Digests

A criminal case for double homicide and serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence was filed against Felix Wee Sit in Zamboanga City. The prosecution's key eyewitness, Patrolman Ernesto Uaje, was a permanent resident of Montalban, Rizal, which is hundreds of miles away from Zamboanga City.

Section 9 of Rule 23 of the Rules of Court (the 50-kilometer rule) applies solely to civil cases; courts possess the inherent power to compel the attendance of witnesses in criminal cases regardless of the distance of their residence.

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.

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.

Constancio Joaquin wanted a license to open and exploit a cockpit in Caloocan. The municipal authorities refused to issue it. Joaquin filed a mandamus action against the municipal president to compel the issuance of the license and requested a mandatory injunction to operate the cockpit pending the case. The CFI granted the injunction ex parte.

A court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties does not exceed its jurisdiction by making erroneous decisions or issuing irregular orders; such errors must be corrected by appeal, not certiorari.

A dispute arose over the issuance of a cockpit license. When the lower court allowed the cockpit to operate pending a mandamus case, the municipal president sought certiorari in the SC and obtained a preliminary injunction stopping cockpit operations. After the SC dismissed the certiorari, the cockpit owner sought damages for the period he was wrongfully enjoined from operating.

Certiorari is not an "action" within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure provisions relating to injunctions, and therefore the SC cannot assess damages for a wrongful injunction issued during certiorari proceedings; such damages must be pursued in a separate action in the lower court.