RIMBERTO T. SALVANERA, Petitioner, 4.

The accused gives his consent to be a State witness; and,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and LUCITA 5. The trial court is satisfied that:
PARANE, Respondents.
FACTS: a.) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused;
Rimberto Salvanera, Feliciano Abutin and Domingo Tampelix were
charged with conspiracy of murder; Salvanera as the mastermind. The b.) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution
prosecution moved for the discharge of Abutin and Tampelix from the of the offense committed;
information to serve as State witnesses. However, the trial court denied
the prosecution’s motion. c.) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its
material points;
Thereafter, the prosecution appealed to the CA, contending that the trial
court committed a grave abuse of discretion when it denied the motion for d.) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty;
discharge, as the testimonies of accused Abutin and Tampelix are
essential to establish that Salvenera masterminded the murder. The CA e.) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense
ruled in favor of the prosecution. Hence, the appeal. involving moral turpitude.

ISSUE: Moreover, the corroborative evidence required by the Rules does not have
Whether the CA committed serious error when it ruled that the to consist of the very same evidence as will be testified on by the proposed
“substantial corroboration” requirement under Sec. 9, Rule 119 of the state witness. The rule on conspiracy is more readily proved by the acts of
Rules of Court was satisfied by the prosecution. a fellow criminal than by any other method. Here, Abutin and Tampelix
can testify on the criminal plan of the conspirators. Where a crime is
HELD: contrived in secret, the discharge of one of the conspirators is essential
No. The CA did not commit an error in its judgment. In the discharge of an because only they have knowledge of the crime.
accused, in order that he may be a State witness, the following condition
must be present, namely:

1. Two or more accused are jointly charged with the commission of an

offense;

2. The motion for discharged is filed by the prosecution before it rests its
case;

3. The prosecution is required to present evidence and the sworn

statement of each proposed State witness at a hearing in support of the
discharge;
 1. Whether or not Rule 23 of Civil Procedure applies to the deposition of the
Vda. De Manguerra vs Risos petitioner?
G.R. No. 152643 August 28, 2008 2. Whether or not 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
CONCEPCION CUENCO VDA. DE MANGUERRA and THE HON. RAMON C. petition for certiorari?
CODILLA, JR., Presiding Judge of theRegional Trial Court of Cebu City,
Branch 19,Petitioners, Held:
- versus - 1. It is basic that all witnesses shall give their testimonies at the trial of the case in
RAUL RISOS, SUSANA YONGCO, LEAH ABARQUEZ and ATTY. GAMALIEL the presence of the judge. This is especially true in criminal cases in order that the
D.B. BONJE, accused may be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses pursuant
Respondents. to his constitutional right to confront the witnesses face to face. It also gives the
parties and their counsel the chance to propound such questions as they deem
Respondents were charged with Estafa Through Falsification of Public material and necessary to support their position or to test the credibility of said
Document before the RTC as Criminal Case that arose from the falsification of a witnesses. Lastly, this rule enables the judge to observe the witnesses demeanor.
deed of real estate mortgage allegedly committed by respondents where they
made it appear that Concepcion, the owner of the mortgaged property known as This rule, however, is not absolute. As exceptions, Rules 23 to 28 of the Rules of
the Gorordo property, affixed her signature to the document. Court provide for the different modes of discovery that may be resorted to by a
party to an action. These rules are adopted either to perpetuate the testimonies of
Concepcion, who was a resident of Cebu City, while on vacation in Manila, was witnesses or as modes of discovery. In criminal proceedings, Sections 12, 13 and
unexpectedly confined at the Makati Medical Center due to upper gastro-intestinal 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect
bleeding; and was advised to stay in Manila for further treatment. on December 1, 2000, allow the conditional examination of both the defense and
prosecution witnesses.
The counsel of Concepcion filed a motion to take the latters deposition. He
explained the need to perpetuate Concepcions testimony due to her weak physical In the case at bench, in issue is the examination of a prosecution witness, who,
condition and old age, which limited her freedom of mobility. according to the petitioners, was too sick to travel and appear before the trial
court. Section 15 of Rule 119 thus comes into play, and it provides:
The motion was granted by the RTC. Aggrieved, respondent filed a special civil
action for certiorari before the CA. Section 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution. When it satisfactorily
At the outset, the CA observed that there was a defect in the respondent’s petition appears that a witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial
by not impleading the People of the Philippines, an indispensable party. This as directed by the court, or has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of
notwithstanding, the appellate court resolved the matter on its merit, declaring that returning, he may forthwith be conditionally examined before the court where the
the examination of prosecution witnesses, as in the present case, is governed by case is pending. Such examination, in the presence of the accused, or in his
Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and not Rule 23 absence after reasonable notice to attend the examination has been served on
of the Rules of Court. The latter provision, said the appellate court, only applies to him, shall be conducted in the same manner as an examination at the trial. Failure
civil cases. Pursuant to the specific provision of Section 15, Rule or refusal of the accused to attend the examination
119, Concepcions deposition should have been taken before the judge or the court
where the case is pending and not before the Clerk of Court of Makati City; and The procedure set forth in Rule 119 applies to the case at bar. It is thus required
thus, in issuing the assailed order, the RTC clearly committed grave abuse of that the conditional examination be made before the court where the case is
discretion. pending. It is also necessary that the accused be notified, so that he can attend the
examination, subject to his right to waive the same after reasonable notice. As to
The CA added that the rationale of the Rules in requiring the taking of deposition the manner of examination, the Rules mandate that it be conducted in the same
before the same court is the constitutional right of the accused to meet the manner as an examination during trial, that is, through question and answer.
witnesses face to face. The appellate court likewise concluded that Rule 23 could
not be applied suppletorily because the situation was adequately addressed by a To reiterate, the conditional examination of a prosecution witness for the purpose
specific provision of the rules of criminal procedure. of taking his deposition should be made before the court, or at least before the
judge, where the case is pending. Such is the clear mandate of Section 15, Rule
Issues:
119 of the Rules. We find no necessity to depart from, or to relax, this rule. As
correctly held by the CA, if the deposition is made elsewhere, the accused may not
be able to attend, as when he is under detention. More importantly, this
requirement ensures that the judge would be able to observe the witness
deportment to enable him to properly assess his credibility. This is especially true
when the witness testimony is crucial to the prosecutions case.

2. It is undisputed that in their petition for certiorari before the CA, respondents
failed to implead the People of the Philippines as a party thereto. Because of this,
the petition was obviously defective. As provided in Section 5, Rule 110 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, all criminal actions are prosecuted under the
direction and control of the public prosecutor. Therefore, it behooved the
petitioners (respondents herein) to implead the People of the Philippines as
respondent in the CA case to enable the Solicitor General to comment on the
petition.
However, this Court has repeatedly declared that the failure to implead an
indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. In such a case,
the remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Parties may
be added by order of the court, on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any
stage of the action and/or such times as are just. If the petitioner/plaintiff refuses to
implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, the latter may
dismiss the complaint/petition for the petitioners/plaintiffs failure to comply.

Instructive is the Courts pronouncement in Commissioner Domingo v. Scheer in

this wise:

There is nothing sacred about processes or pleadings, their forms or

contents. Their sole purpose is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival
claims of contending parties. They were created, not to hinder and delay, but to
facilitate and promote, the administration of justice. They do not constitute the thing
itself, which courts are always striving to secure to litigants. They are designed as
the means best adapted to obtain that thing. In other words, they are a means to
an end. When they lose the character of the one and become the other, the
administration of justice is at fault and courts are correspondingly remiss in the
performance of their obvious duty.