June 8, 2006
Ponente: Chico-Nazario, J.
SUMMARY:
Magpalo and the Rosetes were charged criminally (BP 22 and estafa) and civilly (annulment and specific performance with damages) in connection to an anomalous sale of a parcel of land in Mindoro. However, they refused to have their depositions taken in the civil case because they allegedly would be incriminating themselves in the criminal cases, believing that the testimony that would be elicited from them may be used in the criminal cases. The Court held that the right to refuse to take the witness stand and to give depositions can only be exercised in criminal proceedings. The Court added that only if and when incriminating questions are thrown their way can they refuse to answer on the ground of their right against self- incrimination.
FACTS:
In 1995, respondents Juliano Lim and Lilia Lim filed before Branch 77 of the RTC of Quezon City a Complaint for Annulment, Specific Performance with Damages, in addition to estafa and violation of BP 22, against Alfredo Rosete, Oscar P. Mapalo, Chito Rosete, et al. The Lims asked that the Deed of Sale executed by the AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System covering certain parcels of lands in favor of Espreme Realty and the titles thereof under the name of the latter be annulled and transferred in their names.
Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the case, which was denied by the RTC of QC and the CA. Subsequently, Rosete filed a Petition for Certiorari challenging the orders by the CA.
Pending the resolution of Rosete's petition, the Lims filed a Notice to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination to cause the deposition of Mapalo and Rosete.
This prompted herein petitioners to file an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion and Objection to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination, which the RTC dismissed.
Later on, the RTC scheduled the taking of the Deposition Upon Oral Examination of herein petitioners. As a remedy, the petitioners filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition assailing the orders of the RTC.
CA dismissed the petition and declared Mapalo and Chito Rosete in default for refusing to take their deposition.
Next, the Lims filed a Motion to Set Case for Ex-parte Presentation of Evidence, which the RTC later scheduled. Herein petitioners filed an urgent ex-parte omnibus motion, which the RTC and CA dismissed.
Herein petitioners filed a petition before the SC challenging the rulings of the CA dismissing their earlier petitions. Magpalo and the Rosetes claim that their constitutional right againt self-incrimination was violated when the RTC (and CA) allowed and scheduled the taking of their depositions by way of oral examination in the civil proceedings, knowing their answers would expose them to criminal action or liability since they would be furnishing evidence against themselves in the criminal cases filed against them.
RULING:
Petition dismissed.
Can the Rosetes and Magpalo refuse to have their depositions taken in the civil case as an exercise of their right against self-incrimination? – NO.
General rule: Only an accused in a criminal case can refuse to take the witness stand. The right to refuse to take the stand does not generally apply to parties in administrative cases or proceedings, in which case the parties
thereto can only refuse to answer if incriminating questions are propounded.
Exception: A party who is not an accused in a criminal case is allowed not to take the witness stand in administrative cases/proceedings that partook of the nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous to a criminal proceeding.
In the instant petition, the case is civil it being a suit for Annulment, Specific Performance with Damages. In order for petitioners to exercise the right to refuse to take the witness stand and to give their depositions, the case must partake of the nature of a criminal proceeding.
The case on hand certainly cannot be categorized as such. The fact that there are two criminal cases pending which are allegedly based on the same set of facts as that of the civil case will not give them the right to refuse to take the witness stand and to give their depositions. They are not facing criminal charges in the civil case. Like an ordinary witness, they can invoke the right against self-incrimination only when the incriminating question is actually asked of them. Only if and when incriminating questions are thrown their way can they refuse to answer on the ground of their right against self-incrimination.
DOCTRINE:
In order to exercise the right to refuse
to take the witness stand and to give depositions, the case must partake
of the nature of a criminal proceeding. Otherwise, the accused can
invoke the right against self-incrimination only when the incriminating
question is actually asked of him. Only if and when incriminating
questions are thrown his way can he refuse to answer on the ground of
his right against self-incrimination.
