G.R. No. 241348, July 5, 2022
LORETO A. CAÑAVERAS AND OFELIA B. CAÑAVERAS, PETITIONERS, VS. JUDGE JOCELYN P. GAMBOA-DELOS SANTOS AND RODEL MARIANO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners Loreto and Ofelia Cañaveras were accused of Falsification of Public Documents. During the May 23, 2018 hearing for the prosecution witness Nenita Mariano, their counsel, Atty. Vicente Dante Adan, was absent. Judge Jocelyn Gamboa-Delos Santos issued an order construing this absence as a waiver of the right to cross-examine the witness. At the next hearing on June 6, 2018, Atty. Adan moved for reconsideration, presenting an unnotarized medical certificate citing eye pain and a diagnosis of conjunctival cysts. The prosecution objected, citing the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial, which allow postponement only for force majeure or a witness’s physical inability, coupled with a fee payment.
Judge Gamboa-Delos Santos denied the motion for reconsideration. The prosecution then presented its second witness, Rodel Mariano. Atty. Adan objected, arguing Rodel’s Complaint-Affidavit did not comply with the Judicial Affidavit Rule. The judge overruled the objection, stating the Revised Guidelines allow prosecutors to use affidavits from the preliminary investigation. After Rodel’s testimony, a second motion for reconsideration was denied as prohibited.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) the constitutionality of the second sentence of Section 10(b) of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, which provides for a waiver of cross-examination upon counsel’s failure to appear; and (2) whether the judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the June 6, 2018 Order and in allowing Rodel’s testimony despite the alleged non-compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the constitutional challenge, the Court upheld the validity of the second sentence of Section 10(b) of the Judicial Affidavit Rule. The provision is a reasonable procedural rule designed to expedite trials and prevent delays. It does not arbitrarily remove the constitutional right to cross-examination; rather, it attaches a consequence—deemed waiver—to the party’s own inaction or negligence through counsel. The right to cross-examination is not absolute and can be waived, either expressly or by conduct. The rule is a legitimate exercise of the Court’s rule-making power to ensure the efficient administration of justice.
The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by Judge Gamboa-Delos Santos. Her order deeming the cross-examination waived was justified. Atty. Adan’s medical certificate was unnotarized and failed to substantiate a compelling reason for his absence under the stringent Continuous Trial Guidelines. His condition did not constitute force majeure or a physical inability so severe as to absolutely prevent his attendance. Regarding the presentation of Rodel Mariano, the judge correctly applied A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, which explicitly permits the use of affidavits from the preliminary investigation as judicial affidavits, provided the opposing party is furnished a copy. This promotes efficiency without prejudicing the accused’s rights. The petition for certiorari was thus improper, as the judge’s actions were within her sound discretion and consistent with procedural rules.