Cases (testimony At A Former Proceeding) Flashcards
FACTS: Accused-appellant Lanie Ortiz-Miyake was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale on a complaint initiated by Elenita Marasigan, Imelda Generillo and Rosamar del Rosario. In convicting appellant of illegal recruitment in large scale, the lower court adopted a previous decision of Branch 78 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Parañaque as a basis for the judgment. Said previous decision was a conviction for estafa involving the same circumstances in the instant case, wherein complainants Generillo and Del Rosario charged appellant with two counts of estafa. This decision was not appealed and had become final and executory. On appeal, the OSG argued that the Makati court could not validly adopt the facts embodied in the decision of the Parañaque court to show that illegal recruitment was committed against Generillo and Del Rosario as well. Illegal recruitment was allegedly proven to have been committed against only one person, particularly, Elenita Marasigan. Appellant, therefore, may only be held guilty of simple illegal recruitment and not of such offense in large scale.
ISSUE: Whether or not a trial court may adopt the findings of fact and decision of another court involving the same parties and incidents.
HELD: The answer is in the negative. Trial court’s utilization of and reliance on the previous decision of the Parañaque court must be rejected. Every conviction must be based on the findings of fact made by a trial court according to its appreciation of the evidence before it. A conviction may not be based merely on the findings of fact of another court, especially where what is presented is only its decision sans the transcript of the testimony of the witnesses who testified therein and upon which the decision is based. A previous decision or judgment, while admissible in evidence may only prove that an accused was previously convicted of a crime. 30 It may not be used to prove that the accused is guilty of a crime charged in a subsequent case, in lieu of the requisite evidence proving the commission of the crime, as said previous decision is hearsay. To sanction its being used as a basis for conviction in a subsequent case would constitute a violation of the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him.
FACTS: Petitioners were charged before the MTC for Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution’s complaining witness, Li Luen Ping, a frail old businessman from Laos, Cambodia. The private prosecutor filed with the MeTC a Motion to Take Oral Deposition of Li Luen Ping, alleging that he was being treated for lung infection. Notwithstanding petitioners’ Opposition, the MeTC granted the motion. Petitioners sought its reconsideration which the MeTC denied, prompting petitioners to file a Petition for Certiorari before the RTC. RTC granted the petition and declared the MeTC Orders null and void. The RTC held that Section 17, Rule 23 on the taking of depositions of witnesses in civil cases cannot apply suppletorily to the case since there is a specific provision in the Rules of Court with respect to the taking of depositions of prosecution witnesses in criminal cases, which is primarily intended to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused to meet the witness against him face to face. The prosecution elevated the case to the CA. CA reversed the ruling of the RTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not testimony of a witness in a criminal case may be taken by way of oral deposition.
No. The procedure for testimonial examination of an unavailable prosecution witness is covered under Section 15, Rule 119. The examination of witnesses must be done orally before a judge in open court. This is true especially in criminal cases where the Constitution secures to the accused his right to a public trial and to meet the witnessess against him face to face. The requirement is the “safest and most satisfactory method of investigating facts” as it enables the judge to test the witness’ credibility through his manner and deportment while testifying. It is not without exceptions, however, as the Rules of Court recognizes the conditional examination of witnesses and the use of their depositions as testimonial evidence in lieu of direct court testimony. For purposes of taking the deposition in criminal cases, more particularly of a prosecution witness who would forseeably be unavailable for trial, the testimonial examination should be made before the court, or at least before the judge, where the case is pending as required by the clear mandate of Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
Appellants were all charged in an Information for Murder of Wilfredo Atendido y Dohenog. The prosecution presented the victim’s wife, Rowena and minor daughter, Rachel (10 years old) as witnesses. Rachel testified that she saw the appellants killed her father. The defense, on the other hand, presented Aniceta as witness whose testimony discredit that of Rachel. Aniceta testified that she and Rachel were out on that day selling doormats and only returned at 6:00 p.m. Thus, Rachel could not have witnessed the murder of Wilfredo. The trial court convicted the accused. The conviction was affirmed by the CA. Appellant, on appeal with the SC, tried to further discredit Rachel’s testimony by arguing that Rachel was a mere child who had studied only until the first grade of elementary school and could barely read, and did not know how to tell time.
ISSUE: Whether or not a child witness may be disqualified on the ground that she does not know how to read and tell time.
The answer is in the negative. With exceptions provided in the Rules of Court, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. That is even buttressed by the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness which specifies that every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. To rebut this presumption, the burden of proof lies on the party challenging the child’s competence. Only when substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court will the court, motu proprio or on motion of a party, conduct a competency examination of a child. Thus, petitioners’ flimsy objections on Rachel’s lack of education and inability to read and tell time carry no weight and cannot overcome the clear and convincing testimony of Rachel as to who killed her father
Whether or not the identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the robbery with homicide was credible and competent considering that the identifying witness was Carl, a 5-year old?
Yes, The Court states that the qualification of a person to testify rests on the ability to relate to others the acts and events witnessed. Towards that end, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court makes clear who may and may not be witnesses in judicial proceedings, to wit:Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. - Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification. (l8 a)Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. - The following persons cannot be witnesses:(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others;(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully.As the rules show, anyone who is sensible and aware of a relevant event or incident, and can communicate such awareness, experience, or observation to others can be a witness. Age, religion, ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, or social status are not necessary to qualify a person to be a witness, so long as he does not possess any of the disqualifications as listed the rules. The generosity with which the Rules of Court allows people to testify is apparent, for religious beliefs, interest in the outcome of a case, and conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law are not grounds for disqualification.That the witness is a child cannot be the sole reason for disqualification. The dismissiveness with which the testimonies of child witnesses were treated in the past has long been erased. Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (A.M. No. 004-07-SC 15 December 2000), every child is now presumed qualified to be a witness. To rebut this presumption, the burden of proof lies on the party challenging the child’s competency. Only when substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court will the court, motu proprio or on motion of a party, conduct a competency examination of a child.
