Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiff-Appellee Vs Vs Accused. Accused-Appellant: en Banc
Plaintiff-Appellee Vs Vs Accused. Accused-Appellant: en Banc
SYNOPSIS
Accused-appellants Go and de los Reyes were charged before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Tabaco, Albay with two and three counts of rape, respectively, all
committed against Imelda Brutas. Only accused-appellant Go was initially apprehended;
de los Reyes remained at large. Subsequently, Branch 16 of the RTC of Tabaco, Albay
found appellant Go guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and sentenced
him to suffer the death penalty for each count. Hence, the automatic review of the cases
against appellant Go.
Appellant de los Reyes was later apprehended, hence, Branch 16 of the RTC of
Tabaco, Albay ordered the revival of the cases against him. The cases were transferred to
Branch 15 of the same court, which found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three
counts of rape and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua in each count. Appellant de
los Reyes appealed to this Court questioning the regularity of the procedure adopted by
the trial court by allowing the prosecution witnesses to merely a rm on direct
examination their previous testimonies taken during the trial of appellant Go.
In the case of People vs. Estenzo, this Court held that the witness should have been
examined directly on the statements in her affidavit. The Supreme Court held that the same
rule applies in the present cases against appellant de los Reyes where the prosecution
witnesses merely asked to con rm their testimonies given at the trial of another in which
he took no part.
The Court further ruled that in the case at bar, the apprehensions of the prosecution
that the lapse of time may have compromised the memory of the witnesses are
understandable. 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
against appellant Go was tried before another branch of the RTC. As irregularities
prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused were committed during the trial, the
accused is entitled to a new trial. The Court ordered that all the proceedings and evidence
affected by such irregularities must be set aside and taken anew. Pending the rehearing
proceedings in the trial court, the automatic review of the cases against Go was held in
abeyance.
SYLLABUS
RESOLUTION
CARPIO-MORALES , J : p
Accused-appellants Donel Go and Val de los Reyes were charged before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tabaco, Albay with two and three counts of rape, respectively,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
all committed against Imelda Brutas. Of the two, only accused-appellant Go was initially
apprehended; de los Reyes remained at large.
Arraigned on May 3, 1995, accused-appellant Go pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Before the prosecution could nish presenting evidence, he jumped bail and was tried in
absentia.
The evidence for the prosecution consists of the testimonies of its ve witnesses,
namely: private complainant Imelda Brutas, her mother Adela, sister Clara, Dr. Marissa
Saguinsin of the Rural Health Unit in Tabaco, Albay, and SPO4 Rosalino Bonavente; Imelda's
p ant y 1 and watch 2 which she was wearing when the rape allegedly occurred; the
certi cation 3 about the entry in the police blotter of Imelda's complaint; the medical
certi cates issued by Dr. Estela Zenit of the Ziga Memorial District Hospital 4 and Dr.
Marissa Saguinsin of the Rural Health Unit in Tabaco, Albay; 5 the a davit executed by
Marivic after the alleged incident; 6 the photographs of accused-appellants Go and de los
Reyes; 7 and the Referral Form of the ABS-CBN program "Hoy Gising." 8
For the defense, the testimonies of five witnesses were offered.
In its Decision of June 25, 1997, Branch 16 of the RTC of Tabaco, Albay found
accused-appellant Go guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and
sentenced him to suffer the death penalty for each count. An alias warrant of arrest
against accused-appellant de los Reyes was issued and the cases against him were
archived.
Hence, the automatic review of the cases against accused-appellant Go, docketed
herein as G.R. Nos. 130714 and 139634.
Accused-appellant de los Reyes was later apprehended, hence, Branch 16 of the
Tabaco, Albay RTC ordered the revival of the cases against him. On December 3, 1997, the
cases were transferred to Branch 15 of the same court, it having been designated by this
Court as a heinous crimes court. At his arraignment on January 8, 1998, he pleaded not
guilty to all three charges of rape. Trial ensued thereafter.
Except for SPO4 Bonavente, the same prosecution witnesses who testi ed at the
trial of accused-appellant Go were availed of at the trial of accused-appellant de los Reyes.
When Adela Brutas, Imelda's mother, was called to the witness stand, the private
prosecutor started rereading the questions and answers as recorded in the transcript of
her testimony at the trial of accused-appellant Go. Before he could go over the entire
transcript, however, the defense counsel objected. The private prosecutor thereupon
asked Adela, as the following transcript of the proceedings, quoted verbatim, shows, if she
a rmed all her answers appearing in the transcript of stenographic notes taken during her
testimony at the trial of accused-appellant Go:
[Private prosecutor Atty. Sarte]
QAre you the same Adela Brutas who on January 10, 1996 testified at RTC
Branch [16] in the Criminal Case of People vs. Donel Go and Val de Los
Reyes?
A.Yes, sir.
Q.Do you remember that you were asked a question by this representation you
stated that your name is Adela Brutas the victim, what is your relation to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
the victim Imelda Brutas in these cases and your answered "she is my
daughter" do you affirm same answer propounded by you?
A.Yes, sir.
Q.And then again the question is: In whose house?" and you answered, "In our
house, sir."
A.Yes, sir.
Q.Likewise you were asked the question: "Where is your daughter living in
December 1994?" and you answered, "In Tayhi, Tabaco, Albay." do you
affirm that that was your answer when you're asked that question?
A.Yes, sir.
Q.In like manner on December 22, at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 1994
do you remember of any unusual incident that happened to your daughter
and you answered . . . I know it.
[Defense counsel]
ATTY. RAMIREZ:
Objection your Honor, I object your Honor to the question it is not stated your
Honor to the purpose for which this witness will testify as either narrated in
order to prove morale damages; that the witness is looking for her daughter
and her daughter was allegedly sent to an errand to deliver pictures.
JUDGE SARTE:
Your Honor my question is not yet finished your Honor, because I am referring to
the sending by her sister. . .
COURT:
Conditional.
xxx xxx xxx
JUDGE SARTE:
Then you answered: I heard that Imelda was sent for an errand by your sister
Clara, I heard Clara telling Imelda to bring pictures to a house in front of a
demolished house." Is that your answer to the question that was
confronted to you?
ATTY. RAMIREZ:
Your Honor I object to the way it was being propounded, it would not be in a
manner be the form direct testimony because the witness direct questions
pertaining to the alleged declaration relative to the purpose for which she is
being offered to testify, but not to affirm an earlier declaration your Honor.
COURT:
What is your purpose Judge?
JUDGE SARTE.
That is why I am asking her whether she affirm that because that is her answer in
Branch 16.
COURT:
To obviate objection Pañero why don't you just proceed directly with your direct-
examination?
JUDGE SARTE:
But your Honor there would be a variation in the answer which we do not want to
happen here, because she cannot remember all her answer that she gave in
Branch 16.
COURT:
Because your Honor there is a question propounded and at the same time counsel
is answering already.
JUDGE SARTE:
Anyway that particular piece of evidence was offered here, you can offer it here
subject to cross-examinations. Anyway that is the direct testimony of this
witness.
xxx xxx xxx
All right you proceed with the direct testimony of this case.
JUDGE SARTE:
Yes, your Honor.
Q.All right, do you affirm all your answers you told, you made by this
representation on January 10, 1996?
COURT:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
Cross?
ATTY. RAMIREZ:
No cross your Honor.
COURT:
Whatever testimonies he testified to other than that? So you are waiving the
cross-examination Pañero?
ATTY. RAMIREZ:
As far as their documents are concerned, the identification of the contents yes,
the refusal of admission to that.
COURT:
You will refuse admission when it is presented in evidence?
ATTY. RAMIREZ:
Yes, your Honor, because so far a mere declaration is limited to fact that she was
a witness of a case before RTC, Branch 16, on that aspect we have no
cross.
COURT:
When called to the witness stand, Imelda, after relating on direct examination the
events immediately preceding the alleged rapes, the following transpired, also quoted
verbatim:
Q.Now do you remember whether on June 21, 1995 in Branch 16 you testified
regarding this matter?
A.Yes, sir.
JUDGE SARTE:
Now your Honor please for purpose of evidence we would request that this
transcript be marked as Exhibit "F" dated June 21, 1995.
COURT:
Mark it.
JUDGE SARTE:
And also pages 4-37 be consecutively marked as Exhibit "F-1" etc.
Q.Now in said transcript you were asked a question — "Because of that heavy rain
what did you do." And you made an answer, "According to Donel Go I
should take shelter in his house."
ATTY. RAMIREZ:
Objection your Honor.
JUDGE SARTE:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
No question yet.
COURT:
Let him finish.
JUDGE SARTE: (continuing)
Q.Is this the question and your answer when you testified in Branch 16?
ATTY. RAMIREZ:
Well, your Honor I would object because the question would be very leading the
question propounded was already made by the counsel.
COURT:
Well that is in the transcript.
ATTY. RAMIREZ:
No your Honor, because the question and answer being conferred with the
witness would be improper for direct testimony because there is already
that answer.
COURT:
Anyway Judge that transcript has already been marked, it is not necessary for you
to take the individual questions asked and that has been adopted and
marked already.
JUDGE SARTE:
Now in view of that your Honor, we are adopting all the direct-examinations all the
answers of the witness appearing on the transcript which was taken from
Branch 16, dated June 21, 1995 this already marked Exhibit "F".
xxx xxx xxx
Also offered in evidence were the transcripts of the testimonies of Adela (Exhibit
"D"), Dr. Saguinsin (Exhibit "E-2-A" to "E-2-I"), Imelda (Exhibit "F") to prove that she was
raped by accused-appellant Val de los Reyes, and Clara (Exhibit "G") to corroborate
Imelda's testimony taken at the trial of accused-appellant Go were also in evidence.
The defense objected to the admission of, among others, Exhibits "A," "B," "D" and "F",
they having "never [been] identi ed and presented in court," it adding that the "court cannot
take judicial notice" thereof "as accused [de los Reyes] was never a party to the trial" of
accused-appellant Go. The objection of the defense notwithstanding, the trial court
admitted all the exhibits offered by the prosecution.
After the prosecution rested its case, the defense presented three witnesses. And it
presented a letter 1 4 to accused-appellant de los Reyes allegedly written by Imelda who
returned to the witness stand to rebut the defense evidence.
In its Decision of February 22, 1999, the Tabaco, Albay RTC, Branch 15 found
accused-appellant de los Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape
and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua in each.
His motion for reconsideration having been denied, accused-appellant de los Reyes
appealed to this Court. His appeal, G.R. Nos. 139331 and 140845-46, and that of accused-
appellant Go, G.R. Nos. 130714 and 139634, were consolidated.
Accused-appellant de los Reyes assigns to the trial court the following errors:
1.THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ALLOWING A SUMMARY
PROCEEDING INSTEAD OF A FULL DRESS TRIAL.
2.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
DESPITE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD.
3.THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED
TO DUE PROCESS. 1 5
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.
In view of the discussion which follows, this Court shall rst pass on accused-
appellant de los Reyes' appeal.
Accused-appellant de los Reyes questions the regularity of the procedure adopted
by the trial court by allowing prosecution witnesses Adela, Clara, Imelda, and Dr. Saguinsin
to merely a rm on direct examination their previous testimonies taken during the trial of
accused-appellant Go. Such proceeding, he contends, violated his right to confront and
cross-examine said witnesses.
In People v. Estenzo , 1 6 after the therein accused had testi ed, the defense counsel
manifested that for the subsequent witnesses, he was ling only their a davits subject to
cross-examination by the prosecution on matters therein and on all matters pertinent and
material thereto. The trial court acceded to the manifestation over the objection of one of
the private prosecutors.
This Court held that such procedure violated Sections 1 1 7 and 2 , 1 8 Rule 132 and
Section 1, Rule 133 1 9 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 as follows:
SECTION 1. Examination to be done in open court. — The examination of
witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court, and under
oath or a rmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question
calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given
orally.
SEC. 2.Proceedings to be recorded. — The entire proceedings of a trial or
hearing, including the questions propounded to a witness and his answers
thereto, the statements made by the judge or any of the parties, counsel, or
witnesses with reference to the case, shall be recorded by means of shorthand or
stenotype or by other means of recording found suitable by the court.
A transcript of the record of the proceedings made by the o cial
stenographer, stenotypist or recorder and certi ed as correct by him shall be
deemed prima facie a correct statement of such proceedings. (Rule 131.)
SECTION 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases,
the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance
of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of
evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and
circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence,
their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the
nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their
testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so
far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also
consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily
with the greater number. (Rule 133, italics supplied.)
The ruling in Estenzo was reiterated in Sacay vs. Sandiganbayan 2 0 where, at the
close of her direct examination, a witness was asked to con rm the truth of the contents
of her sworn statement. This Court held that the witness "should have been examined
directly on the statements in her a davit." The same rule applies in the present cases
against accused-appellant de los Reyes 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 following this line of
thought, would not the witnesses have just the same gone over the transcripts of their
testimonies during the trial of accused-appellant Go to refresh them to thereby enable
them to answer the questions of accused-appellant de los Reyes' counsel on cross-
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
examination?
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 Go was tried before another branch of the RTC.
As irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused were committed
during the trial, the accused is entitled to a new trial. 2 1 All the proceedings and evidence
affected by such irregularities must thus be set aside and taken anew. 2 2
Accordingly, the Court, with respect to the cases against accused-appellant de los
Reyes, sets aside Exhibits "D," "E-2," "E-2-I," "F" and "G", the transcripts of the testimonies of
witnesses Adela, Dr. Saguinsin, Imelda, and Clara Brutas, respectively, in the trial of
accused-appellant Go.
Exhibits "A" (the panty), "B" (the wrist watch), "C" (the Certi cation of entry in the
Police Blotter), and "H" (the Referral Form of the ABS-CBN program), none of which were
identi ed by any of the witnesses during the trial of accused-appellant de los Reyes, are
likewise set aside for lack of basis.
WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to VACATE the judgment of Branch 15 of the
Regional Trial Court of Tabaco, Albay in Criminal Case Nos. T-2639-41, " People v. Val de
los Reyes", and to SET ASIDE Exhibits "A," "B," "C," "D," "E-2," "E-2-A" to "E-2-I," "F," "G" and "H."
Said criminal cases are REMANDED to Branch 15 of the Regional Trial Court of Tabaco,
Albay for the immediate rehearing of the testimonies of witnesses Adela Brutas, Imelda
Brutas, Clara Brutas and Dr. Marissa Saguinsin, in accordance with this Court's above
disquisition. The trial court is further directed to conduct said proceedings and render a
decision thereon within 90 days from receipt of this Resolution. Following Section 6 (a),
Rule 121 of the Revised Rules of Court, the trial court may, in the interest of justice, allow
the introduction of additional evidence.
Pending these rehearing proceedings in the trial court, the automatic review of the
cases against Donel Go in G.R. Nos. 130714 and 139634 is held in abeyance. aScITE
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C .J ., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-
Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ .,
concur.
Footnotes
1.Exhibit "A."
2.Exhibit "B."
3.Exhibit "C."
4.Exhibit "D."
5.Exhibit "E."
6.Exhibit "F."
8.Exhibit "H."
9.TSN, April 15, 1998, pp. 7-13.
Do you remember of any unusual incident that whereby your sister by the name of Imelda
Brutas was a victim of a rape incident?
ATTY. RAMIREZ:
COURT:
Reform the question.
JUDGE SARTE:
Q.You said that your sister is Imelda Brutas, do you know what happened to her on December
25, 1994.
A.Yes, sir.
JUDGE SARTE:
Q.Will you please narrate? What happened? Of your own knowledge of your sister Imelda
Brutas?
ATTY. RAMIREZ:
We will object there is no basis whether the witness was present on a particular place?
COURT:
All right to obviate objection Judge lay the basis.
JUDGE SARTE:
Q.Now you said you testified in Court in Branch 16, regarding this RAPE INCIDENT against the
accused Donel Go and Val de los Reyes but the case proceeded only to Donel Go
because during that time Val de los Reyes was at large, do you remember that incident
when you testified?
A.Yes, sir because I was the one who sent my sister with the pictures to Donel Go.
ATTY. RAMIREZ:
I move that the last phrase be stricken off the record, for being not responsive to the question.
COURT:
All right, we will allow — because it is part of the explanation.
JUDGE:
WITNESS:
Yes, sir the same answers.
JUDGE SARTE:
Your Honor we request that this transcript be marked as Exhibit "G" as in good. Pages 11-27
dated February 5, 1996. I discovered that this transcript has no signature of the
stenographer and the the reserved signature be marked as G-18.
A.Yes, sir.
JUDGE SARTE:
That is all your Honor. (TSN, July 29, 1998, pp. 8-9.)
13.Dr. Saguinsin identified the medico-legal certificate she issued as well as the transcript of
her testimony taken at the trial of Go:
Q.Now, do you recall having testified in the sala of the Hon. Judge, Cesar Bordeos in connection
with the trial of Crim. Cases Nos. T-2640-41 wherein the accused is one Donel Go?
A.Yes, sir.
Q.Now showing to you this transcript, is this transcript of your testimony you had with Br. 16 of
Judge Bordeos?
A.Yes, sir.
Q.Now in connection with this case now because you will note in the trial had before Branch 16
of Judge Bordeos there was almost mentioned of Val de los Reyes in connection with
these present three (3) cases numbers 2639-40-41 against the accused Val de los Reyes.
Now, do you recall if you had a patient by the name of Imelda Brutas who went to your
office in connection with these cases now?
ATTY. RAMIREZ:
I would object no basis. That she will be testifying in connection with the three (3) present
cases. She cannot be competent to testify on the accusation made by the accused
herein but merely to limit herself in the medical certificate your Honor.
COURT:
I think that is the purpose anyway. You can go direct.
ATTY. SARTE:
Q.Showing to you this medical certificate. Will you please tell the Hon. Court if that is the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
medical certificate that you have issued?
A.Yes, sir.
Q.Now whose signature appears over the typewritten name, Marissa Saguinsin, M.D.?
A.That is my signature.
Q.So, the examination conducted by you more than one (1) month from the alleged complaint
of, Am I correct?
A.Yes, sir.
Q.Now, in the examination you made, Am I right to say that the patient was physically fit or in
good health?
A.Yes, sir.
COURT:
The purpose of presenting this transcript is that the victim and in Crim. Cases Nos. T-2639-40-
41 these cases here in Court is the same victim that was examined medically by Dr.
Saguinsin and the cases had in Branch 16 before the Honorable Judge Bordeos. (TSN,
July 6, 1998, pp. 6-8.)
The defense counsel, Atty. Levi Ramirez, then proceeded to cross-examine Dr. Saguinsin on the
contents of the medical certificate.
14.Exhibit "l."
22.Id., Sec. 6.