While petitioner bewailed the mode of service of

This preview shows page 6 - 8 out of 11 pages.

While petitioner bewailed the mode of service of summons on him and questioned theSandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over his person, he has rendered his own arguments moot by hisvoluntary appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Jurisprudence holdsthat an objection based on lack of jurisdiction over the person is waived when the defendant files amotion or pleading which seeks affirmative relief other than the dismissal of the case.6 |S a n t i a g o , S a r a A n d r e a N i n a P . | C i v i l P r o c e d u r e | S a t u r d a y | 1 - 6 p m
G.R. No. 185527July 18, 2012HARRY L. GO, TONNY NGO, JERRY NGO AND JANE GOvs.THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HIGHDONE COMPANY, LTD., ET AL.FACTSPetitioners were charged before the MeTC of Manila for Other Deceits under Article 318 of theRPC. The prosecution's complaining witness, Li Luen Ping, a frail old businessman from Laos,Cambodia, traveled from his home country back to the Philippines in order to attend the hearing.However, trial dates were subsequently postponed due to his unavailability. The private prosecutorfiled with the MeTC a Motion to Take Oral Deposition of Li Luen Ping, alleging that he was beingtreated for lung infection at the Cambodia Charity Hospital in Laos, Cambodia and that, upondoctor's advice, he could not make the long travel to the Philippines by reason of ill health.MeTC: Granted the motion after the prosecution complied with the directive to submit a MedicalCertificate of Li Luen Ping.RTC: Declared the MeTC Orders null and void.CA: Reversed RTC decision.ISSUEWhether the CA erred in not finding that the deposition taking of the complaining witness in Laos,Cambodia is an infringement of the constitutional right of the petitioners to confront the saidwitness face to face.HELDThe Court rules in favor of the petitioners.For purposes of taking the deposition in criminal cases, more particularly of a prosecution witnesswho would forseeably be unavailable for trial, the testimonial examination should be made beforethe court, or at least before the judge, where the case is pending as required by the clear mandate ofSection 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Since the conditionalexamination of a prosecution witness must take place at no other place than the court where thecase is pending, the RTC properly nullified the MeTC's orders granting the motion to take thedeposition of Li Luen Ping before the Philippine consular official in Laos, Cambodia. Thecondition of the private complainant being sick and of advanced age falls within the provision ofSection 15 Rule 119 of the Rules of Court.Certainly, to take the deposition of the prosecution witness elsewhere and not before the very samecourt where the case is pending would not only deprive a detained accused of his right to attend theproceedings but also deprive the trial judge of the opportunity to observe the prosecution witness'deportment and properly assess his credibility, which is especially intolerable when the witness'

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 11 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Spring
Professor
N/A
Tags
Pleading, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Subpoena duces tecum

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture