Go v.
People
Case Principle: The examination of witnesses must be done orally before a judge
in open court. However, as the Rules of Court recognizes the conditional
examination of witnesses and the use of their depositions as testimonial evidence in
lieu of direct court testimony. But for purposes of taking the deposition in criminal
cases, more particularly of a prosecution witness who would foreseeably be
unavailable for trial, the testimonial examination should be made before the court,
or at least before the judge, where the case is pending as required by the clear
mandate of Section 15, Rule 119 of the RROC.
FACTS:
Petitioner Go et.al, were charged before the MeTC for Other Deceits under
Art. 318 of the RPC. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to the
charge.
The prosecution’s complaining witness, Li Luen Ping, a frail old businessman
from Cambodia, traveled from his home country back to the Phils. in order to
attend the hearing. However, the trial dates were subsequently postponed
due to his unavailability.
The private prosecutor filed with the MeTC a Motion to Take Oral Deposition
of Li Luen Ping, alleging that he was being treated for lung infection at
Cambodia and that upon doctor’s advice, he could not make the long travel
from Cambodia to Phils.
Despite petitioners’ Opposition, the MeTC granted the motion, prompting the
petitioners to file a Petition for Certiorari before the RTC.
The RTC declared the MeTC Orders null and void.
The CA, however, upheld the MeTC for allowing the deposition-taking of the
complaining witness because according to the CA, no rule of procedure
expressly disallows the taking of depositions in criminal cases and that, in
any case, petitioners would still have every opportunity to cross-examine the
complaining witness and make timely objections.
ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in not finding that the MeTC infringed the constitutional
right of the petitioners to confront the said witness face to face
HELD:
YES. The procedure for testimonial examination of an unavailable prosecution
witness is covered under Sec. 15 of Rule 119 of the RROC.
The examination of witnesses must be done orally before a judge in open
court. This is true especially in criminal cases where the Constitution secures
to the accused his right to a public trial and to meet the witnesses against
him face to face.
The requirement is the "safest and most satisfactory method of investigating
facts" as it enables the judge to test the witness' credibility through his
manner and deportment while testifying. It is not without exceptions,
however, as the Rules of Court recognizes the conditional examination of
witnesses and the use of their depositions as testimonial evidence in lieu of
direct court testimony.
But for purposes of taking the deposition in criminal cases, more particularly
of a prosecution witness who would foreseeably be unavailable for trial, the
testimonial examination should be made before the court, or at least before
the judge, where the case is pending as required by the clear mandate of
Section 15, Rule 119 of the RROC.
Since the conditional examination of a prosecution witness must take place at
no other place than the court where the case is pending, the RTC properly
nullified the MeTC's orders granting the motion to take the deposition of Li
Luen Ping before the Philippine consular official in Laos, Cambodia.
Certainly, to take the deposition of the prosecution witness elsewhere and
not before the very same court where the case is pending would not only
deprive a detained accused of his right to attend the proceedings but also
deprive the trial judge of the opportunity to observe the prosecution witness'
deportment and properly assess his credibility, which is especially intolerable
when the witness' testimony is crucial to the prosecution's case against the
accused.
The giving of testimony during trial is the general rule. The conditional
examination of a witness outside of the trial is only an exception, and as
such, calls for a strict construction of the rules.
