[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
114 views1 page

1 Bustos VS Lucero

The petitioner, Dominador Bustos, who was accused in a criminal case, filed a motion requesting that the records of the case be remanded to the justice of the peace court in order to cross-examine the complainant and witnesses. The motion was denied, which led to this proceeding. At the preliminary investigation, the accused pleaded not guilty and his counsel requested that the complainant present evidence so they could be examined, but this was objected to and denied based on Section 11 of Rule 108. The issue is whether the defendant can compel the complainant and witnesses to repeat their testimony. The ruling is that the defendant cannot compel them as a matter of right, as the constitutional right to confront witnesses does not apply to preliminary hearings.

Uploaded by

RENGIE GALO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
114 views1 page

1 Bustos VS Lucero

The petitioner, Dominador Bustos, who was accused in a criminal case, filed a motion requesting that the records of the case be remanded to the justice of the peace court in order to cross-examine the complainant and witnesses. The motion was denied, which led to this proceeding. At the preliminary investigation, the accused pleaded not guilty and his counsel requested that the complainant present evidence so they could be examined, but this was objected to and denied based on Section 11 of Rule 108. The issue is whether the defendant can compel the complainant and witnesses to repeat their testimony. The ruling is that the defendant cannot compel them as a matter of right, as the constitutional right to confront witnesses does not apply to preliminary hearings.

Uploaded by

RENGIE GALO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

BUSTOS VS.

LUCERO

FACTS:

Petitioner Dominador Bustos, accused in a criminal case, filed a motion with the Court of First Instance
of Pampanga after he had been bound to that court for trial,praying that the records 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 a warrant was issued for his arrest. The motion was denied and the same is the
subject matter of this proceeding.

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 or not the defendant can compel the complainant and his witness to repeat in his presence
what was said at the preliminary examination.

RULING:

NO!!!!
In Dequito and Saling Buhay vs. Arellano, G.R. No. L-1336, recently promulgated, in which case the
respondent justice of the peace had allowed the accused, over the complaint's objection, to recall the
complainant and her witnesses at the preliminary investigation so that they might be cross-examined,
we sustained the justice of the peace's order. We said that section 11 of Rule 108 does not curtail the
sound discretion of the justice of the peace on the matter. We said that "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 witness to repeat in his presence
what they had said at the preliminary examination before the issuance of the order of arrest. “We We
called attention to the fact that "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.

You might also like