G.R. No. L-38675 July 2, 1980
OSCAR FAJARDO, CESAR FAJARDO and RODRIGO DOLIENTE, petitioners, vs. HON. HIMERIO B. GARCIA, as Presiding Judge of the Circuit Court of Olongapo City, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners were charged with murder. During trial, the prosecution’s own evidence revealed that at the time of their arrest, all petitioners were suffering from wounds. The defense sought to present crucial medical testimony regarding these wounds from Dr. Herminio Academia, who had examined and treated them. However, Dr. Academia had since left the Philippines and was residing in the United States. Given the impossibility of securing his physical attendance, petitioners’ counsel, invoking the expanded constitutional right to compulsory process to secure the “production of evidence,” filed a motion before respondent Judge Himerio B. Garcia to serve written interrogatories upon the doctor in the United States. Respondent Judge denied the motion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion to serve written interrogatories on a witness abroad, thereby allegedly violating petitioners’ constitutional right to compulsory process for the production of evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the denial did not constitute grave abuse of discretion warranting certiorari. The constitutional right to compulsory process is designed to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence through coercive means. Written interrogatories, however, are not a compulsory process; they merely involve the delivery of questions to a proposed deponent who may voluntarily choose to answer or decline. Thus, they are fundamentally different from the constitutional guarantee. Furthermore, the Court found that the denial did not render petitioners’ defense nugatory. The fact of their wounds and treatment could be established through other available means, such as testimony from other witnesses (e.g., nurses), hospital records, or the petitioners’ own testimony, as the prosecution had already acknowledged the existence of the wounds. The Court emphasized that certiorari requires a showing of capricious, arbitrary, or whimsical exercise of power, which was absent. The decision was made without a definitive pronouncement on the full scope of the constitutional right, as the standard for certiorari was not met. The petition was dismissed.