Bustos v. Lucero

Bustos v. Lucero

G.R. No. L-2068 October 20, 1948

Tuason, J.

Facts:

                The petitioner herein, an accused in a criminal case, filed a motion with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga after he had been bound over to that court for trial, praying that the record of the case be remanded to the justice of the peace court of Masantol, the court of origin, in order that the petitioner might cross-examine the complainant and her witnesses in connection with their testimony, on the strength of which warrant was issued for the arrest of the accused. The motion was denied and that denial is the subject matter of this proceeding.

According to the memorandum submitted by the petitioner’s attorney to the Court of First Instance in support of his motion, the accused, assisted by counsel, appeared at the preliminary investigation. In that investigation, the justice of the peace informed him of the charges and asked him if he pleaded guilty or not guilty, upon which he entered the plea of not guilty. “Then his counsel moved that the complainant present her evidence so that she and her witnesses could be examined and cross-examined in the manner and form provided by law.” The fiscal and the private prosecutor objected, invoking section 11 of rule 108, and the objection was sustained. “In view thereof, the accused’s counsel announced his intention to renounce his right to present evidence,” and the justice of the peace forwarded the case to the court of first instance.

Issue:

                whether the respondent judge did not act in excess of his jurisdiction or in abuse of discretion in refusing to grant the accused’s motion to return the record for the purpose set out therein

Held:

                No. Section 11 of Rule 108 does not curtail the sound discretion of the justice of the peace on the matter. 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. 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. As a matter of fact, 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.