G.R. No. 130714 & 139634 and G.R. No. 139331 & 140845-46, December 27, 2002.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DONEL GO and VAL DE LOS REYES, accused. DONEL GO, accused-appellant. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VAL DE LOS REYES, accused-appellant.

FACTS

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, all committed against Imelda Brutas. Only Go was initially apprehended; de los Reyes remained at large. Go pleaded not guilty, jumped bail before the prosecution finished presenting evidence, and was tried in absentia. The RTC found Go guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and sentenced him to death for each count, leading to an automatic review (G.R. Nos. 130714 and 139634). De los Reyes was later apprehended, the cases against him were revived, and he pleaded not guilty. At de los Reyes’ trial, the prosecution presented the same witnesses as in Go’s trial, but instead of conducting a full direct examination, the private prosecutor asked the witnesses to affirm their previous testimonies given during Go’s trial by reading questions and answers from the transcript. The defense counsel objected to this procedure. The prosecution formally offered in evidence the transcripts of the testimonies of Adela Brutas, Imelda Brutas, Clara Brutas, and Dr. Marissa Saguinsin from Go’s trial. The defense objected to the admission of these transcripts, arguing they were not properly identified and presented, and that de los Reyes was never a party to Go’s trial.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to adopt the testimonies of witnesses from the prior trial of co-accused Donel Go as part of its evidence against accused-appellant Val de los Reyes, and in admitting the transcripts of those testimonies into evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the RTC and remanded the cases for further proceedings. The Court held that the prosecution’s method of presenting witnesses by having them affirm their prior recorded testimonies was improper. A witness’s testimony must be given orally in open court under oath or affirmation. The prosecution’s procedure deprived the accused of his right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him on the facts material to the charges. The transcripts of the prior testimonies were not admissible under the rule on conditional examination of witnesses because the conditions for its application were not met, nor were they admissible as part of the res gestae. The prosecution failed to lay the proper foundation for the admission of the prior testimonies as evidence against de los Reyes. The Court emphasized that the constitutional right of the accused to meet the witnesses face to face is fundamental, and the prosecution’s shortcut was a denial of due process.