Rosete v Lim |June 8 , 2006

PETITIONER: Alfredo Rosete, Oscar Mapalo and Chito Rosete

RESPONDENT: Juliano Lim and Julie 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 the 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.

Petitioners arguments: CA wrong when it failed to recognize their right against self-incrimination
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-incrimination as each question requiring incriminating answer is asked, accused may altogether
refuse to answer any and all questions because right against self-incrimination is equal to right to
refuse to testify.

-they would be incriminating themselves in the criminal cases because the testimony that would be
elicited may be used in the criminal cases

ISSUE:
WON 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.

RULING:
SC affirmed CA ruling

RATIO: Petitioners are wrong

1. Right against self-incrimination 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 appear before the court or refuse to testify. Subpoena must be
obeyed.

3. An accused in a criminal case may refuse to take the witness stand as a witness, as held in
People v. Ayson where 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. (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 the nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous thereto or in civil actions which are criminal
in nature. It is the nature of the proceeding that controls and not the character of the suit involved.

4. In this case what is involved is a civil case for annulment (specific performance for damages). It
cannot be considered in the nature of a criminal proceeding