Case Digest (G.R. No. L-41166)
Facts:
People of the Philippines, Amelia K. Del Rosario and Dionisio Cerbo v. Hon. Numeriano G. Estenzo, Judge, Court of First Instance of Iloilo, and Gregorio Ojoy, G.R. No. L-41166, August 25, 1976, Supreme Court Second Division, Antonio, J., writing for the Court.
The case arose in Criminal Case No. 2891 (People v. Gregorio Ojoy) pending before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch III. After the accused had testified in his own behalf, his counsel informed the court that, for the remaining defense witnesses, he would submit their affidavits in lieu of conducting direct oral examination in open court, with the prosecution to be allowed cross-examination “on matters stated in the affidavits and on all other matters pertinent and material to the case.” A private prosecutor, Atty. Amelia K. del Rosario (one of the petitioners here), objected to that procedure. Notwithstanding the objection, respondent Judge Numeriano G. Estenzo assented to the proposed method and issued an Order dated July 30, 1975 approving submission of affidavits in lieu of oral direct testimony.
The petitioners instituted a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion because the Order contravened Sections 1 and 2, Rule 132 and Section 1, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court, which require that testimony be given orally in open court. By Resolution dated August 22, 1975, the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining respondent Judge from enforcing the questioned Order. On August 25, 1976, the Supreme Court Second D...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Judge commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by permitting the defense to present direct testimony in the form of affidavits in lieu of oral direct examination in open court?
- Do Sections 1 and 2, Rule 132 and Section 1, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court require that testimony be given orally in open court so that affidavits cannot ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)