G.R. No. 132577 , August 17, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, respondent.

FACTS

This case involves a separate opinion by Chief Justice Davide, Jr. regarding the denial by the trial court of the defense’s application to take depositions of witnesses residing in the United States of America in a criminal case. The majority concurred that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the application because the exhibits on which these witnesses would have testified had already been admitted, making the depositions unnecessary. However, the separate opinion seeks to resolve the broader issue of whether the taking of depositions of such witnesses may be allowed in criminal cases before Philippine courts.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the taking of depositions of defense witnesses who are residents of a foreign country may be allowed in criminal cases before Philippine courts.

RULING

Chief Justice Davide, Jr., in his separate opinion, takes an affirmative stand on the issue. He argues that depositions of defense witnesses residing abroad should be allowed in criminal cases. The opinion cites several legal bases:
1. Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, which provide for the conditional examination of defense witnesses to perpetuate testimony, applicable before or during trial but before judgment promulgation.
2. Section 7 of Rule 24 (formerly Rule 134), which allows depositions pending appeal or before appeal to perpetuate testimony for use in further proceedings, and is applicable to criminal cases.
3. The ruling in Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (255 SCRA 622 [1993]), which states that depositions may be taken at any time after the institution of an action, with no rule limiting it to pre-trial.
4. The suppletory application of the Rules on Civil Procedure, specifically Section 11 of Rule 23, which allows depositions in foreign countries before designated Philippine consular officers or under commission. This is supported by jurisprudence (Caños v. Peralta, 115 SCRA 843 [1982]; Naguiat v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 164 SCRA 505 [1988]; Cojuangco v. Court of Appeals, 203 SCRA 619 [1991]) and commentary (Pamaran) indicating that Rule 24 applies suppletorily to criminal matters not specifically covered by Rule 119.
5. The liberal construction of rules under Section 6 of Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition.
6. A stronger constitutional rationale: denying depositions in a criminal case could deprive the accused of due process and the right to compulsory process to secure witnesses (Sections 1 and 14(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution), as criminal cases involve the accused’s life, limb, or liberty, not merely property or status.
Thus, while concurring with the majority’s specific disposition, the separate opinion concludes that, as a general rule, the taking of depositions of defense witnesses residing abroad should be permitted in criminal cases.