THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RUDY REGALA and DELFIN FLORES MAKASIAR, J.

: Facts: That on or about the 13th day of June, 1964, at the Magallanes Gate in the poblacion of the Municipality of Masbate, Philippines, the above-named accused stab with a knife one Sgt. Juan Desilos Jr., a member of the Philippine Constabulary while he was then in the performance of his official duty, directly caused his instantaneous death. Judge Jose M. Angustia municipal judge of Masbate, Masbate, presented as witness declared that he knew Rodolfo Regala, as he was brought several times before his court as accused in cases involving peace and order. Lately, he convicted him of the crime of malicious mischief. He could not recall having convicted him of the crime of physical injuries; but he as the original duplicate copy of a decision of the Municipal Court of Masbate, convicting accused Rodolfo Regala of the crime of slight physical injuries. Issue: Is the accused granted of impartial trial? Held: We have found none, to any part or stage of the trial betraying the trial Judge's hostility, bias and prejudice against the appellant after the prosecution had brought forth the fact of appellant's previous criminal conviction. As a matter of fact, appellant's previous conviction of the crimes of malicious mischief and slight physical injuries was testified to only by the witness last presented by the prosecution in its evidence in chief. And the trial Judge, contrary to the claim of the appellant, gave due consideration to his evidence as shown by the fact that in the decision of conviction, the trial Judge examined extensively the testimonies of all the eight witnesses for the defense. Consequently, while the quoted portions of the judgment of conviction are interspersed with statements and phrases which properly should not have been made as they may be wrongly interpreted as indicative of bias and prejudice, such aforestated statements and phrases in the judgment of conviction do not per se constitute evidence of bias and impartiality in the conduct of the trial by the trial Judge as to violate appellant's right to an impartial trial. WE view the trial Judge's aforequoted statements and phrases as merely an expression, in the very words of appellant's counsel de officio herself, of the Judge's " ... fully justified indignation and revulsion at the commission of such a monstrous crime ..." WHEREFORE, APPELLANT RODOLFO REGALA ALIAS RUDY REGALA IS HEREBY FOUND GUILTY.