Go v People [G.R. No. 185527.

July 18, 2012]

Pet: HARRY L. GO, TONNY NGO, JERRY NGO AND JANE GO,
Resp: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HIGHDONE COMPANY, LTD., ET AL.

FACTS:

 Petitioners Harry Go, Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo and Jane Go were charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC)
of Manila for Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
 Information:
Sometime in August 1996, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the accused Harry L. Go, Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo and Jane
Go, conspiring, confederating together and helping one another, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud
Highdone Company Ltd. represented by Li Luen Ping. All said accused, by means of false manifestations and
fraudulent representations that they made to said Li Luen Ping to the effect that they have chattels such as
machinery, spare parts, equipment and raw materials installed and fixed in the premises of BGB Industrial Textile Mills
Factory located in the Bataan Export Processing Zone (BEPZ) in Mariveles, Bataan. They executed a Deed of Mortgage
for a consideration of the amount of $464,266.90 or its peso equivalent at P20,892,010.50 more or less in favor of ML
Resources and Highdone Company Ltd. They represented that the said deed is a first mortgage when in truth and in
fact, the accused well knew that the same had been previously encumbered, mortgaged and foreclosed by China
Bank Corporation as early as September 1994 thereby causing damage to Highdone Company Ltd.
 petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution's complaining witness, Li Luen Ping, a frail old
businessperson from Laos, Cambodia, traveled from his home country back to the Philippines in order to attend
the hearing held on September 9, 2004.
 However, trial dates were subsequently postponed due to his unavailability. On October 13, 2005, the private
prosecutor filed with the MeTC a Motion to Take Oral Deposition of Li Luen Ping.
o He alleged that the private respondent was treated for lung infection at the Cambodia Charity Hospital in
Laos, Cambodia and that upon doctor’s advice; he could not make the long travel to the country.
 The petitioners opposed the motion; however, the MeTC granted the motion after the prosecution complied with
the directive to submit a Medical Certifcate of Li Luen Ping.
 They sought reconsideration, which was subsequently denied by the MeTC. Thus, they file a Petition for Certiorari
before the RTC
 RTC granted the petition and declared the MeTC Orders null and void.
o It held that Section 17, Rule 23 on the taking of depositions of witnesses in civil cases cannot apply to the
case.
o Deposition of prosecution witness in criminal cases is governed by a specific provision in the Rules of
Court.
 CA :no grave abuse of discretion can be imputed upon the MeTC for allowing the deposition taking of Li Luen
Ping.
o no rule of procedure that expressly disallows the taking of depositions in criminal cases. Petitioners would
still have opportunity to cross-examine the witness and make timely objections during the taking of the
oral deposition, either through counsel or through the consular officer
ISSUE:
WON the deposition of the complaining witness may be taken in Laos Cambodia? NO
The examination of witnesses must be done orally before a judge in an open court. The Constitution secures to the accused
his right to a public trial and to meet the witnesses against him face to face.
 Purpose:
o (1) to afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of witnesses by cross-examination, and
o (2) to allow the judge to observe the deportment of witnesses.
 This right is guaranteed under Sec 14 (1) Art III:
o (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and
shall enjoy 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 witnesses face to face, and
to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his
behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. (Underscoring supplied)
 This right cannot be violated as there is a clear difference between a face-face confrontation where a judge may
observe the deportment of the witness which is an incommunicable and subject evidence.
 This is a procedural rather than a substantive right but it only means that the truth and it’s reliability must be tested
a particular way.

The Rules of Court recognizes the conditional examination of witnesses and the use of their depositions as testimonial
evidence instead of direct court testimony.
1. The procedure under Rule 23 to 28 of the Rules of Court allows the taking of depositions in civil cases, either upon
oral examination or written interrogatories,
a. before any judge, notary public or person authorized to administer oaths at any time or place within the
Philippines; or
 b. before any Philippine consular official, commissioned officer or person authorized to administer oaths in a
foreign state or country, with no additional requirement except reasonable notice in writing to the other
party.

However for criminal cases, more particularly of a prosecution witness who would foreseeably be unavailable for trial, the
rule is different.
1. 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 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
a. SEC. 15. 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.
2. 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
a. The condition of the private complainant being sick and of advanced age falls within the provision of
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 case is pending. Thus, this Court concludes that the
language of Section 15 Rule 119 must be interpreted to require the parties to present testimony at the
hearing through live witnesses, whose demeanor and the judge can evaluate credibility presiding at the
hearing, rather than by means of deposition. Nowhere in the said rule permits the taking of deposition
outside the Philippines whether the deponent is sick or not.
b. to take the deposition of the prosecution witness elsewhere and not before the very same court where
the case is pending would deprive the detained accused of his right to attend the proceedings and
deprive the trial judge of the opportunity to observe the prosecution witness' deportment and properly
assess his credibility
3. Here the court reiterates that judges may not disregard the rules for the protection of the accused’s
constitutional rights.
a. 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.
4. The Court noted that prosecution witness Li Luen Ping had managed to attend the initial trial proceedings before
the MeTC of Manila on September 9, 2004. However, the prosecution failed to get his deposition or testimony
taken, before the MeTC pursuant to Section, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court.
a. The prosecution should have moved for the preservation of Li Luen Ping’s testimony given that the
witness is a non-resident alien who can leave the Philippines anytime without any definite date of return.
Therefore, the loss of the prosecution’s cause is attributable to them.

The suppletory application of Rule 23 to examination of prosecution witnesses in criminal cases has also been ruled out by
the court in Vda. De manguerra.

a. It is argued that since the Rules of Civil Procedure is made explicitly applicable in all cases, both civil and criminal
as well as special proceedings, the deposition-taking before a Philippine consular official under Rule 23 should be
deemed allowable also under the circumstances.
b. Vda. de Manguerra, as follows:
a. It is true that 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. In effect, it says that the rules of civil procedure have
suppletory application to criminal cases. However, it is likewise true that criminal proceedings are
primarily governed by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Considering that Rule 119 adequately and
squarely covers the situation in the instant case, we find no cogent reason to apply Rule 23 suppletorily or
otherwise