PEOPLE V. WEBB (REMEDIAL)

Rule 113. Section 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.

The trial court was but exercising its judgment on what it perceived to be a superfluous exercise on the belief that the introduction thereof will not reasonably add to the persuasiveness of the evidence already on record.

Needless to state, the trial court cannot be faulted with lack of caution in denying respondent's motion considering that under the prevailing facts of the case, respondent had more than ample opportunity to adduce evidence in his defence. Certainly, a party cannot feign denial of due proceed where he had the opportunity to present his side. It must be borne in mind in this regard that due process is not a monopoly of the defense. Indeed, the State is entitled to due process as much as the accused. Furthermore, while a litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is a truism that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.

It is pointed out that the defense has already presented at least 57 witnesses and 464 documentary exhibits, many of them of the exact nature as those to be produced or testified to by the proposed foreign deponents. Under the circumstances, the SC sustains the proposition that the trial judge commits no grave abuse of discretion if she decides that the evidence on the matter sought to be proved in the US could not possibly add anything substantial to the defense evidence involved.