See Relevant Post:
Most commonly such motions for recusal are predicated upon a claim that the judge is biased in favor of one party, or against another, or that a reasonable objective observer would think he might be. But such motions are also made on many other grounds, including the challenged judge’s:
● Interest in the subject matter, or relationship with someone who is interested in it● Background or experience, such as the judge’s prior work as a lawyer● Personal knowledge about the parties or the facts of the case● Ex parte communications with lawyers or non-lawyers● Rulings, comments or conduct [Source: A quick internet search]
A judge who has a personal conflict of interest in the case may nonetheless stay on the case instead of recusing herself if all the parties and the judge understand the conflict, but agree the judge should stay on anyway. In these cases, which are not common, the parties and the judge usually put their decision on the record in case one of the parties tries to appeal later on the grounds that the judge should have recused herself.
We also note that the Re-sentencing Judge did not make any findings as to the number of times the Respondent had struck the deceased. There are however a number of observations concerning this in the CA (Conviction) Decision. After considering the statements given to the police by Galing, the CA (Conviction) observed at  to  that:...(para 53)The paragraphs above, read together, clearly show that the CA (Conviction) found that the Respondent had struck the deceased on the head with severe force more than two times. Of course, as earlier explained, neither the CA (Conviction) nor the Trial Judge was required to make a specific finding as to the exact number of times the Respondent had struck the deceased on the head. We also note that the Trial Judge (at  to  of his decision) had made similar observations as to the medical evidence before him, but did not conclusively state the number of strikes the Respondent had inflicted upon the deceased:..(para 56)
The difference in views between the majority and the minority is a matter of fact and not of law. As a matter of law, there is a concurrence in views on the test that is to be employed in determining when the death penalty should be imposed. It is common ground, however, that the disagreement is one of fact. Particularly, we note that the minority found that there was insufficient evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent had hit the deceased on the head at least three or more times, or that the Respondent had hit the deceased with such huge force as to cause most of the fractures in the deceased’s skull. Given this insufficiency, the minority was of the opinion that therefore, the threshold of the test (ie, whether the Respondent had acted in a way which exhibits viciousness or a blatant disregard for human life), had not been crossed.(para 74)