Fajardo v. Garcia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Oscar Fajardo, Cesar Fajardo, and Rodrigo Doliente were charged with murder. During their arrest on September 11, 1972, all three were found to be suffering from wounds on various parts of their bodies. The following day, a doctor examined and treated these wounds at the detention cell, issuing medical certificates. Procedural History: During the trial for murder, after the prosecution presented its evidence, the defense called Oscar Fajardo to testify. He referred to the medical certificates documenting his and his co-accused's wounds. When the defense counsel informed the court that the doctor who issued these certificates, Dr. Herminio Academia, had left the Philippines for the United States, the defense sought to file a motion to serve written interrogatories on Dr. Academia. This motion was subsequently denied by the respondent Judge. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in denying their motion. They contended that the expanded concept of the constitutional right to compulsory process, as provided in the current Constitution, includes the right to secure the production of evidence, such as testimony via written interrogatories, even from a witness residing abroad. They asserted that Dr. Academia's testimony was crucial to their defense.
Issue(s)
Whether the constitutional guarantee of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence extends to the service of written interrogatories on a witness residing abroad. Whether the denial of the motion to serve written interrogatories on Dr. Herminio Academia constituted grave abuse of discretion, considering the availability of alternative evidence and the judge's role in weighing evidence.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The Court found that the standard required for the grant of certiorari had not been met, and it was premature to conclude that a fatal infirmity had infected the proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi
On the scope of compulsory process and the denial of written interrogatories: The Court acknowledged the expanded concept of the constitutional right to compulsory process, which includes the production of evidence. However, it held that serving written interrogatories on a witness abroad is not a compulsory or coercive process, as the witness may decline to give a deposition. Therefore, the constitutional guarantee could not be stretched to include the right to serve interrogatories on a witness living abroad in this context. The Court noted that the Solicitor General's submission that service of written interrogatories is not a compulsory or coercive process and does not obtain the objectives of securing attendance or production of evidence was persuasive. On grave abuse of discretion: While the Court recognized the importance of the rights of an accused and the need for utmost caution by trial judges, it found that the denial of the motion did not, at that stage, constitute grave abuse of discretion. The Court reasoned that the fact that the petitioners were treated by a doctor could be testified to by other witnesses, such as nurses, and that the wounds themselves could serve as mechanical evidence. The length of hospital stay could also be verified by hospital records. The Court cited People v. Montejo to emphasize that a trial judge should display receptivity to offers of evidence and that the presumption is that a judge can fairly weigh and appraise the evidence. The Court also noted that the prosecution's evidence itself disclosed that the petitioners were suffering from wounds at the time of their arrest, indicating some awareness of the potential evidence regarding their injuries.
Main Doctrine
The constitutional guarantee of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in behalf of the accused cannot be stretched to include the right to serve written interrogatories on a witness residing abroad, especially when such service is not a compulsory or coercive process and the witness may decline to give a deposition. However, the denial of a motion to serve written interrogatories may constitute grave abuse of discretion if it renders the defense nugatory.