LORETO A. CAÑAVERAS AND OFELIA B. CAÑAVERAS, PETITIONERS , VS. JUDGE JOCELYN P. GAMBOA-DELOS SANTOS AND RODEL MARIANO, RESPONDENTS .
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 241348
- Promulgated: 2022-07-05
- Ponente: INTING, J.
Doctrine
Petitioners Loreto and Ofelia Cañaveras are the accused in a criminal case for Falsification of Public Documents. Their counsel, Atty. Vicente Dante P. Adan, failed to attend a scheduled hearing for the cross-examination of a prosecution witness, Nenita Mariano, due to an alleged eye ailment. The trial judge, Judge Jocelyn P. Gamboa-Delos Santos, construed the absence as a waiver of the petitioners' right to cross-examine the witness. The counsel's subsequent motion for reconsideration, supported by an unnotarized medical certificate, was denied, prompting the petitioners to file a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Facts
Petitioners Loreto and Ofelia Cañaveras are the accused in a criminal case for Falsification of Public Documents. Their counsel, Atty. Vicente Dante P. Adan, failed to attend a scheduled hearing for the cross-examination of a prosecution witness, Nenita Mariano, due to an alleged eye ailment. The trial judge, Judge Jocelyn P. Gamboa-Delos Santos, construed the absence as a waiver of the petitioners' right to cross-examine the witness. The counsel's subsequent motion for reconsideration, supported by an unnotarized medical certificate, was denied, prompting the petitioners to file a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issues
1. Whether the second sentence of Sec. 10 (b) of the Judicial Affidavit Rule is unconstitutional. 2. Whether the trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order that deemed the petitioners to have waived their right to cross-examine the witness. 3. Whether the trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion for allowing the presentation of another witness despite non-compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule.
Ruling
The petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge for strictly applying the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases, which led to the waiver of the cross-examination. However, in the paramount interest of substantial justice, the Court set aside the judge's orders to uphold the petitioners' fundamental right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the Judicial Affidavit Rule as it was not the lis mota of the case. The trial court was directed to proceed with the cross-examination of the witness.
Keywords
G.R. No. 241348, petition for certiorari, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, Criminal Case No. 17-0597, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Judicial Affidavit Rule, Falsification of Public Documents by a Private Individual, Article 172 in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, waiver on the part of the defense to cross examine witness, motion for reconsideration, Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases, Complaint-Affidavit, grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, unconstitutional, temporary restraining order (TRO), writ of preliminary injunction (WPI), due process, right to confrontation, cross-examination, revised guidelines