case where a woman named Cecilia Cotorno was raped four times by Marieto Adora, who she was entrusted to as he was married to her aunt. She did not reveal the rapes until she became pregnant. Adora was convicted of rape by the trial court. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge did not show bias in his questioning of witnesses, but rather appropriately sought to clarify facts and the witness' demeanor.

Uploaded by

Melissa S. Chua
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
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

G.R. No. 116528-31. July 14, 1997 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIETO ADORA, accusedappellant.

When Cecilia Cotornos mother dies, she was entrusted to Apolonia, sister of Cecilias father, Ricardo, and Adora husband of Apolonia. However, Cecilia underwent a painful experience. She was raped for four times by Adora whom he had revered as a father. She had no choice but yields her body and honor because the accused had threatened to behead her and her aunt, Apolonia, wife of the accused. It was only after she was noticed to be pregnant that she revealed the bestial deeds of accused. Adora was convicted with the crime of rape by the Regional Trial Court. Hence this petition. Whether or not there was an impartial decision by the trial judge? Trial judges must be accorded a reasonable leeway in directing questions to witnesses as may be essential to elicit relevant facts and to make the record speak the truth. In such an effort, a judge may examine or cross-examine a witness. 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. This is not only the right but also the duty of a trial judge. Under our system of legal procedure where he is judge of both the law and the facts, it is often expedient or even necessary in the due and faithful administration of justice for the presiding judge, in the exercise of sound discretion, to question a witness in order that his judgment may rest upon a full and clear understanding of the facts. In this case, the Court do not believe that the trial judge transgressed the permissible limits of what questions he could propound to a witness. the trial judge sought to elicit information on whether appellant used sufficient intimidation on the victim. For the record, he wanted only to elucidate how the witness appeared to the court as she was testifying on the stand. That the answers of the witness formed part of the decision is not a proof of prejudgment or bias towards the prosecution.

You might also like