Manguerra v. Risos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Raul Risos, Susana Yongco, Leah Abarquez, and Atty. Gamaliel D.B. Bonje were charged with Estafa Through Falsification of Public Document. The charge stemmed from an alleged falsification of a deed of real estate mortgage, where it was made to appear that Concepcion Cuenco Vda. de Manguerra, the property owner, had signed the document. This led to the filing of Criminal Case No. CBU-52248 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 19. Procedural History: While the criminal case was pending, respondents filed a motion to suspend proceedings, citing a prejudicial question raised in a civil case for the declaration of nullity of the mortgage. The RTC granted this motion, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration by Concepcion was denied. Concepcion then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging these orders. Separately, Concepcion filed a motion to take her deposition due to her poor health and advanced age. The RTC granted this motion, but respondents again sought reconsideration, which was denied. Aggrieved by the RTC's orders allowing the deposition, respondents filed another special civil action for certiorari with the CA. The CA granted this petition, setting aside the RTC orders and declaring any deposition taken thereunder void. The CA reasoned that the examination of a prosecution witness is governed by Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, not Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, and that the deposition should have been taken before the court where the case was pending. The Petition: This case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, filed by Concepcion Cuenco Vda. de Manguerra and the RTC Judge. Petitioners assail the CA's decision and resolution, raising two main issues: (1) whether Rule 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies to the deposition of a prosecution witness in a criminal case, and (2) whether the failure to implead the People of the Philippines in the certiorari petition before the CA was a waivable defect. Petitioners argue that Concepcion's condition warranted the application of Rule 23, while respondents maintain that the specific provisions of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should govern.
Issue(s)
Whether Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure applies to the deposition of a prosecution witness in a criminal case, considering the specific provisions of Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and the accused's right to confront witnesses. Whether the failure to implead the "People of the Philippines" in a petition for certiorari arising from a criminal case constitutes a waivable defect, especially when the OSG was able to file a comment on the petition.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution are affirmed. The RTC orders granting the motion to take deposition and denying the motion for reconsideration are set aside, and any deposition taken thereunder is declared void.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled in the negative. It held that the examination of a prosecution witness, especially when the witness is too sick or infirm to appear at the trial, is governed by Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. This rule specifically requires that the conditional examination be conducted "before the court where the case is pending." The Court emphasized that Rule 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies only suppletorily, and when a specific rule in the criminal procedure adequately covers the situation, it must be applied. The rationale behind this requirement is to protect the constitutional right of the accused to confront witnesses face to face and to allow the judge to observe the witness's demeanor. The CA correctly found that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the deposition to be taken before the Clerk of Court of Makati City, as this deviated from the clear mandate of Rule 119. On Issue 2: The Court held that the failure to implead the People of the Philippines as an indispensable party in a petition for certiorari arising from a criminal case is a defect, but it is not a ground for dismissal. The Court reiterated its pronouncement that parties may be added at any stage of the action. In this case, the CA disregarded the procedural flaw and resolved the petition on its merits in the interest of substantial justice. Furthermore, the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, was able to file its Comment on the petition, thus being afforded the opportunity to refute the arguments. The Court cited Commissioner Domingo v. Scheer to emphasize that procedural technicalities should not hinder the administration of justice.
Main Doctrine
The conditional examination of a prosecution witness under Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure must be conducted before the court where the case is pending, and not before the Clerk of Court of another city, to protect the constitutional right of the accused to confront witnesses face to face.