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, the Cañaveras Spouses, were accused of falsification of public documents. During trial, their counsel, Atty. Adan, was absent on May 23, 2018, the scheduled cross-examination date for prosecution witness Nenita Mariano. Atty. Adan cited illness. Respondent Judge construed this absence as a waiver of the right to cross-examine Nenita. Atty. Adan later filed a motion for reconsideration, submitting a medical certificate detailing his eye conditions requiring surgery. The prosecution objected, arguing the illness was not a ground for postponement under the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial and that the certificate was unnotarized. The Judge denied the motion.
Subsequently, on June 6, 2018, the prosecution presented another witness, Rodel Mariano. Atty. Adan objected, arguing Rodel’s Complaint-Affidavit did not comply with the Judicial Affidavit Rule. The Judge overruled the objection, allowing the prosecution to utilize the affidavit pursuant to the Revised Guidelines. After Rodel’s testimony, the defense again sought to cross-examine Nenita, but the court maintained its prior waiver ruling.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) deeming the defense counsel’s absence as a waiver of the right to cross-examine witness Nenita Mariano; and (2) allowing the presentation of witness Rodel Mariano using his Complaint-Affidavit despite alleged non-compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule.

RULING

Yes, the Judge committed grave abuse of discretion regarding the waiver of cross-examination. The ponencia, concurred with by Justice Leonen, held that the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is a fundamental constitutional right of the accused, essential to the truth-seeking function of a trial. While procedural rules like the Revised Guidelines aim for efficiency, they must not be applied to defeat substantive rights. The medical reason for counsel’s absence was substantiated. A rigid application that results in the irrevocable loss of the right to cross-examine a key witness, without a showing of deliberate dilatory tactics, sacrifices the paramount interests of justice for mere speed. The broader interest of ensuring a fair trial on the merits justifies disregarding procedural lapses in this context.
Regarding the second issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The Revised Guidelines expressly permit the use of affidavits filed with the prosecutor’s office during trial, subject to the right of cross-examination. This provision aims to expedite proceedings by avoiding duplicative submissions. The objection based on the Judicial Affidavit Rule was thus correctly overruled, as the rules provide for alternative modes of presenting testimonial evidence. The core violation lay in the denial of the foundational right to cross-examine, not in the form of the affidavit used.