People vs Webb

Facts:
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 Paraaque, 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 By Oral Deposition
1
praying that he be allowed to take the testimonies of Steven
Bucher, Deborah Farmer, Jaci Alston, Ami Smalley, John Pavlisin.
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 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 innocence of the crime
charged is sanctioned by Section 4, Rule 24
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 and Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 119 of the Revised
Rules of Court. Dissatisfied, respondent elevated his cause to the Court of Appeals by way of a
petition for certiorari
n his Comment,
8
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.
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.
CA ruled against Hubert Webb, stating
In the final analysis, this Court rules that the denial of the deposition-taking amount 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 the criminal proceedings. To rule that petitioner cannot take the testimony of these
witnesses by deposition it to put [a] premium on technicality at the expense of the constitutional
rights of the accused,
Issue: 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.
Held: No.
The use of discovery procedures is directed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.
48
The
deposition taking can not be based nor can it be denied on flimsy reasons.
49
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 ". . . 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."
50
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 decide 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 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.