The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge erred in allowing the defense counsel to only submit affidavits from subsequent witnesses instead of presenting oral testimony. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 132 and Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court require witnesses to provide oral testimony in open court to allow the other party to cross-examine and the judge to evaluate the witness's deportment. Submitting only affidavits violates these rules and deprives the other party of confronting the witness directly.
The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge erred in allowing the defense counsel to only submit affidavits from subsequent witnesses instead of presenting oral testimony. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 132 and Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court require witnesses to provide oral testimony in open court to allow the other party to cross-examine and the judge to evaluate the witness's deportment. Submitting only affidavits violates these rules and deprives the other party of confronting the witness directly.
The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge erred in allowing the defense counsel to only submit affidavits from subsequent witnesses instead of presenting oral testimony. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 132 and Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court require witnesses to provide oral testimony in open court to allow the other party to cross-examine and the judge to evaluate the witness's deportment. Submitting only affidavits violates these rules and deprives the other party of confronting the witness directly.
The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge erred in allowing the defense counsel to only submit affidavits from subsequent witnesses instead of presenting oral testimony. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 132 and Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court require witnesses to provide oral testimony in open court to allow the other party to cross-examine and the judge to evaluate the witness's deportment. Submitting only affidavits violates these rules and deprives the other party of confronting the witness directly.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
People vs Estenzo
Facts:
In Criminal Case No. 2891, entitled “People of the Philippines, plaintiff, versus Gregorio Ojoy, accused”, of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch III, after the accused himself had testified in his defense, his counsel manifested that for his subsequent witnesses he was filing only their affidavits subject to cross-examination by the prosecution on matters stated in the affidavits and on all other matters pertinent and material to the case. Private prosecutor Atty. Amelia K. del Rosario, one of the petitioners here, objected to the proposed procedure but this notwithstanding, respondent Judge gave his conformity thereto and subsequently issued the questioned Order. Contending that respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion because the aforesaid Orders violates Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court, which requires that the testimony of the witness should be given orally in open court, and there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, petitioners instituted the present petition. People vs. Estenzo, 72 SCRA 428, No. L-41166 August 25, 1976
Issue:
Whether or not respondent judge erred in sustaining the manifestation of the defense counsel in filing only affidavits of his subsequent witnesses
Held:
Yes.
Sections 1 and 2, Rule 132 and Section 1, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court clearly require that the testimony of a witness shall be given orally in open court. People vs. Estenzo, 72 SCRA 428, No. L-41166 August 25, 1976
The main and essential purpose of requiring a witness to appear and testify orally at a trial is to secure for the adverse party the opportunity of cross-examination. “The opponent”, according to an eminent authority, “demands confrontation, not for the idle purpose of gazing upon the witness, or of being gazed upon by him, but for the purpose of cross-examination which cannot be had except by the direct and personal putting of questions and obtaining immediate answers. People vs. Estenzo, 72 SCRA 428, No. L-41166 August 25, 1976
There is also the advantage to be obtained by the personal appearance of the witness before the judge, and it is this—it enables the judge as the trier of facts “to obtain the elusive and incommunicable evidence of a witness’ deportment while testifying, and a certain subjective moral effect is produced upon the witness.” People vs. Estenzo, 72 SCRA 428, No. L-41166 August 25, 1976
