DOMINADOR B. BUSTOS vs. ANTONIO G. LUCERO G.R. No. L-2068, October 20, 198 !ACTS"
The pe The peti titi tion oner er he here rein in,, an ac accu cuse sed d in a criminal case, filed a motion with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga after he had been be en bo boun und d ov over er to th that at co cour urtt fo forr tr tria ial, l, pray pr ayin ing g th that at th the e re reco cord rd of th the e ca case se be remanded to the justice of the peace court of Masantol, the court of origin, in order that the th e pe peti titi tion oner er mi migh ghtt cr cros oss se! e!am amin ine e th the e complainant and her witnesses in conn co nnec ecti tion on wi with th th thei eirr te test stim imon ony y, on th the e strength of which warrant was issued for the arr rre est of th the e accu cus sed ed.. Th The e accu cus sed ed,, assi as sist sted ed by co coun unse sel, l, ap app pea eare red d at th the e preliminary investigation. In that inve in vest stig igat atio ion, n, th the e ju just stic ice e of th the e pe peac ace e informed him of the charges and as"ed him if he pleaded guilty or not guilty, upon which he entered the plea of not guilty. Then his counsel moved that the complainant present her evidence so that she and her witnesses could be e!amined and crosse!amined in the manner and form provided by law. The fiscal and the private prosecutor objected, invo" in vo"ing ing se secti ction on ## of rul rule e #$ #$%, %, an and d the objection was sustained. In view thereof, the accused&s counsel announced his intention to renounce his right to present evidence, and the justice of the peace forwarded the case to the court of first instance.
ISSUE"
'hetherr or no 'hethe nott the (ustice (ustice of the Peace Peace court of Masantol committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to grant the accused&s motion to return the record. #ELD"
)viden )vid ence ce is th the e mo mode de an and d ma mann nner er of proving competent facts and circumstances on which a party relies to establish the fact in di disp sput ute e in ju judi dici cial al pr proc ocee eedi ding ngs. s. It is fund fu ndam amen enta tall lly y a pro roce cedu dura rall la law w. Th The e *upreme Court that section ## of +ule #$% does not curtail the sound discretion of the justice of the peace on the matter. *aid section defines the bounds of the defe fen ndant& t&s s ri rig ght in th the e pre reli limi min nary investigation, there is nothing in it or any other law restricting the authority, inherent in a co court urt of jus justic tice, e, to pursue pursue a cou course rse of action reasonably calculated to bring out the truth. The foregoing decision was rendered by a divided court. The minority went farther than the majority and denied even any discretion on the part of the justice of the peace or judge holding the preliminary investigatio investigation n to compel the complainant and his witnesses to testify anew. pon po n the fo foreg regoin oing g co consi nside derat ration ions, s, the presen pre sentt pe petit tition ion is di dismi smisse ssed d wit with h co costs sts against the petitioner.
