Case Digest (G.R. No. 185527)
Facts:
Harry L. Go, Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo and Jane Go v. The People of the Philippines and Highdone Company, Ltd., G.R. No. 185527, July 18, 2012, Supreme Court Third Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners (the accused in the criminal case) were charged with Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila (Criminal Case No. 396447); the Information dated September 24, 2003 (amended September 14, 2004) alleged that petitioners defrauded Highdone Company Ltd. by misrepresenting chattels and executing a mortgage purported to be a first mortgage.The prosecution’s complaining witness, Li Luen Ping, a non‑resident alien from Laos/Cambodia, appeared at an initial hearing on September 9, 2004 but thereafter became unavailable for trial. On October 13, 2005 the private prosecutor moved before the MeTC to take the oral deposition of Li Luen Ping in Laos/Cambodia on the ground that he was being treated for a lung infection and was too infirm to travel back to the Philippines. Petitioners opposed the motion.
Noting the prosecution’s submission of a medical certificate, the MeTC granted the motion to take the deposition abroad; petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (which treated the MeTC orders as null) and on September 12, 2006 the RTC granted the petition, declaring the MeTC orders void because the taking of a prosecution witness’s deposition abroad conflicted with the procedures required by Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and would impair the accused’s constitutional rights.
The prosecution elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. SP No. 99383. On February 19, 2008 the CA reversed the RTC, holding that no rule expressly prohibited deposition‑taking in criminal cases and that petitioners could still cross‑examine the witness during the deposition; the CA denied a motion for reconsideration on November 28, 2008. Petition...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the MeTC’s allowance of the taking of the prosecution witness’s deposition in Laos/Cambodia infringe petitioners’ constitutional right to a public trial?
- Did the deposition‑taking abroad infringe petitioners’ constitutional right to confront the witnesses against them face to face?
- Was the MeTC’s application of civil deposition rules to permit an overseas deposition in a criminal case judicial legislation contrary to the proper procedural rules?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion by reversing the RTC and failing to recognize t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)