G.R. No. 185527
July 18, 2012
HARRY L. GO, TONNY NGO, JERRY NGO AND JANE GO, Petitioners,
vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES an HIGHDONE !O"PANY, LTD., ET AL., Respondents.
Pon#n$#% Perlas-Bernabe, J.:
97port Processing :one ;B9P:< in ariveles, Bataan, e7ecuted a *eed of ortgage ortgage for a consider consideration ation of the amount of =040,44. =040,44.31 31 or its peso e6uivalent at P1,3,1"1.>1 more or less in favor of 5 Resources and #ighdo #ighdone ne (ompan (ompany y 5td. 5td. Repres Represent enting ing that that the said said deed deed is a 8!R/T 8!R/T )RT$+$9 hen in truth and in fact the accused ell kne that the same had been previously previously encumbered, encumbered, mortgaged mortgaged and foreclosed foreclosed by (#!%+ B+%? B+%? ()RP)R ()RP)R+T +T!)% !)% as early early as /eptem /eptember ber "330 "330 thereb thereby y causin causing g damage damage and pre@udice pre@udice to said #!$#*)%9 #!$#*)%9 ()P+%A ()P+%A 5T*., 5T*., in the said amount of =040,44.31 or its peso e6uivalent at P1,3,1"1.>1 more or less. . Cpon arraignment, petitioners petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge. charge.
Do&$'(n#% The procedure for taking depositions in criminal cases recognizes
the prosecution's right to preserve testimonial evidence and prove its case despite the unavailability of its itness. !t cannot, hoever, give license to prosecutorial indifference or unseemly involvement in a prosecution itness' absence from trial. To rule otherise ould effectively deprive the accused of his fundamental right to be confronted ith the itnesses against him.
Fa&$)%
". Petitioners #arry $o, Tonny Tonny %go, &erry %go %go and &ane $o ere charged before the eT( of anila for )ther *eceits under +rticle " of the RP(. . The !nformation dated /eptember /eptember 0, 11, later amended on /eptember "0, 110, reads2 a. That sometime in +ugust +ugust "334, in the (ity of anila, Philippines, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring, confederating together and helping one another, did then then and there there illfu illfully lly,, unlaf unlafull ully y and feloni felonious ously ly defra defraud ud #ighdo #ighdone ne (ompany 5td. Represented by 5i 5uen Ping. b. by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations hich they made to said 5i 5uen Ping to the effect that they have chattels such as machinery, spare parts, e6uipment and ra materials installed and fi7ed in the premises of B$B !ndustrial Te7tile ills 8actory located in the Bataan
0. The prosecu prosecutio tion's n's complai complainin ning g itnes itness, s, 5i 5uen 5uen Ping, Ping, a frail frail old businessman from 5aos, (ambodia, traveled from his home country back to the Philippines in order to attend the hearing held on /eptember 3, 110. >. #oeve #oever, r, trial trial dates ere subse6u subse6uent ently ly postpone postponed d due to his unavailability. 4. )n )ctober ", 11>, the private private prosecutor filed ith the eT( a otion to Take )ral *eposition of 5i 5uen Ping, alleging that he as being treated for lung infection at the (ambodia (harity #ospital in 5aos, (ambodia and that, that, upon upon doctor doctor's 's advice advice,, he could could not make make the long travel travel to the Philippines by reason of ill health. D. %otithstanding petitioners' petitioners' )pposition, the eT( granted the motion after after the prosec prosecuti ution on compli complied ed ith ith the direct directive ive to submit submit a edic edical al (ertificate of 5i 5uen Ping. . Petitioners sought its reconsideration reconsideration hich the eT( denied, denied, 3 prompting petitioners to file a Petition for (ertiorari before the RT(. 3. )n /eptember ", 114, the the RT( granted the petition and and declared the eT( )rders null and void. a. The RT( held that /ection /ection "D, Rule on the taking taking of depositi depositions ons of itnesses in civil cases cannot apply suppletorily to the case since there is a speci specific fic provisio provision n in the Rules of (ourt (ourt ith ith respec respectt to the taking taking of
depositions of prosecution itnesses in criminal cases, hich is primarily intended to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused to meet the itness against him face to face. "1. Cpon denial by the RT( of their motion for reconsideration through an )rder dated arch >, 114, the prosecution elevated the case to the (+. "". )n 8ebruary "3, 11, the (+ promulgated the assailed *ecision hich held that no grave abuse of discretion can be imputed upon the eT( for alloing the deposition-taking of the complaining itness 5i 5uen Ping because no rule of procedure e7pressly disallos the taking of depositions in criminal cases and that, in any case, petitioners ould still have every opportunity to cross-e7amine the complaining itness and make timely ob@ections during the taking of the oral deposition either through counsel or through the consular officer ho ould be taking the deposition of the itness. ". )n %ovember , 11, the (+ denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
The e7amination of itnesses must be done orally before a @udge in open court." This is true especially in criminal cases here the (onstitution secures to the accused his right to a public trial and to meet the itnessess against him face to face. The re6uirement is the safest and most satisfactory method of investigating facts as it enables the @udge to test the itness' credibility through his manner and deportment hile testifying. "0 !t is not ithout e7ceptions, hoever, as the Rules of (ourt recognizes the conditional e7amination of itnesses and the use of their depositions as testimonial evidence in lieu of direct court testimony.
9ven in criminal proceedings, there is no doubt as to the availability of conditional e7amination of itnesses F both for the benefit of the defense, as ell as the prosecution. The (ourt's ruling in the case of Gda. de anguerra v. Risos "> e7plicitly states that F
". #ence, this petition.
I))u#)% Ehether the application of the rules on deposition-taking in civil
cases to criminal cases is proper.
7 7 7 +s e7ceptions, Rule to of the Rules of (ourt provide for the different modes of discovery that may be resorted to by a party to an action. These rules are adopted either to perpetuate the testimonies of itnesses or as modes of discovery. !n criminal proceedings, /ections ", " and ">, Rule ""3 of the Revised Rules of (riminal Procedure, hich took effect on *ecember ", 111, allo the conditional e7amination of both the defense and prosecution itnesses. ;Cnderscoring supplied< "4
H#l%
". Ee rule in favor of petitioners.
The Procedure for Testimonial 97amination of an Cnavailable Prosecution Eitness is (overed Cnder /ection ">, Rule ""3.
The procedure under Rule to of the Rules of (ourt allos the taking of depositions in civil cases, either upon oral e7amination or ritten interrogatories, before any @udge, notary public or person authorized to administer oaths at any time or place ithin the PhilippinesH or before any
Philippine consular official, commissioned officer or person authorized to administer oaths in a foreign state or country, ith no additional re6uirement e7cept reasonable notice in riting to the other party. "D
But for purposes of taking the deposition in criminal cases, more particularly of a prosecution itness ho ould forseeably be unavailable for trial, the testimonial e7amination should be made before the court, or at least before the @udge, here the case is pending as re6uired by the clear mandate of /ection ">, Rule ""3 of the Revised Rules of (riminal Procedure. The pertinent provision reads thus2
/9(. ">. 97amination of itness for the prosecution. F Ehen it satisfactorily appears that a itness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial as directed by the court, or has to leave the Philippines ith no definite date of returning, he may forthith be conditionally e7amined before the court here the case is pending. /uch e7amination, in the presence of the accused, or in his absence after reasonable notice to attend the e7amination has been served on him shall be conducted in the same manner as an e7amination at the trial. 8ailure or refusal of the accused to attend the e7amination after notice shall be considered a aiver. The statement taken may be admitted in behalf of or against the accused.
concludes that the language of /ection "> Rule ""3 must be interpreted to re6uire the parties to present testimony at the hearing through live itnesses, hose demeanor and credibility can be evaluated by the @udge presiding at the hearing, rather than by means of deposition. %o here in the said rule permits the taking of deposition outside the Philippines hether the deponent is sick or not." ;Cnderscoring supplied<
(ertainly, to take the deposition of the prosecution itness elsehere and not before the very same court here the case is pending ould not only deprive a detained accused of his right to attend the proceedings but also deprive the trial @udge of the opportunity to observe the prosecution itness' deportment and properly assess his credibility, hich is especially intolerable hen the itness' testimony is crucial to the prosecution's case against the accused. This is the import of the (ourt's ruling in Gda. de anguerra"3 here e further declared that F
Ehile e recognize the prosecution's right to preserve the testimony of its itness in order to prove its case, e cannot disregard the rules hich are designed mainly for the protection of the accused's constitutional rights. The giving of testimony during trial is the general rule. The conditional e7amination of a itness outside of the trial is only an e7ception, and as such, calls for a strict construction of the rules. 1 ;Cnderscoring supplied<
/ince the conditional e7amination of a prosecution itness must take place at no other place than the court here the case is pending, the RT( properly nullified the eT('s orders granting the motion to take the deposition of 5i 5uen Ping before the Philippine consular official in 5aos, (ambodia. Ee 6uote ith approval the RT('s ratiocination in this ise2
!t is argued that since the Rules of (ivil Procedure is made e7plicitly applicable in all cases, both civil and criminal as ell as special proceedings, the deposition-taking before a Philippine consular official under Rule should be deemed alloable also under the circumstances.
The condition of the private complainant being sick and of advanced age falls ithin the provision of /ection "> Rule ""3 of the Rules of (ourt. #oever, said rule substantially provides that he should be conditionally e7amined before the court here the case is pending. Thus, this (ourt
Ho*#+#', $# )u--#)$# )ul#$o'y al(&a$(on o/ Rul# 2 (n $# $#)$(on(al #a(na$(on o/ an una+a(la3l# 'o)#&u$(on *($n#)) a) 3##n &a$#-o'(&ally 'ul# ou$ 3y $# !ou'$ (n $# )a# &a)# o/ 4a. # "an-u#''a, a) /ollo*)%
I$ () $'u# $a$ S#&$(on , Rul# 1 o/ $# Rul#) o/ !ou'$ 'o+(#) $a$ $# 'ul#) o/ &(+(l 'ou'# aly $o all a&$(on), &(+(l o' &'((nal, an )#&(al 'o#(n-). In #//#&$, ($ )ay) $a$ $# 'ul#) o/ &(+(l 'ou'# a+# )ul#$o'y al(&a$(on $o &'((nal &a)#). Ho*#+#', ($ () l(#*()# $'u# $a$ &'((nal 'o#(n-) a'# '(a'(ly -o+#'n# 3y $# R#+()# Rul#) o/ !'((nal P'ou'#.
(onsidering that Rule ""3 ade6uately and s6uarely covers the situation in the instant case, e find no cogent reason to apply Rule suppletorily or otherise. ;Cnderscoring supplied<
The (onditional 97amination of a Prosecution Eitness (annot *efeat the Rights of the +ccused to Public Trial and (onfrontation of Eitnesses
itnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. #oever, after arraignment, trial may proceed notithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is un@ustifiable. ;Cnderscoring supplied<
!n dismissing petitioners' apprehensions concerning the deprivation of their constitutional rights to a public trial and confrontation, the (+ opined that petitioners ould still be accorded the right to cross-e7amine the deponent itness and raise their ob@ections during the deposition-taking in the same manner as in a regular court trial.
Ee disagree. There is a great deal of difference beteen the face-toface confrontation in a public criminal trial in the presence of the presiding @udge and the cross-e7amination of a itness in a foreign place outside the courtroom in the absence of a trial @udge. !n the aptly cited case of People v. 9stenzo," the (ourt noted the uni6ueness and significance of a itness testifying in open court, thus2
. The (+ took a simplistic vie on the use of depositions in criminal cases and overlooked fundamental considerations no less than the (onstitution secures to the accused, i.e., the right to a public trial and the right to confrontation of itnesses. /ection "0;<, +rticle !!! of the (onstitution provides as follos2
/ection "0. ;"< 7 7 7 ;< !n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall en@oy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the itnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
The main and essential purpose of re6uiring a itness to appear and testify orally at a trial is to secure for the adverse party the opportunity of crosse7amination. The opponent, according to an eminent authority, demands confrontation, not for the idle purpose of gazing upon the itness, or of being gazed upon by him, but for the purpose of cross e7amination hich cannot be had e7cept by the direct and personal putting of 6uestions and obtaining immediate ansers. There is also the advantage of the itness before the @udge, and it is this F it enables the @udge as trier of facts to obtain the elusive and incommunicable evidence of a itness' deportment hile testifying, and a certain sub@ective moral effect is produced upon the itness. !t is only hen the itness testifies orally that the @udge may have a true idea of his countenance, manner and e7pression, hich may confirm or detract from the eight of his testimony. (ertainly, the physical condition of the itness ill reveal his capacity for accurate observation and memory, and his deportment and physiognomy ill reveal clues to his character. These can
only be observed by the @udge if the itness testifies orally in court. 7 7 7 ;Cnderscoring supplied< 1âwphi1
The right of confrontation, on the other hand, is held to apply specifically to criminal proceedings and to have a tofold purpose2 ;"< to afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of itnesses by crosse7amination, and ;< to allo the @udge to observe the deportment of itnesses. The (ourt e7plained in People v. /eneris 0that the constitutional re6uirement insures that the itness ill give his testimony under oath, thus deterring lying by the threat of per@ury chargeH it forces the itness to submit to cross-e7amination, a valuable instrument in e7posing falsehood and bringing out the truthH and it enables the court to observe the demeanor of the itness and assess his credibility. >
+s the right of confrontation is intended to secure the accused in the right to be tried as far as facts provable by itnesses as meet him face to face at the trial ho give their testimony in his presence, and give to the accused an opportunity of cross-e7amination, 4 it is properly vieed as a guarantee against the use of unreliable testimony in criminal trials. !n the +merican case of (raford v. Eashington,D the C/ /upreme (ourt had e7pounded on the procedural intent of the confrontation re6uirement, thus2
Ehere testimonial statements are involved, e do not think the 8ramers meant to leave the / i7th +mendment's right to confront itness face to face protection to the vagaries of the rules of evidence, much less to amorphous notions of reliability. (ertainly, none of the authorities discussed above acknoledges any general reliability e7ception to the common-la rule.
+dmitting statements deemed reliable by a @udge is fundamentally at odds ith the right of confrontation. To be sure, the (lause's ultimate goal is to ensure reliability of evidence, but it is a procedural rather than a
substantive guarantee. !t commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner2 by testing in the crucible of cross-e7amination. The (lause thus reflects a @udgment, not only about the desirability of reliable evidence ;a point on hich there could be little dissent<, but about ho reliability can best be determined. ;Cnderscoring supplied<
The Eebb Ruling is %ot on +ll 8ours ith the !nstant (ase
The (+ found the frail and infirm condition of the prosecution itness as sufficient and compelling reason to uphold the eT( )rders granting the deposition-taking, folloing the ruling in the case of People v. Eebb that the taking of an unavailable itness' deposition is in the nature of a discovery procedure the use of hich is ithin the trial court's sound discretion hich needs only to be e7ercised in a reasonable manner and in consonance ith the spirit of the la.3
But the ruling in the cited case is not instantly applicable herein as the factual settings are not similar. 1The accused in the Eebb case had sought to take the oral deposition of five defense itnesses before a Philippine consular agent in lieu of presenting them as live itnesses, alleging that they ere all residents of the Cnited /tates ho could not be compelled by subpoena to testify in court. The trial court denied the motion of the accused but the (+ differed and ordered the deposition taken. Ehen the matter as raised before this (ourt, e sustained the trial court's disalloance of the deposition-taking on the limited ground that there as no necessity for the procedure as the matter sought to be proved by ay of deposition as considered merely corroborative of the evidence for the defense.1
!n this case, here it is the prosecution that seeks to depose the complaining itness against the accused, the stringent procedure under
/ection ">, Rule ""3 cannot be ignored ithout violating the constitutional rights of the accused to due process.
8inally, the (ourt takes note that prosecution itness 5i 5uen Ping had managed to attend the initial trial proceedings before the eT( of anila on /eptember 3, 110. +t that time, 5i 5uen Ping's old age and fragile constitution should have been unmistakably apparent and yet the prosecution failed to act ith zeal and foresight in having his deposition or testimony taken before the eT( pursuant to /ection ">, Rule ""3 of the Revised Rules of (ourt. !n fact, it should have been imperative for the prosecution to have moved for the preservation of 5i 5uen Ping's testimony at that first instance given the fact that the itness is a non-resident alien ho can leave the Philippines anytime ithout any definite date of return. )bviously, the prosecution alloed its main itness to leave the court's @urisdiction ithout availing of the court procedure intended to preserve the testimony of such itness. The loss of its cause is attributable to no other party.
/till, even after failing to secure 5i 5uen Ping's conditional e7amination before the eT( prior to said itness' becoming sick and unavailable, the prosecution ould capitalize upon its on failure by pleading for a liberal application of the rules on depositions. !t must be emphasized that hile the prosecution must provide the accused every opportunity to
take the deposition of itnesses that are material to his defense in order to avoid charges of violating the right of the accused to compulsory process, the /tate itself must resort to deposition-taking sparingly if it is to guard against accusations of violating the right of the accused to meet the itnesses against him face to face. $reat care must be observed in the taking and use of depositions of prosecution itnesses to the end that no conviction of an accused ill rely on e7 parte affidavits and deposition. "
Thus, the (+ ignored the procedure under the Revised Rules of (riminal Procedure for taking the deposition of an unavailable prosecution itness hen it upheld the trial court's order alloing the deposition of prosecution itness 5i 5uen Ping to take place in a venue other than the court here the case is pending. This as certainly grave abuse of discretion.
E#9R98)R9, the petition is hereby $R+%T9*. The assailed *ecision dated 8ebruary "3, 11 and the Resolution dated %ovember , 11 of the (ourt of +ppeals are R9G9R/9* and /9T +/!*9. +ccordingly, the *ecision of the Regional Trial (ourt hich disalloed the deposition-taking in 5aos, (ambodia is R9!%/T+T9*. /) )R*9R9*.