G.R. No.
L-2068 October 20, 1948
DOMINADOR B. BUSTOS, Petitioner, vs. ANTONIO G. LUCERO, Judge of First Instance
of Pampanga, Respondent.
FACTS:
 The petitioner was charged in a criminal case and was subjected to preliminary
investigation before the Justice of the Peace (like MTC now) of Masantol,
Pampanga, where he pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.
 Then his counsel moved that the complainant present her evidence so that her
witnesses could be examined and cross-examined in the manner and form
provided by law.
 The fiscal and the private prosecutor objected to petitioner's motion invoking
section 11, Rule 108, which states:
Sec. 11. Rights of defendant after arrest. — After the arrest of the
defendant and the delivery to the court, he shall be informed of the
complaint or information filed against him. He shall also be informed
of the substance of the testimony and evidence presented against him,
and, if he desires to testify or to present witnesses or evidence in his
favor, he may be allowed to do so. The testimony of the witnesses need
not be reduce to writing but that of the defendant shall be taken in
writing and subscribed by him.
 The objection was sustained.
 Because of this, petitioner refused to present his evidence, and the case was
forwarded to the Court of First Instance (like RTC) of Pampanga.
 The counsel for the accused petitioner filed a motion with the Court of First
Instance praying that the record of the case be remanded to the justice of the
peace of Masantol, in order that the petitioner might cross-examine the
complainant and her witnesses in connection with their testimony. The motion
was denied, and for that reason the present special civil action
of mandamus was instituted.
ISSUE: Whether or not the justice of peace erred in not allowing petitioner to hear the
testimonies of the complainant and the witnesses against him and to cross-examine
them.
HELD: NO.
 Section 11 of Rule 108 does not curtail the sound discretion of the justice of
the peace on the matter of examination of witnesses by the defendant.
 While Section 11 of Rule 108 defines the bounds of the defendant's right in
the preliminary investigation, there is nothing in it or any other law restricting
the authority, inherent in a court of justice, to pursue a course of action
reasonably calculated to bring out the truth.
 The defendant cannot, as a matter of right, compel the complaint and his
witnesses to repeat in his presence what they had said at the preliminary
examination before the issuance of the order of arrest.
 The constitutional right of an accused to be confronted by the witnesses
against him does not apply to preliminary hearings nor will the absence of a
preliminary examination be an infringement of his right to confront witnesses.
 Preliminary investigation may be done away with entirely without infringing
the constitutional right of an accused under the due process clause to a fair
trial.
JUSTICE FERIA DISSENT
 The refusal or waiver of the petitioner to present his evidence during the
investigation in the justice of the peace, was not a waiver of his alleged right
to be confronted with and cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution.
 His motion having been denied, the petitioner has filed the present action in
which he squarely attacks the validity of the provision of section 11, Rule 108,
 on the ground that it deprives him of the right to be confronted with and cross-
examine the witnesses for the prosecution, contrary to the provision of section
13, Article VIII, of the Constitution.
 Section 13, Article VIII, of the Constitution prescribes that "the Supreme Court
shall have power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and
procedure in all courts, but said rules shall not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights."
 Supreme Court is not empowered, and therefore can not enact or promulgate
substantive laws or rules, for it is obvious that rules which diminish, increase
or modify substantive rights, are substantive and not adjective laws or rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedure.
 Since the provisions of section 11 of Rule 108 as construed by this Court in
several cases, (in which the question of constitutionality or validity of said
section had not been squarely raised) do away with the defendant's right
under discussion, it follows that said section 11 diminishes the substantive
right of the defendant in criminal case, and this Court has no power or
authority to promulgate it and therefore is null and void.
SC’s RESOLUTION OF PETITIONER’S MR:
ISSUE: Whether or not section 11 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court infringes on section
13, Article VIII, of the Constitution.
HELD: NO.
 Section 11 of Rule 108 is an adjective law and not a substantive law or
substantive right. Substantive law creates substantive rights and the two terms
in this respect may be said to be synonymous.
 Substantive rights is a term which includes those rights which one enjoys
under the legal system prior to the disturbance of normal relations.
 Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates
rights, or which regulates the rights and duties which give rise to a cause of
action; that part of the law which courts are established to administer; as
opposed to adjective or remedial law, which prescribes the method of
enforcing rights or obtains redress for their invasion.
 As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that which declares what acts are
crimes and prescribes the punishment for committing them, as distinguished
from the procedural law which provides or regulates the steps by which one
who commits a crime is to be punished.
 Preliminary investigation is eminently and essentially remedial; it is the first
step taken in a criminal prosecution.
 As a rule of evidence, section 11 of Rule 108 is also procedural. We can not
tear down section 11 of Rule 108 on constitutional grounds without throwing
out the whole code of evidence embodied in these Rules.
 While section 11 of Rule 108 denies to the defendant the right to cross-
examine witnesses in a preliminary investigation, his right to present his
witnesses remains unaffected, and his constitutional right to be informed of
the charges against him both at such investigation and at the trial is
unchanged.
 During the trial proper of the case he still enjoys to the full extent the right to
be confronted by and to cross-examine the witnesses against him.