People V Go

University of the Philippines College of Law
3D
Topic Examination of Witness

Case Name People v Go
Ponente Carpio-Morales, j.
RELEVANT FACTS
Case: 3 counts of rape
Accused: Go and De los Reyes
De los Reyes remained at large while Go pleaded not guilty to the charges. Before the prosecution could finish
presenting evidence, he jumped bail and was tried in absentia.
EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN TRIAL

PROSECUTION DEFENSE
Testimony Testimony of 5
1. Private complainant Imelda Brutas witnesses
2. Imelda’s mother Adela
3. Imelda’s sister Clara
4. Dr. Saguinsin of the Rural Health Unit in Tabaco, Albay
5. SPO4 Bonavente
Object and Document

1. Imelda’s panty and watch she was wearing when the alleged rape occurred
2. Certification about the entry in the police blotter of Imelda’s complaint
3. Medical certificates issued by Dr. Estela Zenit of the Ziga Memorial District
Hospital and Dr. Saguinsin
4. affidavit executed by Marivic after the alleged
5. incident
6. the photographs of accused-appellants Go and de los Reyes;
7. Referral Form of the ABS-CBN program “Hoy Gising”
The RTC convicted Go. De los Reyes was then apprehended. RTC ordered the revival of the case against De los
Reyes and transferred the case to another branch of the RTC. Except for SPO4 Bonavente, the same prosecution
witnesses who testified at the trial of accused-appellant Go were availed of at the trial of accused-appellant de
los Reyes.
When Imelda’s mother, Adela, was called to the witness stand, the private prosecutor started rereading the
questions and answers as recorded in the transcript of testimony at the trial of Go. But, the defense counsel
objected. The private prosecutor asked Adela if she affirmed all her answers appearing in the TSN taken during
her testimony at the trial of Go; she affirmed.
The trial judge asked why the prosecution could not just proceed with the direct examination. The prosecution
counsel explained that there would be a variation in the answer which they do not want to happen in the
present trial of de los Reyes, because the witness cannot remember all her answers that she gave in the
previous trial of Go.
3D
Thus, the prosecution at the trial of De los Reyes adopted all the direct-examinations and all the answers of
the witnesses appearing on the transcript taken from the trial of Go.
At the succeeding hearing, defense counsel cross-examined Imelda but only on matters preceding and following
the alleged rapes. The prosecution did the same with the other prosecution witnesses. The prosecution also
offered the same object and documentary evidence used in the trial of Go.
The RTC convicted de los Reyes.
On appeal before SC, De los Reyes questions the regularity of the procedure adopted by the trial court by
allowing prosecution witnesses Adela, Clara, Imelda, and Dr. Saguinsin to merely affirm on direct examination
their previous testimonies taken during the trial of accused-appellant Go. Such proceeding, he contends,
violated his right to confront and cross-examine said witnesses.
ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N the proper procedure NO.
for the taking of the
testimony of the prosecution In People v Estenzo – the defense counsel therein manifested that for the
witness in the trial of De los subsequent witnesses, he was filing only their affidavits subject to cross-
Reyes was observed examination by the prosecution on matters therein and on all matters
pertinent and material thereto. The SC held that such procedure violated Sec
1 and 2 of Rule 132 and Sec 1 of Rule 133 which required that the testimonies
of witnesses be given orally.
In the said case, the SC explained the purpose of requiring a witness to

appear and testify orally at a trial is to secure for the adverse party the
opportunity of cross-examination. There is also the advantage to be obtained
by the personal appearance of the witness before the judge because it
enables the judge as the trier of facts to obtain the elusive and
incommunicable evidence of a witness’ deportment while testifying, and a
certain subjective moral effect is produced upon the witness. The physical
condition of witness will reveal his capacity for accurate observation and
memory and his deportment will reveal clues as to his character.
The ruling in Estenzo is reiterated in Sacay v Sandiganbayan – in the said case,

at the close of her direct examination, a witness was asked to confirm the
truth of the contents of her sworn statement. The SC held that the witness
should have been examined directly on the statements in her affidavit.
As regards the apprehension of the prosecution that the lapse of time may
have compromised the memory of the witnesses – the SC said that this is
understandable. But, the SC also said that the witnesses could have just gone
over the transcripts of their testimony to refresh their memory.
3D
In any event, lapse of time is a matter that the trial court would consider in
weighing the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies; it does not justify
the abbreviated procedure adopted by the trial court, especially considering
that the case against accused-appellant Go was tried before another branch
of the RTC.
As irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused were

committed during the trial, the accused is entitled to a new trial. All the
proceedings and evidence affected by such irregularities must thus be set
aside and taken anew.
RULING
SEPARATE OPINIONS
NOTES

People V Go

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Go

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Go

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of the Philippines College of Law

Topic Examination of Witness

EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN TRIAL

Object and Document

The RTC convicted de los Reyes.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

In the said case, the SC explained the purpose of requiring a witness to

The ruling in Estenzo is reiterated in Sacay v Sandiganbayan – in the said case,

As irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused were

You might also like