Case Digest (G.R. No. 162037)
Facts:
On October 20, 1948, the Supreme Court promulgated its decision in Dominador B. Bustos v. Antonio G. Lucero (G.R. No. L-2068). Petitioner Dominador B. Bustos, accused in a criminal case before the Justice of the Peace of Masantol, Pampanga, was bound over to the Court of First Instance of Pampanga for trial. During the preliminary investigation, petitioner, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty and moved that the complainant present her evidence to permit examination and cross-examination of the complainant and her witnesses. The fiscal and private prosecutor objected under Section 11 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, and the objection was sustained. Thereupon, petitioner’s counsel renounced his right to present evidence, and the justice of the peace forwarded the record to the Court of First Instance. Before Judge Antonio G. Lucero, petitioner filed a motion to remand the record to the justice of the peace for the purpose of cross-examination. The motion was denied, prompti
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 162037)
Facts:
- Procedural Background
- Dominador B. Bustos, accused in a criminal case, was bound over by the Justice of the Peace (JP) of Masantol, Pampanga, to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pampanga for trial.
- Petitioner moved in the CFI to remand the record to the JP’s court to allow cross-examination of the complainant and her witnesses on their preliminary investigation testimony.
- Preliminary Investigation Events
- At the JP hearing, the accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty. Counsel then requested that the complainant and her witnesses present evidence and submit to cross-examination “in the manner and form provided by law.”
- The fiscal and private prosecutor objected under Section 11, Rule 108 (preliminary investigations), and the JP sustained the objection. Counsel thereupon renounced the right to present evidence, and the JP forwarded the case to the CFI.
- Motion Before the CFI and Subsequent Petitions
- Upon case arrival in the CFI, petitioner’s counsel filed a motion to remand for cross-examination; the CFI judge denied the motion.
- Petitioner instituted a special civil action (mandamus) before the Supreme Court challenging the denial as an abuse of discretion and a deprivation of his right to confront witnesses.
Issues:
- Jurisdictional and Discretionary Questions
- Did the CFI judge act in excess of jurisdiction or abuse discretion in refusing to remand the record to the JP’s court for cross-examination?
- Is the petitioner estopped from seeking cross-examination after renouncing his right to present evidence at the preliminary hearing?
- Constitutional and Rule-Making Authority
- Does Section 11 of Rule 108, which limits cross-examination rights at preliminary hearings, violate the accused’s constitutional right “to meet the witnesses face to face” (Art. III, Sec. 1[17])?
- Has the Supreme Court, under its rule-making power (Art. VIII, Sec. 13), improperly diminished a substantive right by enacting Section 11 of Rule 108?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)