Primary Holding

The defendant cannot, as a matter of right, compel the complainant and witnesses to repeat in his presence what they had said at the preliminary examination before the issuance of the order of arrest.

Background

The case arose from a criminal proceeding where the accused sought to cross-examine witnesses during preliminary investigation. After being denied this opportunity, he attempted to have the case remanded back to the justice of the peace court to exercise this right.

Facts

• 1. Petitioner was an accused in a criminal case
• 2. He appeared at preliminary investigation with counsel
• 3. He pleaded not guilty when informed of charges
• 4. His counsel moved to have complainant present evidence for cross-examination
• 5. The fiscal and private prosecutor objected, citing Section 11 of Rule 108
• 6. The justice of the peace sustained the objection
• 7. The accused's counsel renounced right to present evidence
• 8. Case was forwarded to Court of First Instance
• 9. Accused filed motion to remand case for cross-examination
• 10. Motion was denied by respondent judge

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. Right to cross-examine witnesses is a substantive right
• 2. Section 11 of Rule 108 diminishes substantive rights
• 3. Supreme Court has no power to promulgate rules that diminish substantive rights
• 4. Cross-examination is essential to protect against hasty and malicious prosecution

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Preliminary investigation is purely procedural
• 2. Section 11 of Rule 108 is valid exercise of Supreme Court's rule-making power
• 3. Constitutional right to confront witnesses doesn't apply to preliminary investigation
• 4. Cross-examination at this stage is discretionary, not mandatory

Issues

• 1. Whether the accused has an absolute right to cross-examine witnesses during preliminary investigation
• 2. Whether Section 11 of Rule 108 is constitutional
• 3. Whether the Supreme Court's rule-making power extends to limiting cross-examination rights in preliminary investigation

Ruling

• 1. Preliminary investigation is not an essential part of due process
• 2. Constitutional right to confront witnesses doesn't apply to preliminary hearings
• 3. Section 11 of Rule 108 doesn't curtail judicial discretion
• 4. Judges retain inherent authority to allow cross-examination when warranted
• 5. Absence of preliminary examination doesn't infringe constitutional rights
• 6. The rule affects accused only in limited and unsubstantial manner

Doctrines

• 1. Rule-Making Power of Supreme Court: Authority to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure
• 2. Due Process: Preliminary investigation is not an essential component
• 3. Judicial Discretion: Courts retain inherent power to pursue truth-finding measures

Precedents Cited

• 1. Dequito and Saling Buhay vs. Arellano (G.R. No. L-1336): Used to establish judicial discretion in allowing cross-examination during preliminary investigation
• 2. U.S. vs. Ocampo (18 Phil., 1): Referenced regarding due process requirements
• 3. U.S. vs. Grant and Kennedy (18 Phil., 122): Cited regarding preliminary investigation requirements
• 4. Beazell vs. Ohio (269 U.S. 167): Referenced regarding procedural changes in criminal cases

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution: Supreme Court's rule-making power
• 2. Section 11, Rule 108: Rights of defendant after arrest
• 3. General Orders No. 58: Original law on preliminary investigation
• 4. Act No. 194: Amendments to preliminary investigation procedures