Ibañez v. People: GR No. 190798. January 27, 2016

Ibañez v.
People
GR No. 190798. January 27, 2016.
DOCTRINE: The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial
litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with
quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process. However, the right is
a personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly, by conduct amounting to a
renunciation of the right of cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had the opportunity to
cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-
examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or
allowed to remain in the record.
FACTS: The petitioners herein are charged with the crime of frustrated homicide by one Rodolfo
Lebria.
After their arraignment, the RTC appointed Atty. Manzano as the counsel de oficio for all the
accused. In the pre-trial conference that followed, Atty. Manzano appeared for the petitioners.
Atty. Manzano was informed that the trial for the presentation of prosecution evidence was set
on June 18, 2003.
Both Rodolfo and PO2 Sulit completed their respective testimonies during the June 18, 2003
hearing. However, Atty. Manzano and one of the accused failed to appear at the said hearing
despite prior notice, so the RTC declared the right to cross-examine the said two (2) witnesses
deemed waived.
Thereafter, Atty. Manzano withdrew as petitioners’ counsel de oficio and was replaced by Atty.
Cañeda. Later on, Atty. Cañeda, upon his request, was relieved by the RTC of his post and
appointed Public Atty. Pantua’s designation was recalled upon her manifestation that she had
previously assisted Rodolfo in initiating the present case. Finally, Atty. Sindingan was assigned
as the counsel de oficio and has since assisted the accused throughout the hearings.
After the case was deemed submitted for decision, the RTC declared the accused guilty of the
crime charged. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling and denied the subsequent motion
for reconsideration.
In their present petition, the petitioners insisted that they were denied of their right to counsel
when their counsel de oficio failed to appear on the June 18, 2003 trial court hearing during
which Rodolfo and PO2 Sulit gave their testimonies. As a consequence, the petitioners argued
that they were divested of the opportunity to cross-examine the said two prosecution
witnesses.
ISSUE: Were the petitioners denied of their right to cross-examine the first two prosecution
witnesses?
HELD: NO.
There was no denial of right to counsel as evinced by the fact that the petitioners were not only
assisted by a counsel de oficio during arraignment and pre-trial but more so, their counsel de
oficio actively participated in the proceedings before the trial court including the direct and
cross-examination of the witnesses. As aptly found by the CA, the petitioners were duly
represented by a counsel de oficio all throughout the proceedings except for one hearing when
their court appointed lawyer was absent and Rodolfo and PO2 Sulit presented their
testimonies. As previously stated, it was during said hearing when the trial court declared that
the cross-examination of the said two prosecution witnesses was deemed waived.
Mere opportunity and not actual cross-examination is the essence of the right to cross-
examine. The case of Savory Luncheonette v. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino, et al. thoroughly
explained the meaning and substance of right to cross-examine as an integral component of
due process with a colatilla that the same right may be expressly or impliedly waived, to quote:
The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be
it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial
powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process. However, the right is a personal
one which may be waived expressly or impliedly, by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the
right of cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a
witness but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the
testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in
the record.
Such is the scenario in the present case where the reason why Rodolfo and PO2 Sulit were not
subjected to cross-examination was not because the petitioners were not given opportunity to
do so. ... Moreover, neither did the petitioners interpose any objection to the presentation of
testimony of the prosecution witnesses during the June 18, 2003 hearing nor did their counsel
de oficio subsequently seek a reconsideration of the June 18, 2003 Order

Ibañez v. People: GR No. 190798. January 27, 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ibañez v. People: GR No. 190798. January 27, 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ibañez v. People: GR No. 190798. January 27, 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ibañez v.

You might also like