SALVANERA VS. PEOPLE G.R. NO. 143093 MAY 21,
What is needed
2007
Facts:
The petitioner contests the decision of the court
which discharged the accused Feliciano Abutin and
Domingo Tampelix from the Information in Criminal
Case for the Murder of Ruben Parane, pending
before the Regional Trial Court of Trece Martires City,
to become state witnesses. The appellate court
likewise cancelled his bail bond. The trial court
granted bail of the petioner but denied the discharge
of the accused Abutin and tampelix. The prosecution
elevated the case to the CA and argued that the
testimonies of the two accused are absolutely
necessary to establish that petitioner masterminded
the murder of Ruben Parane. The prosecution likewise
claimed that it was premature to allow the petitioner
bail as they have not even rested their case
Issue/s:
Whether there is sufficient ground to discharge the
accused Abutin and Tampelix to be a state witness
against the petitioner.
Held/ruling:
YES. There is sufficient ground. The court is satisfied
that:
a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the
accused whose discharge is requested;
b) There is no other direct evidence available for the
proper prosecution of the offense committed,
except the testimony of said accused;
c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially
corroborated in its material points;
d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty;
and,
e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of
any offense involving moral turpitude.
However, the petitioner argued that both Abutin and
Tampelix will naturally seize the opportunity to be
absolved of any liability by putting the blame on one
of their co-accused. Petitioner argues that
prosecution witnesses Parane and Salazar, who are
not accused, do not have personal knowledge of the
circumstances surrounding the alleged conspiracy.
Thus, they could not testify to corroborate the
statement of Abutin and Tampelix that petitioner is
the mastermind or the principal by induction.
The court dismissed their reasoning.
is that the corroborative evidence required by the
Rules does not have to consist of the very same
evidence as will be testified on by the proposed state
witnesses. We have ruled that "a conspiracy is more
readily proved by the acts of a fellow criminal than by
any other method. If it is shown that the statements
of the conspirator are corroborated by other
evidence, then we have convincing proof of veracity.
Even if the confirmatory testimony only applies to
some particulars, we can properly infer that the
witness has told the truth in other respects."
MANGUERRA VS. RISOS G.R. NO. 152643, AUGUST
28, 2008
Facts:
Respondents were charged with Estafa Through
Falsification of Public Document, arising from a deed
of real estate mortgage allegedly committed by
respondents where they made it appear that
Concepcion, the owner of the mortgaged property
known as the Gorordo property, affixed her signature
to the document.
Concepcion, who was a resident of Cebu City, while on
vacation in Manila, was unexpectedly confined at the
Makati Medical Center due to upper gastro-intestinal
bleeding; and was advised to stay in Manila for further
treatment.
Respondents filed a Motion for Suspension of the
Proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question.
They argued that the Civil case, which was an action
for declaration of nullity of the mortgage, should first
be resolved. On May 11, 2000, the RTC granted the
motion. Concepcion's motion for reconsideration was
denied.
Concepcion’s counsel filed a motion for deposition,
which The Court then granted.. The court ratiocinated
that procedural technicalities should be brushed aside
because of the urgency of the situation, since
Concepcion was already of advanced age. After
several motions for change of venue of the
deposition-taking, Concepcion's deposition was finally
taken on March 9, 2001 at her residence.
Aggrieved, respondents assailed the decision, and the
CA rendered a decision in their favor which rendered
the depositions void.
On the outset, the CA observed that there was a
defect in the respondents' petition by not impleading
the People of the Philippines, an indispensable party.
This notwithstanding, the appellate court resolved the
matter on its merit, declaring that the examination of
prosecution witnesses, as in the present case, is
governed by Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure and not Rule 23 of the Rules of
Court. The latter provision, said the appellate court,
only applies to civil cases. Pursuant to the specific
provision of Section 15, Rule 119, Concepcion's
deposition should have been taken before the judge
or the court where the case is pending, which is the
RTC of Cebu, and not before the Clerk of
It is also necessary that the accused be notified, so
that he can attend the examination, subject to his
right to waive the same after reasonable notice. As to
the manner of examination, the Rules mandate
that it be conducted in the same manner as an
examination during trial, that is, through question and
answer.

Court of Makati City; and thus, in issuing the assailed 2) YES, it is a waivable defect. The court has
order, the RTC clearly committed grave abuse of repeatedly declared that the failure to implead an
indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal
discretion.
of an action. In such a case, the remedy is to implead
Issue/s: the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Parties
may be added by order of the court, on motion of the
1) Whether rule 23 of the 1997 rules of civil procedure party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action
applies to the deposition of petitioner. and/or such times as are just. In this case, the CA
2) Whether failure to implead the "people of the disregarded the procedural flaw by allowing the
Philippines" in a petition for certiorari arising from a petition to proceed, in the interest of substantial
criminal case a quo constitutes a waivable defect in justice.
the petition for certiorari.
Held / Ruling:
1) NO. In criminal proceedings, Sections 12, 13 and 15,
Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
allows the conditional examination of both the
defense and prosecution witnesses. As exceptions,
Rules 23 to 28 of the Rules of Court provide for the
different modes of discovery that may be resorted to
by a party to an action. These rules are adopted either
to perpetuate the testimonies of witnesses or as
modes of discovery.
The conditional examination of a prosecution witness
for the purpose of taking his deposition should be
made before the court, or at least before the judge,
where the case is pending. Such is the clear mandate
of Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules.
The very reason offered by the petitioners to exempt
Concepcion from the coverage of Rule 119 is at once
the ground, which places her squarely within the
coverage of the same provision. Rule 119 specifically
states that a witness may be conditionally examined:
1) if the witness is too sick or infirm to appear at the
trial; or 2) if the witness has to leave the Philippines
with no definite date of returning.
Thus, when Concepcion moved that her deposition be
taken, had she not been too sick at that time, her
motion would have been denied. Instead of
conditionally examining her outside the trial court,
she would have been compelled to appear before the
court for examination during the trial proper.
It is thus required that the conditional examination be
made before the court where the case is pending.