6 - Bustos v. Lucero - Substantive Law Vis A Vis Remedial Law

CIVPRO – MORENO DIGESTS 2020-2021
6 Bustos v. Lucero General Provisions
Substantive Law vis a vis Remedial Law

____________________________________________________________________________
DOMINADOR B. BUSTOS vs. ANTONIO G. LUCERO

[G.R. No. L-2068. October 20, 1948.]
The petitioner, an accused in a criminal case, filed a motion with the CFI 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.
TUASON, J:
The right of a defendant to be confronted with and cross-examine the witnesses for the
prosecution in a preliminary investigation granted by law in force prior to the promulgation of the
Rules of Court is not a Substantive right but a mere matter of procedure. Therefore, the Court
can suppress it by virtue of Section 11, Rule 108.
FACTS:
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.
According to the memorandum submitted by the petitioner's attorney to the Court or First Instance
in support of his motion, the accused, assisted by counsel, appeared at the preliminary
investigation wherein 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:
W/N denial of the motion violates the accused’s constitutional right to due process.
HELD:
NO, jurisprudence provides 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
____________________________________________________________________________
CIVPRO – MORENO DIGESTS (2020-2021)
BUCU, GOLLA, GUICO, PALOMERA


____________________________________________________________________________
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 Court is 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. L-1336, 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 the Court made it clear that the "defendant cannot, as a matter of right, compel the
complainant and his witnesses to repeat in his presence what they had said at the preliminary
examination before the issuance of the order of arrest." 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.
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.
DOCTRINE:
1. ID.; SUBSTANTIVE LAW AND ADJECTIVE LAW, DEFINED AND DISTINGUISHED.;
Substantive law creates substantive rights and the two terms in this respect may be said to be
synonymous. Substantive rights is a term which includes those rights which one enjoys under the
legal system prior to the disturbance of normal relations. (60 C. J., 980.) 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.
2. ID.; ID.; — 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.
3. ID.; PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AS REMEDIAL IN NATURE. — Preliminary investigation
is eminently and essentially remedial; it is the first step taken in a criminal prosecution.
____________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________
4. ID.; SECTION 11 OF RULE 108 AS PROCEDURAL. — As a rule of evidence, section 11 of

Rule 108 is also procedural. Evidence — which is "the mode and manner of proving the competent
facts and circumstances on which a party relies to establish the fact in dispute in judicial
proceedings" — is identified with and forms part of the method by which, in private law, rights are
enforced and redress obtained, and, in criminal law, a law transgressor is punished. Criminal
procedure refers to pleading, evidence and practice. (State vs. Capaci, 154 So., 419; 179 La.,
462.) The entire rules of evidence have been incorporated into the Rules of Court. We can not
tear down section 11 of Rule 108 on constitutional grounds without throwing out the whole code
of evidence embodied in these Rules.
____________________________________________________________________________

6 - Bustos v. Lucero - Substantive Law Vis A Vis Remedial Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6 - Bustos v. Lucero - Substantive Law Vis A Vis Remedial Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVPRO – MORENO DIGESTS 2020-2021

6 Bustos v. Lucero General Provisions

Substantive Law vis a vis Remedial Law

DOMINADOR B. BUSTOS vs. ANTONIO G. LUCERO

CIVPRO – MORENO DIGESTS (2020-2021)

BUCU, GOLLA, GUICO, PALOMERA

Substantive Law vis a vis Remedial Law

CIVPRO – MORENO DIGESTS (2020-2021)

BUCU, GOLLA, GUICO, PALOMERA

Substantive Law vis a vis Remedial Law

4. ID.; SECTION 11 OF RULE 108 AS PROCEDURAL. — As a rule of evidence, section 11 of

CIVPRO – MORENO DIGESTS (2020-2021)

BUCU, GOLLA, GUICO, PALOMERA

You might also like