Harry Go vs People

May 2, 2018 | Author: carinokatrina | Category: Deposition (Law), Witness, Criminal Procedure In South Africa, Prosecutor, Public Law
Share Embed Donate

Short Description

Harry Go vs People...


HARRY L. GO, TONNY NGO, JERRY NGO AND JANE GO, Petitioners, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HIGHDONE COMPANY, LTD., ET AL., Resondents. G.R. No. !"##$% J&'( !", $)!$ FACTS* Petitioners were charged with Other Deceits under Art 318 of RPC before MTC Manila. They leaded not guilty! trial dates were ostoned due to the una"ailability of ri"ate co#lainant $i $uen Ping! a frail old business#an fro# $aos! Ca#bodia. The Prosecution filed a Motion to Ta%e Oral Deosition of $i $uen Ping! alleging that he was being treated for lung infection at the Ca#bodia Charity &osital in $aos! Ca#bodia and that! uon doctor's ad"ice! he could not #a%e the long tra"el to the Philiines by reason of ill health. Petitioners oosed. MTC granted said Motion( denied ensuing MR. Petitioners! filed a Rule )* before RTC Manila RTC granted the etition( declared the MTC Order null and "oid( denied ensuing Motion for Reconsideration +ection 1,! Rule -3 on the ta%ing of deositions of witnesses in ci"il cases cannot aly suletorily to the case since there is a secific ro"ision in the Rules of Court with resect to the ta%ing of deositions of rosecution witnesses in cri#inal cases! which is ri#arily ri#aril y intended to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused to #eet the witness against hi# face to face. Prosecution! ele"ated to CA. CA re"ersed RTC no gra"e abuse of discretion can be i#uted uon the MeTC for allowing the deosition ta%ing of the co#laining witness $i $uen Ping because no rule of rocedure e/ressly disallows the ta%ing of deositions in cri#inal cases and that! in any case! etitioners would still ha"e e"ery oortunity to crosse/a#ine crosse/a#i ne the co#laining witness and #a%e ti#ely ob0ections during the ta%ing of the oral deosition either through counsel or through the consular officer who would be ta%ing the deosition of the witness.

ISS+ES* 1. s allowing the deosition deosition of ri"ate co#lainant co#lainant tanta#ou tanta#ount nt to a "iolation "iolation of etitioners2 etitioners2 rights to ublic trial and to confront the witnesses face to face 45+. HELD* The rocedure for ta%ing deositions in cri#inal cases recogni6es the rosecution's right to reser"e testi#onial e"idence and ro"e its case desite the una"ailability of its witness. t cannot! howe"er! gi"e license to rosecutorial indifference or unsee#ly in"ol"e#ent in a rosecution witness' absence fro# trial. To rule otherwise would effecti"ely deri"e the accused of his funda#ental right to be confronted with the witnesses against hi#.

The Procedure for Testi#onial 5/a#ination of an 7na"ailable Prosecution itness is Co"ered 7nder +ection 1*! Rule 119. The e/a#ination of witnesses #ust be done orally before a 0udge in oen court.13 This is true esecially in cri#inal cases where the Constitution secures to the accused his right to a ublic trial and to #eet the witnessess against hi# face to face. The re:uire#ent is the ;safest and #ost satisfactory #ethod of in"estigating facts; as it enables the 0udge to test the witness' credibility through his #anner and deort#ent while testifying.1< t is not without e/cetions! howe"er! as the Rules of Court recogni6es the conditional e/a#ination of witnesses and the use of their deositions as testi#onial e"idence in lieu of direct court testi#ony. 5"en in cri#inal roceedings! there is no doubt as to the a"ailability of conditional e/a#ination of witnesses = both for the benefit of the defense! as well as the rosecution. The Court's ruling in the case of >da. de Manguerra ". Risos1* e/licitly states that = o ;/ / / As e/cetions! Rule -3 to -8 of the Rules of Court ro"ide for the different #odes of disco"ery that #ay be resorted to by a arty to an action. These rules are adoted either to eretuate the testi#onies of witnesses or as #odes of disco"ery. n cri#inal roceedings! +ections 1-! 13 and 1*! Rule 119 of the Re"ised Rules of Cri#inal Procedure! which too% effect on Dece#ber 1! -???! allow the conditional e/a#ination of both the defense and rosecution witnesses.; @7nderscoring sulied The rocedure under Rule -3 to -8 of the Rules of Court allows the ta%ing of deositions in ci"il cases! either uon oral e/a#ination or written interrogatories! before any 0udge! notary ublic or erson authori6ed to ad#inister oaths at any ti#e or lace within the Philiines( or before any Philiine consular official! co##issioned officer or erson authori6ed to ad#inister oaths in a foreign state or country! with no additional re:uire#ent e/cet reasonable notice in writing to the other arty. But for uroses of ta%ing the deosition in cri#inal cases! #ore articularly of a rosecution witness who would forseeably be una"ailable for trial! the testi#onial e/a#ination should be #ade before the court! or at least before the 0udge! where the case is ending as re:uired by the clear #andate of +ection 1*! Rule 119 of the Re"ised Rules of Cri#inal Procedure. The ertinent ro"ision reads thus +5C. 1*. 5/a#ination of witness for the rosecution. = hen it satisfactorily aears that a witness for the rosecution is too sic% or infir# to aear at the trial as directed by the court! or has to lea"e the Philiines with no definite date of returning! he #ay forthwith be conditionally e/a#ined before the court where the case is ending. +uch e/a#ination! in the resence of the accused! or in his absence after reasonable notice to attend the e/a#ination has been ser"ed on hi# shall be conducted in the sa#e #anner as an e/a#ination at the trial. ailure or refusal of the accused to attend the e/a#ination after notice shall be considered a wai"er. The state#ent ta%en #ay be ad#itted in behalf  of or against the accused. +ince the conditional e/a#ination of a rosecution witness #ust ta%e lace at no other lace than the court where the case is ending! the RTC roerly nullified the MeTC's orders granting the #otion to ta%e the deosition of $i $uen Ping before the Philiine consular official in $aos! Ca#bodia. e :uote with aro"al the RTC's ratiocination in this wise

The condition of the ri"ate co#lainant being sic% and of ad"anced age falls within the ro"ision of +ection 1* Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. &owe"er! said rule substantially ro"ides that he should be conditionally e/a#ined before the court where the case is ending. Thus! this Court concludes that the language of +ection 1* Rule 119 #ust be interreted to re:uire the arties to resent testi#ony at the hearing through li"e witnesses! whose de#eanor and credibility can be e"aluated by the 0udge residing at the hearing! rather than by #eans of deosition. Eo where in the said rule er#its the ta%ing of deosition outside the Philiines whether the deonent is sic% or not.18 @7nderscoring sulied Certainly! to ta%e the deosition of the rosecution witness elsewhere and not before the "ery sa#e court where the case is ending would not only deri"e a detained accused of his right to attend the roceedings but also deri"e the trial 0udge of the oortunity to obser"e the rosecution witness' deort#ent and roerly assess his credibility! which is esecially intolerable when the witness' testi#ony is crucial to the rosecution's case against the accused. This is the i#ort of the Court's ruling in >da. de Manguerra19 where we further declared that = hile we recogni6e the rosecution's right to reser"e the testi#ony of its witness in order to ro"e its case! we cannot disregard the rules which are designed #ainly for the rotection of the accused's constitutional rights. The gi"ing of testi#ony during trial is the general rule. The conditional e/a#ination of a witness outside of the trial is only an e/cetion! and as such! calls for a strict construction of the rules. t is argued that since the Rules of Ci"il Procedure is #ade e/licitly alicable in all cases! both ci"il and cri#inal as well as secial roceedings! the deositionta%ing before a Philiine consular official under Rule -3 should be dee#ed allowable also under the circu#stances. &owe"er! the suggested suletory alication of Rule -3 in the testi#onial e/a#ination of an una"ailable rosecution witness has been categorically ruled out by the Court in the sa#e case of >da. de Manguerra! as follows t is true that +ection 3! Rule 1 of the Rules of Court ro"ides that the rules of ci"il rocedure aly to all actions! ci"il or cri#inal! and secial roceedings. n effect! it says that the rules of ci"il rocedure ha"e suletory alication to cri#inal cases. &owe"er! it is li%ewise true that cri#inal roceedings are ri#arily go"erned by the Re"ised Rules of Cri#inal Procedure. Considering that Rule 119 ade:uately and s:uarely co"ers the situation in the instant case! we find no cogent reason to aly Rule -3 suletorily or otherwise.; The Conditional 5/a#ination of a Prosecution itness Cannot Defeat the Rights of the Accused to Public Trial and Confrontation of itnesses The CA too% a si#listic "iew on the use of deositions in cri#inal cases and o"erloo%ed funda#ental considerations no less than the Constitution secures to the accused! i.e.! the right to a ublic trial and the right to confrontation of witnesses. +ection 1
View more...


Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.