Mutia v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a criminal case for frustrated homicide pending before the Court of First Instance of Bohol, Branch IV. The prosecution sought to admit the deposition of one of its witnesses in this ongoing trial. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners, who are the accused in the frustrated homicide case, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, alleging that the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion by admitting the witness's deposition. The Court of Appeals denied this petition. Consequently, the petitioners have brought their case to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari. 3. The Petition: The petitioners are seeking review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the respondent Judge erred in admitting the deposition. They contend that the deposition was taken without a formal written motion and without adequate notice to the petitioners. The Supreme Court, however, finds that Section 7 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court does not mandate a written motion for deposition under certain circumstances and that the petitioners may have waived any irregularities by seeking to cross-examine the deponent and subsequently failing to appear for that cross-examination.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in admitting the deposition of the prosecution witness. Whether the petitioners waived any alleged irregularities in the taking of the deposition.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The case is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court held that the respondent Judge did not gravely abuse his discretion. Section 7 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court does not explicitly require a formal written motion or application for the taking of a deposition. If the court is satisfied with the prosecution's explanation in open court regarding the witness's inability to appear, it may order the deposition's immediate taking upon due notice. The Court emphasized that the remedy for an error of judgment, if any was committed, is appeal, not certiorari. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that any alleged error was one of judgment, not grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of waiver: The Supreme Court found that the petitioners are estopped from questioning the alleged irregularities in the deposition. By themselves asking the trial court to allow them to cross-examine the same witness by deposition, they acknowledged its validity. Furthermore, their failure to appear for the scheduled cross-examination, without justifiable cause, constituted a waiver of any irregularity in the taking of the deposition, pursuant to Section 7 of Rule 119. The Court found their explanation for not appearing unbelievable, suggesting either feigned ignorance or inexcusable negligence, given the considerable period between the order for deposition and their manifestation to cross-examine.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari will not lie to correct an error of judgment, which is remediable by appeal. Furthermore, failure to appear for cross-examination after notice constitutes a waiver of any alleged irregularities in the taking of a deposition.