G.R. No. 185527 - Go vs. People

Petition and parties
Petitioners Harry L. Go, Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo and Jane Go were charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila with Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 396447.
Respondents are the People of the Philippines and Highdone Company, Ltd., represented by its signatory Li Luen Ping.

Criminal information and mortgage transaction
The original Information dated September 24, 2003 (amended September 14, 2004) alleged that in August 1996 the accused conspired to defraud Highdone Company by executing a purported “first mortgage” over machinery, spare parts and raw materials at BGB Industrial Textile Mills Factory in Mariveles, Bataan, already foreclosed by China Bank Corporation in September 1994.
The alleged fraud caused damage and prejudice in the amount of US $464,266.90 (or its peso equivalent of ₱20,892,010.50).

Trial proceedings and motion for deposition
Upon arraignment, petitioners pleaded not guilty. The complaining witness Li Luen Ping, a frail elderly businessman residing in Laos, attended the first hearing on September 9, 2004, but subsequent trial dates were postponed due to his unavailability.
On October 13, 2005 the private prosecutor filed a “Motion to Take Oral Deposition” of Li Luen Ping in Laos, Cambodia, alleging he was hospitalized for a lung infection at the Cambodia Charity Hospital and unable to travel as per medical advice. The MeTC granted the motion after submission of the witness’s medical certificate; petitioners’ opposition and motion for reconsideration were denied.

RTC and CA rulings
Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 27, which on September 12, 2006 nullified the MeTC’s orders. The RTC held that Section 17, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court (civil depositions) could not be suppletorily applied to criminal cases, and that Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure required all conditional examinations of unavailable prosecution witnesses to be conducted before the court where the case is pending.
The prosecution appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On February 19, 2008 the CA reversed the RTC, finding no rule barring depositions in criminal cases and holding that petitioners could still cross-examine Li Luen Ping through counsel or the consular officer. The CA denied reconsideration on November 28, 2008. Petitioners then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Whether the CA erred in holding that allowing the deposition of the prosecution witness in Laos did not infringe petitioners’ constitutional right to a public trial.
Whether the CA erred in finding no violation of petitioners’ right to confront witnesses face to face by permitting foreign deposition.
Whether the CA erred in sustaining “judicial legislation” by applying civil deposition rules to criminal proceedings in the absence of an express procedural provision.
Whether the CA erred in narrowly defining “grave abuse of discretion” to exclude violations of the Constitution, statutes or jurisprudence.