Rosete v.

Lim
June 8, 2006 | Chico-Nazario, J. | Petition for Certiorari | Rights of a witness
PETITIONER: Alfredo Rosete, Oscar Mapalo, and Chito Rosete
RESPONDENT: Juliano Lim and Lilia Lim
SUMMARY: The petitioners are being sued for annulment and specific performance because of the sale of real property made by
AFP-RSBS to Espreme Realty of parcels of land which allegedly belong to the respondents Lims. The respondents want to take the
deposition of the petitioners, but the petitioners refuse to do so by filing a motion and objection to take deposition upon oral
examination. Petitioners claim that this goes against their right against self-incrimination since they have pending criminal cases
involving the same facts, and that they can completely refuse to testify. The trial court and the CA denied their motion. The SC
upheld the lower courts ruling, saying that the present case is a civil case, not a criminal one. The pending criminal cases do not
give them the right to refuse to testify in the civil cases.
DOCTRINE: Only an accused in a criminal case can refuse to take the witness stand. Or in cases which partake of the nature of a
criminal proceeding or analogous thereto. Or in civil actions which are criminal in nature. It is the nature of the proceedings that
controls, not the character of the suit involved.
FACTS:
1. Juliano Lim and Lilia Lim filed complaint for annulment,
specific performance w damages against the AFP Retirement
and Separation Benfits Syste, Espreme Realty and Devt Co.,
Alfredo Rosete, Maj. Oscar Mapalo, Chito Rosete, BPI, and
Register of Deeds of Mindoro Occidental.
- Asks for annulment of deed of sale, executed by
AFP-RSBS to Espreme Realty of parcels of land, and
for the cancellation of the titles in Espreme Realtys
name. They also ask for execution of docs to restore
ownership and title of the lands to the Lims.
2. Lots of procedural stuff happened (Answer ex abudanti
cautelam was filed). Relevant to us is that the respondents
filed a Notice to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination,
giving notice that on June 18 and 20 1997, they will depose
petitioners Mapalo and Chito Rosete.
Petitioners filed an Urgent Ex Parte Motion and Objection to
Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination.
- There are two pending criminal cases in
Mandaluyong and Pasig (BP 22 and Estafa) involving
the same set of facts; allowing their deposition would
violate their right against self-incrimination because
the deposition would establish allegation of fact in
the complaint-affidavits in the crim cases.
3. Lower court denied the petitioners ex parte motion and
scheduled the taking of the deposition.
4. Petitioners filed an MR, followed by an Urgent Ex parte
Motion to Cancel/Suspend the Taking of the Deposition
Lower court again denied.
5. Appeal to CA denied. Appealed to SC.
Petitioners arguments: CA wrong when it failed to recognize
their right against self-incrim when the taking of their
depositions was allowed.
- While an ordinary witness may be compelled to take
the witness stand, and claim privilege against selfincrim as each question requiring incriminating
answer is asked, accused may altogether refuse to
answer any and all questions because right against
self-incrim = right to refuse to testify.
- They would be incriminating themselves in the crim

cases because the testimony that would be elicited

may be used in the criminal cases.
ISSUE/S:
1. W/N the trial court erred in declaring that the right against
self-incrim would not be violated by the taking of their
deposition in the civil case NO, lower courts are
correct
RULING: CA decision AFFIRMED
RATIO: Petitioners are wrong
1. Right against self-incrim is accorded to every person who
gives evidence, whether voluntary or through subpoena
2. The right can only be claimed when a specific question is
actually put to the witness, and not at any other time. Witness
cannot decline to be appear before the court or refuse to
testify. Subpoena must be obeyed.
3. An accused in a CRIMNAL CASE may refuse to take the
witness stand as a witness, as held in People v. Ayson where
the court held an accused to occupy a different tier of
protection

Under the ROC, in all criminal prosecutions the

defendant is entitled among others (1) to be exempt
from being a witness against himself, and (2) to
testify as a witness in his own behalfhis refusal to
be a witness shall not in any manner prejudice or be
used against him.

Clearly, only an ACCUSED in a CRIMINAL CASE

can refuse to take the witness stand. Or in cases
which partake of the nature of a criminal proceeding
or analogous thereto. Or in civil actions which are
criminal in nature. It is the nature of the
proceedings that controls, not the character of the
suit involved.

4. In this case, what is involved is a civil case for Annulment,

Specific Performance with Damages. It cannot be considered
in the nature of a criminal proceeding. The pending criminal

cases do not give a right to refuse to testify in the civil case.

They may invoke their right against self-incrim only when the

incriminating questions are thrown their way.