9. PP vs. Gorospe, GR No.

L-51513, May 15, 1984- Buere

People v. Gorospe
GR No. L- 51513, May 15, 1984

Abad Santos, J.:

TOPIC: Presentation of testimonial evidence in relation with cross-examination.

DOCTRINE: While cross-examination is a right available to the adverse party, it is

not absolute in the sense that a cross-examiner could determine for himself the
length and scope of his cross-examination of a witness. The court has always the
discretion to limit the cross examination and to consider it terminated donated if
it would serve the ends of justice.

FACTS: Anastacia was initially abducted. She was drugged in Plaridel Bulacan and raped by
the three persons (Fajardo, Gorospe and Bulanadi). Then, she was transferred by the accused to
Nueva Ecija. She had the opportunity to seek held and report what happened. Complaint was
filed (in CFI Bulacan) against the three accused. But Fajardo was dropped as one of the accused.
Amended Complaint was submitted. Finally, Information was filed for the crime of forcible
abduction against herein appellants (Gorospe and Bulanadi). The material evidence presented
was the testimonial evidence of victim (Anastacia) and the previously-tagged-accused (Fajardo).
Both testimonies were material to the conviction of Gorospe and Bulanadi. Initially, Fajardo was
able to testify that victim was abducted and placed in his house in Bulacan. And that Anastacia
was raped by the two accused. But according to Fajardo (key witness), he did not have sex with
the victim. He was also cross-examined by the defense. But it did not further proceed upon
failure of Fajardo to attend the trial. He was later arrested. The CFI convicted the two accused of
the crime of rape with reclusion perpetua as punishment. Now this case before SC. The two
convicted appellants argue that they were deprived of the chance to cross-examine (further) the
key witness (Fajardo) after his failure to attend subsequent hearings. Despite this fact, the CFI,
according to the appellants, still convicted them for the crime of rape. For the appellants, the
cross-examination was not fully maximized and as a result., they were deprived of the chance to
(further) cross-examine Fajardo.

ISSUE: Whether the presentation of evidence (testimonial evidence of Fajardo) was proper,
despite the cross-examination not further pursued by CFI.

RULING: 1. YES.

The trial court committed no error in admitting the testimony of Fajardo although the
defense had not finished its cross-examination. An examination of the transcript of Fajardo's
testimony shows that he was subjected to detailed cross-examination on material points. In
fact, the cross-examination was lengthier than the direct examination. We adopt with approval
the statement of the court a quo on this point:

“The records show that the counsel for the accused has
extensively cross examined Fajardo. The Court could not help but
wonder what other matters not yet touched during the cross-examination
of Fajardo could still be elicited from him that would probably destroy or
 affect his testimony in-chief. If the counsel for the accused expected
Fajardo to testify further on material matters favorable to the cause of
the defense, he should have proffered such further testimony and entered
into the records how the absent witness would have testified if he were
available for further cross-examination. The failure of the said counsel to
do so indicates that every material point has been asked from Fajardo
during the time he was under examination.

While cross-examination is a right available to the adverse party,

it is not absolute in the sense that a cross-examiner could determine for
himself the length and scope of his cross-examination of a witness. The
court has always the discretion to limit the cross-examination and to
consider it terminated donated if it would serve the ends of justice.

The Court, therefore, hereby resolves to admit the testimony of

Fajardo. This resolution finds support, though indirectly, from Section 6,
Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, which empowers the court to stop the
introduction of further testimony upon a particular point when the
evidence upon it is already so full that more to the same point cannot
reasonably be expected to be additionally persuasive. The position herein
taken by the Court in brushing aside technicalities is in accordance with
a fundamental rule that the provisions of the Rules of Court shall be
liberally construed in order to promote their object and assist the parties
in obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action
or proceeding. (Section 2, Rule 1, Rules of Court)."

Moreover, even if Fajardo's testimony be disregarded the accused may nonetheless

be convicted in the light of other evidence.