Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v . GO and DE LOS REYES

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v . GO and DE LOS REYES 

Donel Go (Donel) and Val de los Reyes (Val) were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Albay for two and three counts of rape, respectively. Donel was apprehended but jumped bail, hence, he was tried in absentia while Val initially remained unapprehended. Five witnesses were presented and testified against Donel. He was subsequently sentenced to death. Hence, the automatic review of the Court. Val was later on apprehended and the two of the witnesses who testified against Donel were presented during Val‘s trial. However, the private prosecutor merely reread the questions and answers as recorded in the transcript of the witnesses‘ testimony at Donel‘s trial. On the other hand, the remaining two witnesses never appeared in court and only the transcript of their testimonies during Donel‘s trial was used as evidence. Val was convicted by RTC and was sentenced to a penalty of reclusion perpetua

.
ISSUE:

Whether or not RTC abused its discretion when it allowed a summary proceeding instead of a full trial

HELD:

Accused-appellant Val questions the regularity of the procedure adopted by the trial court by allowing prosecution witnesses to merely affirm on direct examination their previous testimonies taken during the trial of accused-appellant Donel. Such proceeding, he contends, violated his right to confront and cross-examine said witnesses. This Court held that such procedure violated Sections 1 and 2, Rule 132 and Section 1, Rule 133 of the then Revised Rules of Court, which required that the testimonies of witnesses be given orally. Those provisions are substantially reproduced in the Revised Rules of Court. This Court held that the witness “should have been examined directly on the statements in her affidavit.” The same rule applies in the present cases against accused-appellant Val where the prosecution witnesses were merely asked to confirm their testimonies given at the trial of another in which he took no part. The apprehensions of the prosecution that the lapse of time may have compromised the memory of the witnesses are understandable. But in any event, lapse of time is a matter that the trial court would consider in weighing the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies; it does not justify the abbreviated procedure adopted by the trial court, especially considering that the case against accused- appellant Donel was tried before another branch of the RTC.