Facts:

The case involves Gloria R. Abrera as the petitioner and appellant, and Ludolfo V. Munoz, the Justice of the Peace of Oas, Albay, along with Corazon A. Flordeliza as the respondents and appellees. The events leading to this case began when Corazon A. Flordeliza filed a complaint for serious oral defamation against Gloria R. Abrera in the Justice of the Peace Court of Oas, Albay. The Justice of the Peace conducted a preliminary investigation, during which a warrant of arrest was issued against Abrera, who was subsequently admitted to bail. The preliminary investigation was divided into two stages. During the second stage, Abrera's counsel requested to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses who had testified before her arrest. However, the Justice of the Peace denied this request, stating that the preliminary investigation had already progressed to its second stage. Abrera then began presenting her evidence by testifying on her own behalf. Following her testimony, the pros...

Facts:

1. Initiation of the Case:

   • Respondent Corazon A. Flordeliza filed a complaint for serious oral defamation against petitioner Gloria R. Abrera in the Justice of the Peace Court of Oas, Albay.
   • The Justice of the Peace conducted the first stage of the preliminary investigation, issued a warrant of arrest, and admitted the petitioner to bail.

2. Second Stage of Preliminary Investigation:

   • During the second stage of the preliminary investigation, petitioner's counsel requested permission to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses who had testified prior to the petitioner's arrest.
   • The respondent judge denied this request, stating that the preliminary investigation was already in its second stage.

3. Presentation of Defense Evidence:

   • Petitioner testified for herself as part of her defense.
   • The prosecution sought to cross-examine the petitioner, but her counsel objected.
   • The respondent judge issued an order dated May 5, 1956, allowing the prosecution to cross-examine the petitioner and her witnesses.

4. Motion for Reconsideration and Petition for Certiorari:

   • Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
   • She then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of First Instance of Albay, alleging that the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine her and her witnesses.

5. Lower Court's Decision:

   • The lower court dismissed the petition for certiorari, ruling that the accused has no right to demand cross-examination of prosecution witnesses prior to arrest and that the prosecution could cross-examine defense witnesses during the second stage of the preliminary investigation.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Purpose of Preliminary Investigation:

   • A preliminary investigation is conducted to determine whether there is sufficient ground to hold the accused for trial or to discharge them if the evidence is insubstantial.
   • The investigating officer must be equipped with adequate powers to fulfill this function effectively.

2. Cross-Examination in Preliminary Investigation:

   • Cross-examination, whether by the judge or the prosecution, is a tool to uncover the truth by contrasting opposing testimonies.
   • The prosecution's cross-examination of defense witnesses is permissible to ensure a fair and accurate determination of probable cause.

3. Discretion of the Investigating Judge:

   • The investigating judge has discretion to allow or deny cross-examination of witnesses, depending on the circumstances of the case.
   • The petitioner was not deprived of any vested right, as the refusal to allow her to cross-examine prosecution witnesses was a matter of discretion, not a denial of a constitutional right.

4. Equal Protection Clause:

   • The petitioner's claim of a violation of the equal protection clause is unfounded, as the refusal to allow her to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and the allowance of the prosecution to cross-examine her witnesses are based on the nature and purpose of the preliminary investigation.

5. No Abuse of Discretion:

   • There was no showing of abuse of discretion by the respondent judge in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine the petitioner and her witnesses.