G.R. No. 152643 - Vda. de Manguerra vs. Risos

Case Summary (G.R. No. 152643)

Procedural History — criminal information and civil action

Respondents were charged by criminal information (filed October 27, 1999 and amended November 18, 1999) before the RTC of Cebu City for alleged falsification of a deed of real estate mortgage making it appear that petitioner Concepcion had affixed her signature. Prior to the conditional examination efforts, respondents moved for suspension of the criminal proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question, asserting that Civil Case No. CEB-20359 (action for declaration of nullity of the mortgage) should be resolved first; the RTC granted suspension on May 11, 2000 and denied reconsideration on June 5, 2000, prompting Concepcion to file a certiorari before the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 60266), which remained pending.

Facts leading to petitioner’s motion to take deposition

Concepcion, a Cebu City resident, was unexpectedly hospitalized on September 10, 1999 in Makati Medical Center for upper gastro-intestinal bleeding and advised to remain in Manila for treatment. On August 16, 2000 her counsel filed a motion to take her deposition to perpetuate testimony because of advanced age and weak physical condition limiting mobility. The RTC granted the motion on August 25, 2000 and directed that the deposition be taken before the Clerk of Court of Makati City; respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied on November 3, 2000. After venue changes, Concepcion’s deposition was eventually taken on March 9, 2001 at her residence.

Court of Appeals proceedings and disposition

Respondents filed a certiorari petition before the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 62551) assailing the RTC orders. The CA granted the petition on August 15, 2001, set aside the RTC orders of August 25 and November 3, 2000, and declared void any deposition taken under those orders. The CA reasoned that the conditional examination of a prosecution witness is governed by Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (not Rule 23 of the Rules of Court), and that Section 15 requires such examination to be made before the judge or the court where the case is pending (i.e., the RTC of Cebu), not before the Clerk of Court of Makati City; the CA concluded the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. In a March 12, 2002 resolution denying reconsideration, the CA emphasized the accused’s constitutional right to meet witnesses face to face and rejected suppletory application of Rule 23.

Issues presented to the Supreme Court

The petition to the Supreme Court raised two principal issues: (I) whether Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure applies to the deposition of petitioner (i.e., whether civil deposition procedure should control instead of the criminal rules); and (II) whether respondents’ failure to implead the People of the Philippines in their certiorari petition arising from a criminal case is a waivable defect.

Supreme Court: on failure to implead the People of the Philippines

The Supreme Court acknowledged that respondents did not implead the People of the Philippines, an indispensable party under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which vests prosecution direction and control in the public prosecutor. Ordinarily the remedy is to implead an indispensable party and courts may order addition of parties at any stage. The Court nonetheless affirmed the CA’s decision to entertain the petition on the merits in the interest of substantial justice, noting that the Office of the Solicitor General (representing the People) nevertheless filed a comment and had the opportunity to respond. The Court relied on precedent emphasizing that procedural defects should not obstruct substantive justice (citing Commissioner Domingo v. Scheer and other authorities) and concluded the CA could decide the case on the merits despite non-joinder.

Supreme Court: on the applicable procedural rule for conditional examination

The Court held that the general rule requires witnesses to testify in the presence of the judge at trial, a constitutional protection in criminal prosecutions to allow the accused to confront witnesses face to face (Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution). Exceptions are provided by the Rules to allow conditional examination or other discovery measures, but those exceptions are to be strictly construed. For criminal proceedings, Sections 12, 13 and 15 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure govern conditional examinations: Section 12 and 13 concern examination of defense witnesses; Section 15 specifically concerns examination of a witness for the prosecution who is too sick or infirm or must leave the country. Section 15 mandates that the conditional examination of a prosecution witness be conducted "before the court where the case is pending," and in the presence of the accused (or in his absence after reasonable notice), and "shall be conducted in the same manner as an examination at the trial."

Interpretation and application of Section 15, Rule 119 versus Rule 23

The Court rejected petitioner’s contention that Rule 23 (civil deposition procedure) should apply because of petitioner’s advanced age and infirmity. The Court emphasized that petitioner’s infirmity is precisely the circumstance Section 15 addresses; thus the criminal rule, not the civil rule, governs. The Court agreed with the CA that Rule 119’s language is clear and categorical: the conditional examination of a prosecution witness must be before the court where the case is pending and not elsewhere (such as before the Clerk of Court in Makati City). The Court observed that unlike condi

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 152643)

Procedural Posture

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated August 15, 2001 and its Resolution dated March 12, 2002.
The CA decision set aside the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Orders dated August 25, 2000 (granting motion to take deposition) and November 3, 2000 (denying motion for reconsideration).
Case before the RTC was Criminal Case No. CBU-52248, arising from an information dated October 27, 1999 and amended November 18, 1999.
The CA action by respondents was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 62551; a related certiorari by petitioner regarding suspension orders was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 60266 and remained pending before the CA.
Decision of the Supreme Court authored by Justice Nachura; concurrences by Justices Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario, and Reyes.
Dispositive outcome at the Supreme Court level: petition DENIED; Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 62551 AFFIRMED.

Factual Background

Respondents were charged with Estafa Through Falsification of Public Document before the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 19, involving an alleged falsified deed of real estate mortgage purporting to bear petitioner Concepcion Cuenco Vda. de Manguerra's signature over the Gorordo property.
On September 10, 1999, Concepcion, a Cebu City resident, while on vacation in Manila, was unexpectedly confined at 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 Criminal Proceedings on ground of prejudicial question, arguing Civil Case No. CEB-20359 (action for declaration of nullity of the mortgage) should be resolved first; RTC granted suspension on May 11, 2000; Concepcion’s motion for reconsideration denied on June 5, 2000.
On August 16, 2000, counsel for Concepcion filed a motion to take her deposition, citing her weak physical condition and advanced age which limited 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 City; respondents’ motion for reconsideration denied November 3, 2000 with the court emphasizing urgency given Concepcion's advanced age.
After several motions for change of venue of the deposition-taking, Concepcion’s deposition was actually taken on March 9, 2001 at her residence.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure applies to the deposition of petitioner (i.e., whether civil deposition rules govern in this criminal context).
Whether failure to implead the "People of the Philippines" in a petition for certiorari arising from a criminal case a quo constitutes a waivable defect in the petition for certiorari.

Court of Appeals Ruling (August 15, 2001) — Dispositive Holding

Dispositive portion of the CA Decision: the petition was GRANTED; the RTC orders of August 25, 2000 and November 3, 2000 were SET ASIDE, and any deposition taken under authority of such void orders was declared void.
CA observed a defect in respondents’ petition for certiorari for failing to implead the People of the Philippines as an indispensable party but nonetheless resolved the matter on the merits.
CA ruled that examination of prosecution witnesses is governed by Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and not Rule 23 of the Rules of Court; therefore the deposition should have been taken before the judge or court where the case is pending (the RTC of Cebu) and not before the Clerk of Court of Makati City.
CA characterized the RTC’s issuance of the orders permitting deposition before the Clerk of Court of Makati City as grave abuse of discretion.
CA, in its Resolution dated March 12, 2002, reiterated the constitutional right of the accused to meet witnesses face to face as the rationale for requiring examination before the court where the case is pending and held that Rule 23 could not be applied suppletorily because Section 15 of Rule 119 was a specific provision adequately addressing the situation.

Procedural Defect: Non-Impleader of the People of the Philippines

It was undisputed respondents did not implead the People of the Philippines in their CA petition, rendering the petition defective under procedural rules.
Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor; thus petitioners should have impleaded the People to enable the Solicitor General to comment.
The Supreme Court noted established precedent that failure to implead an indispensable party is not automatically a ground for dismissal; the remedy generally is to implead the non-party, and courts may order addition of parties at any stage.
The CA was not faulted for deciding the case on the merits despite the procedural defect because the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Comment on the petition for certiorari, giving the People opportunity to refute respondents' arguments.
The Supreme Court quoted Commissioner Domingo v. Schee