G.R. No. L-33459 October 20, 1983
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, FAUSTINO F. TUGADE AND W. ESPIRITU TAGANAS, in their capacity as private prosecutors, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, CCC Pasig, Rizal, AND PEDRO BERROYA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Pedro Berroya was charged with murder before the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig. During trial, the prosecution could not produce two vital witnesses, Alejandro Gonzaga and Alfredo Gadiar, despite exhaustive efforts by law enforcement agencies to locate and arrest them pursuant to court orders. Given their unavailability, the prosecution presented Lydia Ver, the stenographer from the preliminary investigation conducted before the Quezon City Fiscal’s Office, to authenticate the transcripts of the witnesses’ prior testimonies.
These transcripts contained the complete testimonies of Gonzaga and Gadiar, taken by question and answer, including their extensive cross-examination by Berroya’s counsel. The prosecution offered the transcripts as evidence of “testimony at a former trial” under Rule 130, Section 41 of the Rules of Court. The trial judge initially rejected them as hearsay but, on reconsideration, admitted them only as part of the stenographer’s testimony, not as independent evidence of the witnesses’ former statements.

ISSUE

Whether the transcripts of the testimonies given by the unavailable witnesses during the preliminary investigation are admissible as “testimony at a former trial” under the Rules of Court, rather than merely as part of the authenticating stenographer’s testimony.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the trial court’s ruling and ordering the admission of the transcripts as the former testimony of the witnesses. The legal logic hinges on established exceptions to the hearsay rule and the right of confrontation. While an accused has the constitutional right to confront witnesses, this right is not absolute. It yields when a witness is unavailable, and his prior testimony is admissible provided it was given under oath, the parties and subject matter are the same, and the adverse party had a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
The Court found Rule 115, Section 1(f) of the Rules of Court, governing criminal cases, to be more specific and directly applicable. It allows the reading of a witness’s prior testimony or deposition if the witness is dead, incapacitated, or cannot be found with due diligence in the Philippines, provided the testimony was taken by question and answer in the presence of the defendant or his counsel, who had the opportunity for cross-examination. All conditions were met: the testimonies were from the preliminary investigation of the same murder charge, given in Berroya’s presence with actual and extensive cross-examination by his counsel, and the witnesses’ absence was proven by the failed diligent search. Thus, the transcripts constitute admissible evidence as the witnesses’ former testimony, preventing a miscarriage of justice. The case of Toledo vs. People was distinguished, as there the witness was merely ignoring subpoenas and was not subject to an arrest order, unlike here where unavailability was duly established.