The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision to admit the deposition of Buaneres Corral as evidence. The deposition was taken with petitioner's counsel present and participating in cross-examination. While depositions generally cannot replace live testimony, they can be admitted as evidence if the deponent is shown to be unavailable, such as being out of the country. Here, immigration records showed the deponent had left the Philippines, so the deposition met the exception allowing its use in evidence. The petitioner did not provide evidence the deponent had returned to the country. Therefore, the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in admitting the deposition.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision to admit the deposition of Buaneres Corral as evidence. The deposition was taken with petitioner's counsel present and participating in cross-examination. While depositions generally cannot replace live testimony, they can be admitted as evidence if the deponent is shown to be unavailable, such as being out of the country. Here, immigration records showed the deponent had left the Philippines, so the deposition met the exception allowing its use in evidence. The petitioner did not provide evidence the deponent had returned to the country. Therefore, the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in admitting the deposition.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision to admit the deposition of Buaneres Corral as evidence. The deposition was taken with petitioner's counsel present and participating in cross-examination. While depositions generally cannot replace live testimony, they can be admitted as evidence if the deponent is shown to be unavailable, such as being out of the country. Here, immigration records showed the deponent had left the Philippines, so the deposition met the exception allowing its use in evidence. The petitioner did not provide evidence the deponent had returned to the country. Therefore, the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in admitting the deposition.
SALES VS SABINO As stated at the threshold hereof, the appellate
court, in the herein assailed decision dated
FACTS: January 20, 1998, upheld the trial court and effectively denied due course to and dismissed On February 20, 1995, in the Regional Trial petitioners recourse, explaining, inter alia, that Court (RTC) at Pasig City, Metro Manila, herein petitioners active participation, through respondent Cyril A. Sabino filed an amended counsel, during the taking of subject deposition complaint for damages against, among others, and adopting it as his own exhibits, has thereby herein petitioner Jowel Sales, driver of the estopped him from assailing the admissibility vehicle involved in the accident which ultimately thereof as part of respondents evidence. caused the death of respondents son, Elbert. ISSUE: Before any responsive pleading could be filed, respondent, as plaintiff a quo, notified the Whether or not the requirements of Section 4, defendants that he will take the deposition of Rule 24 (now Section 3) of the Revised Rules of one Buaneres Corral before the Clerk of Court, Court were satisfied by the respondent when it RTC- Pasig City. presented a certification attesting to the fact that deponent has left the country but silent as On December 27, 1995 and resumed on January to whether or not at the time his deposition was 3, 1996, the deposition on oral examination of offered in evidence is in the Philippines Buaneres Corral was taken before the Clerk of Court of Pasig, in the presence and with the HELD: active participation of petitioners counsel, Atty. Roldan Villacorta, who even lengthily cross- The petition lacks merit. examined the deponent. In the course of trial, respondent had the deposition of Buaneres SEC. 4. Use of depositions.- At the trial . . . any Corral marked as her Exhibits DD and EE, with part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible submarkings. under the rules of evidence, may be used against any party who was present or Upon conclusion of her evidentiary represented at the taking of the deposition or presentation, respondent made a Formal Offer who had due notice thereof, in accordance with of Exhibits, among which are Exhibits DD and any of the following provisions: EE. Likewise offered in evidence as Exhibit BB is a certification from the Bureau of Immigration (c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a attesting to the May 28, 1996 departure for party, may be used by any party for any purpose abroad of Buaneres Corral via Flight No. PR 658. if the court finds: (1) that the witness is dead; or (2) that the witness resides at a distance Petitioner opposed the admission of Exhs. DD more than one hundred (100) kilometers from and EE and even asked that they be expunged the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the from the records on the ground that the Philippines, unless it appears that his absence jurisdictional requirements for their admission was procured by the party offering the under Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, deposition; or (3) that the witness is unable to infra, were not complied with. He also attend or testify because of age, sickness, downplayed the evidentiary value of Exhibit BB infirmity, or imprisonment; or (4) that the party for reasons he would repeat in this petition. offering the deposition has been unable to procure the attendance of the witness by In its order of February 3, 1997, the trial court subpoena; or (5) upon application and notice, admitted, among other evidence, respondents that such exception circumstances exist and Exhibits DD, EE and BB. With his motion for with due regard to the importance of reconsideration having been denied by the court presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in in its subsequent order of March 25, 1997, open court, to allow the deposition to be used. petitioner went on certiorari to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 44078, imputing grave While depositions may be used as evidence in abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court court proceedings, they are generally not meant in admitting in evidence the deposition in to be a substitute for the actual testimony in question (Exhibits DD and EE). open court of a party or witness. Stated a bit differently, a deposition is not to be used when the deponent is at hand. Indeed, any deposition offered during a trial to prove the facts therein set out, in lieu of the actual oral testimony of the deponent in open court, may be opposed and excluded on the ground of hearsay. However, depositions may be used without the deponent being called to the witness stand by the proponent, provided the existence of certain conditions is first satisfactorily established. Five (5) exceptions for the admissibility of a deposition are listed in Section 4, Rule 23, supra, of the Rules of Court. Among these is when the witness is out of the Philippines.
The trial court had determined that deponent
Bueneres Corral was abroad when the offer of his deposition was made. This factual finding of absence or unavailability of witness to testify deserves respect, having been adequately substantiated. As it were, the certification by the Bureau of Immigration Exh. BB- provides that evidentiary support. Accordingly, the attribution of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court must be struck down. It has been said to be customary for courts to accept statements of parties as to the unavailability of a witness as a predicate to the use of depositions. Had deponent Buaneres Corral indeed returned to the Philippines subsequent to his departure via Flight No. PR 658, petitioner could have presented evidence to show that such was the case. As it is, however, the petitioner does not even assert the return as a fact, only offering it as a possibility since no contrary proof had been adduced.