G.R. No. L-1336 - Dequito vs. Arellano

The case involves petitioners Potenciana Dequito and Carlos Saling Buhay versus Hugo O. Arellano, Justice of the Peace of Padre Burgos, Quezon, and Osmundo Santiago.
The petition was filed for certiorari to review an order issued by the Justice of the Peace in Padre Burgos.
The petitioners, through the municipality’s Chief of Police, initiated a private prosecution by filing a complaint for qualified trespass to a dwelling.

During this hearing, testimony of the complainant and the witnesses had been taken, with the complainant’s testimony recorded in writing and an abstract prepared for other witnesses, in accordance with Section 6 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

Following the preliminary hearing, the Justice of the Peace issued an order of arrest based on his findings that there was probable cause to believe that the offense had been committed.
Immediately after the defendant entered his plea of not guilty, an order was given by the judge directing the private prosecution to present its witnesses.

The private prosecution, however, declined to present its witnesses then, invoking Section 11 of Rule 108, which states that after arrest the defendant must be informed of the substance of the evidence presented against him and given an opportunity to testify or present his evidence.

Mandates that in the preliminary investigation the justice of the peace takes under oath the testimony of the complainant and the prosecution witnesses.
Only the complainant’s testimony is to be reduced to writing while an abstract of witnesses’ statements is prepared.

Provides that after the arrest, the defendant must be informed of the complaint filed against him and the substance of the testimony and evidence presented.
Grants the defendant the right to testify or present evidence in his favor, though the prosecution witnesses are not required to testify again in the defendant’s presence initially.

Petitioners contended that the defendant, as a matter of constitutional right, should be allowed to have the prosecution witnesses repeat their testimony in his presence during the preliminary stage.
The majority and dissenting opinions diverged on the extension of the defendant’s right of confrontation during the preliminary investigation.

The majority opinion maintained that while the right to confrontation does not fully apply at the preliminary stage, it does not preclude the judge from exercising discretion to call for further examination of witnesses.
Dissenting opinions argued either for a broader application of the constitutional right to face witnesses (Perfecto, J. and Paras, J.) or insisted that procedural rules as set out in Section 11 of Rule 108 should limit any such discretionary action (Feria, J.).

Does the constitutional right of an accused “to confront the witnesses against him” extend to the preliminary investigation stage?
Can a defendant require that the prosecution witnesses repeat their testimony in his presence?

Whether the inherent power of the judge permits recalling or calling the prosecution witnesses for further examination despite the provisions of Section 11 of Rule 108.
If the judge may exercise discretion to ensure that the interests of justice are served by allowing cross-examination or further testing of the credibility of witnesses during the preliminary stage.

The implications of ordering the arrest after the preliminary investigation, particularly when the defendant has not had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses immediately.
Whether binding the defendant for trial based on evidence compiled exclusively from a preliminary hearing, without his direct confrontation of witnesses, is consistent with due process.