People v. Liong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Kim Liong (Liong) was charged with estafa for allegedly failing to return US$50,955.70 to Equitable PCI Bank. This amount was erroneously deposited into his dollar account, and he subsequently withdrew the entire sum. The prosecution alleged that Liong, knowing the deposit was a mistake, failed to inform the bank and instead converted the funds for his personal use, causing damage to the bank. Procedural History: Liong pleaded not guilty to the charge. The case proceeded through pre-trial and the initial presentation of prosecution evidence. The direct examination of the first prosecution witness, Antonio Dela Rama, concluded on January 25, 2007. However, the cross-examination was repeatedly reset due to various reasons, including the defense counsel's absence, the termination of counsel's services by the accused, the witness's stroke, and the accused's indisposition. On August 27, 2009, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared Liong to have waived his right to cross-examine Dela Rama due to the prolonged delays and repeated absences of his counsel. Liong's motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC on February 9, 2010. He then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA denied the petition, affirming the RTC's orders. Liong subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was also denied by the CA. The Petition: Liong filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. He argues that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's declaration that he waived his right to cross-examine Dela Rama. Liong contends that the numerous resettings were not solely attributable to him and that his former counsel's negligence should not be held against him. He asserts that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in depriving him of his fundamental right to confront and cross-examine the prosecution's witness. The respondent People of the Philippines counters that the petition raises factual issues improper for a Rule 45 petition and that Liong's actions, including repeatedly changing counsel, constituted a waiver of his right to cross-examine.
Issue(s)
Whether the Petition for Review on Certiorari should be denied for raising factual issues. Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in declaring as waived petitioner Kim Liong's right to cross-examine prosecution witness Antonio Dela Rama.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari. It affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the Orders of the Regional Trial Court declaring petitioner Kim Liong to have waived his right to cross-examine prosecution witness Antonio Dela Rama.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of raising factual issues in a Rule 45 petition: The Court reiterated that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court generally raises only questions of law. It is not a trier of facts. However, the Court may review factual issues in exceptional circumstances, such as when there is grave abuse of discretion, a misapprehension of facts, or when the findings of the appellate court are contrary to the trial court. In this case, even if the Court considered the facts as alleged by the petitioner, it would still arrive at the conclusion that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion. Therefore, the petition, despite raising factual matters, could be reviewed to determine if grave abuse of discretion was committed. On whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in declaring the right to cross-examine waived: The Court held that the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is a fundamental constitutional right, but it is a personal right that may be waived, expressly or impliedly. The essence of the right is the opportunity to cross-examine, not necessarily the actual cross-examination. The records showed that petitioner Kim Liong was given numerous opportunities to cross-examine the prosecution witness, Antonio Dela Rama. However, the cross-examination was repeatedly reset due to reasons attributable to the petitioner, including his termination of counsel's services and the absence of his counsel during scheduled hearings. The Court noted that the petitioner had a pattern of frequently changing counsels, which was previously admonished by the RTC as a tactic to delay the proceedings. The Court found that the petitioner's failure to avail himself of the several opportunities given to him, coupled with the dilatory tactics employed, constituted a waiver of his right to cross-examine. Therefore, the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in deeming the right waived, and the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the RTC's orders.
Main Doctrine
The right to cross-examine, being a personal right of the accused, may be waived expressly or impliedly. When an accused is given the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but fails to avail of it, the accused is deemed to have waived this right, and the witness' testimony given during direct examination will remain on record.