Case Summary (A.M. No. CA-18-35-P)
Petitioner / Respondent and Procedural Posture
Petitioner (appellants in consolidated appeals): accused-appellants Donel Go and Val de los Reyes as appellants in separate but consolidated automatic-review and appeal records (G.R. Nos. 130714, 139634, 139331, 140845-46). Respondent: People of the Philippines. The Supreme Court consolidated the appeals and first resolved de los Reyes’s appeal before addressing Go’s automatic review, holding the latter in abeyance pending further proceedings.
Key Dates and Applicable Law
Relevant trial dates and hearings span 1995–1999, with the Supreme Court resolution dated December 27, 2002. Because the decision date is after 1990, the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Revised Rules of Court (as cited in the decision: Rules concerning examination of witnesses and admissibility of transcripts and prior testimony, e.g., provisions reproduced from Rule 131 and Rule 133, and Rule 121 on new trials and additional evidence) form the governing constitutional and procedural framework. Controlling jurisprudence cited includes People v. Estenzo (72 SCRA 428 (1976)) and Sacay v. Sandiganbayan (142 SCRA 593 (1986)) concerning oral testimony and confrontation.
Factual Background and Evidence at Go’s Trial
Go was arraigned May 3, 1995, pleaded not guilty, and was tried in absentia after jumping bail. The prosecution’s case against Go at Branch 16 included testimony from Imelda, her mother Adela, her sister Clara, Dr. Saguinsin, and SPO4 Bonavente; physical exhibits (Imelda’s panty and watch); police blotter certification; medico-legal certificates; an affidavit by Marivic; photographs of the accused; and an ABS-CBN referral form. The RTC Branch 16 convicted Go on two counts of rape and imposed the death penalty for each count (Decision of June 25, 1997).
Evidence Presentation at de los Reyes’s Trial and Procedure Used
After de los Reyes was apprehended, the cases were revived, transferred to Branch 15 (designated a heinous-crimes court), and tried. During de los Reyes’s trial, the prosecution sought to introduce as evidence the prior direct testimony transcripts and other exhibits from Go’s trial by having witnesses (Adela, Imelda, Clara, Dr. Saguinsin) affirm the contents of their earlier testimonies rather than eliciting full oral direct testimony on the matters at issue. The prosecution marked transcripts as exhibits (e.g., Exhibits D, F, G, E-2 series) and offered physical items (panty as Exhibit A, watch as Exhibit B, police blotter certification as Exhibit C, ABS-CBN referral form as Exhibit H). Defense objections centered on the lack of identification of exhibits by witnesses at de los Reyes’s trial and the contention that de los Reyes had the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses who had not given their direct testimony in his presence.
Legal Issues on Appeal
The principal legal issues presented and considered were: whether the summary procedure employed (having witnesses merely affirm their prior testimony from Go’s trial) violated de los Reyes’s right to confrontation and cross-examination and procedural rules requiring oral testimony in open court; whether the admission of transcripts and other exhibits from Go’s trial into evidence against de los Reyes (who was not a party to the earlier trial at the time of its conduct) was proper absent identification and admissibility in de los Reyes’s presence; and whether such irregularities prejudiced de los Reyes’s substantial rights thereby entitling him to a new trial.
Governing Rules and Precedents
The Court relied on the Rules of Court provisions reproduced in the decision: the requirement that the examination of witnesses be done in open court and that answers be given orally unless exceptional circumstances exist (Rule 131, Section 1 reproduced), and the requirement that proceedings be recorded and that transcripts are prima facie correct (Rule 131, Section 2 reproduced). The Court also referenced Rule 133 (Section 1 reproduced) on considering the witness’s manner of testifying in assessing weight of evidence. Controlling precedents include People v. Estenzo, where this Court held that the main purpose of oral testimony is to secure the adversary’s opportunity for cross-examination and to allow the trier of fact to observe witness demeanor, and Sacay v. Sandiganbayan, which similarly required direct examination on statements contained in affidavits or prior testimony rather than mere confirmation.
Court’s Analysis Applying the Law to the Facts
The Supreme Court treated the practice of asking witnesses at de los Reyes’s trial merely to affirm prior testimony given at Go’s trial as inconsistent with the requirements that testimony be given orally in open court and that the accused be afforded the opportunity for meaningful cross-examination. The Court noted that allowing adoption of prior testimony in lieu of full oral direct examination in the presence of the accused undermines the judge’s ability to evaluate demeanor and credibility and deprives the accused of the adversary opportunity to confront and cross-examine as the witness delivers testimony on the record. The Court rejected the prosecution’s justification based on lapse of time, explaining that memory concerns do not supplant the duty to elicit oral testimony subject to immediate cross-examination; any effect of lapse of time may be considered when weighing credibility, but does not excuse procedural noncompliance. The Court concluded that the irregular procedure was prejudicial to de los Reyes’s substantial rights.
Specific Evidentiary Rulings and Effects
As a consequence of the identified procedural violations, the Court set aside for purposes of de los Reyes’s trial multiple exhibits and transcripts originating in Go’s trial that had not been properly identified or presented in de los Reyes’s presence: specifically Exhibits D, E-2 (E-2-A to E-2-I), F, and G (transcripts of Adela, Dr. Saguinsin, Imelda, and Clara’s testimonies from Go’s trial), and Exhibits A (panty), B (wristwatch), C (
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. CA-18-35-P)
Title and Source
- Reporter citation: 442 Phil. 589 EN BANC; G.R. Nos. 130714 and 139634; December 27, 2002.
- Consolidated appeals include G.R. Nos. 139331 and 140845-46 (Donel Go and Val de los Reyes matters consolidated for resolution).
- Opinion/Resolution authored by Justice Carpio Morales; concurrence by Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ.
Parties and Accused
- Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
- Accused and appellants: Donel Go and Val de los Reyes.
- Procedural posture: Donel Go was initially apprehended; Val de los Reyes remained at large during the earlier trial of Go; later Val de los Reyes was apprehended and tried separately.
Charges and Counts
- Accused-appellants were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tabaco, Albay with rape:
- Donel Go: charged with two counts of rape.
- Val de los Reyes: charged with three counts of rape.
- Victim in all counts: Imelda Brutas.
Initial Pleas and Trial Posture
- Donel Go arraigned May 3, 1995, pleaded not guilty.
- Before prosecution finished presenting evidence against Go, he jumped bail and was tried in absentia.
- Val de los Reyes remained at large during Go’s trial; his cases were initially archived and an alias warrant issued.
- After apprehension of Val de los Reyes, RTC Branch 16 ordered revival; the cases were later transferred to Branch 15, designated a heinous crimes court by the Supreme Court.
Prosecution Witnesses and Evidence Presented
- Five prosecution witnesses identified: Imelda Brutas (private complainant), Adela Brutas (mother), Clara Brutas (sister), Dr. Marissa Saguinsin (Rural Health Unit, Tabaco), and SPO4 Rosalino Bonavente.
- Items and documents offered by the prosecution (as stated in the record):
- Exhibit "A": Imelda’s panty (the panty she was wearing when the rape allegedly occurred).
- Exhibit "B": Imelda’s wristwatch (the watch she was wearing when the rape allegedly occurred).
- Exhibit "C": Certification of the Entry in the Police Blotter of the Tabaco Police Department.
- Exhibit "D": Medical certificate issued by Dr. Estela Zenit of Ziga Memorial District Hospital (noted in source as issued; Exhibit label included in the source material).
- Exhibit "E": Medico-legal certificate issued by Dr. Marissa Saguinsin of the Rural Health Unit (Exhibit “E”).
- Exhibit "E-2" and subparts ("E-2-A" to "E-2-I"): transcript(s) of Dr. Saguinsin’s testimony at trial of Donel Go.
- Exhibit "F": transcript(s) of Imelda’s testimony at trial of Donel Go (marked and offered in the later trial).
- Exhibit "G": transcript of Clara’s testimony at trial of Donel Go (pages 11–27 dated February 5, 1996; noted to have a reserved signature marked G-18).
- Exhibit "H": Referral Form of the ABS-CBN program "Hoy Gising" (offered to prove the extent to which Clara sought justice for Imelda).
- Exhibit "I": Decision of Tabaco, Albay RTC, Branch 16 (to show that Donel Go was convicted there).
- Exhibit "1": a letter (referenced as Exhibit “1” in defense submission; later described as Exhibit “1” in source).
- The prosecution formally offered the physical and documentary exhibits listed above; the trial court admitted them despite defense objections.
Defense Evidence
- Defense offered testimony of five witnesses in Go’s trial (names and specifics as in source: five witnesses called; source does not list them individually).
- In de los Reyes’ trial, the defense presented three witnesses and offered a letter (Exhibit "1") allegedly written by Imelda.
- Imelda returned to the stand to rebut defense evidence in de los Reyes’ trial.
Trial Proceedings — Use of Prior Transcripts
- At the trial of Val de los Reyes (Branch 15), the prosecution sought to have certain witnesses affirm and adopt their prior testimony given at the trial of Donel Go (Branch 16), by:
- Asking witnesses (Adela, Imelda, Clara, Dr. Saguinsin) if they affirmed the answers recorded in the transcripts of their testimony at Go’s trial.
- Marking and offering those transcripts as exhibits (Exhibits "D", "E-2", "F", "G" etc.) and seeking their admission in evidence in the de los Reyes proceedings.
- Defense counsel objected that:
- The manner of presenting the witnesses was improper; the prosecution was effectively reading questions and answers from the transcript and asking the witness to affirm previous testimony given in a separate trial in which de los Reyes was not a party.
- Admission of transcripts and exhibits from the Go trial was improper because de los Reyes had not been a party to that trial and the exhibits had not been identified in his presence.
- The procedure denied de los Reyes his right to confront and cross-examine properly and was an irregular abbreviated process rather than a full-dress trial.
- The trial court overruled objections and admitted the exhibits; it permitted the practice of having the witnesses affirm their prior testimony and marked the transcripts as Exhibits "D," "E-2," "F," "G," etc.
- For some witnesses, the trial court had the prior transcripts marked as exhibits and then asked the witness if they affirmed the answers therein (with the record showing discussions among judge, private prosecutor, and defense counsel about purpose and form of questioning).
Cross-Examination and Scope
- In many instances during de los Reyes’ trial, cross-examinations by defense counsel were limited:
- Adela: defense counsel objected and stated no cross was being undertaken on some aspects; court discharged the witness after clarification that defense would refuse admission in certain respects.
- Imelda: after the prosecution adopted her Branch 16 transcript as Exhibit "F," later defense cross-examined Imelda but only on matters preceding and following the alleged rapes (the record notes cross occurred but limited in scope).
- Clara and Dr. Saguinsin: similar procedure used — transcripts from Branch 16 were presented and witnesses asked to affirm prior testimony; defense counsel raised objections repeatedly on grounds of leading questions and irregularity.