Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Rosete vs. Lim

    Uploaded by

    Elaine Honrade
    1K views2 pages
    1. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss a civil case regarding property ownership on grounds of improper jurisdiction and venue, which was denied by the trial court and upheld by the Court of Appeals. 2. In the civil case, respondents sought to take depositions from petitioners, who objected citing two pending criminal cases involving the same facts. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the right against self-incrimination does not allow a party to refuse being deposed in a civil case, as it is not a criminal proceeding. Petitioners can only invoke the right by refusing to answer specific incriminating questions.

    Original Description:

    Rosete vs. Lim

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss a civil case regarding property ownership on grounds of improper jurisdiction and venue, which was denied by the trial court and upheld by the Court of Appeals. 2. In the civil case, respondents sought to take depositions from petitioners, who objected citing two pending criminal cases involving the same facts. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the right against self-incrimination does not allow a party to refuse being deposed in a civil case, as it is not a criminal proceeding. Petitioners can only invoke the right by refusing to answer specific incriminating questions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Rosete vs. Lim

    Uploaded by

    Elaine Honrade
    1. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss a civil case regarding property ownership on grounds of improper jurisdiction and venue, which was denied by the trial court and upheld by the Court of Appeals. 2. In the civil case, respondents sought to take depositions from petitioners, who objected citing two pending criminal cases involving the same facts. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the right against self-incrimination does not allow a party to refuse being deposed in a civil case, as it is not a criminal proceeding. Petitioners can only invoke the right by refusing to answer specific incriminating questions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AND EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

    Rosete vs. Lim


    G.R. No. 136051
    June 8, 2006
    (i-full text nyo na, ang technical kasi)
    FACTS:

    1. Respondents Juliano Lim and Lilia Lim filed before Branch 77 of the RTC of Quezon City a Complaint for
    Annulment, Specific Performance with Damages against AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System
    (AFP-RSBS), Espreme Realty and Development Corporation (Espreme Realty), Alfredo P. Rosete, Maj.
    Oscar Mapalo, Chito P. Rosete, Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), and Register of Deeds of the Province
    of Mindoro Occidental.
    2. It asked that the Deed of Sale executed by AFP-RSBS covering certain parcels of lands in favor of Espreme
    Realty and the titles under the name of the latter be annulled; and that the AFP-RSBS and Espreme Realty
    be ordered to execute the necessary documents to restore ownership and title of said lands to respondents,
    and that the Register of Deeds be ordered to cancel the titles of said land under the name of Espreme Realty
    and to transfer the same in the names of respondents.
    3. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
    matter of the action or suit and that venue has been improperly laid. Motions to Dismiss filed by all the
    defendants were denied as well as their MR.
    4. petitioners manifested that on 5 June 1996, they filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition in the Court
    of Appeals challenging the trial court’s Orders that denied their Motions to Dismiss and Reconsideration,
    respectively. They likewise informed the trial court that they filed an Ex Parte
    Motion to Admit Answers Ex Abudanti Cautela.
    5. respondents filed a Notice to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination giving notice that on June 18 and
    20, 1997 at 9:00 a.m., they will cause the deposition of petitioners Oscar Mapalo and Chito Rosete.
    6. petitioners filed an Urgent Ex Parte Motion and Objection to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination.
    They contend that since there are two criminal cases pending before the City Prosecutors of Mandaluyong
    City and Pasig City involving the same set of facts as in the present case wherein respondent Juliano Lim is
    the private complainant and petitioners are the respondents, to permit the taking of the deposition would be
    violative of their right against self-incrimination
    7. RTC: denied the motion and objection to take deposition upon oral examination, and scheduled the taking
    thereof; MR: denied
    8. CA: affirmed

    ISSUE:

    WON the the trial court erred and acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction
    in declaring in its order that the constitutional right against self incrimination of Oscar Mapalo and Chito Rosete
    would not be violated by the taking of their deposition in the civil case filed in the lower court although they are also
    respondents or defendants in the criminal cases filed by Juliano Lim involving the same or identical set of facts

    RULING:

    NO.

    The right against self-incrimination is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntary or under
    compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
    It is clear, therefore, that only an accused in a criminal case can refuse to take the witness stand. The right to refuse
    to take the stand does not generally apply to parties in administrative cases or proceedings. The parties thereto can
    only refuse to answer if incriminating questions are propounded. This Court applied the exception·a party who is not
    an accused in a criminal case is allowed not to take the witness stand·in administrative cases/ proceedings that
    partook of the nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous to a criminal proceeding. It is likewise the opinion of the
    Court that said exception applies to parties in civil actions which are criminal in nature. As long as the suit is
    criminal in nature, the party thereto can altogether decline to take the witness stand. It is not the character of the suit
    involved but the nature of the proceedings that controls.

    In the present controversy, the case is civil it being a suit for Annulment, Specific Performance with Damages. In
    order for petitioners to exercise the right to refuse to take the witness stand and to give their depositions, the case
    must partake of the nature of a criminal proceeding. The case on hand certainly cannot be categorized as such. The
    fact that there are two criminal cases pending which are allegedly based on the same set of facts as that of the civil
    case will not give them the right to refuse to take the witness stand and to give their depositions. They are not facing
    criminal charges in the civil case. Like an ordinary witness, they can invoke the right against self- incrimination only
    when the incriminating question is actually asked of them. Only if and when incriminating questions are thrown
    their way can they refuse to answer on the ground of their right against self-incrimination.

    You might also like