Go vs. People, G.R. No. 185527, July 18, 2012

Topic: Right of confrontation | Go vs. People, G.R. No.
185527, July 18, 2012

Facts:
 Petitioners Harry Go, Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo and Jane Go were charged before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila for Other Deceits under Article 318 of the RPC.
 August 1996, Manila, Philippines, accused Go’s defraud Highdone Company Ltd.
Represented by Li Luen Ping, in the following manner, by means of false manifestations
and fraudulent representations which they made to said Li Luen Ping to the effect that
they have chattels such as machinery, spare parts, equipment and raw materials installed
and fixed in the premises of BGB Industrial Textile Mills Factory located in the Bataan
Export Processing Zone (BEPZ) in Mariveles, Bataan, executed a Deed of Mortgage for a
consideration amount in favor of ML Resources and Highdone Company Ltd.
Representing that the said deed is a FIRST MORTGAGE when in truth and in fact the
accused well knew that the same had been previously encumbered, mortgaged and
foreclosed by CHINA BANK CORPORATION causing damage and prejudice to said
HIGHDONE COMPANY LTD. Upon arraignment, petitioners pleaded not guilty to the
charge.
 The prosecution's complaining witness, Li Luen Ping, a frail old businessman from Laos,
Cambodia, traveled from his home country back to the Philippines in order to attend the
hearing held on September 9, 2004. Trial dates were subsequently postponed due to his
unavailability. A Motion to Take Oral Deposition of Li Luen Ping was filed, alleging that
Ping was being treated for lung infection at the Cambodia Charity Hospital in Laos and
that, upon doctor's advice, he could not make the long travel to the Philippines by reason
of ill health. RTC granted the petition and declared the MeTC Orders null and void.
 The RTC held that Section 17, Rule 23 on the taking of depositions of witnesses in civil
cases cannot apply suppletorily to the case since there is a specific provision in the Rules
of Court with respect to the taking of depositions of prosecution witnesses in criminal
cases, which is primarily intended to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused to
meet the witness against him face to face.
 Upon denial by the RTC of their motion for reconsideration, the prosecution elevated the
case to the CA - CA Decision which held that no grave abuse of discretion can be
imputed upon the MeTC for allowing the deposition-taking of the complaining witness Li
Luen Ping. CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition
Issue:
 Whether or not CA erred in not finding that the deposition taking of the complaining
witness in Laos, Cambodia is an infringement of the constitutional right of the petitioners
to confront the said witness face to face
Ruling:
 Yes. There is a great deal of difference between the face-to- face confrontation in a public
criminal trial in the presence of the presiding judge and the cross-examination of a
witness in a foreign place outside the courtroom in the absence of a trial judge.
 In the aptly cited case of People v. Estenzo, the Court noted the uniqueness and
significance of a witness testifying in open court, thus: The main and essential 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. "The opponent", according to an eminent authority,
"demands confrontation, not for the idle purpose of gazing upon the witness, or of being
gazed upon by him, but for the purpose of cross examination which cannot be had except
by the direct and personal putting of questions and obtaining immediate answers." There
is also the advantage of the witness before the judge, and it is this – it enables the judge
as 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. It is only when the witness testifies orally that the judge may have a true idea of
his countenance, manner and expression, which may confirm or detract from the weight
of his testimony. Certainly, the physical condition of the witness will reveal his capacity
for accurate observation and memory, and his deportment and physiognomy will reveal
clues to his character. These can only be observed by the judge if the witness testifies
orally in court
 The Procedure for Testimonial Examination of an Unavailable Prosecution Witness is
Covered Under Section 15, Rule 119.

Go vs. People, G.R. No. 185527, July 18, 2012

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Go vs. People, G.R. No. 185527, July 18, 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Go vs. People, G.R. No. 185527, July 18, 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic: Right of confrontation | Go vs. People, G.R. No.

185527, July 18, 2012

You might also like