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 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 By Oral Deposition1 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.
