Rosete v.

Lim
June 8, 2006 | Chico-Nazario, J.
J. | Petition for Certiorari | Rights of a witness

PETITIONER: Alfredo Rosete, scar !a"alo, and Chito Rosete

RESPONDENT: Juliano #i$ and #ilia #i$

SUMMARY: %he "etitioners are &eing sued for annul$ent and s"ecific "erfor$ance &ecause of the sale of real "ro"ert' $ade &'
A(P-R)*)
A(P-R)*) to +s"re$e Realt' of "arcels of land which allegedl' &elong to the res"ondents #i$s %he res"ondents want to tae the
de"osition of the "etitioners, &ut the "etitioners refuse to do so &' filing a $otion and o&.ection to tae de"osition u"on oral
e/a$ination Petitioners
Petitioners clai$ that this goes against their right against self-incri$ination
self-incri$ination since the' hae "ending cri$inal cases
inoling the sa$e facts, and that the' can co$"letel' refuse to testif' %he%he trial court and the CA denied their $otion %he )C
u"held the lower courts1 ruling,
ruling, sa'ing that the "resent case is a ciil case, not a cri$inal one %he "ending cri$inal cases do not
gie the$ the right to refuse to testif' in the ciil cases

DOCTRINE: nl' an accused in a cri$inal case can refuse to tae the witness stand r in cases which "artae of the nature of a
cri$inal "roceeding or analogous thereto r in ciil actions which are cri$inal in nature t is the nature of the "roceedings that
controls, not the character of the suit inoled

FACTS: cases &ecause the testi$on' that would &e elicited

3 Juliano #i$ and #ilia #i$ filed co$"laint for annul$ent, $a' &e used in the cri$inal cases
s"ecific "erfor$ance w da$ages against the A(P Retire$ent ISSUE/S:
and )e"aration *enfits )'ste, +s"re$e Realt' and 4e1t Co, 3 @=N thethe trial
trial court
court erred
erred in decla
declaring
ring that
that the
the right
right against
against
Alfredo Rosete, !a. scar !a"alo, Chito Rosete, *P, and self-incri$ would not &e iolated &' the taing of their
Register of 4eeds of !indoro ccidental de"osition in the ciil case  – NO, lowe !o"ts #e
- Ass for annul$ent of deed of sale, e/ecuted &' !oe!t
A(P-R)*)
A(P-R)*) to +s"re$e Realt' of "arcels of land, and RULIN$: CA decision A((R!+4
for the cancellation of the titles in +s"re$e Realt'1s
na$e %he' also as for e/ecution of docs to restore RATIO: Petitio%es #e wo%&
ownershi" and title of the lands to the #i$s 3 Right against self-incri$ is accorded to eer' "erson who
2 #ots of "rocedural stuff ha""ened 5Answer e/ a&udanti gies eidence, whether oluntar' or through su&"oena
cautela$ was filed Releant to us is that the res"ondents
filed a Notice to %ae 4e"osition 7"on ral +/a$ination, 2 %he right can onl' &e clai$ed when a s"ecific uestion is
giing notice that on June 38 and 20 39, the' will de"ose actuall' "ut to the witness, and not at an' other ti$e @itness
 "etitioners !a"alo
!a"alo and Chito
Chito Rosete cannot decline to &e a""ear &efore the court or refuse to
Petitioners filed an 7rgent +/ Parte !otion and &.ection to testif' )u&"oena $ust &e o&e'ed
%ae 4e"osition 7"on ral +/a$ination
- %here are two "ending cri$inal cases in ; An accused in a CR!NA# CA)+ $a' refuse to tae the
!andalu'ong and Pasig 5*P 22 and +stafa inoling witness stand as a witness, as held in People
in People v.
v. Ayson
Ayson where
the sa$e set of facts: allowing their de"osition would the court held an accused to occu"' a different tier of
iolate their right against self-incri$ination &ecause  "rotection
the de"osition would esta&lish allegation of fact in
the co$"laint-affidaits
co$"laint-affidaits in the cri$ cases • 7nder the RC, in all cri$inal "rosecutions the
; #ower court denied the "etitioners1 e/ "arte $otion and defendant is entitled a$ong others 53 to 'e e(em)t
scheduled the taing of the de"osition *om 'ei%& # wit%ess #&#i%st +imsel* , and 52 to
< Petitioners filed an !R, followed &' an 7rgent +/ "arte testif' as a witness in his own &ehalfhis refusal to
!otion to Cancel=)us"end the %aing of the 4e"osition 
 &e a witness shall
shall not in an'
an' $anner "re.udice or &e
#ower court again denied used against hi$
> A""eal to CA denied A""ealed to )C


• Clearl', onl' an ACC7)+4 in a CR!NA# CA)+

Petitioners argu$ents?
argu$ents? CA wrong when it failed to recognize can refuse to tae the witness stand r in cases
their right against self-incri$ when the taing of their which "artae of the nature of a cri$inal "roceeding
de"ositions was allowed or analogous thereto r in ciil actions which are
- @hile an ordinar' witness $a' &e co$"elled to tae cri$inal in nature It is t+e %#t"e o* t+e
the witness stand, and clai$ "riilege against self- )o!eei%&s t+#t !o%tols, %ot t+e !+##!te o* t+e
incri$ as each uestion reuiring incri$inating s"it i%volve.
answer is ased, accused $a' altogether refuse to
< n this case, what is inoled is a ciil case for Annul$ent,
Annul$ent,
answer an' and all uestions &ecause right against
)"ecific Perfor$ance with 4a$ages t cannot &e considered
self-incri$ B right to refuse to testif'
in the nature of a cri$inal "roceeding %he
%he "ending cri$inal
- %he' would &e incri$inating the$seles in the cri$
cases do not gie a right to refuse to testif' in the ciil case incri$inating uestions are thrown their wa'
%he' $a' inoe their right against self-incri$ onl' when the