View full case

JOWETT K. GOLANGCO

FACTS:

The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals to challenge the order issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 95-145703. The RTC had declared the prosecution's presentation of evidence terminated and required them to file a written offer of evidence within 20 days. The case stemmed from a prosecution for libel initiated by the petitioner against the respondent. The respondent allegedly issued a memorandum maliciously imputing the commission of bribery against the petitioner and sent copies of the memorandum to the petitioner's superiors at the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and other public officers and personalities. The prosecution had presented only two witnesses in the criminal case, with a request for a subpoena to summon another witness, Atty. Oscar Ramos, being unfulfilled due to the absence of a subpoena. The RTC judge then terminated the prosecution's presentation of evidence, prompting the petitioner to file a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals to challenge the order. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that there was a need for a new subpoena for the next scheduled hearing and that the petitioner's request for a subpoena failed to specify the date and time of the intended witness' appearance.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the RTC judge commit grave abuse of discretion in not issuing the subpoena to require Atty. Ramos to appear and testify in the May 23, 2001 hearing?

  2. Did the petitioner's prior request for the subpoena for the February 20, 2001 hearing serve as a continuing request for the subpoena?

RULING:

  1. No, the RTC judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in not issuing the subpoena. The petitioner's urgent request for a subpoena failed to indicate the date and time when Atty. Ramos must appear in court to testify. The court personnel relied on the request to prepare the subpoena, therefore the absence of the required information made it impossible to issue a proper subpoena.

  2. No, the petitioner's prior request for the subpoena for the February 20, 2001 hearing did not serve as a continuing request for the subpoena. The court cannot assume that the petitioner still intended to present Atty. Ramos as a witness in the next hearing. Another request for a subpoena was necessary for the next scheduled hearing.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A request for a subpoena should indicate the date and time when the witness must appear in court to give testimony.

  • A new subpoena is required if a hearing is rescheduled and the witness is still intended to be presented.

  • The court cannot assume the intention of a party to present a witness without another request for a subpoena.