While driving on his way to court, Judge D personally witnessed a vehicular accident between a motorcycle and a car. Subsequently, a criminal case arising from said accident was raffled to his court.
Should Judge D inhibit from this case? Explain. (3%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
**Yes, Judge D must compulsorily inhibit from the case.** Under **Canon 3, Section 5(a) of the New Code of Judicial Conduct** and **Rule 137, Section 1 of the Rules of Court**, a judge is compulsorily disqualified from sitting
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Why is a judge compulsorily disqualified from presiding over a case when he personally witnessed the incident?
A judge who possesses personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts is compulsorily disqualified to preserve impartiality.
Under Canon 3, Section 5(a) of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, what is the effect of extrajudicial personal knowledge?
Personal knowledge of disputed facts is a mandatory ground for compulsory disqualification under Canon 3.
Can extrajudicial personal knowledge acquired by a judge be treated as formal judicial notice?
Personal knowledge acquired outside court cannot be used as judicial notice or replace formal evidence.
What constitutional right is violated if a judge who witnessed an accident tries the resulting criminal case?
Choices available with full access.
What immediate procedural action must a judge take when a case involving facts he personally witnessed is raffled to his court?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Personal Knowledge Exception
Under Canon 3, Section 5(a) of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge is compulsorily disqualified from sitting in any proceeding where the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. Personal knowledge acquired outside of formal judicial proceedings cannot be treated as judicial knowledge. When a magistrate witnesses the underlying events of a case, personal bias or unsworn factual impressions inevitably impair cold neutrality, making compulsory inhibition mandatory under the law.
2. Judge as Witness
A fundamental principle of procedural due process dictates that a magistrate cannot simultaneously serve as a trier of fact and a material witness in the same proceeding. Having personally observed the collision, the judge possesses personal evidence regarding liability, speed, or negligence. If the judge proceeds to try the case, the parties are deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the judge regarding those personal observations, which violates constitutional due process and fundamental fairness.
3. Duty of Neutrality
Judicial impartiality requires that cases be decided solely on the evidence formally presented on the record in open court. When a judge possesses extrajudicial personal knowledge of disputed facts, the appearance of cold neutrality is irreparably destroyed in the eyes of litigants and the general public. To maintain public trust and preserve the integrity of the judiciary, the judge must immediately recuse and allow the case to be re-raffled to another impartial magistrate.