DOMINADOR B. BUSTOS, petitioner, vs. ANTONIO G. LUCERO, Judge of First Instance of Pampanga, respondent. G.R. No. L-2068, March 8, 1940, (RESOLUTION)

 As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that which declares what acts are crimes and prescribes the punishment for committing them, as distinguished from the procedural law which provides or regulates the steps by which one who commits a crime is to be punished. Preliminary investigation is eminently and essentially remedial; it is the first step taken in a criminal prosecution. Tested by this standard, we do not believe that the curtailment of the right of an accused in a preliminary investigation to cross-examine the witnesses who had given evidence for his arrest is of such importance as to offend against the constitutional inhibition. As we have said in the beginning, preliminary investigation is not an essential part of due process of law. It may be suppressed entirely, and if this may be done, mere restriction of the privilege formerly enjoyed thereunder cannot be held to fall within the constitutional prohibition. 

FACTS: 

In the decision sought to be reconsidered, the Court said "The constitutional right of an accused to be confronted by the witnesses against him does not apply to preliminary hearings; nor will the absence of a preliminary examination be an infringement of his right to confront witness. As a matter of fact, preliminary investigation may be done away with entirely without infringing the constitutional right of an accused under the due process clause to a fair trial." This petition for certiorari raises a constitutional issue. 

ISSUE: 

Whether or not Section 11 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court infringes section 13, Article VIII, of the Constitution/ Whether or not the rule in question deals with substantive matters and impairs substantive rights. (NO)

RULING: 

Section 11 of Rule 108, like its predecessors, is an adjective law and not a substantive law or substantive right. Substantive law creates substantive rights and the two terms in this respect may be said to be synonymous. Substantive rights is a term which includes those rights which one enjoys under the legal system prior to the disturbance of normal relations. Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights, or which regulates the rights and duties which give rise to a cause of action; that part of the law which courts are established to administer; as opposed to adjective or remedial law, which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtains redress for their invasion. 

As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that which declares what acts are crimes and prescribes the punishment for committing them, as distinguished from the procedural law which provides or regulates the steps by which one who commits a crime is to be punished. Preliminary investigation is eminently and essentially remedial; it is the first step taken in a criminal prosecution.

As a rule of evidence, section 11 of Rule 108 is also procedural. Evidence — which is the "the mode and manner of proving the competent facts and circumstances on which a party relies to establish the fact in dispute in judicial proceedings" — is identified with and forms part of the method by which, in private law, rights are enforced and redress obtained, and, in criminal law, a law transgressor is punished. Criminal procedure refers to pleading, evidence and practice. The entire rules of evidence have been incorporated into the Rules of Court. We can not tear down section 11 of Rule 108 on constitutional grounds without throwing out the whole code of evidence embodied in these Rules.

Tested by this standard, we do not believe that the curtailment of the right of an accused in a preliminary investigation to cross-examine the witnesses who had given evidence for his arrest is of such importance as to offend against the constitutional inhibition. As we have said in the beginning, preliminary investigation is not an essential part of due process of law. It may be suppressed entirely, and if this may be done, mere restriction of the privilege formerly enjoyed thereunder can not be held to fall within the constitutional prohibition

While section 11 of Rule 108 denies to the defendant the right to cross-examine witnesses in a preliminary investigation, his right to present his witnesses remains unaffected, and his constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him both at such investigation and at the trial is unchanged. In the latter stage of the proceedings, the only stage where the guaranty of due process comes into play, he still enjoys to the full extent the right to be confronted by and to crossexamine the witnesses against him. The degree of importance of a preliminary investigation to an accused may be gauged by the fact that this formality is frequently waived. The motion is denied.

Source: DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW, retrieved April 24, 2020, from https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/7dcde495/files/uploaded/Civil%20Procedure_MwNwIo5Rs6cBBO1gwlro.pdf