Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2068)
Facts:
Dominador B. Bustos v. Hon. Antonio G. Lucero, G.R. No. L-2068, March 08, 1949, Supreme Court En Banc, Tuason, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Dominador B. Bustos sought relief by way of a motion for reconsideration after an earlier resolution of the Court addressing constitutional objections to Section 11 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The respondent is Hon. Antonio G. Lucero, Judge of Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga.
Bustos challenged Section 11 of Rule 108 on the ground that it infringed Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution by diminishing substantive rights — specifically the accused’s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses during preliminary investigation. The Court’s earlier disposition relied on Dequito, et al. v. Arellano, G.R. No. L-1336, holding that the constitutional right of confrontation does not apply to preliminary hearings and that abolishing preliminary investigation would not violate due process. The present motion for reconsideration asked the Court to expand or rethink that ruling.
The Supreme Court (majority) reaffirmed that Section 11 of Rule 108 is procedural (an adjective or remedial rule) rather than substantive, and denied the motion for reconsideration. The majority grounded its conclusion in distinctions between substantive law (which creates and defines rights and offenses) and procedural or remedial law (which prescribes methods of enforcing rights), and it relied on authorities including Beazell v. Ohio and local precedents to conclude that procedural changes that do not deprive an accused of a defense or operate in a harsh and arbitrary manner are constitutionally tolerable. Six justices — Moran, Paras, Labrador, Bengzon, Briones, and Montemayor, JJ. — concurred with the resolution. Justice Reyes took no part.
A separate dissenting opinion was filed by Justice Feria, arguing that the right to confrontation at preliminary investigation embodied in pre‑existing General Orders (No. 58, as amended) constituted a substantive right which the Court could not abrogate under its rule‑making power; Feria would have granted the motion for rec...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does Section 11 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights in violation of Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution?
- Does denying the accused the right to confront and cross‑examine prosecution witnesses during a preliminary investigation violate the accused’s constitutio...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)