Rosete v. Lim June 8, 2006 | Chico-Nazario, J. J. | Petition for Certiorari | Rights of a witness PETITIONER: Alfredo Rosete, scar !a"alo, and Chito Rosete RESPONDENT: Juliano #i$ and #ilia #i$ SUMMARY: %he "etitioners are &eing sued for annul$ent and s"ecific "erfor$ance &ecause of the sale of real "ro"ert' $ade &' A(P-R)*) A(P-R)*) to +s"re$e Realt' of "arcels of land which allegedl' &elong to the res"ondents #i$s %he res"ondents want to tae the de"osition of the "etitioners, &ut the "etitioners refuse to do so &' filing a $otion and o&.ection to tae de"osition u"on oral e/a$ination Petitioners Petitioners clai$ that this goes against their right against self-incri$ination self-incri$ination since the' hae "ending cri$inal cases inoling the sa$e facts, and that the' can co$"letel' refuse to testif' %he %he trial court and the CA denied their $otion %he )C u"held the lower courts1 ruling, ruling, sa'ing that the "resent case is a ciil case, not a cri$inal one %he "ending cri$inal cases do not gie the$ the right to refuse to testif' in the ciil cases DOCTRINE: nl' an accused in a cri$inal case can refuse to tae the witness stand r in cases which "artae of the nature of a cri$inal "roceeding or analogous thereto r in ciil actions which are cri$inal in nature t is the nature of the "roceedings that controls, not the character of the suit inoled FACTS: 3 Juliano #i$ and #ilia #i$ filed co$"laint for annul$ent, s"ecific "erfor$ance w da$ages against the A(P Retire$ent and )e"aration *enfits )'ste, +s"re$e Realt' and 4e1t Co, Alfredo Rosete, !a. scar !a"alo, Chito Rosete, *P, and Register of 4eeds of !indoro ccidental - Ass for annul$ent of deed of sale, e/ecuted &' A(P-R)*) A(P-R)*) to +s"re$e Realt' of "arcels of land, and for the cancellation of the titles in +s"re$e Realt'1s na$e %he' also as for e/ecution of docs to restore ownershi" and title of the lands to the #i$s 2 #ots of "rocedural stuff ha""ened 5Answer e/ a&udanti cautela$ was filed Releant to us is that the res"ondents filed a Notice to %ae 4e"osition 7"on ral +/a$ination, giing notice that on June 38 and 20 39, the' will de"ose "etitioners !a"alo !a"alo and Chito Chito Rosete Petitioners filed an 7rgent +/ Parte !otion and &.ection to %ae 4e"osition 7"on ral +/a$ination - %here are two "ending cri$inal cases in !andalu'ong and Pasig 5*P 22 and +stafa inoling the sa$e set of facts: allowing their de"osition would iolate their right against self-incri$ination &ecause the de"osition would esta&lish allegation of fact in the co$"laint-affidaits co$"laint-affidaits in the cri$ cases ; #ower court denied the "etitioners1 e/ "arte $otion and scheduled the taing of the de"osition < Petitioners filed an !R, followed &' an 7rgent +/ "arte !otion to Cancel=)us"end the %aing of the 4e"osition #ower court again denied > A""eal to CA denied A""ealed to )C
cases &ecause the testi$on' that would &e elicited $a' &e used in the cri$inal cases ISSUE/S: 3 @=N the the trial trial court court erred erred in decla declaring ring that that the the right right against against self-incri$ would not &e iolated &' the taing of their de"osition in the ciil case – NO, lowe !o"ts #e !oe!t RULIN$: CA decision A((R!+4 RATIO: Petitio%es #e wo%& 3 Right against self-incri$ is accorded to eer' "erson who gies eidence, whether oluntar' or through su&"oena
2 %he right can onl' &e clai$ed when a s"ecific uestion is actuall' "ut to the witness, and not at an' other ti$e @itness cannot decline to &e a""ear &efore the court or refuse to testif' )u&"oena $ust &e o&e'ed ; An accused in a CR!NA# CA)+ $a' refuse to tae the witness stand as a witness, as held in People in People v. v. Ayson Ayson where the court held an accused to occu"' a different tier of "rotection •
Petitioners argu$ents? argu$ents? CA wrong when it failed to recognize their right against self-incri$ when the taing of their de"ositions was allowed - @hile an ordinar' witness $a' &e co$"elled to tae the witness stand, and clai$ "riilege against selfincri$ as each uestion reuiring incri$inating answer is ased, accused $a' altogether refuse to answer an' and all uestions &ecause right against self-incri$ B right to refuse to testif' - %he' would &e incri$inating the$seles in the cri$
•
7nder the RC, in all cri$inal "rosecutions the defendant is entitled a$ong others 53 to 'e e(em)t *om 'ei%& # wit%ess #&#i%st +imsel* , and 52 to testif' as a witness in his own &ehalfhis refusal to &e a witness shall shall not in an' an' $anner "re.udice or &e used against hi$ Clearl', onl' an ACC7)+4 in a CR!NA# CA)+ can refuse to tae the witness stand r in cases which "artae of the nature of a cri$inal "roceeding or analogous thereto r in ciil actions which are cri$inal in nature It is t+e %#t"e o* t+e )o!eei%&s t+#t !o%tols, %ot t+e !+##!te o* t+e s"it i%volve.
< n this case, what is inoled is a ciil case for Annul$ent, Annul$ent, )"ecific Perfor$ance with 4a$ages t cannot &e considered in the nature of a cri$inal "roceeding %he %he "ending cri$inal
cases do not gie a right to refuse to testif' in the ciil case %he' $a' inoe their right against self-incri$ onl' when the
incri$inating uestions are thrown their wa'
