A.C. No. 5141 - Toledo vs. Abalos

Respondent Corazon A. Flordeliza filed a complaint for serious oral defamation against petitioner Gloria R. Abrera before the Justice of the Peace of Oas, Albay.
The Justice of the Peace conducted the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. 609, issued a warrant of arrest, and admitted petitioner to bail.

The case proceeded to the second stage of the preliminary investigation.
During this stage, petitioner’s counsel sought permission to cross-examine prosecution witnesses who had testified prior to petitioner’s arrest.
The request was denied, since the interrogation of such witnesses was considered part of the first stage and not subject to the defense’s cross-examination after arrest.
Petitioner's counsel then presented evidence, including petitioner’s own testimony, under Section 11, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
Subsequently, the prosecution requested to cross-examine petitioner and the defense witnesses who were to be presented later in the investigation.
Despite an objection from petitioner’s counsel, the respondent judge issued an order dated May 5, 1956, permitting the prosecution to cross-examine petitioner and her witnesses.

Petitioner-appellant Gloria R. Abrera filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of First Instance of Albay seeking to set aside the contested order.
The central allegation was that the Justice of the Peace acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction by allowing the prosecution to cross-examine the defense witnesses, while simultaneously denying petitioner the chance to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses presented before her arrest.
The petitioner argued that such judicial action violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution and exceeded the powers granted under Section 11, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

The Court of First Instance of Albay dismissed petitioner’s petition for certiorari.
It rationalized that:

An accused is not inherently entitled to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses who testified prior to arrest; such privilege is discretionary and not a right.
Permitting the prosecution to cross-examine defense witnesses is consistent with the function of the preliminary investigation—to determine if there is sufficient ground to hold the accused for trial.

The order was justified on the principle that the investigative officer must be equipped with all available tools, including cross-examination, to uncover the truth.

Whether the Justice of the Peace acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in permitting the prosecution to cross-examine defense witnesses during the second stage of the preliminary investigation.
Whether the denial of the petitioner’s request to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses who testified prior to her arrest versus the permission granted to the prosecution to cross-examine defense witnesses violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Whether the absence of any explicit legal provision denying the cross-examination by the prosecution implicitly grants the judge the authority to allow such a procedure under Section 11, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.