G.R. No. L-9660 - Amante vs. Enriquez

Fidel Amante, the petitioner, is one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 4135 for estafa, pending before the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

Amante is confined in the provincial jail in Rizal and expresses a strong desire to present witnesses in his defense.

The two witnesses Amante sought to subpoena were Alfredo Reyes and Galicano Cunanan, both of whom had been convicted of estafa in the same court and were incarcerated in the New Bilibid Prisons.

Amante filed a petition for mandamus against Judge Juan P. Enriquez, the presiding judge of the said trial court, asking the court to compel him to subpoena the two designated witnesses.

The petitioner argued that the refusal to subpoena the witnesses violated his constitutional right to compulsory process to secure defense witnesses.

In his answer, Judge Enriquez stated that his refusal was based on the petitioner’s failure to comply with a circular issued by the Department of Justice regarding the proper procedure for subpoenaing prisoners serving final sentences as witnesses.

The circular was designed to prevent abuse of the defendant’s right to secure witnesses, as well as to avoid the unnecessary risk of escape and additional expenses incurred in transferring prisoners from New Bilibid Prisons to the trial venue.

Instead of following the circular’s procedure, the petitioner opted to file a petition for mandamus rather than avail the alternative mode of taking the deposition of the witnesses, which had already been authorized by Judge Enriquez.

At the commencement of the trial on September 9, 1955, the counsel de officio informed the court that the filing of the mandamus petition was done without his knowledge or consent.

Subsequent to a conference with the prosecution, it was agreed that the sworn statements of Reyes and Cunanan, if admitted, would be sufficient to ratify the testimony, thereby obviating the need for their personal appearance in court.

Following these developments, counsel de officio announced in open court the intention to file a petition to withdraw the mandamus, indicating that the issue had become academic.

Former counsel de officio, Atty. Vivencio P. Angeles, later confirmed that the petition for mandamus had been filed solely by the petitioner without his consent, and that Amante had indicated his intent to eventually withdraw the petition.

Ultimately, the petition to withdraw the mandamus was never filed, and the matter was set for hearing on January 20, 1956.

On January 20, 1956, Amante filed a motion for postponement, citing the recent engagement of new counsel (Atty. Vicente L. Santiago) and the need for ample time to study the case record and prepare for the hearing.

The hearing was postponed to February 17, 1956. However, when the case was eventually called for hearing, no appearance was made by the petitioner or his counsel, leading to the inference that Amante had lost interest or that his new counsel recognized the futility of insisting on the subpoena without following the established procedures.

Whether the petitioner, Fidel Amante, had a constitutional right to compel Judge Juan P. Enriquez by way of mandamus to subpoena the two requested witnesses from among prisoners serving final sentences in the New Bilibid Prisons.
Whether the judge’s refusal to subpoena the witnesses, based on failure to comply with the Department of Justice circular governing such subpoenas, amounted to an abuse of discretion or a violation of the petitioner’s right to secure witnesses for his defense.
Whether the subsequent lack of proper withdrawal of the mandamus petition affected the disposition of the case at the time of its scheduled hearing.