Skip to content

CaseDigestsPh
Rest a little. But as soon as you can, get up and carry on. Because ever since your goal
found out that you were traveling toward it, it has been running to meet you. – Paolo
Coelho.

● HOME

● POLITICAL LAW

● CIVIL LAW

● TAXATION

● CRIMINAL LAW

● REMEDIAL LAW
● JUDICIAL ETHICS

BUSTOS vs. LUCERO (DIGEST)

September 17, 2019 by CaseDigestsPh

No. L-2068 (1948)

Tuason, J.

Criminal Law > Definition

PARTIES:

Petitioner Dominador Bustos

 Respondent Judge Antonio Lucero of CFI-Pampanga

SUMMARY:

The lower courts denied petitioner’s motion to cross-examine the complainant’s

witnesses during the preliminary investigation. The denial was based on Section 11,
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court (Rights of the defendant after Arrest) which did not
state that the defendant has the right to cross-examine the complainants witness or
witnesses. Petitioner appealed to the SC via petition for mandamus. The SC denied
the petition ruling that the lower court has the discretion to grant or deny the motion.

Thus, petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration arguing that Section 11 of
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court infringes Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
which mandates that the SC cannot promulgate rules that diminish, increase, or
modify substantive rights. Issue: WON Section 11, Rule 108 deals with substantive
matters and impairs substantive rights. NO.
DOCTRINES:

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. Preliminary investigation is eminently and essentially
remedial; it is the first step taken in a criminal prosecution.

FACTS:

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF MASANTOL, PAMPANGA

The petitioner appeared at the preliminary investigation after being informed of the
criminal charges against him. He pleaded not guilty. Petitioner then moved that the
complainant present her evidence so that her witnesses could be examined and
cross examined in the manner and form provided by law.

The fiscal and the private prosecutor objected to petitioner’s motion invoking Section
11, Rule 108, as follows:
Section 11. Rights of defendant after arrest. After the arrest of the defendant and his
delivery to the court, he shall be informed of the complaint or information filed against
him. He shall also be informed of the substance of the testimony and evidence
presented against him, and, if he desires to testify or to present witnesses or
evidence in his favor, he may be allowed to do so. The testimony of the witnesses
need not be reduced to writing but that of the defendant shall be taken in writing and
subscribed by him.

[Note that under the above Rule, it was not stated that the defendant has the
right to cross-examine the complainants witness or witnesses]

The justice of the peace sustained the objection.

CFI-PAMPANGA

In view thereof, the accused refused to present his evidence, and the case was
forwarded to the CFI-Pampanga. Petitioner filed a motion with the CFI praying that
the record of the case be remanded to the justice of the peace of Masantol, in order
that the petitioner might cross-examine the complainant and her witnesses in
connection with their testimony.
SUPREME COURT

The motion was denied, and for that reason the present special civil action of
mandamus was instituted with the Supreme Court. The SC denied the petition for
mandamus citing Dequito and Saling Buhay vs. Arellano:

Section 11 of Rule 108 does not curtail the sound discretion of the justice of the
peace to grant or deny the motion to cross-examine the complainant’s witness. 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. 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.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Supreme Court on the ground
that Section 11 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court infringes Section 13, Article VIII, of
the Constitution.
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.

ISSUE:

Whether or Not Section 11 deals with substantive matters and impairs substantive
rights. (NO)

RATIO:

We cannot agree with this view. We are of the opinion that section 11 of Rule 108,
like its predecessors, is an adjective law and not a substantive law or substantive
right.
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.

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.

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.
Preliminary investigation is eminently and essentially remedial; it is the first step
taken in a criminal prosecution.

As a rule of evidence, section 11 of Rule 108 is also procedural.

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.

The distinction between “remedy” and “substantive right” is incapable of exact

definition. The difference is somewhat a question of degree. 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.
DISPOSITIVE:

Motion denied.

J. FERIA, DISSENTING

But even assuming arguendo that it is difficult to draw the line in any particular case
beyond which the power of the court over procedure cannot pass without touching
upon the substantial right of the parties, what this Court should do in that case would
be to abstain from promulgating such rule of procedure which may increase, diminish
or modify substantive right in order to avoid violating the constitutional prohibition
above referred to.

Because as this Supreme Court is not empowered by the Constitution to legislate on

or abrogate substantive rights, but only to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and
procedure which “shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights,” this Court
cannot step on them in making the rules, and the Constitution must be presumed not
to tolerate nor expect such incursion as would affect the substantive rights of the
accused in any manner.

Categories
 CRIMINAL LAW 1

Tags

Bustos vs. Lucero case digest, Criminal Law > Definition, J. Tuason, No. L-2068

Post navigation

ATIENZA vs. JUDGE BRILLANTES (DIGEST)

ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. vs. COMELEC (DIGEST)

Feedback Form
Any comment or feedback about this digest will improve the experience of the next
user. Your identity and your entry/ies will not be published. It will be used by the author
for the sole purpose of improving the subject digest.
Name
First
Last
E-mail adress
Title of the case *
Rate this digest *
● 5 stars
● 4 stars
● 3 stars
● 2 stars
● 1 star
Comments/Suggestions
Submit
Help the author in maintaining this website by using the following links when
buying from the following merchants:

[LAZADA]

[AMAZON]

[METRODEAL]

[MR.LENS]

[GALLEON]

[GAWIN (PH)]

[WONDERFLY CPS]

[12GO ASIA]

[PHOTOBOOK PH]

[AIRPAZ]

[DENTAL DEPARTURES]
You may contact the author at [email protected]
© 2019 CaseDigestsPh • Powered by GeneratePress
Scroll back to top