G.R. No.

98376 August 16, 1991

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners,

vs.
HON. BAYANI S. RIVERA, Judge, Branch 129 , Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City, and
WILFREDO L. EMBRANO, respondent.

There is no doubt that a Trial Court has discretion to grant leave for the recall of a witness. This is
clear from a reading of Section 9, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, as amended,9 viz.:

SEC. 9. Recalling witness.— After the examination of a witness by both sides has been
concluded, the witness cannot be recalled without leave of the court. The court will grant or
withhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of justice may require.

But obviously that discretion may not be exercised in a vacuum, as it were, entirely, isolated
from a particular set of attendant circumstances. The discretion to recall a witness is not
properly invoked or exercisable by an applicant's mere general statement that there is a need
to recall a witness "in the interest of justice," or "in order to afford a party full opportunity to
present his case," or that, as here, "there seems to be many points and questions that should
have been asked" in the earlier interrogation. To regard expressed generalities such as these as
sufficient ground for recall of witnesses would make the recall of witness no longer discretionary but
ministerial. Something more than the bare assertion of the need to propound additional questions is
essential before the Court's discretion may rightfully be exercised to grant or deny recall. There
must be a satisfactory showing of some concrete, substantial ground for the recall. There
must be a satisfactory showing on the movant's part, for instance, that particularly identified material
points were not covered in the cross-examination, or that particularly described vital documents were
not presented to the witness whose recall is prayed for, or that the cross-examination was conducted
in so inept a manner as to result in a virtual absence thereof. Absent such particulars, to repeat,
there would be no foundation for a trial court to authorize the recall of any witness.

In the case at bar, the respondent Trial Court granted the defendant's motion for recall on nothing
more than said movant's general claim that certain questions — unspecified, it must be stressed —
had to be asked. In doing so, it acted without basis, exercised power whimsically or capriciously, and
gravely abused its discretion.

[G.R. No. L-20286. October 29, 1965.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ASTERIO VALERA, Defendant-Appellant.

The power of the court to recall a witness to clarify certain matters covered by his original testimony or
testify on other material points is discretionary, it being allowed to promote the ends of justice. As to the
power of the court to call on a witness whose name does not appear in the list of the fiscal, the rule is well-
settled that unless the omission of said witness is intentional and tainted with bad faith, the right of the
court to call on him cannot be disputed. This is also allowed in the interest of justice.

G.R. No. 9181 September 29, 1915

 COSME CASTILLO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. ABRAHAM
SEBULLINA and JUANA DE TORRES, Defendants-Appellees.

As to the order of the trial judge directing the plaintiffs to recall

their witnesses, we are of opinion that he was well within his rights
in its issuance. No one can doubt the power of a trial judge in the
course of a proceeding pending before him to recall and reexamine
a particular witness, if he deems it advisable so to do for the
development of the truth as to the issues he is called upon to
adjudicate; and of course upon such reexamination he may repeat
any or all of the questions asked in the examination in chief. If he
may recall one witness for this purpose, he may recall all who have
testified in the course of the trial, and the only limit upon his power
in this regard, other than the general rules touching the competence
and admissibility of evidence, would seem to be the duty resting
upon him not to subject the litigants or the witnesses to useless or
unnecessary inconvenience, expense, or delay. We think the
reasons assigned by the trial judge for recalling the witnesses in this
case to decide the issues of fact as to which these witnesses
testified, he properly desired an opportunity to see and hear them
testify, and to judge of their credibility by their conduct and
demeanor on the witness stand.

xxx…plaintiffs had the right to have the testimony of the witnesses

who had already testified in the case at bar retained in the record,
and taken into consideration for what it was worth in the
adjudication of the issues of fact in support of which it was
submitted in so far as it was competent and admissible for that
purpose. But that right in no wise limited the power of the court to
require their recall for the purpose of subjecting them to further
examination, in the course of which, as we have shown, he might
properly direct that they answer anew any or all of the questions
which had been propounded to them on the former examination -
unless it was made to appear that it was impossible or impracticable
to secure their presence as witnesses at the second trial.