Title
Go vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 185527
Decision Date
Jul 18, 2012
Petitioners charged with fraud challenged deposition-taking in Laos, citing constitutional rights. Supreme Court ruled in their favor, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural safeguards.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 185527)

Lower Courts’ Rulings

The MeTC granted the prosecution’s motion after verifying the witness’s medical condition. Petitioners filed a certiorari petition with the RTC, which declared the MeTC orders null and void, reasoning that criminal depositions must comply strictly with Rule 119, Sec. 15. The CA reversed, finding no rule prohibiting depositions abroad and holding that petitioners could still confront and cross-examine the witness.

Issues on Petition

Petitioners alleged that the CA:

  1. Violated their right to a public trial by allowing foreign deposition.
  2. Infringed their right to confront witnesses face to face.
  3. Improperly applied civil deposition rules to a criminal case.
  4. Misconstrued “grave abuse of discretion” by overlooking constitutional violations.

Supreme Court’s Application of Rule 119

The Court emphasized that Rule 119, Sec. 15 exclusively governs the conditional examination of unavailable prosecution witnesses. It mandates that such examination occur “before the court where the case is pending,” in the presence of the accused or after reasonable notice. Depositions conducted abroad or before consular officials therefore fall outside this clear procedural requirement.

Confrontation and Public Trial Rights

Under the 1987 Constitution, accused persons are entitled to a public trial and to meet the witnesses against them face to face. Cross-examination in a foreign setting without the presiding judge undermines the trial judge’s ability to observe witness demeanor and assess credibility, and thereby impairs these constitutional guarantees.

Suppletory Application of Civil Deposition Rules

Although the Rules of Civil Procedure apply suppletorily to criminal proceedings, the Court held that Rule 119 sufficiently and directly addresses the situation of unavailable witnesses. Consequently, Rule 23’s civil-deposition provisions cannot supplant the stricter requirements for criminal witness examination.

Jurisprudential Distinctions

The Court distinguished this case from People v. Webb, where depositions of defense witnesses abroad were sought. Here, the prosecution’s request for foreign deposition of its own complaining witness c

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms