Motion to Disallow Deposition Feb16 A1104

8/3/2019 Motion to Disallow Deposition Feb16 A1104

1/9

.3S.epublit of tbe ~ b i l i p p t n e s qcongress of tbe . l 9 b i l i p p i n e ~

~ e n a t e

'- ' . " , ~ \~ '


2/9

A. THE REVISED RULES ONCRIMINAL PROCEDUREAPPLY SUPPLETORILY TOTHE 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 itsPROSECUTORS, pursuant to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, will takeyour deposition upon oral examinations on the dates and times indicated, inthe Senate of the Philippines, Roxas Blvd., Pasay City, pursuant to the 1997Rules 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 satisfactorilyappears that a witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear atthe trial as directed by the court, of has to leave the Philippines with nodefinite date of returning, he may forthwith be conditionally examined beforethe court where the case is pending. Such examination, in the presence of theaccused, or in his absence after reasonable notice to attend the examinationhas been served on him, shall be conducted in the same manner as anexamination at the trial. Failure or refusal of the accused to attend theexamination at the trial. Failure or refusal of the accused to attend theexamination after notice shall be considered a waiver. The statement takenmay be admitted in behalf of or against the accused.

Motion to Disallow DepositionsPage 2 0/9


3/9

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 toconvince the HonorableImpeachment Court that the

deponent is too sick or infirm orhas to leave the Philippines withno 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 i t 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 no t 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 dateof

returning.

Motion to Disallow DtpositionsPage3t!f9


4/9

6. In addition, the witness to be deposed must be subpoenaed by the

Honorable Impeachment Court t o appear for the deposition. The Prosecution did

no t seek the issuance of subpoena for the deposition o f 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 powerof the Impeachment Court to

conduct the conditionalexamination of witnesses.

6. Th e giving o f testimony during the trial is the general rule. Th e

conditional examination o f a witness outside the trial is only an exception. 1 This is

in accordance with the constitutional right o f 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 Vd a De Anguerra, et aL v. Raule Risos, et aL2 ruled Judge

Codilla to have committed grave abuse o f discretion in directing the Clerk of Court

to conduct the examination o f Concepcion and affirmed the Court of Appeals

Decision, viZ':

"A t the outset, the CA observed that there was a defect in therespondents' petition by no t impleading the People o f the Philippines, anindispensable party. This notwithstanding, the appellate court resolved thematter on its merit, declaring that the examiuation o f prosecution witnesses,as in the present case, is governed by Section 15, Rule 119 o f the RevisedRules o f Crimiual Procedure and no t Rule 23 o f the Rules o f Court. Th elatter provision, said the appellate court, only applies to civil cases. Pursuantto the specific provision o f Section 15, Rule 119, Concepcion's depositionshould have been taken before the judge or the court where the case ispending, which is the RTC o f Cebu, and no t before the Clerk o f Court o f

Makati City; and thus, in issuing the assailed order, the RTC clearlycommitted grave abuse o f discretion. 18 era

1 Concepcion Cuenco Vda De angnef7"a and the Hon. Ramon C. CodiJJa. 11. Rank llisos, Snsana Yongco, LeahAbarque" andAtty. Gamaliel D.B. Bonje, G.R. No. 152643,28 August 2008.2 Supra.

Motion to Disallow DepositionsPage 4 019


5/9

In its Resolution dated March 12, 2002 denying petitioner's motion forreconsideration, the CA added that the rationale of the Rules in requiting the takingof deposition before the same court is the constitutional right of the accused to meetthe witnesses face to face. Th e appellate court likewise concluded that Rule 23 couldno t be applied suppletorily because the situation was adequately addressed by aspecific provision of the rules of criminal procedure. 19

* * *

I t is true that Section 3, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides that the rulesof civil procedure apply to all actions, civil or criminal, and special proceedings. Ineffect, it says that the rules of civil procedure have suppletory application to criminalcases. However, it is likewise true that th e criminal proceedings are primarilygovemed by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Considering that Rule119 adequately an d squarely covers th e situation in th e instant case, we findno cogent reason to apply Rule 23 suppletorily or otherwise.

To reiterate, th e conditional examination of a prosecution wituess forthe purpose of taking his deposition should be made before th e court, or atleast before th e judge, where th e case is pending. Such is th e clear mandateof Section 15, Rule 119 of th e Rules. We find no necessity to depart from, or torelax, this rule. As correctly held by the CA, i f the deposition is made elsewbere, theaccused may no t 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 truewhen the witness' testimony is crucial to the prosecution's case.

While we recognize the prosecution's right to preserve its witness' testimonyto prove its case, we cannot disregard rules which are designed mainly for theprotection of the accused's constitutional rights. The giving of testimony during trialis the general rule. The conditional exantination of a witness outside of the trial isonly an exception, and as such, calls for a strict construction of the rules."(Emphasis supplied)

7. Th e 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 DtpositionsPage 51!!9


6/9

D. Conditional examination canonly be conducted in the samemanner 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 theRevised Ru1es on Criminal

Motion to Disallow DepositionsPage 6 0/9


7/9

Procedureconditional

only allows theexamination of the

witness and not documents.

11. There is another reason why the intended deposition should no t be

penrutted. Section 15 Rule 119 o f the Revised Rules o f Criminal Procedure does

no t allow the production or examination of documents.

12. Even on the mistaken invocation o f Rule 24 o f the Revised Rules o f

Civil Procedure, the said Rule also limits itself to examination of witnesses; it does

no t allow production and examination o f documents. In fact, the Revised Rules

of Civil Procedure has a separate rule on this --- Rule 27 on Production or

Inspection o f Documents or Things. There is no such species as a "deposition

duces temm" under the Rules o f Court!

F. To allow the deposition of Ms.Maria Rica N . Matute-Dineros'sviolates the constitutional right todue process o f respondent ChiefJustice Corona.

13. I t is a hornbook rule that the accused must be given due notice and

necessary knowledge as to the charges against hi m 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 DepositionsPage 7 of9


8/9

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 no t been characterized as

. To allow even the perpetuation of the testimony of a witness no t 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 DepositionsPage8of9


9/9

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 CityIB P LR N 02570 August 20, 2001 (Lifetime)Roll of Attorneys No. 37065

MCLE Exemption No. 1-000176

DENNIS P. MANALOPTR No. 2666920; 5 January 2011, Makati City

IB P No. 839371; 3 January 2011, Makati CityRoll No. 40950, 12 April 1996

MCLE Compliance No. III-0009471, 26 April 2010

Copies furnished:

H o _ of Repre_at iveo ~ II'Batasan Complex '\Batasan Hills, Quezon CitySenators o f the Republic of the PhilippinesGSIS BuildingMacapagal HighwayPasay City

Motion to DisaJloJIJ DepositionsPage 9 of9