GR L 9660; (January, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9660; January 23, 1957
FIDEL AMANTE, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JUDGE JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, Court of First Instance of Rizal, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Fidel Amante, an accused detained in the provincial jail of Rizal in Criminal Case No. 4135 for estafa, sought to present convicted prisoners Alfredo Reyes and Galicano Cunanan as witnesses. He petitioned respondent Judge Juan P. Enriquez, both orally and in writing, to subpoena these two individuals who were serving final sentences at the New Bilibid Prisons. The respondent judge refused the request, citing the petitioner’s failure to follow the procedure outlined in a Department of Justice circular governing the issuance of subpoenas to prisoners serving final sentences. This procedure was designed to prevent abuse of the right to secure witnesses, avoid unnecessary risk of escape, and minimize expense. Instead, the judge authorized the taking of depositions from the witnesses at the New Bilibid Prisons, to which the petitioner, his counsel de oficio, and the prosecution consented, but the petitioner did not avail himself of this option. During the trial, the counsel de oficio rested the defense and indicated an intention to withdraw the mandamus petition, which had been filed by the petitioner without the counsel’s knowledge. The petition for withdrawal was never filed. The case was set for hearing, but upon call, there was no appearance from the petitioner.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted correctly in refusing to subpoena the two imprisoned witnesses due to the petitioner’s non-compliance with the Department of Justice circular and the availability of an alternative means to obtain their testimony.
RULING
The petition for mandamus is denied. The respondent judge acted correctly in declining to subpoena the two witnesses. The refusal was justified by the petitioner’s failure to follow the established procedure in the Department of Justice circular, which aims to prevent abuse of the defendant’s right to secure witnesses, avoid unnecessary risk of prisoner escape, and control expenses. The judge provided a reasonable alternative by authorizing the taking of depositions at the prison, which was agreed upon but not utilized by the petitioner. The circumstances, including the petitioner’s subsequent lack of appearance and interest in the mandamus case, further support the denial of the petition.