RULE 119 (TRIAL). Section 15 (Examination of witness for prosecution) RULE 119 (TRIAL). Section 15 (Examination of witness for prosecution)
HARRY L. GO, TONNY NGO, HARRY L. GO, TONNY NGO, JERRY NGO AND JANE GO, JERRY NGO AND JANE GO,
Petitioners, Petitioners,
-versus-THE PEOPLE OF -versus-THE THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES and HIGHDONE PHILIPPINES and HIGHDONE COMPANY, LTD., ET AL. COMPANY, LTD., ET AL. Respondents. Respondents. [G.R. No. 185527. July 18, [G.R. No. 185527. July 18, 2012]2012] FACTS: FACTS:
Sometime in August 1996, in the City of
Sometime in August 1996, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the accused Harry L. Go,Manila, Philippines, the accused Harry L. Go, Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo and Jane Go, conspiring, confederating together and helping Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo and Jane Go, conspiring, confederating together and helping one another, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud Highdone Company Ltd. one another, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud Highdone Company Ltd. represented by Li Luen Ping. All said accused, by means of false manifestations and represented by Li Luen Ping. All said accused, by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations that they made to said Li Luen Ping to the effect that fraudulent representations that they made to said Li Luen Ping to the effect that they have chattels such as machinery, spare parts, equipment and raw materials they have chattels such as machinery, spare parts, equipment and raw materials installed and fixed in the premises of BGB Industrial Textile Mills Factory located in installed and fixed in the premises of BGB Industrial Textile Mills Factory located in the Bataan Export Processing Zone (BEPZ) in Mariveles, Bataan. They executed a the Bataan Export Processing Zone (BEPZ) in Mariveles, Bataan. They executed a Deed of Mortgage for a consideration of the amount of $464,266.90 or its peso Deed of Mortgage for a consideration of the amount of $464,266.90 or its peso equivalent at P20,892,010.50 more or less in favor of ML Resources and Highdone equivalent at P20,892,010.50 more or less in favor of ML Resources and Highdone Company Ltd. They represented that the said deed is
Company Ltd. They represented that the said deed is aafirst mortgagefirst mortgage when in truth when in truth and in fact, the accused well knew that the same had been previously encumbered, and in fact, the accused well knew that the same had been previously encumbered, mortgaged and foreclosed by
mortgaged and foreclosed by China Bank CorporationChina Bank Corporation as early as September 1994 as early as September 1994 thereby causing damage to Highdone Company Ltd.
thereby causing damage to Highdone Company Ltd.
Petitioners Harry Go, Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo and Jane Go were charged before Petitioners Harry Go, Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo and Jane Go were charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila forManila for Other DeceitsOther Deceits under Article 318 ofunder Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Upon arraignment, petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge. The Upon arraignment, petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution's complaining witness, Li Luen Ping, a frail old businessperson from prosecution's complaining witness, Li Luen Ping, a frail old businessperson from Laos, Cambodia, traveled from his home country back to the Philippines in order to Laos, Cambodia, traveled from his home country back to the Philippines in order to attend the hearing held on September 9, 2004.
attend the hearing held on September 9, 2004.
However, trial dates were subsequently postponed due
However, trial dates were subsequently postponed due to his unavailability.to his unavailability. On October 13, 2005, the private prosecutor filed with the MeTC a
treated for lung infection at the Cambodia Charity Hospital in Laos, Cambodia and treated for lung infection at the Cambodia Charity Hospital in Laos, Cambodia and
that upon doctor’
that upon doctor’s advice; he could not make the s advice; he could not make the long travel to the country.long travel to the country.
The petitioners’ opposed the said motion; however, the MeTC granted the The petitioners’ opposed the said motion; however, the MeTC granted the
motion after the prosecution complied with the directive to submit a Medical motion after the prosecution complied with the directive to submit a Medical Certifcate of Li Luen Ping. They sought reconsideration, which was subsequently Certifcate of Li Luen Ping. They sought reconsideration, which was subsequently denied by the M
denied by the MeTC. eTC. Thus, they file Thus, they file a Petition for a Petition for Certiorari before Certiorari before the Regionalthe Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Trial Court (RTC).
On September 12, 2006, the RTC granted the petition and
On September 12, 2006, the RTC granted the petition and declared thedeclared the MeTC Orders null and void
MeTC Orders null and void. The RTC held that. The RTC held that Section 17, Rule 23Section 17, Rule 23 on the taking on the taking of depositions of
of depositions of witnesses in civwitnesses in civil cases cannot il cases cannot apply to the apply to the case. case. Deposition ofDeposition of prosecution witness in criminal cases is governed by a specific provision in the prosecution witness in criminal cases is governed by a specific provision in the Rules of Court.
Rules of Court. Upon denial by Upon denial by the RTC of the motion the RTC of the motion for reconsideration for reconsideration throughthrough an Order dated March 5, 2006, the prosecution elevated the case to the Court of an Order dated March 5, 2006, the prosecution elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA).
Appeals (CA).
On February 19, 2008, the CA promulgated the assailed Decision, which held On February 19, 2008, the CA promulgated the assailed Decision, which held that
that no grave abuse of discretion can be imputed upon the MeTCno grave abuse of discretion can be imputed upon the MeTC for allowing for allowing the deposition taking of Li Luen Ping. It stated that there is no rule of
the deposition taking of Li Luen Ping. It stated that there is no rule of procedure thatprocedure that expressly disallows the taking of depositions in criminal cases. Petitioners would expressly disallows the taking of depositions in criminal cases. Petitioners would still have opportunity to cross-examine the witness and make timely objections still have opportunity to cross-examine the witness and make timely objections during the taking of the oral deposition, either through counsel or through the during the taking of the oral deposition, either through counsel or through the consular officer.
consular officer.
Petitioners’ filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA. Petitioners’ filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA.
Hence, this petition, Hence, this petition,
ISSUE: ISSUE:
1) Whether or not the CA erred in
1) Whether or not the CA erred in not not finding that the Metropolitan Trial Court finding that the Metropolitan Trial Court infringed the Constitutional right of the petitioners
infringed the Constitutional right of the petitioners to a public trialto a public trial in allowing the in allowing the taking of the deposition of
taking of the deposition of the complaining witness in Laos, Cambodia.the complaining witness in Laos, Cambodia. 2) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in
2) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not not finding that the deposition finding that the deposition taking of the complaining witness in Laos, Cambodia is an infringement of the taking of the complaining witness in Laos, Cambodia is an infringement of the Constitutional right of the Petitioners
3) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the judicial legislation 3) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the judicial legislation committed by the Metropolitan Trial court in applying the rules on deposition committed by the Metropolitan Trial court in applying the rules on deposition taking in civil cases to criminal cases.
taking in civil cases to criminal cases.
HELD: HELD:
The Supreme Court (SC) ruled
The Supreme Court (SC) ruled in favor of petitionersin favor of petitioners..
SC declared that the examination of witnesses must be done orally before a SC declared that the examination of witnesses must be done orally before a judge in an open court. The Constitution secures to the accused his right to a public judge in an open court. The Constitution secures to the accused his right to a public trial and to meet the witnesses against him face to face. Accordingly, this is the trial and to meet the witnesses against him face to face. Accordingly, this is the
“safest and most satisfactory method of investigating facts”
“safest and most satisfactory method of investigating facts” as it enables the judge toas it enables the judge to test the witness' credibility through his manner and deportment while testifying. test the witness' credibility through his manner and deportment while testifying. However, the Rules of Court recognizes the conditional examination of witnesses However, the Rules of Court recognizes the conditional examination of witnesses and the use of their depositions as testimonial evidence instead of direct court and the use of their depositions as testimonial evidence instead of direct court testimony.
testimony.
Deposition in criminal cases, of a prosecution witness who is foreseen to be Deposition in criminal cases, of a prosecution witness who is foreseen to be unavailable for trial, should be made before the court, at least before the judge, unavailable for trial, should be made before the court, at least before the judge, where the case is pending as mandated in
where the case is pending as mandated in Section 15, Rule 119Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides,
Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides,
SEC. 15. Examination of
SEC. 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution.witness for the prosecution. ––When it satisfactorilyWhen it satisfactorily appears that a witness for the prosecution is too sick or
appears that a witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear atinfirm to appear at the trial as directed by the court, or has to leave the Philippines with no the trial as directed by the court, or has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning, he may forthwith be conditionally examined definite date of returning, he may forthwith be conditionally examined before the court where the case is pending.
before the court where the case is pending. Such examination, in the Such examination, in the presence of the accused, or in his absence after
presence of the accused, or in his absence after reasonable notice to attendreasonable notice to attend the examination has been served on him shall be conducted in the same the examination has been served on him shall be conducted in the same manner as an examination at the trial. Failure or refusal of the accused to manner as an examination at the trial. Failure or refusal of the accused to attend the examination after notice shall be considered a waiver. The attend the examination after notice shall be considered a waiver. The statement taken may be admitted in behalf of
statement taken may be admitted in behalf of or against the accused.or against the accused.
Since the conditional examination of a prosecution witness must take place at Since the conditional examination of a prosecution witness must take place at no other place than the court where the case is pending, the
no other place than the court where the case is pending, the RTC properly nullifiedRTC properly nullified the MeTC's orders granting the motion to take the deposition of Li Luen Ping the MeTC's orders granting the motion to take the deposition of Li Luen Ping
before the Philippine consular official in Laos, Cambodia. SC quoted with approval before the Philippine consular official in Laos, Cambodia. SC quoted with approval the RTC's
the RTC's ratiocination:ratiocination:
The condition of the private complainant being sick and of advanced age The condition of the private complainant being sick and of advanced age falls
falls within within the the provision provision ofof Section Section 15 15 Rule Rule 119119 of the Rules of Court. of the Rules of Court. However, said rule substantially provides that he should be conditionally However, said rule substantially provides that he should be conditionally examined before the court where the case is pending. Thus, this
examined before the court where the case is pending. Thus, this Court Court concludes that the language of Section 15 Rule 119 must be interpreted to concludes that the language of Section 15 Rule 119 must be interpreted to require the parties to present testimony at the hearing through live witnesses, require the parties to present testimony at the hearing through live witnesses,
hearing, rather than by means of deposition.
hearing, rather than by means of deposition. Nowhere in the said ruleNowhere in the said rule permits the taking of deposition outside the Philippines whether the permits the taking of deposition outside the Philippines whether the de
deponent iponent is s ssiick or nck or n ot.ot.
SC further elucidated that to take the deposition of the prosecution witness SC further elucidated that to take the deposition of the prosecution witness elsewhere and not before the very same court where the case is pending would elsewhere and not before the very same court where the case is pending would deprive the detained accused of his right to attend the proceedings and deprive the deprive the detained accused of his right to attend the proceedings and deprive the trial judge of the opportunity to observe the prosecution witness' deportment and trial judge of the opportunity to observe the prosecution witness' deportment and properly assess his credibility. This is intolerable when the witness' testimony is properly assess his credibility. This is intolerable when the witness' testimony is crucial to the prosecution's case against the accused. This is the import of the crucial to the prosecution's case against the accused. This is the import of the Court's ruling in
Court's ruling inVda. DeVda. De Manguerra,Manguerra,
While we recognize the prosecution's right to preserve the testimony While we recognize the prosecution's right to preserve the testimony of its witness in order to prove its case, we cannot disregard the rules, of its witness in order to prove its case, we cannot disregard the rules, which are designed mainly for the protection of the accused's which are designed mainly for the protection of the accused's constitutional rights. The giving of testimony during trial is the general constitutional rights. The giving of testimony during trial is the general rule. The conditional examination of a witness outside of
rule. The conditional examination of a witness outside of the trial is only anthe trial is only an exception, and as such, calls for a strict
exception, and as such, calls for a strict construction of the rules.construction of the rules.
Where the prosecution seeks to depose the complaining witness against the Where the prosecution seeks to depose the complaining witness against the accused, the stringent procedure under
accused, the stringent procedure under Section 15, Rule 119Section 15, Rule 119 cannot be ignored cannot be ignored without violating the constitutional rights of the accused to due process.
without violating the constitutional rights of the accused to due process.
The Court noted that prosecution witness Li Luen Ping had managed to attend The Court noted that prosecution witness Li Luen Ping had managed to attend the initial trial proceedings before the MeTC of Manila on September 9, 2004. the initial trial proceedings before the MeTC of Manila on September 9, 2004. However, the prosecution failed to get his deposition or testimony taken, before the However, the prosecution failed to get his deposition or testimony taken, before the MeTC pursuant to S
MeTC pursuant to Section, Rule 119 of the Revised Ruection, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court. les of Court. The prosecutionThe prosecution
should have moved for the preservation of Li Luen Ping’s testimony given that the should have moved for the preservation of Li Luen Ping’s testimony given that the
witness is a non-resident alien who can leave the Philippines anytime without any witness is a non-resident alien who can leave the Philippines anytime without any definite date of return.
definite date of return. Therefore, the loss of the prosecution’s cause is attributableTherefore, the loss of the prosecution’s cause is attributable
to them. to them.
The SC
The SC emphasized thaemphasized that t while the while the prosecution mprosecution must providust provide the e the accusedaccused every opportunity to take the deposition of witnesses that are material to his every opportunity to take the deposition of witnesses that are material to his defense to avoid charges of violating the right of the accused to compulsory process, defense to avoid charges of violating the right of the accused to compulsory process, the State itself must resort to deposition-taking sparingly if it is to guard against the State itself must resort to deposition-taking sparingly if it is to guard against accusations of violating the right of the accused to meet the witnesses against him accusations of violating the right of the accused to meet the witnesses against him face to face.
Great care must be observed in the taking and use of depositions of Great care must be observed in the taking and use of depositions of prosecution witnesses to the end that no conviction of an accused will rely on prosecution witnesses to the end that no conviction of an accused will rely on exex parte
parteaffidavits and depositions.affidavits and depositions.
Thus, the CA erred when it upheld the
Thus, the CA erred when it upheld the MeTC’MeTC’s order allowing the depositions order allowing the deposition of witness Li Luen Ping to take place in a venue other than the court where the case of witness Li Luen Ping to take place in a venue other than the court where the case is pending, exercising grave abuse of
is pending, exercising grave abuse of discretion.discretion.
The assailed Decision dated February 19, 2008 and the Resolution dated The assailed Decision dated February 19, 2008 and the Resolution dated November 28, 2008 of the Court of Appeals were
November 28, 2008 of the Court of Appeals were REVERSEDREVERSED andand SET ASIDE.SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court that disallowed the deposition Accordingly, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court that disallowed the deposition taking in Laos, Cambodia was
