Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-02-1702)
Procedural Course in Trial Court
During trial, respondent filed on May 2, 1997 a motion to take depositions of five U.S.–based witnesses (Immigration and Naturalization Service officials, Department of Motor Vehicles personnel, and a private individual) before Philippine consular officers in Washington D.C. and California. He argued Rule 24, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Court authorizes depositions of witnesses who are out of the Philippines.
Trial Court’s Denial of Deposition Motion
By order dated June 11, 1997, and reiterated on July 25, 1997 upon reconsideration, the trial court denied the motion. It held that Rule 24, Section 4 has no application in criminal cases and that Rule 119, Sections 4 and 5 (conditional examination of defense witnesses) do not authorize depositions abroad during trial.
Court of Appeals’ Grant of Certiorari
On petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals set aside the trial court’s orders, ruling: (1) Section 1, Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure may be applied in criminal proceedings; (2) depositions may be taken before a Philippine consular officer where witnesses reside; and (3) denial violated the accused’s due process. It ordered depositions of the five witnesses.
Issues on Certiorari Before the Supreme Court
The People challenged the CA decision, contending:
- Rule 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is inapplicable in criminal cases;
- Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure governs conditional examination and does not authorize foreign depositions during trial;
- No grave abuse of discretion justified certiorari relief.
Application of Rule 23 to Criminal Proceedings
The Supreme Court observed that while Rules are organized by subject, they must be read as a whole. Section 1, Rule 23 (depositions pending action) is not inconsistent with Rule 119 and may be applied when necessary to ensure an accused’s right to present evidence under the 1987 Constitution.
Deposition Before Foreign Consular Officers
Relying on Section 11, Rule 23, the Court recognized depositions in a foreign country may be taken before Philippine consular officers. It emphasized that an accused’s compulsion right under the Constitution includes securing testimony of witnesses beyond the Philippines.
Cumulative Nature of Proposed Depositions
Examining the record, the Supreme Court found that the documentary evidence on which the proposed U.S. witnesses would testify had already been admitted in multiple forms. The depositions would have been merely cumulative and unneces
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-02-1702)
Facts
- Respondent Webb accused in Criminal Case No. 95-404 for rape with homicide before RTC Branch 274, Parañaque, presided by Judge Amelita G. Tolentino.
- On May 2, 1997, Webb filed a “Motion To Take Testimony By Oral Deposition” seeking to depose five U.S.‐based persons (INS officials, DMV personnel, and a private individual) before Philippine consular officers in Washington D.C. and California.
- Webb alleged these foreign witnesses were material and indispensable to establish his innocence and beyond Philippine subpoena power.
- He invoked Section 4, Rule 24, Revised Rules of Court, as authority to take depositions at trial.
Trial Court Orders
- June 11, 1997 RTC Order denied the deposition motion, ruling that Section 4, Rule 24 and Sections 4–5, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court do not allow depositions in criminal trials or abroad.
- July 25, 1997 RTC Order denied Webb’s motion for reconsideration, holding that the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure are inapplicable and criminal depositions abroad remain unsanctioned.
Court of Appeals Decision
- Webb petitioned the CA Fourth Division for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 45399).
- On February 6, 1998, the CA granted the petition, annulled both RTC orders, and ordered depositions of the five U.S.-based witnesses before Philippine consular officers.
Petition for Review on Certiorari
- The People of the Philippines elevated to the Supreme Court via certiorari under Rule 45, Section 4.
- Petitioner