Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2


RISOS It also gives the parties and their counsel the chance to propound such questions
G.R. No. 152643; August 28, 2008 as they deem material and necessary to support their position or to test the
credibility of said witnesses.

FACTS: Rule 119 categorically states that the conditional examination of a prosecution
witness shall be made before the court where the case is pending. Contrary to
Respondents, Risos were charged with Estafa before the RTC of Cebu City petitioners’ contention, there is nothing in the rule which may remotely be
which arose from the falsification of a deed of real estate mortgage allegedly interpreted to mean that such requirement applies only to cases where the
committed by respondents where they made it appear that petitioner De witness is within the jurisdiction of said court and not when he is kilometers
Manguerra, the owner of the mortgaged property affixed her signature to the away, as in the present case. Therefore, the court may not introduce exceptions
document. Petitioner was then confined in a hospital in Manila for gastro-intestinal or conditions. Neither may it engraft into the law (or the Rules) qualifications not
contemplated. When the words are clear and categorical, there is no room for
interpretation. There is only room for application.
Respondents filed a motion for suspension of criminal proceedings on the ground
of a prejudicial question alleging that the action for the declaration of nullity of
Lastly, this rule enables the judge to observe the witnesses’ demeanor.
mortgage should first be resolved. The RTC granted the motion.
This rule, however, is not absolute. 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
Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA to nullify the RTC
party to an action.
These rules are adopted either to perpetuate the testimonies of witnesses or as
Petitioner’s counsel filed a motion to take her deposition due to petitioner’s
weak physical condition. The RTC granted the motion and ordered petitioner’s modes of discovery. In criminal proceedings, Sections 12, 13 and 15, Rule 119 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000,
deposition to be taken before the Clerk of Court of Makati.
allow the conditional examination of both the defense and prosecution witnesses.
Respondents assailed the order of the RTC granting the motion to take petitioner’s
It is thus required that the conditional examination be made before the court
deposition but the RTC denied the MR stating that “procedural technicalities
where the case is pending.
should be brushed aside due to the urgency of the situation.”
It is also necessary that the accused be notified, so that he can attend the
Respondents assailed the RTC orders before the CA, with the CA ruling in their
examination, subject to his right to waive the same after reasonable notice. As to
favor stating that Rule 119, Section 15 and not Rule 23 applies in this case.
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.

Whether or not Rule 23 applies to the deposition of De Manguerra.


NO. It is basic that all witnesses shall give their testimonies at the trial of the case
in the presence of the judge. This is especially true in criminal cases in order that
the accused may be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses
pursuant to his constitutional right to confront the witnesses face to face.
CABADOR VS. PEOPLE But because some have in the past used the demurrer in order to delay the
602 SCRA 760 proceedings in the case, the remedy now carries a caveat. When the accused files
a demurrer without leave of court, he shall be deemed to have waived the right to
present evidence and the case shall be considered submitted for judgment.
To determine whether the pleading filed is a demurer to evidence or a motion
The public prosecutor accused Cabador of murdering, in conspiracy with others, to dismiss, the Court must consider the ff: the allegations in it were made in
Atty. Valerio. After 5 years of trial and 5 witnesses, RTC ended the prosecution's good faith; the stage of the proceeding at which it is filed; the primary objective of
presentation of witnesses and required the prosecution to make a written or formal the party filing it.
offer of its documentary evidence within 15 days from notice. The public
prosecutor asked for 3 extensions of time but was still not able to make the offer. Cabador in his MTD pointed out how the trial dragged on for years; the gaps
between hearings were long, with hearings often postponed due to the absence of
Cabador filed a motion to dismiss the case, invoking his right to a speedy trial. the prosecutor. And it was compounded by the repeated motions for extension by
Moreover, he claimed that the trial court could not consider any evidence against the prosecutor to make the formal offer, and its failure to make such offer.
him that had not been formally offered. 4 days before such filing, without the He invoked his right to speedy trial.
knowledge of Cabador, another extension was asked for, and an offer was made
on the day Cabador filed his Motion to dismiss. In criminal cases, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground of denial of the
accused's right to speedy trail. This denial is characterized by unreasonable,
RTC issued an order treating Cabador's Motion to dismiss as a demurrer to vexatious, and oppressive delays without fault of the accused, or by unjustified
evidence. And since he filed his motion without leave of court, he waived his right postponements that unreasonably prolonged the trial. This was the main thrust of
to present evidence in his defense. Cabador’s motion to dismiss and he had the right to bring this up for a ruling by the
trial court.
RTC submitted the case for decision. Cabador filed a MR which the RTC denied.
CA likewise denied his petition and affirmed RTC. CA denied his MR. Cabador did not state what evidence the prosecution had presented against him to
show in what respects such evidence failed to meet the elements of the crime,
something that is fundamental in ay demurrer. It did not touch on any particular
ISSUE/S: testimony or documentary exhibit. He could not do so because he did not know
that the prosecution finally made its offer of exhibits on the same date he filed his
Whether or not the motion filed by Cabador was demurrer to evidence or a motion Motion To Dismiss.
to dismiss?
A demurrer assumes that the prosecution has already rested its case.
In this case, after the prosecution filed its formal offer, the trial court still needed to
HELD: give Cabador an opportunity to object to the admission of those exhibits. It also
needed to rule on the formal offer. And only after such a ruling could the
The SC ruled that Cabador filed a motion to dismiss, not a demurrer to evidence. prosecution be deemed to have rested its case.
He did not waive his right to present evidence. The MTD was filed before he could object to the offer, before the trial court could
rule on the offer, and before the prosecution could rest its case. It cannot be said
There are 2 stages in the trial proper of a criminal case: (1) prosecution's that he intended his MTD to serve as a demurrer. He cannot be declared to have
presentation of evidence against the accused; and (2) accused's presentation of waived his right to present evidence in his defense
evidence in his defense. If after the first stage, the evidence appears insufficient to
support a conviction, the trial court may at its own initiative or on motion of the
accused dispense with the second stage, and dismiss the criminal action. There is
no point for the trial court to hear the evidence of the accused in such a case since
the prosecution bears the burden of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The order of dismissal amounts to an acquittal.