GR No.
185527 18 July 2012
Even in criminal proceedings, there is no doubt as to
Harry L. Go, Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo and Jane Go the availability of conditional examination of
vs People of the Philippines witnesses – both for the benefit of the defense, as
well as the prosecution.
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
But for purposes of taking the deposition in criminal
Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding cases, more particularly of a prosecution witness
who would forseeably be unavailable for trial, the
Case Doctrine: testimonial examination should be made before the
court, or at least before the judge, where the case is
Facts: pending as required by the clear mandate of Section
Petitioners Harry Go, Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo and 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Jane Go were charged before the Metropolitan Trial Procedure. The pertinent provision reads thus:
Court (MeTC) of Manila for Other Deceits under
Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). SEC. 15. Examination of witness for the
prosecution. – When it satisfactorily appears that a
The prosecution's complaining witness, Li Luen witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm to
Ping, a frail old businessman from Laos, Cambodia, appear at the trial as directed by the court, or has to
traveled from his home country back to the leave the Philippines with no definite date of
Philippines in order to attend the hearing held on returning, he may forthwith be conditionally
September 9, 2004. However, trial dates were examined before the court where the case is
subsequently postponed due to his unavailability. pending. Such examination, in the presence of the
accused, or in his absence after reasonable notice
On October 13, 2005, the private prosecutor filed to attend the examination has been served on him
with the MeTC a Motion to Take Oral Deposition of shall be conducted in the same manner as an
Li Luen Ping, alleging that he was being treated for examination at the trial. Failure or refusal of the
lung infection at the Cambodia Charity Hospital in accused to attend the examination after notice shall
Laos, Cambodia and that, upon doctor's advice, he be considered a waiver. The statement taken may
could not make the long travel to the Philippines by be admitted in behalf of or against the accused.
reason of ill health.
The MeTC granted the motion after the prosecution Since the conditional examination of a prosecution
complied with the directive to submit a Medical witness must take place at no other place than the
Certificate of Li Luen Ping. Petitioners sought its court where the case is pending, the RTC properly
reconsideration which the MeTC denied, prompting nullified the MeTC's orders granting the motion to
petitioners to file a Petition for Certiorari before the take the deposition of Li Luen Ping before the
RTC. Philippine consular official in Laos, Cambodia.
The RTC granted the petition and declared the The condition of the private complainant being sick
MeTC Orders null and void. The CA reversed the and of advanced age falls within the provision of
RTC decision and upheld the MeTC decision. Section 15 Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. However,
said rule substantially provides that he should be
conditionally examined before the court where the
Issue: Whether or not the taking of the testimony by
case is pending. Thus, this Court concludes that the
a witness by oral deposition in Laos, Cambodia may
language of Section 15 Rule 119 must be
be allowed
interpreted to require the parties to present
testimony at the hearing through live witnesses,
Held: No.
whose demeanor and credibility can be evaluated by
the judge presiding at the hearing, rather than by
Ruling: The examination of witnesses must be done
means of deposition. No where in the said rule
orally before a judge in open court. This is true
permits the taking of deposition outside the
especially in criminal cases where the Constitution
Philippines whether the deponent is sick or not.
secures to the accused his right to a public trial and
to meet the witnessess against him face to face. The
requirement is the "safest and most satisfactory Certainly, to take the deposition of the
method of investigating facts" as it enables the judge prosecution witness elsewhere and not before
to test the witness' credibility through his manner the very same court where the case is pending
and deportment while testifying. It is not without would not only deprive a detained accused of
exceptions, however, as the Rules of Court his right to attend the proceedings but also
recognizes the conditional examination of witnesses deprive the trial judge of the opportunity to
and the use of their depositions as testimonial observe the prosecution witness' deportment
evidence in lieu of direct court testimony. and properly assess his credibility, which is
especially intolerable when the witness'
testimony is crucial to the prosecution's case
against the accused.
The Conditional Examination of a Prosecution
Witness Cannot Defeat the Rights of the
Accused to Public Trial and Confrontation of
Witnesses.
Finally, the Court takes note that prosecution
witness Li Luen Ping had managed to attend the
initial trial proceedings before the MeTC of Manila
on September 9, 2004. 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. In fact, it should have been
imperative for the prosecution to have moved for the
preservation of Li Luen Ping's testimony at that first
instance given the fact that the witness is a non-
resident alien who can leave the Philippines anytime
without any definite date of return. Obviously, the
prosecution allowed its main witness to leave the
court's jurisdiction without availing of the court
procedure intended to preserve the testimony of
such witness. The loss of its cause is attributable to
no other party.
Still, even after failing to secure Li Luen Ping's
conditional examination before the MeTC prior to
said witness' becoming sick and unavailable, the
prosecution would capitalize upon its own failure by
pleading for a liberal application of the rules on
depositions. It must be emphasized that while the
prosecution must provide the accused every
opportunity to take the deposition of witnesses that
are material to his defense in order 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 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
prosecution witnesses to the end that no conviction
of an accused will rely on ex parte affidavits and
deposition
