Title
People vs. Rivera
Case
G.R. No. 98376
Decision Date
Aug 16, 1991
A certiorari case challenging the RTC's order to recall and strike out a key witness's testimony in an arson trial, deemed arbitrary and an abuse of discretion by the Supreme Court.

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-96-1112)

Evidence Presentation

During the prosecution's case, witness Benjamin Lee, a room boy at the restaurant, testified that Sembrano fled from the scene of the fire and ignored his calls to stop. Following Lee's initial testimony on December 8, 1987, he was questioned again on April 26, 1988, where further examination occurred. Subsequently, the original defense counsel, Benjamin Formoso, withdrew from representation, and Eduardo S. Rodriguez entered the case.

Recall of Witness

On June 8, 1988, Atty. Rodriguez sought to recall Benjamin Lee for additional examination, asserting that the initial cross-examination was insufficient. Defense counsel cited the consequences of the gravity of the charges as justification for Lee's recall to ensure Sembrano’s full opportunity for defense. Despite objections from the prosecution, the Trial Court approved the motion. However, efforts to produce Lee for further questioning were unsuccessful, as he had left his job without providing a forwarding address.

Prosecution's Motion

On October 1, 1990, the prosecution filed a motion highlighting its failure to procure Lee’s reappearance, arguing that he had been thoroughly examined already, and requested to conclude their presentation of evidence. The Trial Court denied this motion in an Order dated October 2, 1990, asserting that Lee's testimony was struck from the record due to incomplete cross-examination, which it attributed to the prosecution's inability to produce Lee.

Supreme Court's Review of Discretion

The Supreme Court of the Philippines evaluated whether the Trial Court had exercised its discretion properly in recalling Lee and then in striking out his testimony. The Court pointed out that while the Trial Court has the authority to grant a recall, this discretion is not unfettered. It emphasized that a mere claim of the need for further examination without concrete specifics does not justify the recall.

Abuse of Discretion

It was concluded that the Trial Court acted with grave abuse of discretion by approving the recall based solely on general assertions. Additionally, the st

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.