Scribd
Upload
57 views

BUSTOS V. LUCERO - G.R. NO. L-2086, March 8, 1949

1) The petitioner challenged the validity of Section 11 of Rule 108, which denies the accused the right to cross-examine witnesses during a preliminary investigation. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that Section 11 is procedural/adjective law rather than substantive law, as it regulates the steps of criminal prosecution but does not declare criminal acts or prescribe punishment. 3) While Section 11 denies cross-examination during preliminary investigation, the accused's right to present witnesses is unaffected and their right to confrontation and cross-examination is preserved during the actual trial. Preliminary investigations can also be waived, so the impact on the accused is limited.

Uploaded by

Angel Mae
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
57 views

BUSTOS V. LUCERO - G.R. NO. L-2086, March 8, 1949

1) The petitioner challenged the validity of Section 11 of Rule 108, which denies the accused the right to cross-examine witnesses during a preliminary investigation. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that Section 11 is procedural/adjective law rather than substantive law, as it regulates the steps of criminal prosecution but does not declare criminal acts or prescribe punishment. 3) While Section 11 denies cross-examination during preliminary investigation, the accused's right to present witnesses is unaffected and their right to confrontation and cross-examination is preserved during the actual trial. Preliminary investigations can also be waived, so the impact on the accused is limited.

Uploaded by

Angel Mae
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

5. BUSTOS V. LUCERO | G.R. NO.

L-2086, March 8, 1949


Facts
The petitioner in this case appeared at the preliminary investigation before the Justice of
Peace of Masantol, Pampanga, and after being informed of the criminal charges against him and
asked if he pleaded guilty or not guilty, upon which he entered the plea of not guilty. Petitioner’s
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.
As such, 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.
The counsel for the accused petitioner filed a motion with the CFI praying that the record
of the case be remanded to the justice of peace of Masantol, on order that the petitioner might
cross-examine the complainant and her witnesses in connection with their testimony. The
motion was denied and for that reason the present special civil action of mandamus was
instituted. Petitioner squarely attacks the validity of the provision of section 11 or Rule 108, on
the ground that it deprives him of the right to be confronted with and cross-examine the
witnesses for the prosecution, contrary to the provision of section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution.
Issue
Whether or not Section 11, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is an infringement to the
provision of section 13, Article VIII, of the Constitution
Ruling
No. The Supreme Court ruled 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 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. Substantive
rights are a term which includes those rights which one enjoys under the legal system prior to the
disturbance of normal relations.
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.
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 proceedings, the only stage
where the guaranty of due process comes into play, he still enjoys to the full extent the right to be
confronted by and to cross-examine the witnesses against him. The degree of importance of a
preliminary investigation to an accused may be gauged by the fact that this formality is
frequently waived. 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.

You might also like