Criminal Procedure
Concepcion Cuenco Vda. De Manguerra and the Hon. Ramon Codilla, Jr., v. Raul
Risos, Susana Yongco, Leah Abarquez and Atty. Gamaliel Bonje
G.R. No. 152643
August 28, 2008
FACTS:
On November 4, 1999, respondents were charged with Estafa Through Falsification
of Public Document before the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 19, through a criminal information
dated October 27, 1999, which was subsequently amended on November 18, 1999. The case,
docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU-52248, arose from the falsification of a deed of real
estate mortgage allegedly committed by respondents where they made it appear that
Concepcion, the owner of the mortgaged property known as the Gorordo property, affixed
her signature to the document.
Earlier, on September 10, 1999, Concepcion, who was a resident of Cebu City, while
on vacation in Manila, was unexpectedly confined at the Makati Medical Center due to upper
gastro-intestinal bleeding; and was advised to stay in Manila for further treatment.
On November 24, 1999, respondents filed a Motion for Suspension of the Proceedings
in Criminal Case No. CBU-52248 on the ground of prejudicial question. They argued that
Civil Case No. CEB-20359, which was an action for declaration of nullity of the mortgage,
should first be resolved. On May 11, 2000, the RTC granted the aforesaid motion.
Concepcion’s motion for reconsideration was denied on June 5, 2000.
This prompted Concepcion to institute a special civil action for certiorari before the
CA. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 60266 and remains pending before the
appellate court to date.
On August 16, 2000, the counsel of Concepcion filed a motion to take the latter’s
deposition. He explained the need to perpetuate Concepcion’s testimony due to her weak
physical condition and old age, which limited her freedom of mobility.
On August 25, 2000, the RTC granted the motion and directed that Concepcion’s
deposition be taken before the Clerk of Court of Makati. The respondents’ motion for
reconsideration was denied by the trial court on November 3, 2000. The court ratiocinated
that procedural technicalities should be brushed aside because of the urgency of the situation,
since Concepcion was already of advanced age. Concepcion’s deposition was finally taken on
March 9, 2001 at her residence.
Aggrieved, respondents assailed the August 25 and November 3 RTC orders in a
special civil action for certiorari before the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 62551.
On August 15, 2001, the CA rendered a Decision favorable to the respondents.
At the outset, the CA observed that there was a defect in the respondents’ petition by
not impleading the People of the Philippines, an indispensable party. This notwithstanding,
the appellate court resolved the matter on its merit, declaring that the examination of
prosecution witnesses, as in the present case, is governed by Section 15, Rule 119 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and not Rule 23 of the Rules of Court. The latter
provision, said the appellate court, only applies to civil cases. Pursuant to the specific
provision of Section 15, Rule 119, Concepcion’s deposition should have been taken before
the judge or the court where the case is pending, which is the RTC of Cebu, and not before
the Clerk of Court of Makati City; and thus, in issuing the assailed order, the RTC clearly
committed grave abuse of discretion.
In its Resolution dated March 12, 2002 denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, the CA added that the rationale of the Rules in requiring the taking of
Criminal Procedure
deposition before the same court is the constitutional right of the accused to meet the
witnesses face to face. The appellate court likewise concluded that Rule 23 could not be
applied suppletorily because the situation was adequately addressed by a specific provision of
the rules of criminal procedure.
ISSUE:
Whether Rule 23 of the Rules of Court applies to the instant case
RULING:
It is basic that all witnesses shall give their testimonies at the trial of the case in the
presence of the judge. This is especially true in criminal cases in order that the accused may
be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses pursuant to his constitutional right
to confront the witnesses face to face. It also gives the parties and their counsel the chance to
propound such questions as they deem material and necessary to support their position or to
test the credibility of said witnesses. Lastly, this rule enables the judge to observe the
witnesses’ demeanor.
This rule, however, is not absolute. As exceptions, Rules 23 to 28 of the Rules of
Court 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 witnesses or as modes
of discovery. In criminal proceedings, Sections 12, 13 and 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, allow the conditional
examination of both the defense and prosecution witnesses.
In the case at bench, in issue is the examination of a prosecution witness, who,
according to the petitioners, was too sick to travel and appear before the trial court. Section
15 of Rule 119 thus comes into play, and it provides:
Section 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.