G.R. No. L-24154, October 31, 1967
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City, and FELIX WEE SIT, respondents.

FACTS

The City Fiscal of Zamboanga City filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction against respondent Judge Gregorio D. Montejo. The case arose from Criminal Case No. 3225 for double homicide and serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence against accused Felix Wee Sit. A material witness, Patrolman Ernesto Uaje, a permanent resident of Montalban, Rizal, had executed an affidavit as an eye-witness to the traffic accident in Zamboanga City. The court issued a subpoena to Uaje at his Montalban address for the trial’s continuation on February 1, 1965, which was served on January 19, 1965. Uaje failed to appear. The prosecution moved for an order for his arrest or, alternatively, to cite him for contempt for willful failure to appear. Respondent Judge denied the motion on February 3, 1965, relying on Section 9, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, which states that a witness is not bound to attend a trial outside the province of residence unless the distance is less than 50 kilometers. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was also denied. Respondents contended that Uaje was not a material witness, that compulsory process is a right granted exclusively to the accused under the Constitution and Rules, and that the witness’s failure to obey the subpoena did not constitute contempt due to the distance limitation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for arrest or contempt citation against a material witness residing beyond 50 kilometers from the place of trial, based on Section 9, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that Section 9, Rule 23 applies solely to civil cases and does not limit the inherent power of a court in criminal cases to compel the attendance of witnesses. The Court emphasized that courts possess inherent power under Section 5(e), Rule 135 of the Rules of Court to compel the attendance of persons to testify in pending cases. Additionally, Section 6, Rule 119 allows a court to order a material witness for the prosecution to give bail or be committed to prison if there is reason to believe the witness will not appear. The denial of the motion based on a misapprehension of the Rules thus amounted to grave abuse of discretion. The preliminary injunction was lifted, the orders of February 3, 1965 were set aside, and respondent Judge was ordered to pass upon the prosecution’s motion without considering Section 9, Rule 23.