Rosete v.

Lim
June 8, 2006 | Chico-Nazario, J. | Petition for Certiorari |Rights of a witness

PETITIONER: Alfredo Rosete, Oscar Mapalo, and ChitoRosete

RESPONDENT: Juliano Lim and Lilia Lim

SUMMARY: The petitioners are being sued for annulment and specific performance because of
the sale of real property made by AFP-RSBS to Espreme Realty of parcels of land which
allegedly belong to the respondents Lims. The respondents want to take the deposition of the
petitioners, but the petitioners refuse to do so by filing a motion and objection to take
deposition upon oral examination. Petitioners claim that this goes against their right against
self-incrimination since they have pending criminal cases involving the same facts, and that
they can completely refuse to testify. The trial court and the CA denied their motion. The SC
upheld the lower courts’ ruling, saying that the present case is a civil case, not a criminal one.
The pending criminal cases do not give them the right to refuse to testify in the civil cases.

DOCTRINE: Only an accused in a criminal case can refuse to take the witness stand. Or in
cases which partake of the nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous thereto. Or in civil
actions which are criminal in nature. It is the nature of the proceedings that controls, not the
character of the suit involved.

FACTS: incrimination because the deposition

1. Juliano Lim and Lilia Lim filed complaint
for annulment, specific performance w
damages against the AFP Retirement and
Separation BenfitsSyste, Espreme Realty and
Dev’t Co., Alfredo Rosete, Maj. Oscar
Mapalo, ChitoRosete, BPI, and Register of
Deeds of Mindoro Occidental.
- Asks for annulment of deed of sale,
executed by AFP-RSBS to Espreme
Realty of parcels of land, and for the
cancellation of the titles in Espreme
Realty’s name. They also ask for
execution of docs to restore ownership
and title of the lands to the Lims.
2. Lots of procedural stuff happened (Answer
ex abudanticautelam was filed). Relevant to
us is that the respondents filed a Noticeto
Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination,
giving notice that on June 18 and 20 1997,
they will depose petitioners Mapalo and
ChitoRosete.
Petitioners filed an Urgent Ex Parte Motion
and Objection to Take Deposition Upon Oral
Examination.
- There are two pending criminal cases
in Mandaluyong and Pasig (BP 22 and
Estafa) involving the same set of
facts; allowing their deposition would
violate their right against self-
would establish allegation of fact in
the complaint-affidavits in the crim
cases.
3. Lower court denied the petitioners’ ex
parte motion and scheduled the taking of the
deposition.
4. Petitioners filed an MR, followed by an
Urgent Ex parte Motion to Cancel/Suspend
the Taking of the Deposition  Lower court
again denied.
5. Appeal to CA denied. Appealed to SC.
Petitioners arguments: CA wrong when it
failed to recognize their right against self-
incrim when the taking of their depositions
was allowed.
- While an ordinary witness may be
compelled to take the witness stand,
and claim privilege against self-incrim
as each question requiring
incriminating answer is asked,
accused may altogether refuse to
answer any and all questions because
right against self-incrim = right to
refuse to testify.
- They would be incriminating
themselves in the crim cases because
the testimony that would be elicited
may be used in the criminal cases.
ISSUE/S:
1. W/N the trial court erred in declaring that
the right against self-incrimination would
not be violated by the taking of their
deposition in the civil case – NO, lower
courts are correct
RULING: CA decision AFFIRMED
RATIO: Petitioners are wrong
1. Right against self-incrim is accorded to
every person who gives evidence, whether
voluntary or through subpoena
2. The right can only be claimed when a
specific question is actually put to the
witness, and not at any other time. Witness
cannot decline to be appear before the court
or refuse to testify. Subpoena must be
obeyed.
3. An accused in a CRIMNAL CASE may
refuse to take the witness stand as a
witness, as held in People v. Aysonwhere the
court held an accused to occupy a different
tier of protection
 Under the ROC, in all criminal
prosecutions the defendant is entitled
among others (1) to be exempt from
being a witness against himself,
and (2) to testify as a witness in his
own behalf…his refusal to be a witness
shall not in any manner prejudice or
be used against him.
 Clearly, only an ACCUSED in a
CRIMINAL CASE can refuse to take the
witness stand. Or in cases which
partake of the nature of a criminal
proceeding or analogous thereto. Or in
civil actions which are criminal in
nature. It is the nature of the
proceedings that controls, not the
character of the suit involved.
4. In this case, what is involved is a civil
case for Annulment, Specific Performance
with Damages. It cannot be considered in
the nature of a criminal proceeding. The
pending criminal cases do not give a right to
refuse to testify in the civil case. They may
invoke their right against self-incrim only
when the incriminating questions are thrown
their way.