.3S.

epublit of tbe
qcongress of tbe

'- ' .
;;:'r "
'17 FEB 16 All :04
SITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THE
IMPEACHMENT OF RENATO C.
CORONA AS CHIEF JUSTICE OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
PHILIPPINES.
REPRESENTATIVES NIEL C.
TUPAS, JR., JOSEPH EMILIO A.
ABAYA, LORENZO R. TA1';;t!\.DA III,
REYNALDO V. UMALI, ARLENE J.
BAG-AO, et aI.,
Complainants.

Case No. 002-2011
" ;
MOTION TO DISALLOW ORAL DEPOSITIONS AND
DEPOSITIONS DUCES TECUM
(Adettessed to Ms. Maria Rica N. Matute-Dineros and Mr. Jay Francis P. Baltazar)
CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA, by counsel, respectfully mes
his following Motion to Disallow Oral Depositions and Depositions Duces Tecum to
the intended depositions of Ms. Maria Rica N. Matute-Dineros and Mr Jay Francis
P. Baltazar on 16 Februaly 2012 at 10:00 a.m. pursuant to the Prosecution's Notice
of Parties' Depositions and Depositions Duces Tecum dated 14 February 2012, upon
the following considerations:
Motion to Disallow Depositions
Page 1 of9
A. THE REVISED RULES ON
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
APPLY SUPPLETORILY TO
THE DEPOSITION SOUGHT.
1. The Honorable Impeachment Court has made it very clear. An
impeachment proceeding is akin to a criminal case and as such, it is the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure, which applies suppletorily in the instant proceedings.
Thus, it is a curiosity why the Prosecution invokes the Rules on Civil Procedure, as
in fact they did in their Notice to Parties' Deposition and Depositions Duces Tecum
dated 14 February 2012:
''The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, through its
PROSECUTORS, pursuant to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, will take
your deposition upon oral examinations on the dates and times indicated, in
the Senate of the Philippines, Roxas Blvd., Pasay City, pursuant to the 1997
Rules of Procedure."
2. Rule 24 of Revised Rules of Civil Procedure finds no application in
the instant case as there is a specific provision the Rules of Criminal Procedure
concerning the depositions of witnesses in criminal cases, which is Section 15 Rule
119:
Sec. 15. Examination 0/ witness for the prosecution.- When it is satisfactorily
appears that a witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear at
the trial as directed by the court, of has to leave the Philippines with no
definite date of returning, he may forthwith be conditionally examined before
the court where the case is pending. Such examination, in the presence of the
accused, or in his absence after reasonable notice to attend the examination
has been served on him, shall be conducted in the same manner as an
examination at the trial. Failure or refusal of the accused to attend the
examination at the trial. Failure or refusal of the accused to attend the
examination after notice shall be considered a waiver. The statement taken
may be admitted in behalf of or against the accused.
Motion to Disallow Depositions
Page 2 0/9
3. Clearly, the Prosecution is lost in their wild fishing expedition for
evidence to pin down Chief Justice Corona. On its face alone, the Notice to
Parties' Deposition and Depositions Duces Tecum should be denied and stricken
from the record for being improper, impertinent and irrelevant.
B. The Prosecution is required to
convince the Honorable
Impeachment Court that the
deponent is too sick or infirm or
has to leave the Philippines with
no definite date of returning.
4. The Rules are clear. Prior leave of the Honorable Court is required
and necessary for the Prosecution to depose any witness. By express provision of
Section 15, Rule 119, the Prosecution is required to convince the Honorable
Impeachment Court that the witness it seeks to depose is either (a) too sick or
infirm to appear at the trial as directed by the court, or (b) has to leave the
Philippines with no definite date of returning.
5. In the instant case, the Prosecution in a cavalier fashion never sought
the prior leave from the Honorable Court, and simply served Notices to take
Deposition and Deposition Duces Tecum. Indeed, the Prosecution has not even
bothered to convince the Honorable Impeachment Court that its target-deponents,
Mr. Jay Francis P. Baltazar and Ms. Maria Rica N. Matute-Dineros, are either too
sick or inform as to be unable to appear and testify, or are leaving the country with
no definite date of returning.
Motion to Disallow Dtpositions
Page3t!f9
6. In addition, the witness to be deposed must be subpoenaed by the
Honorable Impeachment Court to appear for the deposition. The Prosecution did
not seek the issuance of subpoena for the deposition of Mr. Baltazr and Ma.
Matute-Dineros. Consequently, the deposition set by the Prosecution on 16
February 2012 at 10:00 a.m. should be disallowed.
C. It is within the exclusive power
of the Impeachment Court to
conduct the conditional
examination of witnesses.
6. The giving of testimony during the trial is the general rule. The
conditional examination of a witness outside the trial is only an exception.
1
This is
in accordance with the constitutional right of the accused to meet his accuser face
to face and to allow the judge to observe the demeanor of the witness. In fact, the
Supreme Court in Cuenco Vda De Anguerra, et aL v. Raule Risos, et aL2 ruled Judge
Codilla to have committed grave abuse of discretion in directing the Clerk of Court
to conduct the examination of Concepcion and affirmed the Court of Appeals
Decision, viZ':
"At the outset, the CA observed that there was a defect in the
respondents' petition by not impleading the People of the Philippines, an
indispensable party. This notwithstanding, the appellate court resolved the
matter on its merit, declaring that the examiuation of prosecution witnesses,
as in the present case, is governed by Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised
Rules of Crimiual Procedure and not Rule 23 of the Rules of Court. The
latter provision, said the appellate court, only applies to civil cases. Pursuant
to the specific provision of Section 15, Rule 119, Concepcion's deposition
should have been taken before the judge or the court where the case is
pending, which is the RTC of Cebu, and not before the Clerk of Court of
Makati City; and thus, in issuing the assailed order, the RTC clearly
committed grave abuse of discretion. 18 era
1 Concepcion Cuenco V da De angnef7"a and the Hon. Ramon C. CodiJJa. 11. Rank llisos, Snsana Yongco, Leah
Abarque" andAtty. Gamaliel D.B. Bonje, G.R. No. 152643,28 August 2008.
2 Supra.
Motion to Disallow Depositions
Page 4 019
In its Resolution dated March 12, 2002 denying petitioner's motion for
reconsideration, the CA added that the rationale of the Rules in requiting the taking
of deposition before the same court is the constitutional right of the accused to meet
the witnesses face to face. The appellate court likewise concluded that Rule 23 could
not be applied suppletorily because the situation was adequately addressed by a
specific provision of the rules of criminal procedure. 19
***
It is true that Section 3, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides that the rules
of civil procedure apply to all actions, civil or criminal, and special proceedings. In
effect, it says that the rules of civil procedure have suppletory application to criminal
cases. However, it is likewise true that the criminal proceedings are primarily
govemed by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Considering that Rule
119 adequately and squarely covers the situation in the instant case, we find
no cogent reason to apply Rule 23 suppletorily or otherwise.
To reiterate, the conditional examination of a prosecution wituess for
the purpose of taking his deposition should be made before the court, or at
least before the judge, where the case is pending. Such is the clear mandate
of Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules. We find no necessity to depart from, or to
relax, this rule. As correctly held by the CA, if the deposition is made elsewbere, the
accused may not be able to attend, as when he is under detention. More importandy,
this requirement ensures that the judge would be able to observe the witness'
deportment to enable him to properly assess his credibility. This is especially true
when the witness' testimony is crucial to the prosecution's case.
While we recognize the prosecution's right to preserve its witness' testimony
to prove its case, we cannot disregard rules which are designed mainly for the
protection of the accused's constitutional rights. The giving of testimony during trial
is the general rule. The conditional exantination of a witness outside of the trial is
only an exception, and as such, calls for a strict construction of the rules."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. The Prosecution cannot deprive the Honorable Impeachment Court
of its exclusive power to determine whether or not conditional examination of
witnesses of the prosecution may be made and conduct the conditional
examination, by issuing mere Notices on 14 February 2012, 2 days prior to the
intended deposition date, or on 16 February 2012.
8. There is no clear showing why the deponents cannot be made to
attend the scheduled hearings for purposes of examination under oath.
Motion to Disallow Dtpositions
Page 51!!9
D. Conditional examination can
only be conducted in the same
manner as examination during trial.
9. The conditional examination of the witness for the prosecution can
only be conducted in the same manner as an examination during trial --- in the
presence of the accused, and only before the Honorable Impeachment Court. The
reason is simple; this is a matter of constitutional right of the accused to confront
his witnesses face to face. Then too, it will afford the parries and their counsel an
opportunity to pose their objections to questions and conduct cross-examination
upon the deponents. Then, too, this will allow the Honorable Impeachment Court
to observe the witnesses' demeanor and rule on objections raised by the
respondent CJ Corona and the admissibility of the testimony elicited from the
deponents.
10. It boggles the mind that the Prosecution, despite having been
presenting their witnesses and evidence in open court the past seventeen (11)
hearing days, should suddenly request for deposition of its intended witnesses-
even without prior leave of the Honorable Court.
10. Clearly, the Prosecution is trawling on murky waters by disregarding
the applicable rules, jurisprudence, the Orders of the Honorable Impeachment
Court, and even their own Memorandum.
E. Section 15 Ru1e 119 of the
Revised Ru1es on Criminal
Motion to Disallow Depositions
Page 6 0/9
Procedure
conditional
only allows the
examination of the
witness and not documents.
11. There is another reason why the intended deposition should not be
penrutted. Section 15 Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure does
not allow the production or examination of documents.
12. Even on the mistaken invocation of Rule 24 of the Revised Rules of
Civil Procedure, the said Rule also limits itself to examination of witnesses; it does
not allow production and examination of documents. In fact, the Revised Rules
of Civil Procedure has a separate rule on this --- Rule 27 on Production or
Inspection of Documents or Things. There is no such species as a "deposition
duces temm" under the Rules of Court!
F. To allow the deposition of Ms.
Maria Rica N. Matute-Dineros's
violates the constitutional right to
due process of respondent Chief
Justice Corona.
13. It is a hornbook rule that the accused must be given due notice and
necessary knowledge as to the charges against him and the possible evidence and
witnesses to be presented, not only to give the accused ample opportunity to
prepare his defense, but also to hasten the trial and avoid surprises.
14. In fact, even the Honorable Impeachment Court required the
Prosecution to submit a list all their witnesses and documents to be presented
Motion to Disallow Depositions
Page 7 of9
during trial, which they did. Lead Prosecutor, Congressman Neil Tupas, Jr., even
manifested in open court that they submitted a "very detailed" list in compliance
with the Honorable Impeachment Court's Order. In this "very detailed" list the
name of Ms. Maria Rica N. Matute-Dineros does not appear.
15. The Prosecution is bound by its "very detailed" list and should not
be allowed to go on a fishing expedition to gather evidence in support of their
Complaint by calling for witnesses whose testimony has not been characterized as
. To allow even the perpetuation of the testimony of a witness not otherwise in
the prosecution's list is in total violation of the constitutional right to due process
of respondent Chief Justice Corona.
15. Consequently, the Notice to Parties' Oral Depositions and Depositions Duces
Tecum address to Ms. Maria Rica N. Matute-Dineros and Mr. Jay Francis P. Baltazar dated 14
February 2012 should be disallowed and stricken from the record.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the depositions by the Prosecution of Ms.
Maria Ria N. Matute-Dineros and Jay Francis Baltazar on 16 February 2012 be DISALLOWED
and the Notice to Parties' Oral Depositions and Depositions Duces Tecum addressed to Ms. Maria
Rica N. Matute-Dineros and Jay Francis P. Baltazar dated 14 February 2012, stricken from
record.
Respondent Chief Justice Corona further prays for such other relief as may be just and
equitable in the premises.
Motion to Disallow Depositions
Page8of9
In Makati for Pasay City, 16 February 2012.
Respectfully submitted:
Counsel for Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.
JOSE M. ;Y III
PTR No. 03038311; 1/09/12; Makati City
IBP LRN 02570 August 20, 2001 (Lifetime)
Roll of Attorneys No. 37065
MCLE Exemption No. 1-000176
DENNIS P. MANALO
PTR No. 2666920; 5 January 2011, Makati City
IBP No. 839371; 3 January 2011, Makati City
Roll No. 40950, 12 April 1996
MCLE Compliance No. III-0009471, 26 April 2010
Copies furnished:
Ho_ of Repre_ativeo ~ II'
Batasan Complex '\
Batasan Hills, Quezon City
Senators of the Republic of the Philippines
GSIS Building
Macapagal Highway
Pasay City
Motion to DisaJloJIJ Depositions
Page 9 of9