Domingo, Jose Paulino M. Sec. Salvador S.

Panelo
JD – 2 Criminal Procedure

People v. Monje
G.R. No. 1466698; September 27, 2002
Facts:
Herein accused is to face the penalty of death for the rape and murder of a 15-
year old. The lower court convicted accused based on “weak evidence” presented
during the trial were primarily based on circumstantial evidence presented by a witness
tricycle driver who testified the following facts: at the time of the rape and murder
incident, the witness saw the accused with the 15-year old victim back-riding on a
tricycle heading towards a rice field at around 11 o’clock in the evening, but by 2 o’clock
of the morning later, witness saw Monje travelling without anymore the victim; the
victim’s decomposing body was found in the same rice field three days later. Moreover,
the case points to the fact that accused herein went home to Cagayan two weeks after
he had known that an Information has been issued implicating him of the crime.
It was during the wake of the victim that said witness told the mother of the same
of what he was able to witness that fateful night. However, the tricycle driver failed and
refused to testify again this time in court in all 4 scheduled hearings of the case. The
accused contended that he was not afforded adequate opportunity to cross-examine the
witness, and that there was weak evidence for the prosecution for merely presenting
circumstantial evidence which failed to establish the link of the accused to the crime.
Issue:
WON failure to appear of the principal witness to a criminal case will result to the
acquittal of the accused
Held:
Yes. The Court expressed that no matter how much it wants to punish
perpetrators and give justice to victims and their families, the protection provided by the
Bill of Rights is to be upheld most of all. The accused, under Article III, Sec. 14 (2) of the
1987 Constitution and Rule 115, Sec. 1 (f) of the Rules of Court that all accused may be
afforded the right to meet the witnesses face to face and to have them cross-examined
by the same to ascertain the truthfulness of their testimonies. The general rule it that
testimonies given by a witness without being cross-examined is that it is to be stricken
of the records of the case.
The testimony of the tricycle driver to the mother of the victim and on his affidavit
cannot be given credence by the Court to convict the accused since the same was
never presented in court and had been subject to questioning and verification by the
defense, not to mention that there are no another reliable evidence that can overturn the
presumption of innocence vested by the Constitution.
Domingo, Jose Paulino M. Sec. Salvador S. Panelo
JD – 2 Criminal Procedure
Osorio v. Desierto
G.R. No. 156652; October 13, 2005

Facts:
Herein petitioner appeals to the Court for grave abuse of discretion committed
by the Office of the Ombudsman for not conducting a clarificatory hearing despite
lacking evidence to determine whether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that the crime of Malversation has been committed and petitioner, as the
Principal of Dr. Cecilio Putong National High School, is probably guilty thereof.
Respondent on the other hand has appreciated the following evidence in order to
have probable cause and hold petitioner for trial, to wit: the Audit Report of the COA and
that of the NBI – on the non-remittance to the school of the earnings of the sale of old
newspapers, and the issuance of a memorandum whereby students were charged more
than the allowable fees for their membership with Boy and Girl Scouts of the
Philippines.
Moreover, respondent Ombudsman contended that clarificatory hearings are at
the sound discretion of the investigating prosecutor under Rule 112, Sec. 3 (e) and are
not mandatory pronouncements of the Rules of Court.
Issue:
WON clarificatory hearings are needed in this case
Held:
No. Under the aforementioned Rule, the investigating prosecutor “may” set a
hearing if there are facts and issues to be clarified from a party or a witness. In this
case, aside from the fact that said form of hearing during the preliminary investigation is
merely based on the discretion of the Ombudsman, the latter has already laid out that
the Reports of the NBI and COA are sufficient enough to prove that the accused should
be held for trial as there exists a reasonable belief that the crime has been committed
and the accused is probably guilty thereof. Hence, the conduct of a clarificatory hearing
for the instant case shall be unnecessary.