G.R. No. L-14743 - Abrera vs. Munoz

An accused does not have the right to cross-examine witnesses presented against them during the preliminary investigation prior to their arrest.
The decision to allow or deny cross-examination is at the discretion of the judge or investigating officer.
Relevant case law supports this position, including People vs. Ramilo, Dequito vs. Arellano, and Bustos vs. Lucero.

The primary purpose of a preliminary investigation is to ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds to believe that the accused is probably guilty of the offense charged.
It also serves to determine if the evidence against the accused is substantial enough to warrant holding them for trial or if they should be discharged immediately.
Section 11, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court allows for the prosecution to cross-examine defense witnesses during the second stage of the preliminary investigation.

The denial of the opportunity to confront prosecution witnesses does not constitute a deprivation of a right but rather a refusal of a privilege.
The court found that the accused's claim of being denied equal protection under the law was without merit, as the right to cross-examine is not absolute.

The court emphasized that the powers of the investigating official should not be limited to ensure they can adequately perform their duties.
Cross-examination is essential for revealing the truth and allowing the judge to form a comprehensive understanding of the facts.
The court noted that hearing both sides is often necessary to reach an informed conclusion.

The judge's authority in a preliminary investigation is derived from broader legal principles rather than strict procedural rules.
The judge must ensure that the accused is protected from baseless or vindictive prosecutions while determining probable cause.
The court rejected concern...continue reading