G.R. No. 98376 - People vs. Rivera

The case arose from a criminal prosecution for arson, Criminal Case No. 28820 (87), involving the destruction of the “I Love You Restaurant and Sauna Bath” owned by Juanito L. Tan, located at No. 2 L. Bustamante St., Kalookan City.
The arson was alleged to have been perpetrated by Wilfredo L. Sembrano, who, according to the prosecution, wilfully caused the fire in the early morning of May 21, 1987.
Benjamin Lee, a room boy at the establishment, was called as a key prosecution witness; he testified on December 8, 1987 by recounting that Sembrano had abruptly left the VIP room where the fire originated and ignored Lee’s call to stop.

Benjamin Lee’s testimony was detailed – he was cross-examined by the original defense counsel, then redirected and re-cross-examined before being allowed to step down.
After the prosecution completed its evidence-in-chief, a change in defense counsel occurred: the original counsel Benjamin Formoso withdrew and was replaced by Eduardo S. Rodriguez.
On June 8, 1988, the new counsel filed a motion to recall Benjamin Lee for further cross-examination. The ground for this motion was based on a general assertion that many points and questions had not been posed during the initial cross-examination, citing the gravity of the arson charge and the need to afford the accused a full opportunity to present his defense.

Despite objections from the prosecution, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Kalookan City, Branch 129, granted the motion to recall the witness.
Efforts to secure Benjamin Lee’s reappearance were unsuccessful, as the witness had terminated his employment and moved to an unspecified location.
On October 1, 1990, the private prosecutor filed a "Manifestation and Motion" seeking to dispense with the further examination of Lee and to permit the prosecution to conclude its presentation of evidence, arguing that Lee had already been thoroughly examined by the former defense counsel.
On October 2, 1990, the RTC denied the motion to dispense with the recall and ordered that Benjamin Lee’s testimony be stricken off the record due to the inability to secure his further cross-examination. The RTC noted that this deficiency was not attributable to the defense and allowed for the reception of any additional evidence on the previously scheduled date.

The Special Civil Action of Certiorari was filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, challenging the RTC’s order authorizing the recall and striking out of Benjamin Lee’s testimony.
The petition was predicated on allegations that the RTC had acted with grave abuse of discretion by relying solely on the defense counsel’s general assertions without any specific or concrete objections.

Was the RTC’s granting of the motion to recall Benjamin Lee – based primarily on general assertions of inadequate cross-examination – a proper exercise of judicial discretion under Section 9, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court?
Was the subsequent order striking out the testimony of Benjamin Lee justified, considering that the witness had already been subject to cross-examination and that no concrete evidence was presented showing that his earlier testimony had become unreliable or inadmissible?