Manguerra vs. Risos

In criminal proceedings, the conditional examination of a prosecution witness who is too sick or infirm to appear at trial must be conducted strictly in accordance with Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires that the examination be made before the court where the case is pending; Rule 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on depositions does not apply suppletorily when the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure adequately address the situation.

The case arose from a criminal complaint for Estafa Through Falsification of Public Document filed by Concepcion Cuenco Vda. de Manguerra against respondents, involving the alleged falsification of a deed of real estate mortgage over the "Gorordo property" wherein respondents made it appear that Concepcion had affixed her signature to the document. While the criminal case was pending before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Concepcion, who was residing in Cebu City, suffered from upper gastro-intestinal bleeding while on vacation in Manila and was confined at the Makati Medical Center, necessitating her extended stay in Manila for further medical treatment.

• Concepcion Cuenco Vda. de Manguerra was the complainant in Criminal Case No. CBU-52248 for Estafa Through Falsification of Public Document against respondents Raul Risos, Susana Yongco, Leah Abarquez and Atty. Gamaliel D.B. Bonje
• The criminal case involved the alleged falsification of a deed of real estate mortgage over the Gorordo property, where respondents purportedly made it appear that Concepcion had signed the document
• On September 10, 1999, Concepcion, a resident of Cebu City, was unexpectedly confined at the Makati Medical Center in Manila due to upper gastro-intestinal bleeding while on vacation
• She was advised to stay in Manila for further treatment, limiting her mobility and ability to travel back to Cebu
• On August 16, 2000, Concepcion's counsel filed a motion to take her deposition to perpetuate her testimony, citing her weak physical condition and advanced age
• The RTC of Cebu City, Branch 19 granted the motion on August 25, 2000 and directed that the deposition be taken before the Clerk of Court of Makati City
• The RTC denied respondents' motion for reconsideration on November 3, 2000, ruling that procedural technicalities should be brushed aside due to the urgency of Concepcion's medical condition and advanced age
• After several motions for change of venue, Concepcion's deposition was finally taken on March 9, 2001 at her residence
• The Court of Appeals noted that respondents failed to implead the People of the Philippines as an indispensable party in their certiorari petition, but proceeded to resolve the case on the merits in the interest of substantial justice

• Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on depositions applies to the conditional examination of Concepcion as a prosecution witness
• Concepcion's advanced age and health condition exempt her from the application of Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, necessitating the application of Rule 23 instead
• The rules on civil procedure apply suppletorily to criminal cases pursuant to Section 3, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court
• The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in allowing the deposition to be taken before the Clerk of Court of Makati City given the petitioner's physical incapacity to travel to Cebu

• The examination of prosecution witnesses is governed exclusively by Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and not by Rule 23 which applies only to civil cases
• Section 15, Rule 119 requires that the conditional examination of a prosecution witness be taken before the court where the case is pending (RTC of Cebu), and not before the Clerk of Court of Makati City
• The RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed orders allowing the deposition to be taken outside the jurisdiction of the trial court
• The failure to implead the People of the Philippines in the petition for certiorari constitutes a fatal defect that should result in dismissal

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the failure to implead the "People of the Philippines" in a petition for certiorari arising from a criminal case constitutes a waivable defect or a fatal jurisdictional defect that warrants dismissal of the petition
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure applies to the conditional examination of a prosecution witness in a criminal case
  • Whether Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure exclusively governs the conditional examination of a prosecution witness who is too sick or infirm to appear at trial

• Procedural:
  • The failure to implead the People of the Philippines as an indispensable party in the petition for certiorari is not a ground for dismissal of the action. The remedy is to implead the non-party, which may be done by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action. The Court held that the CA correctly disregarded this procedural flaw in the interest of substantial justice, especially since the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, was able to file its Comment on the petition and was given the opportunity to refute the arguments. Citing Commissioner Domingo v. Scheer, the Court emphasized that processes and pleadings are means to facilitate justice, not to hinder it.
• Substantive:
  • Rule 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to the conditional examination of prosecution witnesses in criminal cases. Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure exclusively governs such examinations. The Court ruled that while Section 3, Rule 1 provides that rules of civil procedure apply suppletorily to criminal cases, this suppletory application is only proper when the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure do not adequately address the situation. Since Section 15, Rule 119 specifically provides for the conditional examination of prosecution witnesses who are too sick or infirm, or who have to leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning, there is no necessity to apply Rule 23. The Court held that the conditional examination must be conducted before the court where the case is pending, not before a clerk of court in another city, to ensure the accused's constitutional right to meet the witnesses face to face and to enable the judge to observe the witness' demeanor for credibility assessment. The deposition taken before the Clerk of Court of Makati City was declared void.

• Conditional Examination of Prosecution Witnesses — Under Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a prosecution witness who is too sick or infirm to appear at trial, or who has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning, may be conditionally examined before the court where the case is pending, in the presence of the accused or after reasonable notice. The examination must be conducted in the same manner as an examination at trial.
• Suppletory Application of Civil Procedure — Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court, the rules of civil procedure apply suppletorily to criminal cases only when the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure do not adequately cover the specific situation. When a criminal procedure rule squarely addresses the matter, the civil procedure rule does not apply.
• Strict Construction of Exceptions to Trial Testimony — The giving of testimony during trial is the general rule, while conditional examination outside of trial is the exception. As an exception, the rules allowing conditional examination must be strictly construed to protect the accused's constitutional right to confrontation and to allow the trial judge to observe witness demeanor.
• Non-joinder of Indispensable Party — The failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for dismissal of an action. The proper remedy is to implead the party by order of the court at any stage of the proceedings, and dismissal is only proper if the plaintiff or petitioner refuses to comply with such order.

• "There is nothing sacred about processes or pleadings, their forms or contents. Their sole purpose is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties. They were created, not to hinder and delay, but to facilitate and promote, the administration of justice." — Citing Commissioner Domingo v. Scheer, emphasizing that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive justice.
• "When the words are clear and categorical, there is no room for interpretation. There is only room for application." — Emphasizing that Section 15, Rule 119 clearly mandates that conditional examination of prosecution witnesses be made before the court where the case is pending.
• "The giving of testimony during trial is the general rule. The conditional examination of a witness outside of the trial is only an exception, and as such, calls for a strict construction of the rules." — Highlighting the strict construction required for exceptions to the general rule of trial testimony to protect the accused's rights.

• Commissioner Domingo v. Scheer — Cited for the principle that procedural rules are mere tools to facilitate the administration of justice and should not be used to hinder or delay the application of justice to rival claims.
• Madarang v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the rule that all criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor, necessitating the impleading of the People of the Philippines in certiorari proceedings arising from criminal cases.
• Superlines Transportation Company, Inc. v. Philippine National Construction Company — Cited for the rule that the failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for dismissal, and the remedy is to implead the party.
• Manlangit v. Sandiganbayan — Cited for the principle that when the words of the law are clear and categorical, there is no room for interpretation, only application.
• Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc. — Similarly cited for the principle regarding clear statutory language requiring application rather than interpretation.

• Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Governs the conditional examination of witnesses for the prosecution who are too sick or infirm to appear at trial or who have to leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning; mandates that examination be before the court where the case is pending.
• Section 3, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court — Provides that the rules of civil procedure apply to all actions, civil or criminal, and special proceedings, but only in a suppletory capacity when criminal procedure rules apply.
• Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right of the accused in criminal prosecutions to meet the witnesses face to face, which underlies the strict requirement for conditional examinations to be conducted before the trial court.
• Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that all criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor, establishing the People of the Philippines as the real party in interest in criminal cases.