HARRY GO, et al. v.

PEOPLE
2012 July 18 | Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Rights of the Accused
VRV

DOCTRINE: See Ruling Nos. 1, 2, and 4.

CASE SUMMARY: Complaining Witness residing in Cambodia cannot travel back to the Philippines for trial due to
illness. So, prosecution filed a Motion to Take Oral Deposition in Cambodia. However, Court ruled that this is contrary to
Rule 119, Sec. 15.

ISSUE: WN Li Liuen Ping, the complaining witness, may be allowed to take his oral deposition in Cambodia as he is
indisposed to travel back to the Philippines? No. Rule 119, Sec. 15 explicitly provides for the alternative to appearing
before public trial.

FACTS:
 Harry Go, Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo, and Jane Go were charged before the MeTC of Manila for Other Deceits under
Art. 318 by Li Luen Ping, the representative of Highdone Company Ltd.

 Li Luen Ping (Li) alleged that the accused willfully and feloniously defrauded Highdone Co. by falsely representing
and manifesting that the chattel mortgage they executed in favor of Highdone Co. over the machinery, spare parts,
equipment and raw materials in the BGB Industrial Textile Mills Factory was a first mortgage. However, it turned
out that these items were previously mortgaged and already foreclosed by China Bank Corp. Thus, Highdone Co.
was prejudiced in the amount of 20.8 Million pesos more or less.

 The accused were later arraigned. But because Li was always unavailable as he is a “frail old businessman residing
in Laos, Cambodia”, trial dates were subsequently postponed.

 Later, the Prosecutor filed before the MeTC a Motion to Take Oral Depostion alleging Li could not travel back to
the Philippines as he had to be treated for lung infection.
o This is pursuant to Sec. 17 Rule 23 which would allow Li to take oral deposition before any Philippine
consular official, commissioned officer or person authorized to administer oaths in Cambodia, with no
additional requirement except reasonable notice in writing to the other party.

 MeTC granted it after Li submitted the required medical certificate.

 RTC reversed MeTC. But CA reinstated MeTC’s decision finding no grave abuse of discretion because:
o No rule of procedure expressly disallows the taking of depositions in criminal cases.
o And in any case, petitioners would still have every opportunity to cross-examine the complaining witness
and make timely objections during the taking of the oral deposition either through counsel or through the
consular officer who would be taking the deposition of the witness.

 So, the accused filed a petition for Certiorari before the RTC alleging that:
o Lower Courts erred in applying Sec. 17, Rule 23 on taking depositions of witnesses in Civil Cases in a
criminal case such as the case at bar because there is a specific provision in the Rules of Court, Sec. 15,
Rule 119, with respect to the taking of depositions of prosecution witnesses in criminal cases.
o Moreover, said provision is primarily intended to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused to meet
the witness against him face to face.

RULING:

1. General Rule: 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

2. Exception: Sec 15, Rule 119 recognizes the conditional examination of witnesses and the use of their
depositions as testimonial evidence in lieu of direct court testimony:

“Examination of witness for the prosecution.—When it satisfactorily appears that a witness for
the prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear at 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
before the court where the case is pending. Such examination, in the presence of the accused,
or in his absence after reasonable notice to attend 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 attend the examination after notice shall be considered a waiver. The statement taken may be
admitted in behalf of or against the accused.”

3. Moreover, according to Vda. de Manguerra: although “Section 3, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides
that the rules of civil procedure apply to all actions, civil or criminal, and special proceedings (so, in
effect, rules of civil procedure have suppletory application to criminal cases), criminal proceedings
are primarily governed by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. And, considering that Rule 119
adequately and squarely covers the situation in the instant case, there is no cogent reason to apply Rule
23 suppletorily or otherwise.”

4. Furthermore, the right of confrontation is held to apply specifically to criminal proceedings and
to have a twofold purpose:

First, is to afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of witnesses by cross-
examination,

Second, to allow the judge to observe the deportment of witnesses

— According to People v. Estenzo, “it is only when the witness testifies orally that
the judge may have a true idea of his countenance, manner and expression, which may
confirm or detract from the weight of his testimony. Certainly, the physical condition
of the witness will reveal his capacity for accurate observation and memory, and his
deportment and physiognomy will reveal clues to his character. These can only be
observed by the judge if the witness testifies orally in court.”

5. Thus, in this case,

 Unlike in the case of Webb wherein the deposition was considered merely corroborative of
the evidence for the defense, it is the prosecution itself that seeks to depose the complaining
witness against the accused. So, stringent procedure under Section 15, Rule 119 cannot be
ignored without violating the constitutional rights of the accused to due process.

 Sec. 15, Rule 119 specifically provides that a witness may conditionally examined before
the court where the case is pending should he/she be too sick/infirm to appear before trial.

 The Prosecution is actually at fault for failing to secure Li Luen Ping’s conditional
examination before the MeTC prior to said witness’ departure for Cambodia and becoming
sick and unavailable.
 Court takes note that Li Luen Ping had managed to attend the initial trial proceedings
before the MeTC of Manila. And at that time, Li Luen Ping’s old age and fragile
constitution should have been unmistakably apparent, and yet the prosecution failed
to act with zeal and foresight in having his deposition or testimony taken before the
MeTC pursuant to Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court.

DISPOSITION: Court disallowed the deposition taking in Laos, Cambodia.