$anManbagan
Quezon City
SIXTH DIVISION
Present
- versus -
FERNANDEZ, SJ, J.,
Chairperson
MIRANDA, J. and
AL SANCHEZ VITANOCOL III, TRESPESES,* J.
ET AL.,
Accused.
Promulgated:
APR 24
Vq
RESOLUTION
FERNANDEZ, SJ, J.
In its Motion the prosecution prays that this Court allow Mr. Josef
Husek (Mr. Husek) and Amb. Josef Rychtar (Amb. Rychtar) to testify
via real time video conferencing. It avers:
* The incident was submitted for resolution on I 2, 418 (Order dated March 19, 2018); In view of the
vacancy in the Sixth Division (Per Administrative Order No. 071-2018 dated February 1, 2018; Revised
Internal Rulesofthe Sundiganbayca, Rule X!l, Sec. 3) -
'Dated March 12, 2018; Record, Vol. 2, pp. 283-305
7/
RESOLUTION
People vs. Vitangool, et al.
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-1207 and 1208
Page 2 of 8
x ----------------- --------------
x
During the hearing set on March 19, 2018, the accused were
given ten (10) days within which to file their respective
Comment/Opposition to the prosecution's Motion .4
Page 3 of 8
x ----------------- --------------
x
7. The prosecution has not presented the emails showing that Mr.
Husek and Amb. Rychtar are willing to testify in the present cases.
Page 4 of 8
x ----------------- --------------
x
(underscoring supplied)
".4
- RESOLUTION
People vs. Vitan gaol, at al.
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-1207 and 1208
Page 5ofB
x ----------------- -------------- x
witnesses face to face. 9 While this is the general rule, it is not without
exceptions. Viz.:
(underscoring supplied)
4
Constitution. Art. III, Sec. 14. (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until
the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, imp a rtial, and public trial. meet th
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment trial may proceed notwithstanding the
absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
(underscoring supplied)
'° Taking of depositions in criminal cases
"Sec. 23. Excluding the public; Sec. 24. Persons prohibited from entering and leaving courtroom; Sec. 25.
Live-link television testimony in criminal cases where the child is a victim or a witness; Sec. 26. Screens, one-
way mirrors, and other devices to shield child from the accused; and Sec. 27. videotaped deposition.
u Sec. 2, Rule 1
13 In Ang v. Court of Appeals G.R. No 182835, April 20, 2010), the Supreme Court stated that the Rules on
Electronic Evidence do not apply to criminal actions. However, in the more recent case of People v. Enojos
RESOLUTION
People vs. V/tan goof, at at
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-1207 and 1206
Page 6 of 8
x ----------------- --------------
x
Page 7 of 8
x ----------------- --------------
x
SO ORDERED'
16
Crim. Case No. SB-16-CRM-1208
RESOLUTION
People vs. Vitangool, et at
Criminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-1207 and 1208
flEL
x ----------------- -------------- x
JANE T.FERNAE
Associate Justice
Chairperson
We Concur:
ZØESES
KAJ8 MIRANDA