Case Name DOMINADOR B. BUSTOS, petitioner, vs. ANTIONIO G.

LUCERO, Judge of First Instance of

Pampanga, respondent.
GR No. | Date GR No. L-2068 | October 20, 1948
Topic Criminal law defined and preliminary concepts
Criminal law is part of substantive law because it involves the right of the State to prosecute
and punish crimes
Parties involved Dominador B. Bustos, Anotonio G. Lucero
Ponente Tuason, J.
General Summary Bustos, accused in a criminal case and pleaded “not guilty,” filed a motion with the Court of
First Instance of Pampanga to return the case to the court of origin, Peace Court of Masantol,
to cross-examine the complainant and her witnesses. With his motion being denied by the
lower court, Bustos then filed a special civil action of mandamus with the Supreme Court
urging the lower court’s judge, Lucero, to reconsider his motion.

Facts
● Accused in a criminal case, Bustos pleaded “not guilty” with the Peace of Court of Masantol. Bustos then asked
for the complainant and her witnesses to be cross-examined. The complainant’s counsel objected to the
accused’s demand invoking section 11 of Rule 108, of the Rules of Court.
● The accused renounced his right to present evidence and petitioned with the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga to remand the case to the court of origin, Peace Court of Masantol, so that the petitioner might
cross-examine the complainant and her witnesses, but, was denied.
● The petitioner then filed a special civil action of mandamus with the Supreme Court urging the lower court’s
judge, Lucero, for his motion to be granted.

Issue/s
● Whether the petitioner’s motion to cross-examine the petitioner’s complainant and her witnesses should be
granted or denied.

Ruling
● Denied. The court denied the motion of the petitioner and cited Dequito and Saling Buhay vs . Arellano, G.R. No.
L-1336 that says: “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 witness. 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.”

Reasoning
● The court expounded its decision by communicating that section 11 of Rule 108 does not infringe Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution.

Section 13, Art. VII of the Constitution prescribes that: “The Supreme Court shall have the power to
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice
of law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. The existing laws on pleading, practice, and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes, and
are declared Rules of Courts, subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. The
National Assembly shall have the power to repeal, alter, or supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice,
and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines”

Section 11 of Rule 108, of the Rules of Court, is a procedural/adjective law and not a substantive law or
substantive right. Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights, or which
regulates the rights and duties which give rise to a cause of action; that part of the law which courts are
 established to administer; as opposed to adjective or remedial law, which prescribes the method of enforcing
rights or obtains redress for their invasion.

Criminal law is substantive law as it declares what acts are crimes and prescribes the punishment which can be
distinguished from procedural law which regulates the steps on how the one committing the crime will be
punished. Preliminary investigation is eminently and essentially remedial. It is not an essential part of due
process of the law. Henceforth, the motion was denied.

Separate Opinions
● FERIA, J., dissenting:
(1) The premise that ‘preliminary investigation is eminently and essentially remedial’ is not correct as
“remedial law is one thing, and procedural law is another.” Section 11 of Rule 108 is not a rule of
evidence as most rules of evidence are substantive law and not procedural.
(2) “Preliminary investigation is not an essential part of due process of law. It may be suppressed entirely,
and if this may be done, mere restriction of the privilege formerly enjoyed thereunder can not be held to
fall within the constitutional prohibition.”
(3) “The distinction between remedy and 'substantive right' is incapable of exact definition;" indeed "the
difference is somewhat a question of degree," (Dexter vs . Edmonds, 89 F 487), is immaterial, because, as
said in refuting the majority's first reason, remedy and procedure are two completely different things.”

● PERFECTO, J., dissenting:

“We dissent. Our opinion in the Dequito case still stands, The motion for reconsideration should be granted.”