GR 40342; (October, 1933) (Digest)
G.R. No. 40342; October 27, 1933
MARIANO CU UNJIENG, petitioner, vs. LEONARD S. GODDARD, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Mariano Cu Unjieng was on trial for estafa through falsification of commercial documents. During his cross-examination, the trial judge (respondent Goddard) asked him to name brokers charging high commissions for securing loans. After the petitioner named three brokers, the judge immediately dictated a letter in open court to the City Fiscal requesting an investigation of those brokers for possible violation of law. The judge refused to include this letter in the official transcript despite a motion by the petitioner invoking Act No. 4011, which requires that any statement by a judge regarding a case during hearing be made of record if requested. The petitioner also challenged other incidents: (A) the expunging of a non-responsive answer from the record, and (B) the expunging of his counsel’s statement of exception to a ruling. Additionally, the petitioner complained of general orders by the judge instructing court stenographers not to record arguments of counsel.
ISSUE
1. Whether the judge’s letter to the City Fiscal constitutes a “statement” under Act No. 4011 that must be included in the stenographic notes upon request.
2. Whether the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in expunging (A) a non-responsive answer of the witness and (B) counsel’s statement of exception.
3. Whether the judge’s general orders to stenographers not to record arguments of counsel constitute an abuse of discretion.
RULING
1. On the first issue, the Court held that certiorari and mandamus were improper remedies because the petitioner could raise the issue on appeal from any eventual conviction, as the motion and order regarding the letter were already part of the record. Thus, relief was denied.
2. On the second issue:
(A) The expunging of the witness’s non-responsive answer was within the court’s discretion and proper. No relief granted.
(B) The expunging of counsel’s statement of exception was a grave abuse of discretion. A statement of exception is a formal act necessary for the record to preserve the right to appeal and is not argument. A writ of mandamus was issued to restore it to the record.
3. On the third issue, the Court found the petition tardy, as the trial had been long ongoing, and denied the writ of prohibition. The Court noted the judge’s inherent power to control the record, including limiting the transcription of arguments, especially given the voluminous record in the case.
The writ of mandamus was granted only as to the second cause of action, paragraph B (restoration of the exception). The petition was denied in all other respects.
AI Generated by Armztrong.