Badge: Examination and Cross- Examination of Complainant Witness

Caption: DOMINADOR B. BUSTOS, petitioner,

vs.

ANTONIO G. LUCERO, Judge of First Instance of Pampanga, respondent.

1948-10-20 | G.R. No. L-2068

Ponente: TUASON, J

Syllabus: 1. Section 11 Rules 108 of Rules of Court

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, 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 two writing but that of the defendant shall be
taken in writing and subscribed by him.

Facts: Dominador Bustos, the accused filed a motion with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga,
praying that the record of the case be remanded to the justice of the peace court of Masantol, the
court of origin. This to cross-examine the complainant and her witnesses in connection with their
testimony. The motion was denied and that denial is the subject matter of this proceeding. The
accused council pleaded not guilty in the Court of First Instance. However, their request of
examining and cross-examining complainant and her witness is denied for the right was
renounced by estoppel when they refused to present eveidence in the Court of Origin.

Issues: 1. WON the respondent judge act in excess of his jurisdiction or in abuse of discretion for refusing
to grant the accused’s motion to return the record in the Court of Origin?

Ruling/ Ratio: 1 No, the respondent judge act within this jurisdiction. 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. 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.

Upon the foregoing considerations, the present petition is dismissed with costs against the
petitioner.

Analysis: Accused are given enough right to invoke due process. However, the court also protects
complainant avoid miscarriage of justice. The accused in this case is too privileged and although
he is innocent until proven guilty, it is still not an excuse to feel that a person has an unlimited
right even though you are someone accused of doing an illegal or immoral act.