Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rosete vs. Lim
Rosete vs. Lim
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.