PEOPLE v.
SENERIS
99 SCRA 92 | August 6, 1980
Petitioner: The People of the Philippines
Respondent: Hon. Alberto Seneris, Judge and Pilar Pimentel
(Rule 132, Sec. 6 – Cross-examination)
FACTS
1. Assistant Provincial Fiscal Tamin filed with the CFI, an amended
information for parricide, charging Pilar Pimentel as principal by
inducement, Mario Nemenio and Salim Doe as principals by direct
participation, and Moises Andaya as accomplice, in the fatal stabbing of
Eduardo Pimentel y Orario, the spouse of Pilar.
2. Nemenio on arraignment a pleaded guilty. Judge Seneris rendered
judgment convicting Nemenio of murder — qualified by the
circumstance of prize and reward.
3. Nemenio offered to testify against his co-accused, Pilar, in her separate
trial earlier granted by the Judge Seneris in the same criminal case.
Counsel for Pilar commenced his cross- examination of prosecution
witness Mario Nemenio y delos Santos, which cross-examination
however was not completed on that session for lack of material time.
4. According to the petition, the uncompleted cross-examination had
already touched on the conspiracy existing among Salim Doe, witness
Nemenio and Pilar to kill Eduardo Pimentel, in the latter's residence in
Zamboanga City in the evening of September 6, 1977, and also on the
actual stabbing by witness Nemenio of the victim Eduardo who was
pointed out to the witness-killer by his wife, Pilar. This is not disputed by
private respondent.
5. However, prosecution witness Nemenio was shot dead by the
Integrated National Police patrols while allegedly escaping from prison.
Judge Sneris issued an order declaring as inadmissible the entire
testimony of the deceased-witness Mario Nemenio on the principal
ground that the defense was not able to complete its cross-examination
of said witness.
ISSUE/S
1. W/N Judge Seneris gravely abused his discretion when he ruled that the
testimony of Nemenio was inadmissible.
RULING & RATIO
YES.
1. While the right of confrontation and cross-examination are
fundamental rights, they can be waived expressly or impliedly by
conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right.
2. If the party was given the opportunity to confront or cross-examine
a witness but failed to take advantage of it, he forfeits the right and
the testimonies given in direct examination will be received on
record.
3. Where the prosecution witness was partially cross-examined but
prior to the next hearing, he dies, his testimony cannot be stricken
off the record.
4. However, where the right to cross-examine is lost wholly or in part
through the fault of the cross-examiner, then the testimony on direct
examination may be taken into account; but when cross-
examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes
attributable to the party offering the witness, the uncompleted
testimony is thereby rendered incompetent.
5. The rigorous and searching cross- examination of witness Mario
Nemenio, practically concluded already the cross-examination-in-
chief, or has already substantially accomplished the purpose of the
cross-examination, and therefore, the failure to pursue the privilege
of further cross-examination, would not adversely affect the
admissibility of the direct testimony of said witness anymore.
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, THE AUGUST 4,1978 ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT
JUDGE IS HEREBY SET ASIDE; THE RESTRAINING ORDER OF
DECEMBER 4, 1978 ISSUED BY THIS COURT IS HEREBY LIFTED; AND
RESPONDENT JUDGE OR HIS SUCCESSOR IS ACCORDINGLY
ORDERED TO PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASE NO. 750
(1742) AND TO ADMIT AND CONSIDER IN DECIDING THE CASE THE
TESTIMONY OF THE DECEASED WITNESS MARIO NEMENIO y DELOS
SANTOS EXCLUDING ONLY THE PORTION THEREOF CONCERNING
THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PRICE OR REWARD WHICH
WAS NOT COVERED BY THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. NO COSTS.