285 – People v Ortillas

G.R. No. 137666| May 20, 2004

FACTS
 An information for murder was filled against Ortillas. He allegedly, together with Jacob Relox killed Jose
Mesqueriola by throwing at Jose Mesqueriola a pillbox (an explosive) It was indicated in the information
that the accused Ortillas was a minor. Ortillas belonged to a rival fraternity (Taugama) of the victim Jose
(Crimebuster)
 During arraignment, Ortillas pleaded not guilty. There was no pre-trial and trial on the merits ensued. One
of the prosecution’s witness was Russel Guiraldo. He testified on what happened and claimed that he had
an on going bad blood with Ortilla and that before when they were classmates, Ortilla threw a rock at him
and that the pillbox was intended for him but it unfortunately killed Jose.
 After the direct examination of Guiraldo, Atty. Jose G. de Leon, the then counsel for Ortillas moved for
postponement as he had a very important appointment to keep which Judge Alumbres granted.
Subsequently, Atty. de Leon had to withdraw as counsel because of eye ailment which the trial court
approved. There were several postponements for the hearing since the judge was also on leave. Hence,
Guiraldo was never presented again for cross-examination.
 As a defense, Ortillas alleged that at the time of the incident he was at home and that he was not the one
who threw the pillbox to Mesqueriola. He claims that Guiraldo was mad at him and that Guiraldo
mistakenly accused him of committing the crime. He claims that it was a certain Relox who did the crime
since Relox was beaten up by Mesqueriola and his fraternity.
 The trial court rendered a judgement finding Ortillas guilty. The trial court used the testimony of Guiraldo
in convicting the accused.
 Ortillas is claiming that the trial court erred in their decision by merely relying on the testimony of
Guiraldo. He claims that his constitutional right to meet the witness face to face since he was not given
the opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

ISSUE
WON the trial court violated Ortillas’ right to cross-examine the witness

HELD
Yes.

There was no valid waiver made by Ortillas on his right to cross-examine the witness Guiraldo. He was not able to
cross-examine because of the several postponements of the hearings(as the first counsel had withdrawn due to an
eye ailment, and the second counsel was subsequently replaced by the new counsel, Atty. Pantua of the PAO).
However, although it appears in the Minutes of the hearing scheduled it was indicated that the cross-examination
of Guiraldo is to be conducted, there is no showing that Guiraldo appeared. In fact, the Minutes show that Russel
had to be notified for the next hearing set on November 6, 1995.22 But on November 6, the hearing was again
postponed to November 11, 1995 due to typhoon Rosing. Guiraldo was never notified of the subsequent hearings
after that.

The SC ruled that the trial court judge erred in not allowing the new counsel to conduct their cross-examination
after she has explained their circumstance and predicament, but it was unjustifiably refused by Judge Alumbres. It
was well within the trial court’s discretion to allow the recall of witness Guiraldo under the then prevailing Section
9, Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence, to wit:

SEC. 9. Recalling witness.—After the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled
without leave of the court. The Court will grant or withhold leave in its discretion, as the interests of justice may require.
 Certainly, under the foregoing circumstances, Judge Alumbres should have known that the interest of justice
required that appellant should have been given the opportunity to cross-examine Guiraldo as it was not his fault
that Guiraldo had not been cross-examined.