G.R. No. L-41569 - OCTOBER 1984 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-41569October 31, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Salvador C. Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-33841October 31, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Flaviano G. Puda G.R. No. L-38988October 31, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Rafael Dalusag, et al. G.R. No. L-39025October 31, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Yurong, et al. G.R. No. L-39949October 31, 1984Manuel H. Santiago vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-40244October 31, 1984Juliana Z. Limoico vs. Board of Administrators, et al. G.R. No. L-44486October 31, 1984Alexis C. Gandionco vs. Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al. G.R. No. L-53568October 31, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Jose Salig, et al. G.R. No. L-56011October 31, 1984Elmer Peregrina, et al. vs. Hon. Domingo D. Panis, et al. G.R. No. L-56540October 31, 1984Cosme Lacuesta vs. Barangay Casabaan, et al. G.R. No. L-58426October 31, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Valencia, et al. G.R. No. L-59956October 31, 1984Isabelo Moran, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-61215October 31, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Cesar Mancao, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-61873October 31, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Elias Borromeo G.R. No. L-64316October 31, 1984People of the Philippines vs. George Ramirez, et al. G.R. No. L-64923October 31, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Quirino Cielo, et al. G.R. No. L-65349October 31, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Armando M. Adriano G.R. No. L-66070October 31, 1984Equitable Banking Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-66321October 31, 1984Traders Royal Bank vs. Intermediate Appelate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-67422-24October 31, 1984Fernando Valdez vs. Gregorio U. Aquilizan G.R. No. L-68043October 31, 1984Palomo Building Tenants Association, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-38346-47October 23, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Teofilo Dioso and Jacinto Abarca G.R. No. L-28673October 23, 1984Samar Mining Company, Inc., vs. Nordeutscher Lloyd, et al. G.R. No. L-30310October 23, 1984Saturnino Medija vs. Ernesto Patcho, et al. G.R. No. L-31300-01October 23, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Henry A. Enriquez, et al. G.R. No. L-31861October 23, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Pedrito Ramos, et al. G.R. No. L-32216October 23, 1984National Mines & Allied Workers' Union vs. Gabriel V. Valero, et al. G.R. No. L-33442October 23, 1984Jovita Quismundo vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-34654October 23, 1984Benjamin Tupas, et al. vs. Daniel Damasco, et al. G.R. No. L-36513October 23, 1984Ramon Albores vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-43349October 23, 1984Remus Villavieja vs. Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation, et al. G.R. No. L-44455October 23, 1984Jacobo I. Garcia, et al. vs. Juan F. Echiverri, et al. G.R. No. L-45087October 23, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Proceso Quindala Aballe G.R. No. L-52348October 23, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Ignacio Seculles G.R. No. L-52415October 23, 1984Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees' Union vs. Hon. Amado G. Inciong, et al. G.R. No. L-56218October 23, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Gaudencio Padilla, et al. G.R. No. L-56856October 23, 1984Henry Bacus, et al. vs. Blas F. Ople, et al. G.R. No. L-57738October 23, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Gorgonio Resano G.R. No. L-59980October 23, 1984Berlin Taguba, et al. vs. Maria Peralta Vda. De De Leon, et al. G.R. No. L-62439October 23, 1984Gregory James Pozar vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-64982October 23, 1984Alejandro B. Hontiveros vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-31139October 12, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Renato Moral, et al. G.R. No. L-34857October 12, 1984Agapito Paredes, et al. vs. the Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-43792October 12, 1984Pedro Baldebrin vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-61647October 12, 1984Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-62243October 12, 1984People of the Philippines vs. Regino Veridiano II, et al. B.M. No. 139October 11, 1984Procopio S. Beltran, Jr., vs. Elmo S. Abad G.R. No. L-35605October 11, 1984Republic of the Philippines vs. Branch III of the Cfi of Cebu, et al. G.R. No. L-28377October 1, 1984Uy Tong vs. Mario R. Silva, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Salvador C. Reyes, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Flaviano G. PudaPeople of the Philippines vs. Rafael Dalusag, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Yurong, et al.Manuel H. Santiago vs. Court of AppealsJuliana Z. Limoico vs. Board of Administrators, et al.Alexis C. Gandionco vs. Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Jose Salig, et al.Elmer Peregrina, et al. vs. Hon. Domingo D. Panis, et al.Cosme Lacuesta vs. Barangay Casabaan, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Valencia, et al.Isabelo Moran, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Cesar Mancao, Jr., et al.People of the Philippines vs. Elias BorromeoPeople of the Philippines vs. George Ramirez, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Quirino Cielo, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Armando M. AdrianoEquitable Banking Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Traders Royal Bank vs. Intermediate Appelate Court, et al.Fernando Valdez vs. Gregorio U. AquilizanPalomo Building Tenants Association, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Teofilo Dioso and Jacinto AbarcaSamar Mining Company, Inc., vs. Nordeutscher Lloyd, et al.Saturnino Medija vs. Ernesto Patcho, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Henry A. Enriquez, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Pedrito Ramos, et al.National Mines & Allied Workers' Union vs. Gabriel V. Valero, et al.Jovita Quismundo vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al.Benjamin Tupas, et al. vs. Daniel Damasco, et al.Ramon Albores vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Remus Villavieja vs. Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation, et al.Jacobo I. Garcia, et al. vs. Juan F. Echiverri, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Proceso Quindala AballePeople of the Philippines vs. Ignacio SecullesInsular Bank of Asia and America Employees' Union vs. Hon. Amado G. Inciong, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Gaudencio Padilla, et al.Henry Bacus, et al. vs. Blas F. Ople, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Gorgonio ResanoBerlin Taguba, et al. vs. Maria Peralta Vda. De De Leon, et al.Gregory James Pozar vs. Court of AppealsAlejandro B. Hontiveros vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Renato Moral, et al.Agapito Paredes, et al. vs. the Court of Appeals, et al.Pedro Baldebrin vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al.Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Regino Veridiano II, et al.Procopio S. Beltran, Jr., vs. Elmo S. AbadRepublic of the Philippines vs. Branch III of the Cfi of Cebu, et al.Uy Tong vs. Mario R. Silva, et al.The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-41569 October 31, 1984
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,petitioner,
vs.
HON. SALVADOR C. REYES, as Judge of Branch III, Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija; HON. NORBERTO L. CAJUCOM, as City Judge of Palayan City; and AGATON INOCENCIO,respondents.
RELOVA,J.:ñé+.£ªwph!1
In this petition for review on certiorari, the People seeks to declare as null and void, being violative of due process, the order of respondent City Court, dated April 2, 1974, dismissing the case of estafa against respondent Agaton Inocencio in Criminal Case No. 51, to direct the continuation of the trial of said criminal case, and to annul and set aside the order dated March 6, 1975 of the respondent Court of First Instance in Civil Case No. 6228.
Records show that on August 15, 1973 an information for estafa against private respondent Agaton Inocencio was filed by the City Fiscal of Palayan City in respondent City Court and docketed as Criminal Case No. 51, entitled"People vs. Agaton Inocencio."The information reads:têñ.£îhqwâ£
That on or about the 3rd day of March 1973 in the City of Palayan, Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused AGATON INOCENCIO, got and received from Mr. FABIAN POSADA a warehouseman in the Bishop house at Cabanatuan City the sum of 120 bags of rolled oats, designated "foods for work project" for the purpose and within the obligation of delivering and giving them thru the Barrio Captains to the 70 laborers who worked at the multi-purpose pavement by cementing the pavement infront of the stage of the Bo. Malate, Elementary School, Palayan City, whose names appeared on a list attached hereto, but the accused Agaton Inocencio once in possession of the 120 bags of rolled oats gave the workers thru the Bo. Captain only 12 bags and with intent to defraud, unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate and convert to his personal use and benefit the balance of 108 bags of rolled oats valued at P75.00 per bag, refused and still refuses to deliver the 108 bags to the workers listed above and to their damage and prejudice in equal proportion in the sum of 108 bags of rolled oats or its value of P8,100.00 Philippine currency. (p. 45, Rollo)
The petitioner had. listed more than 70 prosecution witnesses and it had had already presented around 14 witnesses. At the trial on December 17, 1974, only 3 of the 10 witnesses who were duly served with subpoenas appeared and testified. Whereupon, in view of the non-appearance of the other seven (7) witnesses, the city fiscal moved for their arrest which was denied by respondent city judge. The city fiscal then moved for the postponement of the trial but again respondent city judge denied the motion and, instead, required the defense to file a motion to dismiss. The city fiscal moved to reconsider the aforementioned order of denial, but the same was turned down on December 26, 1974.
On January 16, 1975, the city fiscal filed a motion for certiorari with the respondent Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. 6228) alleging that the respondent city judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his two, motions which deprived the prosecution of its right to present, evidence in order to sustain the allegations in the information.
On February 6, 1975, respondent CFI Judge issued an order restraining the city judge "from further acting on the said estafa case until further orders from this court." (p. 62, Rollo)
Herein respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition for certiorari on the ground that respondent CFI Judge has no jurisdiction over the subject matter because the case of estafa, involving the amount of P8,100.00, falls within the concurrent jurisdiction of the City Court and the Court of First Instance and, therefore, the petition for certiorari should have been filed with the Court of Appeals.
On March 6, 1975, respondent CFI Judge issued an order dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that "in the exercise of such concurrent jurisdiction, the said City Court is a co-ordinate and co-equal court of the Court of First Instance.ℒαwρhi৷Under that situation, the said City Court is not an inferior court but in the nature of a superior court, co-equal and co-ordinate with this Court. Consequently, this Court believes that it has no power to interfere by certiorari or otherwise with the acts of the Palayan City Court which had taken cognizance of said Criminal Case No. 51, as a Court with a concurrent or co-ordinate jurisdiction with this Court. (p. 79, Rollo)
After a careful perusal of the records We find that respondent city judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied (1) the motion of the city fiscal for the arrest of the witnesses who failed to come at the hearing and (2) the motion for the continuance of the trial. Each party in a case, whether civil or criminal has the right to introduce such evidence which in his opinion would sustain his burden of proof. To prove a fact in issue a party can present one or several witnesses. However, when the evidence already presented on one point is sufficient and the party merely seeks to present cumulative evidence which cannot produce additional persuasive effect or that he is not sure of what the other witnesses would testify, the court may in its sound discretion stop the introduction of such further evidence. Section 6, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court specifically provides:têñ.£îhqwâ£
Sec. 6.Power of the court to stop further evidence. —The court may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to be additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised with caution.
InGuinea vs. Vda. de Ramonal,62 SCRA 370, We have applied the said provision and held that "[a]s Ello's testimony would be merely cumulative, the trial court did not err in rejecting it.
In the case at bar, the prosecuting fiscal had already presented around fourteen (14) witnesses. On December 17, 1974, three (3) of the ten (10) witnesses who were subpoenaed appeared and testified. In other words, 17 witnesses had already testified when the respondent city judge would not allow further continuance of the hearing. Pursuant to the foregoing provision of the Rules of Court and Our ruling in the above-cited case, respondent city judge acted within his discretion when he denied the motion to postpone the hearing and when he stopped the further presentation of the People's evidence. The trial court is vested with that prerogative of stopping further testimony.
The petition is bereft of merit as there is no showing of denial of substantial justice.
WHEREFORE,the case isDISMISSEDwithout costs.
SO ORDERED.1äwphï1.ñët
Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.
Gutierrez, Jr., J., took no part.