Bustos vs. Lucero

The constitutional right of an accused to be confronted by the witnesses against him does not apply to preliminary investigations; an accused cannot, as a matter of right, compel the complainant and witnesses to repeat their testimony for cross-examination.

The case involves the rights of an accused during a preliminary investigation under the old Rules of Court, specifically whether the accused can force the prosecution's witnesses to testify again in their presence for cross-examination after the witnesses had already given their statements before the issuance of the arrest warrant.

• Original Filing: Criminal case before the Justice of the Peace Court of Masantol, Pampanga
• Lower Court Decision: Justice of the Peace sustained the prosecution's objection to recalling witnesses for cross-examination; CFI Pampanga (Judge Lucero) denied the accused's motion to remand the record
• SC Action: Special civil action filed directly to the SC to compel the CFI judge to remand the case

• Preliminary Investigation: Accused Dominador Bustos, assisted by counsel, appeared at the preliminary investigation before the Justice of the Peace of Masantol. He was informed of the charges and entered a plea of not guilty.
• Demand to Cross-Examine: Counsel for the accused moved that the complainant present her evidence so her witnesses could be examined and cross-examined under oath.
• Objection Sustained: The fiscal and private prosecutor objected, invoking Section 11 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The Justice of the Peace sustained the objection.
• Waiver of Defense Evidence: Following the denial of his motion to cross-examine, the accused's counsel renounced the right to present evidence for the defense. The Justice of the Peace subsequently forwarded the case to the CFI.
• Motion to Remand: Upon reaching the CFI, the accused filed a motion praying that the record be remanded to the Justice of the Peace court to allow cross-examination of the complainant and her witnesses. The CFI denied the motion, prompting this petition.

• The accused has a right to be confronted with and cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution during the preliminary investigation.
• Section 11, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is unconstitutional and void because it diminishes the substantive right of the accused to cross-examine witnesses, which the SC has no power to modify under its rule-making authority (Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution).
• The waiver to present defense evidence was not a waiver of his right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, as evidenced by his immediate motion to remand upon reaching the CFI.

• (Implicit from the prosecution's stance in lower court) Section 11 of Rule 108 limits the defendant's rights during preliminary investigation, and the judge properly denied the request to recall witnesses.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the CFI judge acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to remand the record for cross-examination.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the constitutional right of an accused to meet witnesses face to face applies to a preliminary investigation; Whether an accused can compel the prosecution's witnesses to testify anew for cross-examination as a matter of right during preliminary investigation.

• Procedural: The CFI judge did not act in excess of jurisdiction or with abuse of discretion in refusing to grant the motion to remand.
• Substantive: The constitutional right of an accused to be confronted by witnesses does not apply to preliminary hearings. The absence of a preliminary examination does not infringe on this right. A preliminary investigation may be eliminated entirely without violating the due process right to a fair trial. While a judge has the inherent discretion to recall witnesses to bring out the truth (as established in Dequito v. Arellano), the accused cannot compel this as a matter of right. Making an absolute right subject to judicial discretion means it is not a right the accused can demand.

• Inapplicability of the Right of Confrontation in Preliminary Investigations — The constitutional right of an accused to be confronted by the witnesses against him applies to the trial, not to preliminary investigations or examinations. The absence of cross-examination at this stage is not an infringement of this right.
• Discretionary Recall of Witnesses in Preliminary Investigation — While Section 11 of Rule 108 defines the bounds of the defendant's rights, it does not restrict the inherent authority of a court to pursue a course reasonably calculated to bring out the truth. A judge has discretion to allow the recall of witnesses for cross-examination, but the defendant cannot demand it as a matter of right.

• Section 11, Rule 108, Rules of Court — Defined the bounds of the defendant's right in preliminary investigation. The SC held it does not grant the accused the right to compel cross-examination, but also does not strip the judge of discretion to allow it.
• Section 1(17), Article III, Constitution (1935) — Guarantees the right of the accused to meet the witnesses face to face. The SC held this does not apply to preliminary investigations.

• Justice Feria (Dissenting) — Argued that the right to cross-examine during preliminary investigation is a statutory substantive right that the SC cannot diminish through its rule-making power. Section 11, Rule 108 is null and void because it modifies a substantive right. Making the exercise of an absolute right dependent on the whim or caprice of the judge effectively diminishes or modifies it.
• Justice Perfecto (Dissenting) — Argued that Section 11, Rule 108 must be interpreted in harmony with the constitutional right to meet witnesses face to face. The constitutional guarantee protects the accused not only from final conviction but also from the physical, mental, and moral sufferings of the criminal process. Cross-examination at the preliminary stage allows the accused to quash groundless charges early, avoiding the burden of a full trial.