G.R. NO. 152375, DECEMBER 13, 2011.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:
A case was filed against the respondents for before the Sandiganbayan (SB) for reconveyance, reversion, accounting,
restitution, and damages in relation to the allegation that respondents illegally manipulated the purchase of the
major shareholdings of Cable and Wireless Limited in Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI). This case
docketed as Civil Case No. 0009 spawned numerous incidental cases, among them, Civil Case No. 0130, a petition
instituted by Victor Africa (Son of the late Jose Africa) which sought to nullify the orders of the PCGG directing him to
account for the alleged sequestered shares in ETPI and to cease and desist from exercising voting rights. The present
respondents were not made parties either in Civil Case No.0130. In the former case, Victor Africa (Africa) was not
impleaded in and so is plainly not a party thereto.
In the proceedings for Civil Case No. 0130, testimony of Mr. Maurice V. Bane (former director and treasurer-in-trust
of ETPI) was taken by way of deposition upon oral examination (Bane deposition) before Consul General Ernesto
Castro of the Philippine Embassy in London, England. The purpose was for Bane to identify and testify on the facts set
forth in his affidavit so as to prove the ownership issue in favor of the petitioner and/or establish the prima facie
factual foundation for sequestration of ETPIs Class A stock.
As to Civil Case No. 009, the petitioner filed a motion (1st Motion) to adopt the testimonies of the witnesses in Civil
Case No. 0130, including the deposition of Mr. Maurice Bane which was denied by SB in its April 1998 Resolution
because he was not available for cross-examination. The petitioners did not in any way question the 1998 resolution,
and instead made its Formal Offer of Evidence on December 14, 1999. Significantly, the Bane deposition was not
included as part of its offered exhibits. In rectifying this, they filed a second motion with prayer for reopening of the
case for the purpose of introducing additional evidence and requested the court to take judicial notice of the facts
established by the Bane deposition. This was however denied by the SB in its November 6, 2000 resolution (2000
resolution). A third motion was filed by the petitioners on November 16, 2001 seeking once more to admit the Bane
deposition which the SB denied for the reason that the 1998 resolution has become final in view of the petitioners
failure to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal within the 15-day reglementary period.

ISSUE:

Whether the Bane deposition is admissible under the rules of court and under the principle of judicial notice.

RULING:

Despite the cases being closely related, admissibility of the Bane deposition still needs to comply with the rules of
court on the admissibility of testimonies or deposition taken in a different proceeding. Depositions are not meant as
substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party or witness. Generally, the deponent must be presented
for oral examination in open court at the trial or hearing otherwise, the adverse party may oppose it as mere hearsay.

Cross-examination will test the truthfulness of the statements of the witness; it is an essential safeguard of the
accuracy and completeness of a testimony. Depositions from the former trial may be introduced as evidence
provided that the parties to the first proceeding must be the same as the parties to the later proceeding. In the
present case, the petitioner failed to establish the identity of interest or privity between the opponents of the two
cases. While Victor Africa is the son of the late respondent Jose Africa, the deposition is admissible only against him
as an ETPI stockholder who filed Civil Case No. 0130. Further, the rule of judicial notice is not applicable in this case
as it would create confusion between the two cases. It is the duty of the petitioner, as a party-litigant, to properly lay
before the court the evidence it relies upon in support of the relief it seeks, instead of imposing that
same duty on the court. The petition was DISMISSED for lack of merit.