Case Summary (G.R. No. 152643)
Key Dates
• October 27, 1999: Criminal information filed (amended November 18, 1999)
• May 11, 2000: RTC grants respondents’ motion to suspend proceedings
• June 5, 2000: RTC denies petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
• August 16, 2000: Petitioner’s counsel moves to perpetuate petitioner’s testimony
• August 25, 2000: RTC grants deposition motion (directs taking before Makati Clerk of Court)
• November 3, 2000: RTC denies respondents’ motion for reconsideration
• March 9, 2001: Petitioner’s deposition taken at her Makati residence
• August 15, 2001: CA Decision voids RTC orders and any deposition taken
• March 12, 2002: CA Resolution denies reconsideration
• August 28, 2008: Supreme Court renders final decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. III §14(2) (right to confront witnesses)
• Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure:
– Rule 110 §5 (public prosecutor’s control in criminal cases)
– Rule 119 §§12–13, 15 (conditional examination of defense and prosecution witnesses)
• Rules of Court, Rule 23 (depositions in civil cases; suppletory to criminal procedure)
Factual Background
Respondents were charged before the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 19, with estafa through falsification of a mortgage deed over the “Gorordo property,” allegedly forged in petitioner’s name. Petitioner, a Cebu resident, was hospitalized in Makati for serious illness and could not physically appear for trial.
Suspension of Proceedings
Respondents invoked the prejudicial question doctrine, seeking suspension of the criminal case pending resolution of a related civil action for nullity of the mortgage. The RTC granted suspension on May 11, 2000, and denied petitioner’s reconsideration on June 5, 2000. Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 60266), still pending before the Court of Appeals.
Motion to Perpetuate Testimony
On August 16, 2000, petitioner’s counsel moved to conditionally examine the petitioner outside Cebu City, citing her advanced age and infirmity. The RTC granted the motion on August 25, 2000, but directed the deposition to be taken before the Makati City Clerk of Court. Respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied on November 3, 2000.
Taking of Deposition
After venue disputes, petitioner’s deposition was administered at her residence in Makati on March 9, 2001. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 62551), challenging the RTC’s orders.
Court of Appeals’ Ruling
On August 15, 2001, the CA granted respondents’ petition, set aside both RTC orders, and declared any deposition under them void. The CA held that Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure governs conditional examinations of prosecution witnesses and requires such examinations to be conducted before the court where the case is pending, not before a clerk of court.
Procedural Defect and Substantial Justice
Although respondents failed to implead the People of the Philippines (an indispensable party) in their certiorari petition, the CA ruled on the merits, noting the Office of the Solicitor General filed comments. The appellate court emphasized that procedural rules are means to secure justice and should not frustrate substantive rights.
Applicability of Rule 119 vs. Rule 23
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the specific criminal procedure prov
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 152643)
Facts of the Case
- On October 27, 1999 (amended November 18, 1999), a criminal information for Estafa through Falsification of Public Document was filed before RTC-Cebu City, Branch 19, docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU-52248.
- The charge stemmed from the alleged falsification of a real estate mortgage deed over the Gorordo property, making it appear that Concepcion Cuenco Vda. de Manguerra (“Concepcion”), the true owner, had signed the document.
- Concepcion, a Cebu City resident, was unexpectedly hospitalized in Makati Medical Center on September 10, 1999, for upper gastro-intestinal bleeding and advised to remain in Manila for treatment.
- On November 24, 1999, respondents moved for suspension of criminal proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question, citing the pending Civil Case No. CEB-20359 for declaration of nullity of the mortgage.
- The RTC granted suspension on May 11, 2000; Concepcion’s motion for reconsideration was denied on June 5, 2000.
- Concepcion filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 60266, challenging the RTC’s suspension orders; the petition remained pending.
Motion to Perpetuate Testimony
- On August 16, 2000, Concepcion’s counsel moved to take her deposition, citing her advanced age and poor health limiting her mobility.
- The RTC granted the motion on August 25, 2000, ordering the deposition before the Makati City Clerk of Court.
- Respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied on November 3, 2000, the court emphasizing the urgency due to Concepcion’s infirm condition.
- After venue-change motions, her deposition was taken at her residence on March 9, 2001.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
- Respondents filed a certiorari petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 62551, assailing the August 25 and November 3, 2000 RTC orders.
- On August 15, 2001, the CA granted the petition, setting aside both RTC orders and declaring any deposition taken thereunder as void.
- The CA held that Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revi