10. Evi_People v. Rivera

8/20/2019 10. Evi_People v. Rivera

1/8

People v. Rivera 200 SCRA 786 (1991)

Facts:

Accused in that case o arson is !ilredo ". Se#$rano. %t is the

prosecution&s theor' that he illull' caused the ire in the earl'

#ornin o *a' 21+ 1987 hich totall' $urned and destro'ed the second

and third loors o the ,% "ove -ou Restaurant and Sauna ath, oned

$' /uanita ". an.

A#on the itnesses presented $' the overn#ent to de#onstrate

Se#$rano&s culpa$ilit' as ena#in "ee+ a roo# $o' o the restaurant

and $ath. "ee testiied on direct e3a#ination at the hearin o

4ece#$er 8+ 1987. 5is testi#on' as essentiall' that Se#$rano had run

out o the %P roo# here the ire had started and reused to heed his

("ee&s) call to stop. "ee too the itness stand aain on April 26+

1987 durin hich he as crosse3a#ined $' deense counsel+ ave

additional evidence on redirect e3a#ination+ as aain uestioned on

recrosse3a#ination $' the sa#e deense counsel+ and thereater

alloed to step don.

he prosecution co#pleted presentation o its evidenceinchie in due

course. ut $eore it could rest its case+ and to (2) #onths or so

ater ena#in "ee had co#pleted his testi#on'+ the deendant&s

oriinal counsel+ ena#in :or#oso+ ithdre his appearance and as

su$stituted $' another attorne'+ ;duardo S. Rodriue


2/8

So+ on =cto$er 1+ 1990 the private prosecutor iled a ,*aniestation

and *otion, drain attention to the ina$ilit' to procure the re

appearance o itness "ee or hich ,the prosecution could not $e held

lia$le+, and to the act that ,"ee has alread' $een thorouhl'

e3a#ined $' the or#er deense counsel+, and pra'in upon these

pre#ises ,that the arther e3a#ination o ena#in "ee $e dispensedith and ... the prosecution ... alloed to ter#inate the presentation

o its evidence.,

' =rder dated =cto$er 2+ 1990+ the rial Court denied the #otion to

dispense ith the recall o ena#in "ee. %n act+ it ordered the

testi#on' o ena#in "ee or the prosecution 33 stricen o the

record or lac o co#plete crosse3a#ination, $ecause the itness

could no loner $e ound+ and ,the ailure o counsel or the accused

to urther crosse3a#ine the itness is not the ault o the deense.

%n the sa#e order+ the Court also set the ,reception o urther

evidence or the prosecution+ i an'+ on =cto$er 2?+ 1990 33 as

earlier scheduled., Su$seuentl'+ it denied the private prosecutor&s

#otion or reconsideration o the order. 5ence+ the action at $ar+

instituted $' the =ice o the Solicitor eneral.

he rit o certiorari pra'ed or ill issue. he rial Court acted

ith rave a$use o discretion in authori


3/8

suicient round or recall o itnesses ould #ae the recall o

itness no loner discretionar' $ut #inisterial. So#ethin #ore than

the $are assertion o the need to propound additional uestions is

essential $eore the Court&s discretion #a' rihtull' $e e3ercised to

rant or den' recall. here #ust $e a satisactor' shoin o so#e

concrete+ su$stantial round or the recall. here #ust $e asatisactor' shoin on the #ovant&s part+ or instance+ that

particularl' identiied #aterial points ere not covered in the cross

e3a#ination+ or that particularl' descri$ed vital docu#ents ere not

presented to the itness hose recall is pra'ed or+ or that the

crosse3a#ination as conducted in so inept a #anner as to result in a

virtual a$sence thereo. A$sent such particulars+ to repeat+ there

ould $e no oundation or a trial court to authori


4/8

==================================================

===================================

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

GR No !"#$% &u'ust (%) (!!(

PEOP*E OF T+E P+I*IPPINES) petitione,s)

-s

+ON .&/&NI S RIVER&) 0u1'e) .,anch (2! ) Re'ional T,ial Cou,t of 3aloo4an Cit5)

an1 6I*FREDO * EM.R&NO) ,espon1ent

The Solicito, Gene,al fo, petitione,

E1ua,1o S Ro1,i'ue7 fo, p,i-ate ,espon1ent

N&RV&S&) 08p


5/8

The special ci-il action of ce,tio,a,i at ba, institute1 in this Cou,t to annul an o,1e,

,en1e,e1 b5 the Re'ional T,ial Cou,t at 3aloo4an Cit5) .,anch (2!) in a p,osecution

fo, a,son 1oc4ete1 in that Cou,t as C,i9inal Case No 2""2: ;"$ilfull5 cause1 the ?,e in the ea,l5 9o,nin' of Ma5 2() (!"$ >hich totall5

bu,ne1 an1 1est,o5e1 the secon1 an1 thi,1 @oo,s of the AI *o-e /ou Restau,ant an1

Sauna .athA o>ne1 b5 0uanita * Tan) locate1 at No 2 * .usta9ante St 3aloo4an

Cit5 (

&9on' the >itnesses p,esente1 b5 the Go-e,n9ent to 1e9onst,ate Se9b,anos

culpabilit5 >as .enBa9in *ee) a ,oo9 bo5 of the ,estau,ant an1 bath *ee testi?e1

on 1i,ect ea9ination at the hea,in' of Dece9be, ") (!"$ +is testi9on5 >as

essentiall5 that Se9b,ano ha1 ,un out of the VIP ,oo9 >he,e the ?,e ha1 sta,te1

an1 ,efuse1 to hee1 his ;*ees< call to stop *ee too4 the >itness stan1 a'ain on

&p,il 2%) (!"$ 1u,in' >hich he >as c,ossea9ine1 b5 1efense counsel) 'a-e

a11itional e-i1ence on ,e1i,ect ea9ination) >as a'ain uestione1 on ,ec,oss

ea9ination b5 the sa9e 1efense counsel) an1 the,eafte, allo>e1 to step 1o>n 2

The p,osecution co9plete1 p,esentation of its e-i1enceinchief in 1ue cou,se .ut

befo,e it coul1 ,est its case) an1 t>o ;2< 9onths o, so afte, .enBa9in *ee ha1

co9plete1 his testi9on5) the 1efen1ants o,i'inal counsel) .enBa9in Fo,9oso)

>ith1,e> his appea,ance an1 >as substitute1 b5 anothe, atto,ne5) E1ua,1o SRo1,i'ue7 # The latte, then ?le1 a 9otion on 0une ") (!"" to ,ecall .enBa9in *ee

fo, fu,the, ea9ination The ',oun1 ,elie1 upon b5 &tt5 Ro1,i'ue7 >as si9pl5

that afte, he ha1 ,e-ie>e1 the ,eco,1 of .enBa9in *ees testi9on5) he ca9e to the

conclusion that A the,e see9s to be 9an5 points an1 uestions that shoul1 ha-e

been as4e1 but >e,e not p,ofoun1e1 ;sic< b5 the othe, 1efense counsel >ho

con1ucte1 ;the c,ossea9inationas on this a-e,9ent) an1 counsels

,efe,ence to Athe ',a-it5 of the oense cha,'e ;sicas sou'ht to be Busti?e1 O-e, obBections of the p,osecution) the

Cou,t H ',ante1 the 9otion

Eo,ts >e,e the,eafte, ee,te1 to cause >itness .enBa9in *ee to a'ain appea,

befo,e the Cou,t fo, fu,the, c,ossea9ination These eo,ts 9et >ith no success

an1 the t,ial ha1 to be postpone1 se-e,al ti9es It appea,s that *ee ha1 te,9inate1

his e9plo59ent an1 9o-e1 else>he,e >ithout in1icatin' his ne> a11,ess


6/8

So) on Octobe, () (!!: the p,i-ate p,osecuto, ?le1 a AManifestation an1 MotionA

1,a>in' attention to the inabilit5 to p,ocu,e the ,eappea,ance of >itness *ee fo,

>hich Athe p,osecution coul1 not be hel1 liable)A an1 to the fact that A*ee has

al,ea15 been tho,ou'hl5 ea9ine1 b5 the fo,9e, 1efense counsel)A an1 p,a5in'upon these p,e9ises Athat the fa,the, ea9ination of .enBa9in *ee be 1ispense1

>ith an1 the p,osecution allo>e1 to te,9inate the p,esentation of its

e-i1enceA

.5 O,1e, 1ate1 Octobe, 2) (!!:) % the T,ial Cou,t 1enie1 the 9otion to 1ispense

>ith the ,ecall of .enBa9in *ee In fact) it o,1e,e1 the testi9on5 of .enBa9in *ee fo,

the p,osecution st,ic4en o the ,eco,1 fo, lac4 of co9plete c,ossea9inationA

because the >itness coul1 no lon'e, be foun1) an1 Athe failu,e of counsel fo, the

accuse1 to fu,the, c,ossea9ine the >itness is not the fault of the 1efense $

In the sa9e o,1e,) the Cou,t also set the A,eception of fu,the, e-i1ence fo, the

p,osecution) if an5) on Octobe, 2#) (!!: as ea,lie, sche1ule1A Subseuentl5)

it 1enie1 the p,i-ate p,osecuto,s 9otion fo, ,econsi1e,ation of the o,1e, " +ence)

the action at ba,) institute1 b5 the OJce of the Solicito, Gene,al

The >,it of ce,tio,a,i p,a5e1 fo, >ill issue The T,ial Cou,t acte1 >ith ',a-e abuse of

1isc,etion in autho,i7in' the ,ecall of >itness .enBa9in *ee o-e, the obBections ofthe p,osecution) an1 in late, st,i4in' out sai1 >itness testi9on5 fo, >ant of fu,the,

c,ossea9ination

The,e is no 1oubt that a T,ial Cou,t has 1isc,etion to ',ant lea-e fo, the ,ecall of a

>itness This is clea, f,o9 a ,ea1in' of Section !) Rule (#2 of the Rules of Cou,t) as

a9en1e1) ! -i78

SEC ! Recallin' >itnessK &fte, the ea9ination of a >itness b5 both si1eshas been conclu1e1) the >itness cannot be ,ecalle1 >ithout lea-e of the cou,t The

cou,t >ill ',ant o, >ithhol1 lea-e in its 1isc,etion) as the inte,ests of Bustice 9a5

,eui,e


7/8

.ut ob-iousl5 that 1isc,etion 9a5 not be ee,cise1 in a -acuu9) as it >e,e) enti,el5)

isolate1 f,o9 a pa,ticula, set of atten1ant ci,cu9stances The 1isc,etion to ,ecall a

>itness is not p,ope,l5 in-o4e1 o, ee,cisable b5 an applicants 9e,e 'ene,al

state9ent that the,e is a nee1 to ,ecall a >itness Ain the inte,est of Bustice)A o, Ain

o,1e, to ao,1 a pa,t5 full oppo,tunit5 to p,esent his case)A o, that) as he,e) Athe,e

see9s to be 9an5 points an1 uestions that shoul1 ha-e been as4e1A in the ea,lie,inte,,o'ation To ,e'a,1 ep,esse1 'ene,alities such as these as suJcient ',oun1 fo,

,ecall of >itnesses >oul1 9a4e the ,ecall of >itness no lon'e, 1isc,etiona,5 but

9iniste,ial So9ethin' 9o,e than the ba,e asse,tion of the nee1 to p,opoun1

a11itional uestions is essential befo,e the Cou,ts 1isc,etion 9a5 ,i'htfull5 be

ee,cise1 to ',ant o, 1en5 ,ecall The,e 9ust be a satisfacto,5 sho>in' of so9e

conc,ete) substantial ',oun1 fo, the ,ecall The,e 9ust be a satisfacto,5 sho>in' on

the 9o-ants pa,t) fo, instance) that pa,ticula,l5 i1enti?e1 9ate,ial points >e,e not

co-e,e1 in the c,ossea9ination) o, that pa,ticula,l5 1esc,ibe1 -ital 1ocu9ents

>e,e not p,esente1 to the >itness >hose ,ecall is p,a5e1 fo,) o, that the c,oss

ea9ination >as con1ucte1 in so inept a 9anne, as to ,esult in a -i,tual absence

the,eof &bsent such pa,ticula,s) to ,epeat) the,e >oul1 be no foun1ation fo, a t,ial

cou,t to autho,i7e the ,ecall of an5 >itness

In the case at ba,) the ,espon1ent T,ial Cou,t ',ante1 the 1efen1ants 9otion fo,

,ecall on nothin' 9o,e than sai1 9o-ants 'ene,al clai9 that ce,tain uestions K

unspeci?e1) it 9ust be st,esse1 K ha1 to be as4e1 In 1oin' so) it acte1 >ithout

basis) ee,cise1 po>e, >hi9sicall5 o, cap,iciousl5) an1 ',a-el5 abuse1 its

1isc,etion

So) too) the ,espon1ent Cou,t acte1 >hi9sicall5) cap,iciousl5) an1 opp,essi-el5) in

othe, >o,1s) ',a-el5 abuse1 its 1isc,etion) in o,1e,in' the st,i4in' out of the enti,e

testi9on5 of .enBa9in *ee afte, it appea,e1 that he coul1 no lon'e, be foun1 an1

p,o1uce1 fo, fu,the, ea9ination In the ?,st place) the Cou,t acte1 unilate,all5)

>ithout an5 9otion to this eect b5 the 1efense an1 thus >ithout acco,1in' the

p,osecution a p,io, oppo,tunit5 to sho> >h5 the st,i4in' out shoul1 not be 1ec,ee1

Mo,e i9po,tantl5) the st,i4in' out >as 1i,ecte1 >ithout an5 sho>in' >hate-e, b5

the 1efense of the in1ispensabilit5 of fu,the, c,ossea9ination) >hat it >as that

>oul1 ha-e been elicite1 b5 fu,the, c,ossea9ination ,en1e,in' -alueless all that

the >itness ha1 p,e-iousl5 state1 It shoul1 be st,esse1 that *ee >as subBecte1 both

to c,ossea9ination an1 ,ec,ossea9ination b5 fo,9e, counsel of the accuse1

Se9b,ano Ob-iousl5 the latte, >as satis?e1 that the,e ha1 been suJcient c,oss

ea9ination of the >itness &bsence of c,ossea9ination 9a5 not the,efo,e be

in-o4e1 as ',oun1 to st,i4e out *ees testi9on5 ;as bein' hea,sa5in' >hate-e, in this case that it >as the p,osecution that place1 the >itness

be5on1 the ,each of the Cou,t) 9uch less of the epecte1 natu,e o, teno, of his


8/8

a11itional testi9on5 >hich) because not p,esente1) >oul1 necessa,il5 cause the

e-i1ence ea,lie, 'i-en b5 *ee to beco9e hea,sa5 o, othe,>ise inco9petent) an1

the,efo,e) a9enable to bein' st,ic4en f,o9 the ,eco,1

6+EREFORE) the petition is GR&NTED an1 the ,espon1ent Cou,ts challen'e1 O,1e,

1ate1 Octobe, 2) (!!: is NU**IFIED &ND SET &SIDE) >ith costs a'ainst p,i-ate

,espon1ent

IT IS SO ORDERED

C,u7) Ganca5co) G,iLo&uino an1 Me1ial1ea) 00) concu,

Documents

10. Evi_People v. Rivera