10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

VOL. 312, AUGUST 17, 1999 573

People vs. Webb

*
G.R. No. 132577. August 17, 1999.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HUBERT

JEFFREY P. WEBB, respondent.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Deposition; Definition of;

Purposes of Taking Depositions; A deposition, in keeping with its
nature as a mode of discovery, should be taken before and not
during trial.– As defined, a deposition is–“The testimony of a
witness taken upon oral question or written interrogatories, not
in open court, but in pursuance of a commission to take testimony
issued by a court, or under a general law or court rule on the
subject, and reduced to writing and duly authenticated, and
intended to be used in preparation and upon the trial of a civil or
criminal prosecution. A pretrial discovery device by which one
party (through his or her attorney) asks oral questions of the
other party or of a witness for the other party. The person who is
deposed is called the deponent. The deposition is conducted under
oath outside of the court room, usually in one of the lawyer’s
offices. A transcript–word for word account–is made of the
deposition. Testimony of [a] witness, taken in writing, under oath
or affirmation, before some judicial officer in answer to questions
or interrogatories x x x.– and the purposes of taking depositions
are to: 1.] Give greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining
the truth and in checking and preventing perjury; 2.] Provide an
effective means of detecting and exposing false, fraudulent claims
and defenses; 3.] Make available in a simple, convenient and
inexpensive way, facts which otherwise could not be proved except
with great difficulty; 4.] Educate the parties in advance of trial as
to the real value of their claims and defenses thereby encouraging
settlements; 5.] Expedite litigation; 6.] Safeguard against
surprise; 7.] Prevent delay; 8.] Simplify and narrow the issues;
and 9.] Expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial. As can
be gleaned from the foregoing, a deposition, in keeping with its
nature as a mode of discovery, should be taken before and not
during trial. In fact, rules on criminal practice–particularly on the
defense of alibi, which is respondent’s main defense in the
criminal proceedings against him in the court below–states that
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

when a person intends to rely on such a defense, that person must

move for the taking of the deposi-

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

574

574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Webb

tion of his witnesses within the time provided for filing a pre-trial
motion.
Same; Same; Same; The use of discovery procedures is
directed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.–The use of
discovery procedures is directed to the sound discretion of the
trial judge. The deposition-taking can not be based nor can it be
denied on flimsy reasons. Discretion has to be exercised in a
reasonable manner and in consonance with the spirit of the law.
There is no indication in this case that in denying the motion of
respondent-accused, the trial judge acted in a biased, arbitrary,
capricious or oppressive manner. Grave abuse of discretion “x x x
implies such capricious, and whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words where the
power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason
of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross
as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal
to perform the duty enjoined or to act all in contemplation of law.–
Same; Same; Due Process; A party can not feign denial of due
process where he had the opportunity to present his side.–Needless
to state, the trial court can not be faulted with lack of caution in
denying respondent’s motion considering that under the
prevailing facts of the case, respondent had more than ample
opportunity to adduce evidence in his defense. Certainly, a party
can not feign denial of due process where he had the opportunity
to present his side. It must be borne in mind in this regard that
due process is not a monopoly of the defense. Indeed, the State is
entitled to due process as much as the accused. Furthermore,
while a litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is a truism that
every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed
procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of
justice.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.,Separate Opinion:

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Deposition; There is no rule

that limits deposition-taking only to the period of pre-trial or
before it.–The ruling in the case of Dasmarinas Garments, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, (225 SCRA 622, 634 [1993]), is applicable in the
case at bar, to wit: x x x. Depositions may be taken at any time
after the institution of any action, whenever necessary or
convenient. There is no rule that limits deposition-taking only to
the period of pre-trial or before it; no prohibition against the
taking of deposition after pre-

575

VOL. 312, AUGUST 17, 1999 575

People vs. Webb

trial. Indeed, the law authorizes the taking of depositions of

witnesses before or after an appeal is taken from the judgment of
a Regional Trial Court “to perpetuate their testimony for use in
the event of further proceedings in the said court.– (Rule 134,
Rules of Court), and even during the process of execution of a final
and executory judgment (East Asiatic Co. v. C.I.R., 40 SCRA 521,
5440).

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for the people.
          Ongkiko, Kalaw, Manhit & Acorda Law Offices for
private respondent.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Challenged in this petition for review on certiorari is the

Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 45399
entitled “Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb v. Hon. Amelita Tolentino,
in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 274 of the
Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, People of the
Philippines and Lauro Vizconde– which set aside the order
of respondent judge therein denying herein respondent
Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb’s request to take the depositions of
five (5) citizens and residents of the United States before
the proper consular officer of the Philippines in
Washington D.C. and California, as the case may be.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

The factual and procedural antecedents are matters of

record or are otherwise uncontroverted.
Respondent Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb is one of the
accused in Criminal Case No. 95-404 for Rape with
Homicide entitled “People of the Philippines v. Hubert
Jeffrey P. Webb, et al.– presently pending before Branch
274 of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, presided by
Judge Amelita G. Tolentino.
During the course of the proceedings in the trial court,
respondent filed on May 2, 1997, a Motion To Take
Testimony
576

576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Webb

1
By Oral Deposition praying that he be allowed to take the
testimonies of the following:

1.] Steven Bucher

Acting Chief, Records Services Branch
U.S. Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service
425 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20536
U.S.A.
2.] Debora Farmer
Records Operations, Office of
Records U.S. Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Washington D.C.
U.S.A.
3.] Jaci Alston
Department of Motor Vehicles
Sacramento, California
U.S.A.
4.] Ami Smalley
Department of Motor Vehicles
Sacramento, California
U.S.A.
5.] John Pavlisin
210 South Glasell, City of Orange
California, 92666
U.S.A.

before the general consul, consul, vice-consul or consular

agent of the Philippines in lieu of presenting them as
witnesses in court alleging that the said persons are all
residents of the United States and may not therefore be

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

compelled by subpoena to testify since the court had no

jurisdiction over them.
Respondent further alleged that the taking of the oral
depositions of the aforementioned individuals whose
testimonies are allegedly ‘material and indispensable’ to
establish his

_______________

1 Rollo, p. 78; Annex C, Petition.

577

VOL. 312, AUGUST 17, 1999 577

People vs. Webb

innocence of the crime charged is sanctioned by Section 4,

Rule 24 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that:

“SEC. 4. Use of depositions.–At the trial or upon the hearing of a

motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a
deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be
used against any party who was present or represented at the
taking of the deposition or who had due notice thereof, in
accordance with any one of the following provisions:

(a) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of
contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent
as a witness;
(b) The deposition of a party or of any one who at the time of
taking the deposition was an officer, director, or managing
agent of a public or private corporation, partnership, or
association which is a party may be used by an adverse
party for any purpose;
(c) The deposition of a witness whether or not a party, may be
used by any party for any purpose if the court finds: (1)
that the witness is dead; (2) that the witness is out of the
province and a greater distance than fifty (50) kilometers
from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the
Philippines, unless it appears that his absence was
procured by the party offering the deposition; or (3) that the
witness is unable to attend or testify because of age,
sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment; or (4) that the party
offering the deposition has been unable to procure the
attendance of the witness by subpoena or (5) upon
application and notice, that such exceptional
circumstances exist as to make it desirable in the interest of
justice and with due regard to the importance of presenting

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

the testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to allow the

deposition to be used;
(d) If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party,
the adverse party may require him to introduce all of it
which is relevant to the part introduced and any party may
introduce any other parts.– (italics supplied).

The prosecution thereafter filed an opposition to the said

motion averring that: 1.] Rule 24, Section 4 of the Rules of
Court, contrary to the representation of respondent-
accused, has no application in criminal cases; 2.] Rule 119,
Section 4 of the Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure,
being a mode of discovery, only provides for conditional
examination of witnesses for the accused before trial not
during trial; 3.] Rule
578

578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Webb

119, Section 5 of the Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure

does not sanction the conditional examination of witnesses
2
for the accused/defense outside Philippine jurisdiction.
In an Order dated June 11, 1997, the trial court denied
the motion of respondent on the ground that the same is
not allowed by Section 4, Rule 24 and3 Sections 4 and 5 of
Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court.
4
A motion for reconsideration thereto on the grounds
that: 1.] The 1997 Rules of Court expressly allows the
taking of depositions, and 2.] Section 11 of Rule 23 of the
1997 Rules of Court expressly allows the taking of
depositions in foreign countries before a consul general,
consul, vice-consul or consular agent of the Republic of the
Philippines, was likewise5 denied by the trial court in an
order dated July 25, 1997.
Dissatisfied, respondent elevated his cause to
6
the Court
of Appeals by way of a petition for certiorari naming as
respondents therein the Presiding Judge Amelita G.
Tolentino, the People and private complainant Lauro
Vizconde. In the petition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
45399, respondent Webb argued that: 1.] The taking of
depositions pending action is applicable to criminal
proceedings; 2.] Depositions by oral testimony in a foreign
country can be taken before a consular officer of the
Philippine Embassy in the United States; and, 3.] He has
the right to completely and fully present evidence to

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

support his defense and the denial of such right will violate
his constitutional
7
right to due process.
Commenting on the petition, the People contended that
the questioned orders of the Presiding Judge are well
within the sphere of her judicial discretion and do not
constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction and that if at all, they may be
considered merely as

_______________

2 Rollo, p. 54.
3 Ibid., pp. 55-56.
4 Id., pp. 89-92.
5 Id., p. 57; Annex C, Petition.
6 Id., pp. 58-77; Annex D, Petition.
7 Id., pp. 94-104; Annex E, Petition.

579

VOL. 312, AUGUST 17, 1999 579

People vs. Webb

errors of judgment which may be corrected by appeal in

due time because: a.] The motion failed to comply with the
requirements of Section 4, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court;
b.] The conditional examination must be conducted before
an inferior court; and c.] The examination of the witnesses
must be done in open8 court.
In his Comment, private respondent Lauro Vizconde
sought the dismissal of the petition contending that:

1.] The public respondent did not commit grave abuse

of discretion in denying petitioner [now herein
respondent] Webb’s motion to take testimony by
oral deposition dated 29 April 1997 as well as
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration dated 23
June 1997 for not being sanctioned by the Rules of
Court.

a.] The public respondent correctly held that Rule 23,

Section 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure finds no application in criminal actions
such as the case at bar.
b.] The public respondent correctly ruled that Rule
119, Section 4 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
only provides for conditional examination of
witnesses before trial but not during trial.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

c.] The public respondent correctly ruled that Rule 119

of the Rules on Criminal Procedure does not
sanction the conditional examination of witnesses
for the accused/defense outside of Philippine
jurisdiction.

2.] The public respondent did not commit any grave

abuse of discretion in denying petitioner Webb’s
motion to take testimony by oral deposition
considering that the proposed deposition tends only
to further establish the admissibility of
documentary exhibits already admitted in evidence
by the public respondent.
9
On February 6, 1998, the Fourth
10
Division of the Court of
Appeals rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of
which reads:

______________

8 Id., pp. 105-128; Annex F, Petition.

9 Decision penned by Justice Demetrio G. Demetria concurred in by
Justices Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes and Ramon A. Barcelona; Rollo, pp.
41-52; Annex A, Petition.
10 Ibid., p. 51.

580

580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Webb

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The orders of

respondent judge dated 11 June 1997 (Annex ‘A’ of the Petition)
and 25 July 1997 (Annex ‘B’ of the Petition) are hereby
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. It is hereby ordered that the
deposition of the following witnesses be TAKEN before the proper
consular officer of the Republic of the Philippines in Washington
D.C. and California, as the case may be:

(a) Mr. Steven Bucher;

(b) Ms. Deborah Farmer;
(c) Mr. Jaci Alston;
(d) Ms. Ami Smalley; and
(e) Mr. John Pavlisin.

SO ORDERED.–

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

From the foregoing, the People forthwith elevated its cause

to this Court by way of the instant petition dispensing with
the filing of a motion for reconsideration for the following
reasons: 1.] The rule that the petitioner should first file a
motion for reconsideration applies to the special civil action
of certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure and there is no similar requirement
11
in taking an
appeal from a final judgment or order such as the present
appeal by certiorari; 2.] Section 4, Rule 45 in requiring a
petition for review on certiorari which indicates that “when
a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed–
implies that petitioner need not file a motion for
reconsideration; 3.] The questions being raised before the
Court are the same as those12 which were squarely raised
before the Court of Appeals;
13
4.] The issues being raised
here are purely legal; 5.] There is an urgent need to
resolve the issues considering that the trial of the accused
in the criminal case is about to end; and, 6.] The nature of
this case requires
14
a speedy and prompt disposition of the
issues involved.

_______________

11 Citing BA Finance Corporation v. Pineda, 119 SCRA 493 [1982].

12 Citing Legaspi Oil Co., Inc. v. Geronimo, 76 SCRA 174 [1977].
13 Citing Gonzales v. IAC, 131 SCRA 468 [1984].
14 Citing Geronimo v. Comelec, 107 SCRA 614 [1981].

581

VOL. 312, AUGUST 17, 1999 581

People vs. Webb

What are challenged before this Court are interlocutory

orders and not15 a final judgment. The respondent has filed
his Comment which We treat 16
as an Answer. The
petitioner, in turn, filed a Reply. The petition is ripe for
decision.
In urging this Tribunal to exercise its power of review
over the assailed decision of the Appellate Court, petitioner
asserts that the Court of Appeals committed serious and
reversible error–

IN RULING THAT RULE 23 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE IS APPLICABLE TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.

II
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

IN RULING THAT THE DEPOSITION MAY BE TAKEN

BEFORE A CONSULAR OFFICER OF THE PHILIPPINES
WHERE THE PROSPECTIVE WITNESSES RESIDE OR ARE
OFFICIALLY STATIONED.

III

IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE

PROCESS OF LAW BY THE TRIAL COURT.

which can be reduced to the primordial issue of whether or

not the trial judge gravely abused her discretion in denying
the motion to take testimony by oral depositions in the
United States which would be used in the criminal case
before her Court.
In setting aside the order of the trial judge, the
Appellate Court’s Fourth Division reasoned, inter alia,
thus:

“Settled is the rule that the whole purpose and object of procedure
is to make the powers of the court fully and completely available
for justice. Thus, as the Supreme Court has ruled in Manila

_______________

15 Rollo, p. 153.
16 Rollo, p. 229.

582

582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Webb

Railroad Co. vs. Attorney General and reiterated in subsequent

cases:

“x x x The most perfect procedure that can be devised is that which give
the opportunity for the most complete and perfect exercise of the powers
of the court within the limitations set by natural justice. It is that one
which, in other words, gives the most perfect opportunity for the powers
of the court to transmute themselves into concrete acts of justice between
the parties before it. The purpose of such a procedure is not to restrict the
jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter, but to give it effective
facility in righteous action. It may be said in passing that the most
salient objection which can be urged against procedure today is that it so
restricts the exercise of the court’s powers by technicalities that part of
its authority effective for justice between the parties is many times an
inconsiderable portion of the whole. The purpose of procedure is not to
thwart justice. Its proper aim is to facilitate the application of justice to
the rival claims of the contending parties. It was created not to hinder
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

and delay but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. It

does not constitute the thing itself which the courts are always striving to
secure the litigants. It is designed as the means best adapted to obtain
that thing. In other words, it is a means to an end. It is the means by
which the powers of the court are made effective in just judgments. When
it loses the character of the one and takes on the other [,] the
administration of justice becomes incomplete and unsatisfactory and lays
17

itself open to grave criticism.–

In the light of the foregoing judicial precedent, this Court finds

that the public respondent gravely abused her discretion in
denying the motion to take the deposition of the witnesses for
petitioner. While petitioner had invoked Rule 23, Section 1 of the
Rules of Court, which is found under the general classification of
Civil Procedure, it does not prevent its application to the other
proceedings, provided the same is not contrary to the specific
rules provided therein. Indeed, the Rules of Court is to be viewed
and construed as

________________

17 Citing Superlines Transportation Co. v. Victor, 124 SCRA 939 [1983]; Manila
Railroad Co. v. Attorney General, 20 Phil. 523 [1911]; Esuerte v. Court of Appeals,
193 SCRA 541 [1991] and Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, 93 SCRA 239
[1979].

583

VOL. 312, AUGUST 17, 1999 583

People vs. Webb

a whole, and if the Supreme Court had compartmentalized the

same into four divisions, it was, as petitioner had claimed, for the
purpose of organization and expediency and not, for exclusivity.
To be sure, a reading of the rules on criminal procedure,
specifically Section 4, Rule 119 vis-à-vis Section 1, Rule 23 would
reveal no inconsistency so as to exclude the application of the
latter rule in criminal proceedings. Section 4, Rule 119 refers to
the conditional examination of witnesses for the accused before
trial, while Section 1, Rule 23 refers to the taking of deposition
witnesses during trial.
xxx
x x x      x x x      x x x
While the taking of depositions pending trial is not expressly
provided [for] under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, we find no
reason for public respondent to disallow the taking of the same in
the manner provided for under Section 1 of Rule 23 under the
circumstances of the case. To disallow petitioner to avail of the
specific remedies provided under the Rules would deny him the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

opportunity to adequately defend himself against the criminal

charge of rape with homicide now pending before the public
respondent and, further, [it] loses sight of the object of procedure
which is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims
of contending parties.
x x x      x x x      x x x
Even granting arguendo that Rule 23 is to be exclusively
applied to civil actions, the taking of the deposition of petitioner’s
US-based witnesses should be still allowed considering that the
civil action has been impliedly instituted in the criminal action for
rape with homicide. Since public respondent has jurisdiction over
the civil case to recover damages, she exercised full authority to
employ all auxillary writs, processes and other means to carry out
the jurisdiction conferred and [to] adopt any suitable process or
mode of proceeding which includes the application of the rule on
depositions pending action under Rule 23 in the case pending
before her.
Second. Depositions obtained during trial in a foreign state or
country may be taken before a consular officer of the Republic of
the Philippines
18
where the deponent resides or is officially
stationed. Section 5, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court is thus
clearly inapplicable in the instant case since the same relates to
the examination of witnesses under Section 4 thereof and not
Section 1 of Rule 23.

_______________

18 Citing Rule 115, Sec. 6; Rule 23, Sec. 11 and Erana v. Vera, 4 Phil. 22 [1943].

584

584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Webb

Consistent with the procedure provided [for] under Rule 23, the
deposition of the petitioner’s witnesses, which include four (4)
officials of the United States government, will be taken before a
consular officer of the Philippines where these witnesses reside or
are officially stationed, as the case may be.
The denial of petitioner’s right to present his witnesses, who
are residing abroad, based on a very shaky technical ground, is
tantamount to depriving him of his constitutional right to due
process. This Court recognizes the impossibility of enforcing the
right of petitioner to secure the attendance of the proposed
witnesses through compulsory process considering that they are
beyond the jurisdiction of Philippine Courts. Petitioner, however,
is not without any remedy and he correctly sought to secure the
testimonies of his witnesses through the process of taking their

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

depositions pending the trial of Criminal Case No. 95-404 in the

court below under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court. In any event, the
prosecution would have the opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses for accused Hubert Webb (petitioner herein) since they
will be given the opportunity to cross-examine 19
the deponents as in
accordance with Sections 3 to 18 of Rule 132.
Furthermore, no prejudice would be suffered in the taking of
the depositions of petitioner’s US-based witness[es]. On the other
hand, a denial of the same would be prejudicial to petitioner-
accused since he would be denied an opportunity to completely
present his evidence, which strikes at the very core of the due
process guarantee of the Constitution. To reiterate, it is not the
function of this Court to second-guess the trial court on its ruling
on the admissibility of the20 pieces of documentary evidence as well
as the latter’s witnesses, but it is definitely within this court’s
inherent power to scrutinize, as it does in the case at bench, the
acts of respondent judge and declare that she indeed committed
grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned Orders.
In the final analysis, this Court rules that the denial of the
deposition-taking amounts to the denial of the constitutional right
to present his evidence and for the production of evidence in his
behalf. The denial is not justified by the flimsy reason that Sec. 1
of Rule 23 of the Rules of Court is not applicable to criminal
proceedings. To

________________

19 Citing Rule 23, Sec. 3, Rules of Court.

20 Citing People v. Galimba, 253 SCRA 22 [1996].

585

VOL. 312, AUGUST 17, 1999 585

People vs. Webb

rule that petitioner cannot take the testimony of these witnesses

by deposition is to put [a] premium on technicality at the expense
of the constitutional rights of the accused, which this court is not
inclined to do. Particularly where the issue of the guilt or
innocence of petitioner is bound to hinge heavily upon the
testimonies of his US-based witnesses, it behooves upon public
respondent not only to guarantee that accused is given a
reasonable opportunity to present his evidence, but also to allow
him a certain latitude in the presentation of his evidence, lest he
may be so hampered that the ends of justice may eventually be
defeated or appear to be defeated. Finally, even if respondent’s
contention is correct, it cannot be denied that the case at bar

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

includes the recovery of the civil liability of the accused, which

normally is done through a civil case.–

We disagree.
As defined, a deposition is–

“The testimony of a witness taken upon oral question or written

interrogatories, not in open court, but in pursuance of a
commission to take testimony issued by a court, or under a
general law or court rule on the subject, and reduced to writing
and duly authenticated, and intended to be used in preparation
and upon the trial of a civil or criminal prosecution. A pretrial
discovery device by which one party (through his or her attorney)
asks oral questions of the other party or of a witness for the other
party. The person who is deposed is called the deponent. The
deposition is conducted under oath outside of the court room,
usually in one of the lawyer’s offices. A transcript–word for word
account–is made of the deposition. Testimony of [a] witness, taken
in writing, under oath or affirmation, before some
21
judicial officer
in answer to questions or interrogatories x x x.–

and the purposes of taking depositions are to: 1.] Give

greater assistance to the parties in ascertaining the truth
and in checking and preventing perjury; 2.] Provide an
effective means of detecting and exposing false, fraudulent
claims and defenses; 3.] Make available in a simple,
convenient and inexpensive way, facts which otherwise
could not be proved except

_______________

21 Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed. [1990] 440.

586

586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Webb

with great difficulty; 4.] Educate the parties in advance of

trial as to the real value of their claims and defenses
thereby encouraging settlements; 5.] Expedite litigation; 6.]
Safeguard against surprise; 7.] Prevent delay; 8.] Simplify
and narrow the issues; and 22
9.] Expedite and facilitate both
preparation and trial. As can be gleaned from the
foregoing, a deposition, in keeping with its nature as a
mode of discovery, should be taken before and not during
trial. In fact, rules on criminal practice–particularly on the
defense of alibi, which is respondent’s main defense in the
criminal proceedings against him in the court below–states
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

that when a person intends to rely on such a defense, that

person must move for the taking of the deposition of his
witnesses
23
within the time provided for filing a pre-trial
motion.
It needs to be stressed that the only reason of
respondent for seeking the deposition of the foreign
witnesses is “to foreclose any objection and/or rejection of,
as the case may be, the admissibility of Defense Exhibits
‘218’ and ‘219.’ – This issue has, however, long been
rendered moot and academic by the admission of the
aforementioned documentary24exhibits by the trial court in
its order dated July 10, 1998.
In fact, a circumspect scrutiny of the record discloses
that the evidence to be obtained through the deposition-
taking would be superfluous or corroborative at best. A
careful examination of Exhibits “218– and “219– readily
shows that these are of the same species of documents
which have been previously introduced and admitted into
evidence by the trial court in its order dated July 18, 1997
which We noted in

_______________

22 23 Am Jur 2d 493, citing Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court of

Merced County, 56 Cal 2d 355, 15 Cal. Rptr. 90 364 2d 266.
23 Kadish and Paulsen, Criminal Law and its Processes, 3rd ed., pp.
1279, 189 and 1284 [1980], citing Sikora v. District Court, 154 Mont. 241,
251, 462 P. 2d 897, 902; Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 471-475 and
William v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78.
24 Rollo, p. 209.

587

VOL. 312, AUGUST 17, 1999 587

People vs. Webb

25
Webb, et al. v. People of the Philippines, et al. wherein We
pointed out, among others, “[t]hat respondent judge
reversed this erroneous ruling and already admitted these
132 pieces of evidence after finding that ‘the defects in
(their) admissibility have been cured though the
introduction
26
of additional evidence during the trial on the
merits.’ –
Indeed, a comparison of Exhibit “218-A– which is a U.S.
Department of State Certification issued by Joan C.
Hampton, Assistant Authenticating Officer of the said
agency, for and in the name of Madeleine K. Albright,
stating that the documents annexed thereto were issued by
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

the U.S.27Department of Justice as shown by seal embossed

thereon, with other exhibits previously offered as evidence
reveals
28
that they
29
are of the same nature as Exhibits “42-H–
and “42-M.– The only difference in the documents lies in
the fact that Exhibit “218-A– was signed by Joan C.
Hampton for and in behalf of the incumbent Secretary of
State, Madeleine K. Albright whereas, Exhibits “42-H– and
“42-M– were signed by Authenticating Officer Annie R.
Maddux for and in 30behalf of former Secretary of State
Warren Christopher. 31
A comparison of Exhibit “218-B– with the other
documentary exhibits offered by respondent, likewise
discloses that its

_______________

25 276 SCRA 243, 255 [1997], citing the Parañaque RTC, Branch 274’s
Order dated 18 June 1997 in Criminal Case No. 95-404 entitled People v.
Webb, et al.
26 Ibid., pp. 254-255.
27 Annex C, Comment; Rollo, p. 133.
28 Annex D, Comment; Rollo, p. 134.
29 Annex E, Comment; Rollo, p. 135.
30 Rollo, pp. 133-135.
31 Annex F, Comment; Rollo, p. 136; A U.S. Department of Justice
Certification dated 5 February 1997, issued by the Deputy Assistant
Attorney General for Administration in behalf of U.S. Attorney General
Janet Reno, stating that Jack Kravitz, whose name and signature
appearing on the accompanying document was, at the time of signing
thereof, an Acting Assistant Commissioner at the Office of Records, U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

588

588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Webb

32 33
contents are the same as Exhibits “42-I– and “42-N.–
The only difference in the three exhibits, which are actually
standard issue certification forms issued by the U.S.
Department of Justice with blanks to be filled up, is that
Exhibit “218-B– is dated February 5, 1997 and signed by
one of the U.S. Attorney General’s several Deputy
Assistant Attorneys for Administration for and in her
behalf, while Exhibits “42-I– and “42-N– are both dated
September 21, 1995 with 34
another of the said deputies
signing both documents.

35
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312
35
Still comparing respondent’s Exhibit “218-F,– which is
likewise a standard issue U.S. Department of Justice
Certification Form, with other documents previously
introduced as evidence
36
reveals
37
that it is the same as
Exhibits “39-D– and “42-C.– The only differences in
these documents are that Exhibit “218-F– is dated October
13, 1995 and is signed by Debora A. Farmer while Exhibits
“39-D– and “42-C– are both

_______________

32 Annex G, Comment; Rollo, p. 137; A U.S. Department of Justice

Certification dated 21 September 1995, issued by the Deputy Assistant
Attorney General for Administration in behalf of U.S. Attorney General
Janet Reno, stating that Cecil G. Christian, Jr. whose name and signature
appearing on the accompanying paper, was employed with the
Commission, INS, U.S. Department of Justice.
33 Annex H, Comment; Rollo, p. 138; A U.S. Department of Justice
Certification dated 21 September 1995, issued by the Deputy Assistant
Attorney General for Administration in behalf of U.S. Attorney General
Janet Reno, stating that “Clint W. Palmer [signing] for Cecil G. Christian,
Jr.– whose name is signed in the accompanying paper, was employed with
the Commission, INS, U.S. Department of Justice.
34 Rollo, pp. 136-138.
35 Annex I, Comment; Rollo, p. 139; Another U.S. Department of Justice
INS Certification issued this time by Debora A. Farmer, Director of
Records Operations, dated October 13, 1995 stating that the attached
document is a computer-generated print-out found in the Non-Immigrant
Information System (NIIS).
36 Annex J, Comment; Rollo, p. 141.
37 Annex K, Comment; Rollo, p. 142.

589

VOL. 312, AUGUST 17, 1999 589

People vs. Webb

dated August 31, 1995 and signed by Cecil G. Christian,

38
Jr., Assistant Commissioner, Officer of Records, INS.
Still further 39scrutinizing and comparing respondent’s
Exhibit “218-G– which was also introduced 40
and admitted
into evidence as Defense Exhibit “207-B– shows that the
document has been earlier introduced and admitted into
evidence by the trial court an astounding seven (7) times,
particularly as Exhibits “34-A,–
41
“35-F,– “39-E,– “42-D,–
“42-P,– “50– and “50-F.– The only difference in these
documents is that they were printed on different dates.
Specifically, Exhibit “218-G– as with Exhibits “34-A,– “35-
42
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312
42
F,– “50,– and “52-F– were printed out on October 26, 1995
whereas Exhibit “207-B– as with Exhibits “39-E,–43
“42-D–
and “42-F– were printed out on August 31, 1995.
In fact, the records show that respondent’s: a.]
application for Non-Commercial Driver’s License; b.]
Documentary records based on Clet’s Database Response;
c.] Computergenerated thumb-print; d.] Documentary
records based on still another Clet’s Database Response;
and e.] The Certification issued by one Frank Zolin,
Director of the State of California’s Department of Motor
Vehicles, were already introduced and admitted into
evidence as Defense Exhibits
44
“66-J,– “66-K,– “66-H,– “66-I–
and “66-L,– respectively.
It need not be overemphasized that the foregoing factual
circumstances only serves to underscore the immutable fact
that the depositions proposed to be taken from the five U.S.
based witnesses would be merely corroborative or
cumulative in nature and in denying respondent’s motion
to take them,

_______________

38 Rollo, pp. 139-142.

39 Annex L, Comment; Rollo, p. 143; A computer-generated print-out of
respondent’s alleged entry into and exit from the United States.
40 Rollo, p. 210.
41 Ibid., pp. 211-217.
42 Id., pp. 211-212, 216-217.
43 Id., pp. 213-215.
44 Id., pp. 152-156; Annexes V, W, T, U and X, Comment.

590

590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Webb

the trial court was but exercising its judgment on what it

perceived to be a superfluous exercise on the belief that the
introduction thereof will not reasonably add to the
persuasiveness of the evidence already on record. In this
regard, it bears stressing that under Section 6, Rule 113 of
the Revised Rules of Court:

“SEC. 6. Power of the court to stop further evidence.–The court

may stop the introduction of further testimony upon any
particular point when the evidence upon it is already so full that
more witnesses to the same point cannot be reasonably expected to

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

be additionally persuasive. But this power should be exercised

with caution.– (emphasis and italics supplied.)

Needless to state, the trial court can not be faulted with

lack of caution in denying respondent’s motion considering
that under the prevailing facts of the case, respondent had
more than ample opportunity to adduce evidence in his
defense. Certainly, a party can not feign denial of due 45
process where he had the opportunity to present his side.
It must be borne in mind in this regard that due process is
not a monopoly of the defense. Indeed, the State
46
is entitled
to due process as much as the accused. Furthermore,
while a litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is a
truism that every case must be prosecuted in accordance
with the prescribed procedure 47to insure an orderly and
speedy administration of justice.
The use of discovery procedures
48
is directed to the sound
discretion of the trial judge. The deposition taking
49
can not
be based nor can it be denied on flimsy reasons. Discretion
has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and in
consonance

_______________

45 People v. Acol, 232 SCRA 406 [1994].

46 Depamaylo v. Brotarlo, 265 SCRA 151 [1996]; see also People v.
Leviste, 255 SCRA 238 [1996].
47 Sajot v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109721, 11 March 1999, p. 6, 304
SCRA 535.
48 Section 6, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Court.
49 Ibid.

591

VOL. 312, AUGUST 17, 1999 591

People vs. Webb

with the spirit of the law. There is no indication in this case

that in denying the motion of respondent-accused, the trial
judge acted in a biased, arbitrary, capricious or oppressive
manner. Grave abuse of discretion “x x x implies such
capricious, and whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words where
the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner
by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive
duty or to a virtual refusal to perform
50
the duty enjoined or
to act all in contemplation of law.–
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

“Certiorari as a special civil action can be availed of only if there

is concurrence of the essential requisites, to wit: (a) the tribunal,
board or officer exercising judicial functions has acted without or
in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or in excess or jurisdiction, and (b) there is no
appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law for the purpose of annulling or modifying
the proceeding. There must be a capricious, 51
arbitrary and
whimsical exercise of power for it to prosper.–
“To question the jurisdiction of the lower court or the agency
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, the remedy is a
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court. The petitioner in such cases must clearly show that the
public respondent acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave
abuse of discretion defies exact definition, but generally refers to
‘capricious or whimsi-

_______________

50 Cuison v. Court of Appeals, 289 SCRA 159 [1998], citing Esguerra v. Court of
Appeals, 267 SCRA 380 [1997], citing Alafriz v. Nable, 72 Phil. 278 [1941], citing
Leung Ben v. O’Brien, 38 Phil. 182 [1918]; Salvador Campos y Cia v. Del Rosario,
41 Phil. 45 [1920]; Abad Santos v. Province of Tarlac, 38 O.G. 830; See also, San
Sebastian College v. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 444 [1991]; Sinon v. Civil Service
Commission, 215 SCRA 410 [1992]; Bustamante v. Commission on Audit, 216
SCRA 134 [1992]; Zarate v. Olegario, 263 SCRA 1 [1996].
51 Suntay v. Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No. 132524, 29 December 1998, 300 SCRA
760.

592

592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Webb

cal exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.

The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to
an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where
the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by
reason of passion and hostility.’
“It has been held, however, that no grave abuse of discretion
may be attributed to a court simply because of its alleged
misappreciation of facts and evidence. A writ of certiorari may not
be used to correct a lower tribunal’s evaluation of the evidence
and factual findings. In other words, it is not a remedy for mere
errors of judgment, which are correctible by an appeal or a
petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

“In fine, certiorari will issue only to correct errors of

jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or
conclusions of the lower court. As long as a court acts within its
jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its
discretion will amount to nothing more than errors of judgment
which are reviewable52 by timely appeal and not by special civil
action for certiorari.–

Whether or not the respondent-accused has been given

ample opportunity to prove his innocence and whether or
not a further prolongation of proceedings would be dilatory
is addressed, in the first instance, to the sound discretion of
the trial judge. If there has been no grave abuse of
discretion, only after conviction may this Court examine
such matters further. It is pointed out that the defense has
already presented at least fifty-seven (57) witnesses and
four hundred sixty-four (464) documentary exhibits, many
of them of the exact nature as those to be produced or
testified to by the proposed foreign deponents. Under the
circumstances, We sustain the proposition that the trial
judge commits no grave abuse of discretion if she decides
that the evidence on the matter sought to be proved in the
United States could not possibly add anything substantial
to the defense evidence involved. There is no showing or
allegation that the American

_______________

52 People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128986, 21 June 1999, 308

SCRA 687.

593

VOL. 312, AUGUST 17, 1999 593

People vs. Webb

public officers and the bicycle store owner can identify

respondent Hubert Webb as the very person mentioned in
the public and private documents. Neither is it shown in
this petition that they know, of their own personal
knowledge, a person whom they can identify as the
respondent-accused who was actually present in the United
States and not in the Philippines on the specified dates.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition
is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated February 6, 1998 in CA-G.R. SP No. 45399 is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of
Parañaque City is ordered to proceed posthaste in the trial
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

of the main case and to render judgment therein

accordingly.
SO ORDERED.

     Kapunan and Pardo, JJ., concur.

     Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Please see separate opinion.
     Puno, J., Please see concurring opinion.

SEPARATE OPINION

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:

I fully concur with the majority that the trial court did not
commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the application
of the defense for the taking by depositions of the testimony
of its witnesses who are residents of the United States of
America. Since the trial court had already admitted the
exhibits on which the said witnesses would have testified,
the taking of the depositions would have been unnecessary.
However, the issue of whether the taking of the
depositions of such witnesses may be allowed in criminal
cases before the Philippine courts must be squarely
resolved.
I take an affirmative stand on the issue. For one, we
have Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court
which read:
594

594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Webb

SEC. 4. Application for examination of witness for accused before

trial.–When the accused has been held to answer for an offense,
he may, upon motion with notice to all other parties, have
witnesses conditionally examined in his behalf in the manner
hereinafter provided, but not otherwise. The motion shall state:
(a) the name and residence of the witness; (b) the substance of his
testimony; and (c) that the witness is so sick or infirm as to afford
reasonable ground for believing that he will not be able to attend
the trial, or resides more than 100 kilometers from the place of
trial and has no means to attend the same, or that, apart from the
foregoing, other similar circumstances exist that would make him
unavailable or prevent him from attending the trial. The motion
shall be supported by affidavit of the accused and such other
evidence as the court may require. (4a)

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

SEC. 5. Examination of defense witness; how made.–If the

court is satisfied that the examination of witness for the accused
is necessary, an order will be made directing that the witness be
examined at a specified time and place, and that a copy of the
order be served in the fiscal within a given time prior to that fixed
for the examination. The examination will be taken before any
judge or if not practicable, any member of the Bar in good
standing so designated by the judge in the order, or, if the order
be granted by a court of superior jurisdiction, before an inferior
court to be designated in the order. The examination shall proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the fiscal, if it appears that he
was duly notified of the hearing. A written record of the testimony
shall be taken. (5a)

These Sections refer to the conditional examination of

defense witnesses, which is “one mode of perpetuating
testimony available to the accused– (REGALADO F.D.,
REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, vol. 2, 1995 ed., 428).
This deposition, being to perpetuate testimony, may be
done before the commencement of the trial state, or
anytime thereafter, as the need therefor arises, but before
the promulgation of judgment.
Then, too, there is Section 7 of Rule 24 of the Rules of
Court, which reads:

SEC. 7. Depositions pending appeal.–If an appeal has been taken

from a judgment of a court, including the Court of Appeals in
proper cases, or before the taking of an appeal if the time therefor
has not expired, the court in which the judgment was rendered
may

595

VOL. 312, AUGUST 17, 1999 595

People vs. Webb

allow the taking of depositions of witnesses to perpetuate their

testimony for use in the event of further proceedings in the said
court. In such case the party who desires to perpetuate the
testimony may make a motion in the said court for leave to take
the depositions, upon the same shall state (a) the names and
addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the
testimony which he expects to elicit from each; and (b) the reason
for perpetuating their testimony. If the court finds that the
perpetuation of the testimony is proper to avoid a failure or delay
of justice, it may make an order allowing the depositions to be
taken, and thereupon the depositions may be taken and used in
the same manner and under the same conditions as are
prescribed in the rules for depositions taken pending actions.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

This Section, which was formerly Section 7 of Rule 134,

applies to criminal cases. (REGALADO F.D., REMEDIAL
LAW COMPENDIUM, vol. 1, 1997 ed., 322). According to
Justice Regalado the procedure in Section 7 is available in
all actions, including criminal cases.
Thus, the ruling in the case of Dasmarinas Garments,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, (225 SCRA 622, 634 [1993]), is
applicable in the case at bar, to wit:

x x x. Depositions may be taken at any time after the institution

of any action, whenever necessary or convenient. There is no rule
that limits deposition-taking only to the period of pre-trial or
before it; no prohibition against the taking of deposition after
pretrial. Indeed, the law authorizes the taking of depositions of
witnesses before or after an appeal is taken from the judgment of
a Regional Trial Court “to perpetuate their testimony for use in
the event of further proceedings in the said court.– (Rule 134,
Rules of Court), and even during the process of execution of a final
and executory judgment (East Asiatic Co. v. C.I.R., 40 SCRA 521,
5440).

The only corollary issue that has to be addressed is how to

take the testimony of a defense witness who is unable to
come to testify in open court because he is a resident of a
foreign country. The Rule on Criminal Procedure is silent
on this. I respectfully submit, however, that the rule on the
matter under Rules on Civil Procedure may be applied
suppletorily.
596

596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Webb

Section 11 of Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

is the appropriate provision. It reads:

SEC. 11. Persons before whom depositions may be taken in foreign

countries.–In a foreign state or country, depositions may be taken
(a) on notice before a secretary of embassy or legation, consul
general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic of
the Philippines; (b) before such person or officer as may be
appointed by commission or under rogatory; or (c) the person
referred to in Section 14 hereof. (11a, R24)

There are provisions of the Rule on Civil Procedure which

have been made applicable in criminal cases. For one, as
earlier mentioned, Section 7 of Rule 24 is applicable in
criminal cases. See also the instances allowed in Caños v.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

Peralta, (115 SCRA 843 [1982]); Naguiat v. Intermediate

Appellate Court, (164 SCRA 505 [1988]); and Cojuangco v.
Court of Appeals, (203 SCRA 619 [1991]).
Also, an authority on criminal procedure asserts that in
all matters not specifically touched on by Section 6 and the
preceding Sections of Rule 119, “Rule 24, Rules of Court,
ante, applies in a suppletory character, since the taking of
depositions under Rule 24 and conditional examination of
defense witnesses under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 119, supra,
are taken under the same circumstances and for the same
purpose; that is, the preservation of a material witness’
testimony.– (PAMARAN, THE 1985 RULES IN
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ANNOTATED, 1998 ed., 402).
Finally, Section 6 of Rule 1 of the 1997 Rule of Civil
Procedure (formerly Sec. 2, Rule 1 of the 1964 Rules of
Court), expressly provides that the rules shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their objective of securing a
just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding.
A much stronger reason exists why deposition in
criminal cases of a witness for the defense who is residing
abroad must be allowed. Involved in a criminal case is not
just the status or the property of the defendant, but the life
or limb or the liberty of the accused. If, then, a deposition is
allowed for a witness in a civil case, then it is with more
reason that it be al-
597

VOL. 312, AUGUST 17, 1999 597

People vs. Webb

lowed in a criminal case; its denial would amount to a

deprivation of due process and to the accused’s right to
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses in
his favor, which are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights
(Sections 1 and 14(2), Article III, Constitution).

CONCURRING OPINION

PUNO, J.:

I agree that respondent Webb’s Motion to Take Testimony

by Oral Deposition was correctly denied by the trial court
on the ground of lack of necessity. The only reason for the
filing of the motion is “to foreclose any objection and/or
rejection of, as the case may be, the admissibility of defense
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

Exhibits ‘218’ and ‘219.’ – It appears that said Exhibits

“218– and “219– have already been admitted by the trial
court.
I write this opinion to complement the learned opinion of
our Chief Justice. A quick peek at the evolution of our laws
and rules on discovery and deposition vis-à-vis the rights of
an accused will provide us a clear focus of the problem at
bar.
It is a historical fact that our Rules of Court were taken
from the United States. It is thus proper to examine how
the rules on discovery and deposition evolved in the United
States. American legal history will reveal that the rules on
discovery and deposition in civil litigation underwent a
different evolution
1
than their counterpart rules in criminal
litigation. In civil litigation, the development of these rules
came at a faster speed. By the 1940’s, court rules and
legislations promoted the ideal of full and open pre-trial
discovery in civil cases. Thus, they provided for depositions,
interrogatories, production of documents, inspection of
intangible items and physical and mental examinations.
Well to note, our first Rules of Court followed this highly
developed pattern. The liberalization of discovery and
deposition rules in civil litiga-

_______________

1 See W. LaFave and J. Israel, Criminal Procedure, Hornbook series, p.

741, et. seq.

598

598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Webb

tion highly satisfied the objective of enhancing the truth-

seeking process of litigation as all relevant evidence are
immediately brought up front in the courts.
This successful experience in civil litigation triggered
thoughts whether the same rules of discovery and
deposition could likewise be adopted in criminal cases.
American legal history will tell us that the efforts
encountered great difficulties. Initially, American courts
adopted the common law rule that courts have no inherent
power to order pre-trial discovery in criminal cases. They
searched for legislative authorization before they exercised
the power. This judicial stance, however, was slowly eroded
by the erudite view of Professor Wigmore that the common
law rule was a rule “of policy, not of power.– By the 1940’s,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

majority of the states had adopted different rules on pre-

trial discovery in criminal procedure. Some allowed the
accused to move for pre-trial discovery only for specific
types of evidence. Others gave the right only to an accused
pleading alibi as a defense. Even then, it was clear that by
the 1950’s pre-trial discovery was the exception rather than
the general rule in criminal procedure. Again, it is
worthwhile noting that our rules on criminal procedure
followed this trend. Thus, we have Section 4 of Rule 119 of
our Rules of Court which allows examination of witness for
the accused only before trial.
The liberalization of the rules of discovery in criminal
procedure in the United States while slow was unabated.
In the 1960’s, the movement received tremendous impetus
from a liberal US Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl
Warren whose decisions radically expanded the rights of an
accused. For years and until now, proponents and
opponents of liberal defense discovery and depositions in
criminal cases continue to lock horns. Proponents of liberal
defense discovery hammer on the need to make criminal
trials “less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair
contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the
fullest practicable extent.– Opponents of liberalization
argue that three factors distinguish civil discovery from
criminal discovery, viz.: “(1) the criminal defendant’s
privilege against self incrimination, which would not
permit
599

VOL. 312, AUGUST 17, 1999 599

People vs. Webb

the fully reciprocal discovery found in civil practice; (2) the

greater likelihood that defense discovery in criminal cases
would be used to facilitate successful perjury; and (3) the
greater likelihood that criminal defense2
discovery would
lead to the intimidation of witnesses.–
The debate has been unceasing but it appears that the
liberals are on the winning side.
3
I quote the observations of
Professors LaFave and Israel, viz.:

“The debate over the merits of expanding defense discovery

produced a reassessment of discovery law in every jurisdiction.
Overall, the proponents of extensive defense discovery had far
more success than their opponents. As far back as 1966, the
Supreme Court spoke of ‘the growing realization that disclosure,
rather than suppression, of relevant materials ordinarily

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

promotes the proper administration of criminal justice,’ and

referred to ‘the expanding body of materials, judicial and
otherwise, favoring disclosure in criminal cases analogous to the
civil practice.’ That there is to be defense discovery in criminal
cases is now taken as a matter of course. The issues that divide the
various jurisdiction today relate only to exactly how far that
discovery should be carried. Moreover, the trend has been in the
direction of consistently broadening the reach of defense discovery,
as illustrated by the changes over the years in Federal Rule 16. As
originally adopted in 1946, Rule 16 simply allowed the defendant
access, on a showing of materiality, to documents obtained by the
government. In 1966, Rule 16 was completely revised to grant the
trial court discretion to order discovery of a broad range of items
(basically written or recorded statements of the defendant, reports
of physical and medical examinations, and relevant documents
and ‘other tangible objects’). In 1975, there was still another
revision of Rule 16 which produced essentially the current
provision. That revision further broadened the range of
discoverable statements (including, for example, the substance of
oral statements of the defendant) and made prosecutorial
disclosure mandatory (rather than leaving it to the discretion of
the trial court). The original draft of the 1975 revision, as
approved by the Supreme Court, would also have required
disclosure of the names, addresses, and

________________

2 LaFave, op. cit., p. 726.

3 Ibid., p. 729.

600

600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Webb

felony conviction records of all prosecution witness, but Congress

struck that provision from the Rule as it was eventually adopted.
“In contrast to Congress, many states have been willing to take
defense discovery several steps beyond current Rule 16. The
American Bar Association, in 1970, recommended adoption of
discovery provisions extending substantially beyond even the
broadcast federal proposal, and a large number of states revised
their discovery provisions in accordance with ABA’s proposed
standards. They provided for defense discovery of a wide range of
items, including not only the names of prospective prosecution
witnesses, but also any statements they had given to the police.
The ABA later expanded upon even those standards and proposed
‘open file’ discovery. The prosecutor’s disclosure obligation, under

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

that later standard, extended to ‘all the material and information

within the prosecutor’s possession or con-trol.’ So far, however,
not even the most liberal discovery jurisdiction has been willing to
adopt such an open-ended provision.–

In the case of the Philippines, the move towards a more

liberal discovery and deposition procedure in criminal cases
is even slower but its march, likewise, appears inexorable.
There can be no stepping back for the 1987 Constitution
has gone to the extent of constitutionalizing basic rights of
an accused, which has not been done in the United States.
With this new orientation of the Constitution, this Court
itself has taken steps to liberalize our rules of criminal
procedure. Thus, Section 1, Rule 118 of our 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure for the first time ordered the holding of
pre-trial when the accused and the counsel agree. The
fruitful experience of courts holding pre-trial in criminal
cases has impelled requests that our rules be further
amended to make it mandatory. Thus, too, this Court has
given an expansive interpretation of the right of an accused
4
to discovery procedure. In the first Webb case, we held:

“Further, petitioners charge the NBI with violating their right to

discovery proceedings during their preliminary investigation by
suppressing the April 28, 1995 original copy of the sworn
statement

_______________

4 Webb vs. De Leon, et al., 247 SCRA 652 pp. 686-689 (1995).

601

VOL. 312, AUGUST 17, 1999 601

People vs. Webb

of Alfaro and the FBI Report. The argument is novel in this

jurisdiction and as it urges an expansive reading of the rights of
persons under preliminary investigation it deserves serious
consideration. To start with, our Rules on Criminal Procedure do
not expressly provide for discovery proceedings during the
preliminary investigation stage of a criminal proceeding. Sections
10 and 11 of Rule 117 do provide an accused the right to move for
a bill of particulars and for production or inspection of material
evidence in possession of the prosecution. But these provision
apply after the filing of the Complaint or Information in court and
the rights are accorded to the accused to assist them to make an
intelligent plea at arraignment and to prepare for trial.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

“This failure to provide discovery procedure during preliminary

investigation does not, however, negate its use by a person under
investigation when indispensable to protect his constitutional right
to life, liberty and property. Preliminary investigation is not too
early a stage to guard against any significant erosion of the
constitutional right to due process of a potential accused. As
aforediscussed, the object of a preliminary investigation is to
determine the probability that the suspect committed a crime. We
hold that the finding of a probable cause by itself subjects the
suspect’s life, liberty and property to a real risk of loss or
diminution. In the case at bar, the risk to the liberty of petitioners
cannot be understand for they are charged with the crime of rape
with homicide, a non-bailable offense when the evidence of guilt is
strong.
“Attuned to the times, our Rules have discarded the pure
inquisitorial system of preliminary investigation. Instead, Rule
112 installed a quasi-judicial type of preliminary investigation
conducted by one whose high duty is to be fair and impartial. As
this Court emphasized in Rolito Go vs. Court of Appeals, ‘the right
to have preliminary investigation conducted before being bound
over for trial for a criminal offense, and hence formally at risk of
incarceration or some other penalty, is not a mere formal or
technical right; it is a substantive right.’ A preliminary
investigation should therefore be scrupulously conducted so that
the constitutional right to liberty of a potential accused can be
protected from any material damage. We uphold the legal basis of
the right of petitioners to demand from their prosecutor, the NBI,
the original copy of the April 28, 1995 sworn statement of Alfaro
and the FBI Report during their preliminary investigation
considering their exculpatory character, and hence, unquestionable
materiality to the issue of their probable guilt. The right is rooted
on the constitutional protection of due process which

602

602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Webb

we rule to be operational even during the preliminary investigation

to a potential accused. It is also implicit in section (3)(a) of Rule
112 which requires during the preliminary investigation the filing
of a sworn complaint which shall ‘x x x state the known address of
the respondent and be accompanied by affidavits of the
complainant and his witnesses as well as other supporting
documents. x x x.–
“In laying down this rule, the Court is not without enlightened
precedents from other jurisdiction. In the 1963 watershed case of
Brady v. Maryland the United States Supreme Court held that

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/31
10/24/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312

‘suppression of evidence favorable to an accused upon request

violates due process where the evidence is material to guilt or
punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the
prosecution.’ Its progeny is the 1935 case of Mooney v. Holohan
which laid down the proposition that a prosecutor’s intentional
use of perjured testimony to procure conviction violates due
process. Thus, evolved jurisprudence firming up the prosecutor’s
duty to disclose to the defense exculpatory evidence in its
possession. The rationale is well put by Justice Brennan in
Brady–‘society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but
when criminal trials are fair.’ Indeed, prosecutors should not treat
litigation like a game of poker where surprises can be sprung and
where gain by guile is not punished.–

Upon assumption of office, our present Chief Justice vowed

to have a court that is pro-active, a stance that will surely
promote rights more than authority. I am sure such a
stance will quicken moves to liberalize further our rules on
criminal procedure on the matter of discovery and
deposition taking as to strengthen the constitutional right
to due process of an accused.
Petition granted; Reviewed decision reversed and set
aside.

Note.–What is repugnant to due process is the denial of

the opportunity to be heard. (Garments and Textile Export
Board vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 258 [1997])

––o0o––

603

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001755adb132d77b246fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/31