People v Go

174

GR Nos 130714 and 139634; 139331, 140845-46, 27 Dec 2002, Carpio-Morales, J.

Digested by Erika Wijangco Law 126 Evidence
Plaintiff-Appellee
Defendants-Appellants
Nature of action
What action below

People of the Philippines

Donel Go and Val de los Reyes
Automatic review for Go; appeal by de los Reyes
Rape

Go and de los Reyes were charged with rape. The two were tried separately, de los Reyes having
been initially at large. During de los Reyes trial, witnesses at Gos trial were also presented by
the prosecution. The prosecution adopted the transcript of the witnesses testimonies at Gos
trial, to which the defense counsel consistently objected. The Supreme Court held the admission
of the transcripts as irregular and set them aside for being violative of the Rules and of de los
Reyes rights. The witnesses should have testified orally and directly on the contents of the
transcript, and should not have merely confirmed their testimonies in a separate trial.
FACTS
Go and de los Reyes were charged with two and three counts, respectively, of rape
allegedly against Imelda Brutas. Both pleaded not guilty.
The trial of Go proceeded separately ahead of de los Reyes, the latter having been
initially at large and only later apprehended
The prosecution following evidence were presented in the course of Gos trial
o
o
o
o
o
o

Testimony of Imelda Brutas

Testimony of Imeldas mother, Adela
Testimony of Imeldas sister, Clara
Testimony of Dr. Saguinsin of Rural Health Unit
Testimony of SPO4 Bonavente
Imeldas panty; Imeldas watch; certification about entry in police blotter of Imeldas complaint;
medical certificate issued by Dr. Zenit of Ziga Memorial District Hospital and Dr. Saguinsin;
affidavit executed by Marivic after the alleged incident; photographs of Go and de los Reyes;
referral form of ABS-CBN Hoy Gising

RTC Albay Branch 16 convicted Go of rape and was sentenced with death.
At de los Reyes trial before Branch 15, the prosecution presented the same witnesses,
except Bonavente
When Adela was called to the witness stand at de los Reyes trial, the private prosecutor
started rereading the questions and answers as recorded in the transcript of her earlier
testimony at the trial of Go
o Defense counsel of de los Reyes objected
o Private prosecutor instead asked1 Adela if she affirmed all her answers appearing
in the transcript of stenographic notes of the trial of Go

Decision included the transcript. Atty Ramirez was the defense counsel, Judge Sarte the private prosecutor:

Imelda then testified on the events immediately preceding the alleged rape. After which
the prosecutor asked Imelda if the latter remembered testifying regarding the same
matter.
o Private prosecutor marked transcript of Imeldas testimony at Gos trial as Exh F
o The trial court judge found it unnecessary to take individual questions asked given
that the transcript has already been marked
o The private prosecutor then adopted all the direct-examinations all the answers
of the witness appearing on the transcript which was taken from Branch 16, date
21 Jun 95, already marked exhibit F.
o Defense counsel cross-examined Imelda only on the events preceding and
following the alleged rape
The prosecution followed the same procedure in presenting Clara and Saguinsin. The
transcripts2 were offered to corroborate Imeldas testimony taken at the trial of Go.
The panty, watch, testimonies of Adela and Imelda at Gos trial were objected to by the
defense for not being identified and presented in court and that the same could not be
taken judicial notice of as de los Reyes was never a party to the trial of Go
Notwithstanding all the objections, the trial court admitted all exhibits offered

ATTY. RAMIREZ: Your Honor I object to the way it was being profounded, it would not be in a manner be the
form direct testimony because the witness direct questions pertaining to the alleged declaration relative to
the purpose for which she is being offered to testify, but not to affirm an earlier declaration your Honor.
COURT: What is your purpose Judge?
JUDGE SARTE: The purpose that we present the same testimony as we presented in the case of People versus
Donel Go and Val de los Reyes, because would supposedly jointly to be tried in Branch 16, but for reason that
the other accused was no where to be found Branch 16 proceeded only with the trial of Donel Go excluding
Val de los Reyes so, we have the same testimony we have the same evidence to be submitted.
ATTY. LEVI RAMIREZ: Well your Honor the manner of this witness being presented is that there is a question
and the counsel is already stating the answer.
JUDGE SARTE: That is why I am asking her whether she affirm that because that is her answer in Branch 16.
COURT: To obviate objection Panero why dont you just proceed directly with your direct-examination?
JUDGE SARTE: But your Honor there would be a variation in the answer which we do not want to happen
here, because she cannot remember all her answer that she gave in Branch 16.
COURT: That will be the risk of the prosecution Panero.
ATTY. RAMIREZ: Because your Honor there is a question profounded and at the same time counsel is
answering already.
JUDGE SARTE: I am not answering it it is in the transcript.
COURT: Anyway that particular piece of evidence was offered here, you can offer it here subject to crossexaminations. Anyway that is the direct testimony of this witness.
x x x All right you proceed with the direct testimony of this case.
JUDGE SARTE: Yes, your Honor.
Q. All right, do you affirm all your answers you told, you made by this representation on January 10, 1996?
COURT: Cross?
ATTY. RAMIREZ: No cross your Honor.
COURT: Whatever testimonies he testified to other than that? So you are waiving the cross Panero?
ATTY. RAMIREZ: As far as their documents are concerned, the identification of the contents yes, the refusal of
admission to that.
COURT: You will refuse admission when it is presented in evidence?
ATTY. RAMIREZ: Yes, your Honor, because so far a mere declaration is limited to fact that she was a witness
of a case before RTC, Branch 16, on that aspect we have no cross.
COURT: So discharge the witness.
2 Exhibits D, E, F, G

De los Reyes was also found guilty by the trial court and was sentenced to suffer
reclusion perpetua.
On appeal, de los Reyes claims the following:
o The trial court should not have allowed a summary proceeding
o There was no evidence to convict him
o His right to due process was violated for failing to cross-examine the witnesses

ISSUES & HOLDING

WON the trial court erred in admitting the transcripts, prejudicing de los Reyes
substantive rights YES
RATIO
The transcripts of the testimonies of Adela, Imelda, Clara, and Saguinsin should be set
aside
O The Court cited the case of People v Estenzo where the counsel manifested his
filing of the affidavits of the witnesses subject to cross-examination and the trial
court acceded thereto.
It was held that such procedure violated then Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 132,
and Section 1 of Rule 133 which required that the testimonies of witnesses
be given orally. The same provisions are substantially reproduced in the
Revised Rules of Court
The main and essential purpose of requiring a witness to appear and testify
orally is to secure for the adverse party the opportunity of crossexamination.
The judge is also able to obtain the elusive and incommunicable evidence
of a witness deportment while testifying. Only when a witness testifies
orally may a judge have a true idea of his countenance, manner and
expression, which may confirm or detract from the weight of his
testimony. 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.
The great weight given the findings of fact of the trial judge in the
appellate court is based upon his having had just that opportunity
and the assumption that he took advantage of it to ascertain the
credibility of the witnesses.
If a trial judge prepares his opinion immediately after the
conclusion of the trial, with the evidence and his impressions of the
witnesses fresh in his mind, it is obvious that he is much more
likely to reach a correct result than if he simply reviews the
evidence from a typewritten transcript, without having had the
opportunity to see, hear and observe the actions and utterances of
the witness.

Additionally, the Rules governing the examination of witnesses are

intended to protect the rights of litigants and secure the orderly dispatch of
the business of the courts. Only questions directed to the eliciting of
testimony which, under the general rules of evidence, is relevant to, and
competent to prove, the issue of the case, may be propounded to the
witness. The trial judges cannot be allowed to adopt any procedure other
than what is specifically authorized by the Rules of Court
o The apprehensions of the prosecution that the lapse of time may have
compromised the memory of the witnesses are understandable, but following this
line of thought, wouldnt the witnesses have just the same gone over the
transcripts to refresh them to answer cross-examination questions?
Lapse of time a matter the court would consider in weighing the credibility
of the witnesses; does not justify abbreviated procedure adopted by the
trial court, especially considering that the case against Go was tried before
another RTC branch.
The panty, wrist watch, certification of entry in the police blotter, and the referral form of
the ABS-CBN program are likewise set aside for not having been identified during the
trial of de los Reyes.
DISPOSITIVE
Judgment (against de los Reyes3)
VACATED. Exhibits SET ASIDE.
REMANDED. New evidence may
be introduced.

Pending rehearing of de los Reyes proceedings, Gos automatic review was held in abeyance