1. BACHRACH MOTORS CO, INC. V.
CIR association was entitled to have the direct testimony of the witness stricken off the
G.R. No. L-26136/OCT 30, 1978
TOPIC: RULE 132, SEC. 4 – ORDER IN THE EXAMINATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL WITNESS
PETITIONER: THE BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC. and/or "BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO.,
INC.", as operator of the RURAL TRANSIT
RESPONDENTS: THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION
PONENTE: MUÑOZ PALMA
FACTS:
● Petitioner Bachrach was in the transportation business in 1958.
o In the same year, the Rural Transit Employees Association went on strike
and the dispute reached the CIR
● CIR immediately issued an order which required the strikers to return to work and
the management to take them back under the terms and conditions before the
dispute arose
● While the labor dispute was pending with the CIR, Bachrach filed a petition for
authority to discharge driver Maximo Jacob from service
o Because of alleged violations of the Motor Vehicle Law, resulting in
damage to property and injuries to third parties, resulting in total
destruction of bus 170 of the company
● An “Answer and Counter-Petition” was filed in behalf of Maximo by the
Association, denying charges and alleged that the accident was due to a mechanical
defect of the bus, hence, suspension was not justified
● The petition of Bachrach was docketed as Case No. 22-IPA (11), during which
Bachrach only present its one and only witness, Mr. Joseph Kaplin, general
manager of Rural Transit + documents marked as Exh 1 to 8-F
● After Kaplin concluded his direct testimony, w/ agreement of the parties, the
hearing was scheduled for another date for the purposes of cross-examination of
the witness
● The case was reset on various dates, but Kaplin failed to appear as he went to
abroad
● The Association filed a motion praying that:
o Testimony of Kaplin be stricken from records
o Petition of Bachrach for authority to dismiss Maximo from service be
denied
o Bachrach be ordered to reinstate Maximo
● CIR dismissed Bachrach’s petition and lifted the suspension of Maximo, and
ordered his reinstatement with backwages
● Bachrach’s MR having been denied, it filed the instant petition for certiorari
ISSUE: WON Kaplin’s testimony may be stricken from records – YES
RULING:
● Petitioner presented only one witness, Joseph Kaplin, to prove its case against
driver Jacob. The witness failed however to appear at the scheduled hearings for
his cross-examination for the simple reason that he left for abroad. Having been
deprived, without fault on its part, of its right to cross-examine Kaplin, respondent
record.
● "The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial
litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative
tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is fundamental right which is part of due
process."
● In Ortigas Jr. v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 1975. defendant's witness failed to
appear at the continuation of hearing during which the witness was to be cross-
examined by plaintiff's counsel. The trial court denied defendant's motion for
postponement and ordered the unfinished testimony of the witness Lazzari
stricken off the record.
o "Oral testimony may be taken into account only when it is complete, that
is, if the witness has been wholly cross-examined by the adverse party or
the right to cross-examine is lost wholly or in part thru the fault of such
adverse party. 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.
o "The right of a party to cross-examine the witness of his adversary is
invaluable as it is inviolable in civil cases, no less than the right of the
accused in criminal cases. The express recognition of such right of the
accused in the Constitution does not render the right thereto of parties in
civil cases less constitutionally based, for it is an indispensable part of the
due process guaranteed by the fundamental law. . . . Until such cross-
examination has been finished, the testimony of the witness cannot be
considered as complete and may not, therefore, be allowed to form part
of the evidence to be considered by the court in deciding the case."
● Parenthetically, the situation in Savory Luncheonette v. Lakas ng Manggagawang
Pilipino, et al., supra, was different. There, the witness, Atty. Morabe, had finished
his direct testimony and he was ready and available for cross-examination. Motions
for postponement of the cross-examination were made however by the adverse
counsel from time to time until one day Atty. Morabe succumbed to a fatal heart
attack without the cross-examination having been accomplished. On motion of the
respondents the Court of Industrial Relations ordered the testimony of Atty.
Morabe deleted from the record. On a petition for certiorari by Savory
Luncheonette, this Court set aside the order and held that by their own actuations,
respondents were considered to have impliedly waived and thereupon lost their
right to cross-examine the witness, for such a right may be forfeited by a party
litigant through his own conduct.
● Petitioner contends however that it was ready to present another witness, Mrs.
Ursula Silva, to identify the documents, Exhibits "1" to "8-F", but it did not proceed
to call the witness for the reason that during the hearing of January 16, 1965,
respondent's counsel, Atty. Santiago, manifested that he was admitting the
signatures of Joseph Kaplin on the aforesaid documents.
● However true that may be, what Atty. Santiago admitted merely was the signature
of Mr. Kaplin and not the truth of the contents of the documents. The opposing
party was still entitled to cross-examine the witness on the matters written on
Exhibits "1" to "8-F" especially if they adversely affected the substantial rights of
the party against whom they were being presented, namely, driver Maximo Jacob.
When Atty. Santiago admitted that the signature appearing in Exhibits "1" to "8-F"
 was that of witness Kaplin, the counsel of petitioner then, Atty. Joven Enrile, should
have inquired if the party was admitting likewise the veracity of the contents of the
documents; not having done so, petitioner must now suffer the consequences.
● Exhibits "1 " to "8-F" were admitted by respondent court only for "whatever they
may be worth." Evaluating them, however, it did not consider said documents, and
rightly so, as competent proof of the truthfulness of their contents without the
supporting testimony of witness Kaphin. As stated in the order under review "(N)o
other witness was presented by respondent company (now petitioner) to testify on
the intrinsic value of those exhibits"; consequently, they are hearsay.
● Inasmuch as the testimony of Joseph Kaplin is stricken off the record and the
contents of Exhibits "1" to "8-F" are hearsay, and there is no other evidence which
substantiates the charges against Maximo Jacob, the dismissal of the company's
petition to discharge Jacob from its service is in order.

WHEREFORE, We hereby render judgment affirming the order of respondent Court of

Industrial Relations dated March 1, 1966, now under review, with the sole modification that
petitioner shall pay its driver Maximo Jacob three (3) years backwages at the rate of the last
salary received before he was suspended, without qualification and deduction.
With costs against petitioner. Order modified. SO ORDERED.
 2. People v. Padero the appearance of the child." Elsa, the accused, and his wife were present at the
G.R. No. 106274. September 28, 1993. time.
Topic: Rule 132 Sec. 4 - Order in the Examination of an Individual Witness 4. Marietta Padero testified that she frequently quarreled with her husband, the
Petitioners: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES accused herein, because she "was jealous with their relationship with the woman,
Respondents: HENRY PADERO Jocelyn, her niece." During the instances when Jocelyn came to her house, she
Ponente: DAVIDE, JR. observed that when she turned her back, Jocelyn and her husband talked to each
FACTS: other, but when she was near them they would stop conversing. At one time,
● Padero was charged with the rape of his wife’s niece, Jecelyn Cadina. Jocelyn accompanied her husband in fetching water. She was present during the
● Jocelyn, 16 yo, testified that: meeting between her mother-in-law (Macrina) and Damiana wherein the former
o On the night of Aug 31, 1991, at around 11pm, she woke up to find told the latter, "Day, if Jocelyn gave birth, we will just help in the expenses."
Padero (her uncle-in-law) on top of her while holding a knife and ● On rebuttal, Clara Cadeliña denied the testimony of Loreta Samane that sometime
threatened her not to shout or he will kill her, then proceeded to have in March 1991 she ordered her to get a plate and spoon from Damiana's house
carnal knowledge with her. which is only two meters from her house and the testimony of Macrina Padero that
o She did not report the incident to anybody but was eventually forced to she had a conference with Macrina in the house of Elsa Garcia and that she
tell her mother as she was conceiving, hence the case against Padero. requested Macrina to support the child of the complainant. Clara further declared
● Padero admitted having sexual intercourse on several occasions with Cadina, but it is not possible, as testified to by Loreta, that the complainant and the accused
alleged that these were all with her consent; were covered with a blanket under the table, and that the complainant was
o that they are in fact in a relationship fondling the sex organ of the accused.
● The trial court convicted Padero of the crime of rape.
o that he would usually sleep in the house that Jocelyn was renting
whenever he was in Bais City
ISSUE: W/N Padero is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt – No.
o that they had their first sexual intercourse on August 1991 and
continued to do so for about 15 times in the same house, usually when
RULING:
the other occupants were not around.
● In rape cases, the following guidelines have been laid down by this Court: (1) an
o That Jocelyn filed a case because he did not agree to go away with her as
accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more di cult
he has a family.
for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic
Testimony of defense witnesses:
nature of the crime where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of
1. Loreta Semane, the accused’s maid, declared that one early morning in March 1991
the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for
when she was in the house of Clara Cadeliña, she was requested by Clara to get a
the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to
plate and spoon from the house of Damiana Cadeliña (mother of the complainant);
draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
that when the door of the latter's house was opened for her by Wengweng, a 14-
● Accordingly, the complainant's testimony should not be received with precipitate
year old sister of the complainant, Loreta saw the accused and the complainant
credulity, especially when the conviction depends at any vital point upon her
covered by a blanket underneath a table. Suddenly a gust of wind blew away the
uncorroborated testimony; it should not be accepted unless her sincerity and
blanket and she saw the complainant fondling the sex organ of the accused. On
candor are free from suspicion. Such testimony must be impeccable and ring true
another occasion, also in March 1991 at about noon, she saw the latter and the
throughout, or credible and positive.
complainant lying down in the middle of the house with the complainant's legs
● The credibility of the complainant is under scrutiny here. The trial court gave her
wrapped around those of the accused.
testimony full faith and credit. The general rule is that when the issue of credibility
2. Elsa Garcia, who has been occupying the unit adjacent to that rented by the
of witnesses is involved, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of
complainant and one Marilou since 16 September 1991, declared that in the
the trial court considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the
evening of that date she heard noises from the unit occupied by the complainant,
question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment
so she peeped through a hole in the wall and saw the complainant, who was not
and manner of testifying during the trial, unless certain facts of value have been
fully dressed, on top of the accused on a folding bed while caressing him. At
plainly overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.
another time, she also saw the complainant approach the accused, who was sitting
● For one, despite the positive testimony of the accused which squarely traversed
at the doorway of Elsa's unit, and tell him that she was "two months pregnant."
the complainant's version of force or intimidation by stating that he and the
3. Macrina Padero, the mother of the accused, testified that sometime in October
complainant had an intimate relationship, with the latter as the more aggressive
1991, she met Damiana Cadeliña at the house of Elsa Garcia. Damiana told her that
partner, and that their first sexual encounter in August of 1991 was followed by
the complainant and the accused "had a relationship" and that "in case of delivery
fifteen more encounters at the same place during week-ends when the
of the baby," she (Macrina) "is obligated to spend on the delivery." Macrina stated
complainant was alone, all of which were new facts, the complainant was never
that she was willing to spend for the child on condition that she "should see first
 recalled to the witness stand to rebut these obviously damaging revelations of the ● The claim of threat or intimidation through the use of a knife merits scant
accused. consideration.
o The prosecution was simply contented with the presentation of Clara o As shown above, and even from the complainant's direct testimony, the
Cadeliña, Rev. Lemuel Felecio, and Damiana Cadeliña to rebut some less alleged "more than a finger stretch length" knife was never accounted for
important, if not minor or trivial, matters brought out in the testimonies during and after coitus.
of Loreta Samane and Macrina Padero. o As admitted by the complainant during the cross-examination, she
o After the second rebuttal witness, Rev. Felecio, had finished his allegedly saw it for the first time when she was roused from her sleep
testimony, the prosecutor simply announced to the court that the last and she noticed the accused on top of her, holding the knife in his right
rebuttal witness would be Damiana Cadeliña. hand. 36 In this position, the accused could only be facing down at her.
● The function of rebuttal evidence is to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove the However, on direct examination, she declared that when she saw him
evidence of the adversary. Its office is "to meet the new facts put in by the wielding a knife and holding her arm, "[h]e was lying down, faced [sic]
opponent in his case in reply" and is "necessary only because, on a plea in denial, up"
new subordinate evidential facts have been offered, or because, on an affirmative o From then on she was silent about the knife.
plea, its substantive facts have been put forward, or because, on any issue ● We therefore have serious doubts on the guilt of the accused for the crime
whatever, facts discrediting the proponent's witnesses have been offered." charged. Although rape is universally condemned as a most detestable crime,
● While the presentation of rebuttal evidence is discretionary with the prosecution in conviction therefor can, in light of the presumption of innocence which is solemnly
a criminal action, in the instant case, the overwhelming import of the new facts guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, only lie upon proof beyond reasonable doubt or
disclosed by the accused which have a damaging effect on the complainant's that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Short of
version made it imperative for the prosecution to present rebuttal evidence. this, it is not only the right of the accused to be freed, it is the constitutional duty of
Relegating the complainant to the background and presenting other witnesses to the court to acquit him.
rebut minor or trivial matters brought out in the evidence in chief for the defense
engender serious doubts on the integrity of her story. WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of Branch 45 of the Regional Trial Court of Bais City,
● For another, we find enough evidence of the intimate relationship between the Negros Oriental, in Criminal Case No. 741-B is REVERSED, and the accused HENRY PADERO is
complainant and the accused. On cross-examination, she admitted that the hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.
accused used to sleep in the unit of the house which she rented from his mother. Costs de oficio.
(see full text for the complete cross examination) SO ORDERED.
o as further testified to by her on cross-examination, she declared that the
accused usually came to her rented unit every weekend since June 1991
and slept there despite the fact that the house of his mother is only
nearby
● Why the accused chose weekends can easily be explained by the fact that the
complainant's companions in the rented unit, including her own sister, usually went
home on Fridays.
o If indeed there was no liaison between the complainant and the accused,
we find it rather unusual that the accused would spend his weekends in
her rented unit and not at his parents' residence which was just nearby,
and that instead of going home to her parent's home in Amalao, Tagpo,
Bais City, just as her companions were wont to, the complainant
preferred to welcome the accused in her rented unit and allow him to
spend his weekend nights alone with her. She offered no satisfactory
explanation therefor.
● Also, her conduct during and after coitus unmistakably discloses absence of even
token resistance and betrays her consent to the sexual congress.
o In one salient portion of the cross-examination, we find her totally
submissive in the face of the assault against her most prized possession
and unusually observant of the preparatory acts of the accused and his
eventual physiological and emotional transformation in fulfilled libido.