DOMINADOR B. BUSTOS, petitioner, vs. BUSTOS v.

LUCERO
ANTONIO G. LUCERO, Judge of First Instance of G.R. No. L-2068 October 20, 1948
Pampanga, respondent
G.R. No. L-2068 October 20, 1948
The petitioner herein, an accused in a criminal
case, filed a motion with the Court of First
Instance of Pampanga after he had been bound
over to that court for trial, praying that the record
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
warrant was issued for the arrest of the accused.
The motion was denied and that denial is the
subject matter of this proceeding.
ANTECEDENTS FACTS:
According to the memorandum submitted by the
petitioner's attorney to the Court of First Instance
in support of his motion, 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 a.nd her witnesses could be
examined and cross-examined in the manner and
form provided by law." The fiscal and the private The fiscal and the private prosecutor objected,
prosecutor objected, invoking section 11 of rule invoking section 11 of rule 108, and the objection
108, and the objection was sustained. "In view was sustained
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.
Leaving aside the question whether the accused,
after renouncing his right to present evidence,
and by reason of that waiver he was committed
to the corresponding court for trial, is estopped,
we are of the opinion that the respondent judge
did not act in excess of his jurisdiction or in abuse
of discretion in refusing to grant the accused's
motion to return the record for the purpose set
out therein. In Dequito and Saling Buhay vs.
Arellano, G.R. No. L1336, 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."
But we made it clear that the "defendant can not, "defendant can not, as a matter of right, compel
as a matter of right, compel the complaint and his the complaint and his witnesses to repeat in his
witnesses to repeat in his presence what they had presence what they had said at the preliminary
said at the preliminary examination before the examination before the issuance of the order of
issuance of the order of arrest." We called arrest."
attention to the fact that "the constitutional right “the constitutional right of an accused to be
of an accused to be confronted by the witnesses confronted by the witnesses against him does not
against him does not apply to preliminary apply to preliminary hearings' nor will the
hearings' nor will the absence of a preliminary absence of a preliminary examination be an
examination be an infringement of his right to infringement of his right to confront witnesses."
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.
The foregoing decision was rendered by a divided
court. The minority went farther than the
majority and denied even any discretion on the
part of the justice of the peace or judge holding
the preliminary investigation to compel the
complainant and his witnesses to testify anew.
Upon the foregoing considerations, the present
petition is dismissed with costs against the
petitioner.
RESOLUTION
This cause is now before us on a motion for
reconsideration.
In the decision sought to be reconsidered, we
said, citing Dequito and Saling Buhay vs. Arellano,
G.R. No. L-1336: "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." We took this ruling to be ample enough to
dispose the constitutional question pleaded in
the application for certiorari. Heeding the wishes
of the petitioner, we shall enlarge upon the
subject.
It is contended that section 11 of Rule 108 of the ISSUE: It is contended that section 11 of Rule 108
Rules of Court 1 infringes section 13, Article VIII, of the Rules of Court infringes section 13, Article
of the Constitution. It is said that the rule in VIII, of the Constitution. It is said that the rule in
question deals with substantive matters and question deals with substantive matters and
impairs substantive rights. impairs substantive rights.
We can not agree with this view. We are of the We are of the opinion that section 11 of Rule 108,
opinion that section 11 of Rule 108, like its like its predecessors, is an adjective law and not a
predecessors, is an adjective law and not a substantive law or substantive right. Substantive
substantive law or substantive right. Substantive law creates substantive rights and the two terms
law creates substantive rights and the two terms in this respect may be said to be synonymous.
in this respect may be said to be synonymous. Substantive rights is a term which includes those
Substantive rights is a term which includes those rights which one enjoys under the legal system
rights which one enjoys under the legal system prior to the disturbance of normal relations.
prior to the disturbance of normal relations. (60 Substantive law is that part of the law which
C.J., 980.) Substantive law is that part of the law creates, defines and regulates rights, or which
which creates, defines and regulates rights, or regulates the rights and duties which give rise to
which regulates the rights and duties which give a cause of action; that part of the law which
rise to a cause of action; that part of the law courts are established to administer; as opposed
which courts are established to administer; as to adjective or remedial law, which prescribes the
opposed to adjective or remedial law, which method of enforcing rights or obtains redress for
prescribes the method of enforcing rights or their invasion.
obtains redress for their invasion. (36 C. J., 27; 52
C. J. S., 1026.)
As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that
which declares what acts are crimes and
prescribes the punishment for committing them,
as distinguished from the procedural law which
provides or regulates the steps by which one who
commits a crime is to be punished. (22 C. J. S.,
49.) Preliminary investigation is eminently and Preliminary investigation is eminently and
essentially remedial; it is the first step taken in a essentially remedial; it is the first step taken in a
criminal prosecution. criminal prosecution.
…
Tested by this standard, we do not believe that
the curtailment of the right of an accused in a
preliminary investigation to cross-examine the
witnesses who had given evidence for his arrest is
of such importance as to offend against the
constitutional inhibition. As we have said in the As we have said in the beginning, preliminary
beginning, preliminary investigation is not an investigation is not an essential part of due
essential part of due process of law. It may be process of law.
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.
While section 11 of Rule 108 denies to the
defendant the right to cross-examine witnesses in
a preliminary investigation, his right to present his
witnesses remains unaffected, and his
constitutional right to be informed of the charges
against him both at such investigation and at the
trial is unchanged. In the latter stage of the In the latter stage of the proceedings, the only
proceedings, the only stage where the guaranty stage where the guaranty of due process comes
of due process comes into play, he still enjoys to into play, he still enjoys to the full extent the right
the full extent the right to be confronted by and to be confronted by and to cross-examine the
to cross-examine the witnesses against him. The witnesses against him.
degree of importance of a preliminary
investigation to an accused may be gauged by the
fact that this formality is frequently waived.
The distinction between "remedy" and
"substantive right" is incapable of exact
definition. The difference is somewhat a question
of degree. (Dexter vs. Edmands, 89 F., 467;
Beazell vs. Ohio, supra.) It is difficult to draw a
line in any particular case beyond which
legislative power over remedy and procedure can
pass without touching upon the substantive
rights of parties affected, as it is impossible to fix
that boundary by general condition. (State vs.
Pavelick, 279 P., 1102.) This being so, it is
inevitable that the Supreme Court in making rules
should step on substantive rights, and the
Constitution must be presumed to tolerate if not
to expect such incursion as does not affect the
accused in a harsh and arbitrary manner or
deprive him of a defense, but operates only in a
limited and unsubstantial manner to his
disadvantage. For the Court's power is not merely
to compile, revise or codify the rules of procedure
existing at the time of the Constitution's approval.
This power is "to promulgate rules concerning
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,"
which is a power to adopt a general, complete
and comprehensive system of procedure, adding
new and different rules without regard to their
source and discarding old ones.
RULING RULING
The motion is denied. The motion is denied because Sec. 11 of Rule 108
of Rules of Court does not deal with substantive
matters and therefore does not impair
substantive rights. Sec. 11 of Rule 108 of Rules of
Court is an adjective/remedial law. Madkfnks inda