Evidence TOPIC: Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence Title: People V. Go and de Los Reyes

EVIDENCE TOPIC: Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
TITLE: GR NUMBER: 130714 and 139634

PEOPLE V. GO AND DE LOS REYES
DATE: December 27, 2002
PONENTE: Carpio Morales, J.
PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES DONEL GO AND VAL DE LOS REYES
FACTS
Accused-appellants Donel Go and Val de los Reyes were charged before the Regional Trial Court with
two and three counts of rape, respectively, all committed against Imelda Brutas. Of the two, only accused-
appellant Go was initially apprehended; de los Reyes remained at large. On his arraignment accused-
appellant Go pleaded not guilty to the charges. Before the prosecution could finish presenting evidence, he
jumped bail and was tried in absentia. Five witnesses were presented and testified against Go. He was
subsequently sentenced to death. Hence, the automatic review of the Court.
Accused-appellant de los Reyes was later apprehended, hence the RTC ordered the revival of the cases
against him. Subsequently, the cases were transferred to Branch 15 of the same court, it having been
designated by this Court as a heinous crimes court. At his arraignment he pleaded not guilty to all three
charges of rape. Trial ensued thereafter. Two of the witnesses who testified against Go were presented
during de los Reyes’ trial. However, the private prosecutor merely reread the questions and answers as
recorded in the transcript of the witnesses‘ testimony at Go‘s trial. On the other hand, the remaining two
witnesses never appeared in court and only the transcript of their testimonies during Go‘s trial was used as
evidence. Notwithstanding the objections in admitting the testimonies and transcripts as evidence, de los
Reyes was convicted by RTC and was sentenced to a penalty of reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE/S
Whether or not the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the transcripts and allowing a summary
proceeding, prejudicing de los Reyes’ substantive rights.
RULING
The court ruled in the affirmative. It was held that such procedure violated then Sections 1 and 2 of
Rule 132, and Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court which required that the testimonies of
witnesses be given orally.
Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Rules requires that in determining the superior weight of evidence on the
issues involved, the court, aside from the other factors therein enumerated, may consider the witness manner
of testifying which can only be done if the witness gives his testimony orally in open court.
It is only when the witness testifies orally that the judge may have a true idea of his countenance,
manner and expression, which may confirm or detract from the weight of his testimony. Certainly, the
physical condition of the witness will reveal his capacity for accurate observation and memory, and his
deportment and physiognomy will reveal clues to his character. These can only be observed by the judge if
the witness testifies orally in court. Indeed, the great weight given the findings of fact of the trial judge in the
appellate court is based upon his having had just that opportunity and the assumption that he took advantage
of it to ascertain the credibility of the witnesses.
If a trial judge prepares his opinion immediately after the conclusion of the trial, with the evidence and
his impressions of the witnesses fresh in his mind, it is obvious that he is much more likely to reach a correct
result than if he simply reviews the evidence from a typewritten transcript, without having had the
opportunity to see, hear and observe the actions and utterances of the witness.
The apprehensions of the prosecution that the lapse of time may have compromised the memory of the
witnesses are understandable, but following this line of thought, wouldn’t the witnesses have just the same
gone over the transcripts to refresh them to answer cross-examination questions? Lapse of time a matter the
court would consider in weighing the credibility of the witnesses; does not justify abbreviated procedure
adopted by the trial court, especially considering that the case against Go was tried before another RTC
branch.
MISC DETAILS
Bohol Cases | 3E 2018-19

Evidence TOPIC: Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence Title: People V. Go and de Los Reyes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence TOPIC: Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence Title: People V. Go and de Los Reyes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence TOPIC: Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence Title: People V. Go and de Los Reyes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVIDENCE TOPIC: Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence

TITLE: GR NUMBER: 130714 and 139634

Bohol Cases | 3E 2018-19

You might also like