Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
641
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001522a79d8f0f931c28a003600fb002c009e/p/ASC655/?username=Guest
641
Page 1 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001522a79d8f0f931c28a003600fb002c009e/p/ASC655/?username=Guest
Page 2 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
642
642
Page 3 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
643
Page 4 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
644
Page 5 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001522a79d8f0f931c28a003600fb002c009e/p/ASC655/?username=Guest
645
Page 6 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
Page 7 of 22
646
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
But now the question of the validity of said section 11, Rule
108, is squarely presented to this Court for decision, we
have perforce to pass upon it.
Section 13, Article VIII, of the Constitution prescribes
that the Supreme Court shall have power to promulgate
rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all
courts, but- said rules shall not diminish, increase or
modify substantive rights. The Constitution added the last
part of the above-quoted constitutional precept in order to
emphasize that the Supreme Court is not empowered, and
therefore can not enact or promulgate substantive laws or
rules, for it is obvious that rules which diminish, increase
or modify substantive rights, are substantive and not
adjective laws or rules concerning pleading, practice and
procedure.
It does not require an elaborate argument to show that
the right granted by law upon a defendant to be confronted
with and cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution
in preliminary investigation as well as in the trial of the
case is a substantive right. It is based on human
experience, according to which a person is not prone to tell
a lie against another in his presence, knowing fully well
that the latter may easily contradict him, and that the
credibility of a person or veracity of his testimony may be
efficaciously tested by a cross-examination. It is a
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001522a79d8f0f931c28a003600fb002c009e/p/ASC655/?username=Guest
Page 8 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
647
Page 9 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
648
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001522a79d8f0f931c28a003600fb002c009e/p/ASC655/?username=Guest
Page 10 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
MOTION
FOR
March 8, 1949
TUASON, J.;
This cause is now before us on a motion for reconsideration.
In the decision sought to be reconsidered, we said, citing
Dequito and Saling Buhay vs. Arellano, G.R. No. L-1336:
The constitutional right of an accused to be confronted by
649
649
Page 11 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
650
Page 12 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
651
Page 13 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
Rep., 620. But it is now well settled that statutory changes in the
mode of trial or the rules of evidence, which do not deprive the
accused of a defense and which operate only in a limited and
unsubstantial manner to his disadvantage, are not prohibited. A
statute which, after indictment, enlarges the class of persons who
may be witnesses at the trial, by removing the disqualification of
persons convicted of felony, is not an ex post facto law. Hopt vs.
Utah, 110 U.S., 575, 28 L. ed., 263, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep., 202, 4 Am.
Crim. Rep. 417. Nor is a statute which changes the rules of evidence
after the indictment so as to render admissible against the accused
evidence previously held inadmissible, Thompson vs. Missouri, 171
U.S., 380, 43 L. ed., 204, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep., 922; or which changes the
place of trial, Gut vs. Minnesota, 9 Wall. 35, 19 L. ed., 573; or which
abolishes a court for hearing criminal appeals, creating a new one
in its stead. See Duncan vs. Missouri, 152 U.S., 377, 382, 38 L. ed.,
485, 487, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep., 570."
652
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001522a79d8f0f931c28a003600fb002c009e/p/ASC655/?username=Guest
Page 14 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001522a79d8f0f931c28a003600fb002c009e/p/ASC655/?username=Guest
Page 15 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
653
653
Page 16 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
654
Page 17 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
655
Page 18 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
656
Page 19 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
657
Page 20 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
658
Page 21 of 22
1/10/16, 3:40 PM
PERFECTO, J.:
We dissent. Our opinion in the Dequito case still stands,
The motion for reconsideration should be granted.
Motion denied.
_________________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001522a79d8f0f931c28a003600fb002c009e/p/ASC655/?username=Guest
Page 22 of 22