Fortich v Corona

Facts:
The respondents in this case filed for motions for reconsideration which were handled by a
Supreme Court division. The division voted 2-2 on separate motions resulting to a tie. The
Supreme Court then issued a resolution affirming its earlier decision. The respondents argued
that the Resolution released by the Supreme Court did not really resolved the motions since the
required number (three) to carry a decision was not met and further argued that it should be
handled then by SC en banc (allegedly pursuant to Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution).
Issue: Whether or not it should be heard en banc
Held: No. The failure of the division to resolve the motion because of a tie leaves the earlier
decision unconsidered, thus affirming it.
Ratio: It involves the statutory construction principle reddendo singular singulis. Only cases
which failed to satisfy the required minimum number of votes shall be referred to Court en banc.
In this issue, what we have is only a matter which is to be resolved to which the requirement for
minimum number of votes does not apply. The votes resulting to a tie does not mean that the
matter was not resolved. The resulting tie implies that the motions were not considered, thus
affirming the earlier decision.

Bustos v Lucero
Section 5
Facts:
Petitioner filed a motion to the Court of First Instance that his case be remanded from the
Justice of the peace of Masantol, in order that he be able to cross-examine and question the
complainant and her witness. It was stated in the memorandum submitted to the Court of First
Instance, that during the preliminary investigation, the petitioner assisted by his counsel was
asked if he pleaded guilty or not guilty upon which he entered the plea of not guilty. His counsel
moved that complainant present her evidence so that he can cross-examine such. The
prosecutor and the fiscal objected invoking Sec. 11 of rule 108, which denies defendant the right
to cross-examine witnesses in a preliminary investigation.
Issue: Whether or not Sec. 11 of Rule 108 infringes sec. 13, Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution
(Sec. 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution)
Held: Motion was denied. Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and
regulates rights, or which regulates the rights and duties which give rise to a cause of action;
that part of the law which courts are established to administer; as opposed to adjective or
remedial law, which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtains redress for their
invasion. As applied to criminal law, substantive law is that which declares what acts are crimes
and prescribes the punishment for committing them, as distinguished from the procedural law
which provides or regulates the steps by which one who commits a crime is to be punished.
Preliminary investigation is eminently and essentially remedial; it is the first step taken in a
criminal prosecution. Preliminary investigation is not part of the due process of law. While
section 11 of Rule 108 denies to the defendant the right to cross-examine witnesses in a
preliminary investigation, his right to present his witnesses remains unaffected, and his
constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him both at such investigation and at
the trial is unchanged.