Accused-appellant would like this Court to consider that the trial judge acted unjudiciously by participating actively in the trial of the case through adverse questioning, citing as authority the case of People vs. Opida.25 [142 SCRA 295.] Appellant maintains that the trial judge went beyond the "accepted parameters for clarificatory questioning"26 [Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 17.] which violated the right of the accused to due process and therefore, ousted the trial court of origin of its jurisdiction.

We disagree. While the Court cannot help but admire the efforts of the defense counsel in ensuring that no avenue for exculpation is left unexplored, the Court is nonetheless constrained to hold that such submission is direly strained and in vain. After a careful perusal of the records on hand and the transcript of stenographic notes of the testimonies of the witnesses there is perceived no indication that the trial judge conducted himself improperly or with bias and prejudice. If at all, the court a quo’s actuations merely manifested its desire to get to the bottom of things and to make sure that it would be rendering judgment upon a clear assessment and understanding of the facts. The questioning by the trial court was neither "adversarial, irrelevant nor cruel"27 [Ibid p. 112.] and was within the proper bounds of judicial prerogative.

En Banc, Per Curiam, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODRIGO LASOLA y JAIME, accused-appellant. [G.R. No. 123152. November 17, 1999]