Efren Anciro vs. People of the Philippines G.R No. L-107819 December 17, 1993 TOPIC: Arraignment and Plea (Rule 116) FACTS: Efren Anciro was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the Regional Trial Court for the rape of Gloria Dalin on February 23, 1979 in Carmona, Cavite. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals contesting that he was convicted on the basis of the testimony of the offended party even if it was incomplete and was not their party’s fault. On June 25, 2002, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. It ruled that t he accused was not denied his right to cross- examination, even though it was not entirely completed. The records of the case would reveal that the defense was afforded ample opportunity for cross-examination. After the direct-examination of the offended party, the trial court granted the motion of the defense for a continuance of the hearing on another date to allow it to prepare for a thorough examination of the offended party's testimony. On the date set for the continuation of the cross-examination, the offended party was present and in fact was sufficiently interrogated by the defense counsel. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not the cross-examination conducted is valid even if the testimony of the private complainant was not finished RULING: Yes, the cross-examination is considered valid. The petitioner was not denied the right to cross-examine the offended party. It is clear that in the case at bar, the witness was ready for cross-examination, however, private respondent’s counsel, Atty. Loyola, moved the date, and when he was informed that the witness (private complainant) will be leaving the Philippines on said date, counsel was fully aware and was ready to take on another witness. The testimony of the private complainant must stand. The petitioner had not only been given sufficient opportunity to finish the cross-examination of the private complainant, by his conduct he has, as well, waived his right

Anciro vs People_CrimPro

Download DOCX Report

Upload
cassy-c-barras
View
213
Download
0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Citation preview

Efren Anciro vs. People of the Philippines G.R No. L-107819 December 17, 1993

TOPIC: Arraignment and Plea (Rule 116)

FACTS:Efren Anciro was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the Regional Trial

Court for the rape of Gloria Dalin on February 23, 1979 in Carmona, Cavite. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals contesting that he was convicted on the basis of the testimony of the offended party even if it was incomplete and was not their party’s fault.

On June 25, 2002, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. It ruled that the accused was not denied his right to cross-examination, even though it was not entirely completed. The records of the case would reveal that the defense was afforded ample opportunity for cross-examination. After the direct-examination of the offended party, the trial court granted the motion of the defense for a continuance of the hearing on another date to allow it to prepare for a thorough examination of the offended party's testimony. On the date set for the continuation of the cross-examination, the offended party was present and in fact was sufficiently interrogated by the defense counsel. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:Whether or not the cross-examination conducted is valid even if the testimony of the private complainant was not finished

RULING:Yes, the cross-examination is considered valid.

The petitioner was not denied the right to cross-examine the offended party. It is clear that in the case at bar, the witness was ready for cross-examination, however, private respondent’s counsel, Atty. Loyola, moved the date, and when he was informed that the witness (private complainant) will be leaving the Philippines on said date, counsel was fully aware and was ready to take on another witness.

The testimony of the private complainant must stand. The petitioner had not only been given sufficient opportunity to finish the cross-examination of the private complainant, by his conduct he has, as well, waived his right to further cross-examine her. His constitutional right to meet the witness face to face was not impaired. Furthermore, there is enough evidence on record to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner committed the crime of rape.