People V Ang

Supreme Court E-Library
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 277

People v. Ang, et al.
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 231854. October 6, 2020]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LEILA L.

ANG, ROSALINDA DRIZ, JOEY ANG, ANSON ANG,
AND VLADIMIR NIETO, Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; ADMISSION BY

ADVERSE PARTY; REQUEST FOR ADMISSION; A
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION MAY BE SERVED ON THE
ADVERSE PARTY AT ANY TIME AFTER THE ISSUES
ARE JOINED.— Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure . . .
delves on admission by adverse party. . . .
The following inferences can be deduced . . .
[therefrom]:
1) A request for admission may be served only
on the adverse party;
2) A request for admission may only be done after
the issues have been joined;
3) The adverse party being served with the request
for admission may admit: (a) The genuineness
of any material and relevant document
described in and exhibited with such request;
and (b) The truth of any material and relevant
matter of fact set forth in such request;
4) Copies of the documents requested from the
adverse party for admission should be delivered
with the request unless copies have already
been furnished to the latter in advance;
5) The time to respond to the request for admission
shall be at least fifteen days or at a period fixed
by the court on motion;
6) The adverse party on whom the request for
admission was served is required to file a sworn
278 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

statement specifically denying the matters of

which an admission is requested or setting forth
in detail the reasons why he or she cannot
truthfully either admit or deny those matters;
7) Failure of the adverse party, on whom the
request was served, to respond shall be deemed
as an admission to the matter sought to be
admitted;
8) Objections to any request for admission shall
be submitted to the court by the adverse party
requested within the period for and prior to
the filing of his sworn statement of denial;
9) Compliance of the request for admission by
the adverse party requested shall be deferred
until the objection is resolved by the court;
10) The resolution of any objection raised by the
party on whom the request for admission was
served shall be resolved by the court as early
as practicable;
11) Any admission made by the adverse party may
only be used in the case where the request for
admission was made and not in any other
proceeding; and
12) A party, except for good cause shown and to
prevent a failure of justice, cannot anymore
be permitted to present any evidence in support
of a material and relevant fact within the
personal knowledge of the adverse party which
should have been the subject of a request for
admission.
Under Rule 26, a request for admission may be served on
the adverse party at any time after the issues are joined.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; JOINDER OF ISSUES IN CIVIL CASES; WHEN
ISSUES ARE JOINED.— In civil cases, there is joinder of
issues when the answer makes a specific denial of the material
allegations in the complaint or asserts affirmative defenses,
which would bar recovery by the plaintiff.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 279

3. ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; JOINDER OF ISSUES IN

CRIMINAL CASES; THE ENTRY OF PLEA DURING
ARRAIGNMENT SIGNALS JOINDER OF ISSUES IN A
CRIMINAL ACTION.— In a criminal case, “there is no need
to file a responsive pleading since the accused is, at the onset,
presumed innocent, and thus it is the prosecution which has
the burden of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
Nonetheless, it is the legal duty of the accused to plead “guilty”
or “not guilty” during arraignment, for it is only after his plea
had been entered, that the issues are joined and trial can begin.
In other words, “the entry of plea during arraignment x x x
signals joinder of issues in a criminal action.”
4. ID.; CIVIL PROCEDURE; PARTIES IN CIVIL CASES.—
In civil actions, a party is one who: (a) is a natural or juridical
person as well as other “entities” recognized by law to be parties;
(b) has a material interest in issue to be affected by the decree
or judgment of the case (real party-in-interest); and (c) has the
necessary qualifications to appear in the case (legal capacity
to sue).
5. ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PARTIES IN CRIMINAL
CASES.— In criminal actions, . . . the only parties are the
State/People of the Philippines (as represented by the Office
of the Solicitor General or agencies authorized to prosecute
like the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice)
and the accused.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; THE STATE IS THE REAL PARTY-IN-
INTEREST IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, BUT BEING
A JURIDICAL ENTITY, IT LACKS SENSORY
PERCEPTION MAKING IT INCOMPETENT TO MAKE
AN ADMISSION OF FACT.— [I]t is imperative to emphasize
that the State is the real party-in-interest in criminal proceedings.
The private offended party is merely regarded as a witness for
the State. It means that the State, being a juridical entity unlike
the offended party, cannot be privy to the execution of any
document or acquire personal knowledge of past factual events.
Unlike natural persons, the State cannot be reasonably thought
of as capable of perceiving as well as making known of its
perception and, therefore, incapable of being “privy” to the
execution of documents or acquiring “personal” knowledge of
perceivable facts. Such ability to perceive factual events or to

be privy to executions of documents can be reasonably attributed

to a natural person (a party or a witness) who can perceive
through his/her senses and make known of such perception drawn
from mental recollection. Such lack of sensory perception
reasonably operates as an inherent inability and incompetence
on the part of the State to make an admission of fact.
7. ID.; CIVIL PROCEDURE; ADMISSION BY ADVERSE
PARTY; REQUEST FOR ADMISSION; WITNESSES WHO
ARE INCOMPETENT TO GIVE ADMISSIONS CANNOT
BE SERVED WITH A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION.— [I]t
is already settled in jurisprudence that the express mention of
one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all
others. Since Section 1, Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
only mention of parties serving and answering each other’s
requests for admission, it cannot be reasonably interpreted to
include also witnesses who are incompetent to give admissions
that bind the parties to their declarations. In other words,
witnesses such as the private complainant in criminal proceedings
cannot be served with a request for admission and compelled
to answer such request. Besides, witnesses in criminal
proceedings may be called upon to testify during the trial state
and be subjected to the crucible of cross-examination.
8. POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF
RIGHTS; RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED; RIGHT AGAINST
SELF-INCRIMINATION; THE USE OF PHYSICAL OR
MORAL COMPULSION TO EXTORT COMMUNICATIONS
FROM THE ACCUSED IS PROSCRIBED.— The prosecution
is strictly bound to observe the parameters laid out in the
Constitution on the right of the accused – one of which is the
right against self-incrimination. This right proscribes the use
of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from
the accused. If she/he chooses to remain silent, he/she suffers
no penalty for such silence. Included in the right against self-
incrimination are: (1) to be exempt from being a witness against
himself; and (2) to testify as witness in his own behalf. It is
accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntary
or under compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal or
administrative proceedings.
9. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; MODES OF
DISCOVERY; ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY;
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 281

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION; TO ALLOW REQUESTS

FOR ADMISSION IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IS
TANTAMOUNT TO COMPELLING THE ACCUSED TO
TESTIFY AGAINST HIMSELF OR HERSELF.— If requests
for admission are allowed to be utilized in criminal proceedings,
“any material and relevant matter of fact” requested by the
prosecution from the accused for admission is tantamount to
compelling the latter to testify against himself. This is because
failure to answer a request for admission will be deemed as an
admission of the fact requested to be admitted. More so, Section
2, Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires the party
requested to file a sworn statement thereby exposing him/her
to the additional peril of being held liable for perjury. Such
requirements unduly pressure the accused in making an admission
or denial, which is in itself a form of compulsion. Moreover,
the refusal of the accused to answer to a request for admission
may later be taken against him under Section 3(e), Rule 131 of
the Rules on Evidence.
10. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ANY COMPULSION ON THE
PART OF THE ACCUSED TO ANSWER ALL MATTERS
IN A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION VIOLATES HIS/HER
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.— [I]t should
be noted that the constitutional privilege against self-
incrimination applies to evidence that is communicative in
essence taken under duress; not where the evidence sought to
be excluded is part of object evidence. Obviously, a response
to any query is communicative in nature. Being communicative,
any compulsion on the part of the accused to answer all the
matters in a request for admission clearly violates his or her
right against self-incrimination. Any compulsory process which
requires the accused to act in way which requires the application
of intelligence and attention (as opposed to a mechanical act)
will necessarily run counter to such constitutional right.
11. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUEST FOR ADMISSION IS
NOT APPLICABLE TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.—
[T]he rule on admission as a mode of discovery is intended to
expedite the trial and to relieve the parties of the costs of proving
facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which
can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry. The use of requests
for admission is not intended to merely reproduce or reiterate
the allegations of the requesting party’s pleading but it should

set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact described in the

request, whose purpose is to establish said party’s cause of
action or defense. In a criminal proceeding, most of the facts
are almost always disputed as the prosecution is tasked in proving
all the elements of the crime as well as the complicity or
participation of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Factual
matters pertaining to the elements of the crime as well as the
complicity or participation of the accused are obviously
determinative of the outcome of the case.
If requests for admission should be made applicable to criminal
proceedings, it is virtually certain that an accused who had
already entered a plea of “not guilty” would continue to deny
the relevant matters sought by the prosecution to be admitted
in order to secure an acquittal. Moreover, matters which tend
to establish the guilt or innocence of an accused (i.e.,
participation, proof of an element of the offense, etc.) are
necessarily disputed in nature. . . .
...
With the above discussions, it is evident that Leila Ang’s
Request for Admission filed in Criminal Case No. 2005-1048
should have been denied by the RTC. Consequently, there are
no judicial admissions to be adopted in Criminal Case Nos.
2005-1046 and 2005-1047. Request for admission under Rule
26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is not applicable in criminal
proceedings.
12. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PRE-
TRIAL; IT IS DURING THE PRE-TRIAL THAT PARTIES
MAY STIPULATE FACTS THEY ARE WILLING TO
ADMIT.— Even if the Court were to carve out an exception
by permitting only those matters which have no relevant or
material relations to the offense to be discoverable through
requests for admission, the same discovery facility would serve
no practical and useful purpose tending only to delay the
proceedings. Therefore, it would be pointless on the part of
the prosecution to require an accused to admit to matters not
relevant or material to the offense as the same would be vented
out during the pre-trial anyway.
Besides, the facilities of a pre-trial—especially that provided
for in Section 1(b), Rule 118 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 283

regarding stipulation of facts—[will] most likely serve the same

purpose without falling into the danger of violating fundamental
rights such as the right against self-incrimination. During pre-
trial, the accused (and even the prosecution) is free to stipulate
the facts that he or she is willing to admit or place beyond the
realm of dispute.
13. ID.; ACTIONS; JUDGMENTS; VOID JUDGMENTS; A
JUDGMENT ISSUED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IS A VOID JUDGMENT WHICH HAS NO
LEGAL OR BINDING EFFECT OR EFFICACY.— Leila
Ang argued that the Joint Orders dated February 12, 2015 and
July 24, 2015 of the RTC, which declared that the facts stated
in her Request for Admission are deemed impliedly admitted,
and that such implied admissions are also “judicial admissions”
by the People, had become final, executory and immutable,
and therefore it cannot be annulled, set aside or varied anymore.
The Court disagrees.
The Joint Orders are void having been issued with grave
abuse of discretion. A void judgment is no judgment at all in
legal contemplation. It has no legal or binding effect or efficacy
for any purpose or at any place. It cannot affect, impair or create
rights. It is not entitled to enforcement and is, ordinarily, no
protection to those who seek to enforce. In other words, a void
judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same
as it would be if there was no judgment.
14. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; REQUEST FOR
ADMISSION; POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT AGAINST SELF-
INCRIMINATION; THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IF IT WAS
THE ACCUSED WHO FILED THE REQUEST FOR
ADMISSION.— Note should be made that in this case, it was
the accused, Leila Ang, who filed for Request for Admission.
It was not initiated by the prosecution. Thus, it may be argued
that there is no violation of the right [against] self-incrimination
as it was the accused who requested for admission.
15. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OR
THE NON-PARTICIPATION OR NON-COMPLICITY IN
THE CRIME ARE MATTERS THAT CANNOT BE THE
SUBJECT OF ADMISSION BY THE PROSECUTION.—

All the matters set forth in the Request for Admission are
defenses of Leila Ang. Almost all of the paragraphs are worded
in the negative, with the end-goal of showing that Leila Ang
has no participation or complicity in the crime. These matters
cannot be the subject of admission by the prosecution but must
be duly proven by Leila Ang as a matter of defense in the trial
proceedings.
Similarly, this Request for Admission contains matters that
show the elements of the crime which the prosecution has the
burden to prove to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. It includes factual circumstances that should
be presented by the prosecution during the trial of the case.
Settled is the principle that a criminal action is prosecuted under
the direction and control of the prosecutor. It cannot be the
other way around. Accused cannot dictate or control the
prosecution on how it will prove its case.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J., concurring opinion:
1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; THE

SUPPLETORY APPLICATION THEREOF TO A
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING PRESUPPOSES THAT THE
PROCEDURE TO BE SUPPLETORILY APPLIED DOES
NOT GO AGAINST SUBSTANTIVE PRINCIPLES
INHERENT TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.— Because
of the essential variances between civil and criminal actions,
our Rules of Civil Procedure is treated as a separate and distinct
body of procedural rules from our Rules of Criminal Procedure,
although it is recognized that the former may suppletorily apply
in the absence of a specific rule of criminal procedure stating
otherwise. The general provisions of the Rules of Court define
a civil action as one by which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress
of a wrong, whereas a criminal action is one by which the State
prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law.
The suppletory application of the Rules of Civil Procedure
to a criminal proceeding, however, presupposes that the
procedure to be suppletorily applied does not go against
substantive principles inherent to criminal proceedings. This
stems from the basic consideration that adjective law only sets
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 285

out the procedural framework in which substantive rights and

obligations are to be litigated. . . .
Being “implementary” in character, procedural law cannot
trump fundamental premises of substantive law. The well-settled
rule is that “a substantive law cannot be amended by a
procedural rule.” Moreover, by its common acceptation, the
word “suppletory” means “supplying deficiencies”; hence, it
is not tantamount to modifying or amending a rule.
2. ID.; ID.; MODES OF DISCOVERY; ADMISSION BY
ADVERSE PARTY; REQUEST FOR ADMISSION; THE
PROVISION ON IMPLIED ADMISSION CANNOT BE
MADE TO APPLY TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.— By
their nature, “[t]he various modes or instruments of discovery
are meant to serve (1) as a device, along with the pre-trial hearing
x x x, to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties,
and (2) as a device for ascertaining the facts relative to those
issues. The evident purpose is x x x to enable the parties,
consistent with recognized privileges, to obtain the fullest
possible knowledge of the issues and facts before x x x trials
and thus prevent that said trials are carried on in the dark.”
A request for admission under Rule 26 is a mode of discovery
meant to “expedite trial and relieve parties of the costs of proving
can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry.” Case law, however,
states that parties cannot use this tool to reproduce or reiterate
allegations in one’s pleadings, and should instead tackle new
evidentiary matters of fact which will help establish a party’s
cause of action or defense.
The defining feature of a request for admission is the provision
which states that every matter raised in a request for admission
that is not specifically denied shall be deemed admitted. . . .
. . . [I]t is glaring that there is no mode of discovery under
the Rules of Criminal Procedure that is somewhat similar to
Rule 26 on requests for admission. In my opinion, this
procedural lacuna in the Rules of Criminal Procedure evinces
the fact that this particular mode of discovery is conceptually
incompatible with some fundamental premises obtaining
in the prosecution of criminal cases. . . .

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; POLITICAL LAW;

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION; ALLOWING A
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION CONTRAVENES THE
ACCUSED’S RIGHT AGAINST SELF-
INCRIMINATION.— This provision on implied admissions
gives “teeth” to the rule, allowing it to be an effective and
expeditious mode of discovery. However, right off the bat, it
is apparent that this provision cannot be made to apply in criminal
proceedings without running afoul of an accused’s right against
self-incrimination, also known as his right not to be compelled
to be a witness against himself.
To be sure, in civil cases, a party may only raise his right
against self-incrimination if a particularly incriminatory question
is propounded to him. He cannot altogether refuse to testify or
disregard a subpoena by claiming that his right against self-
incrimination will be violated. It is only when a specific question
is addressed to him which may incriminate him for some offense
that he may refuse to answer on the strength of the constitutional
guaranty. However, in criminal cases, the accused can refuse
to take the stand altogether as he “occupies a different tier
of protection from an ordinary witness.” He is not even
susceptible to a subpoena issued by the court itself. . . .
By the mere allowance of a request for admission, the accused
is effectively forced upon the proverbial “stand” which, by and
of itself, contravenes the right against self-incrimination as
recognized in criminal cases. Further, on a practical level, since
an accused has the right to altogether refuse to entertain a
request for admission, allowing such request would then just
result into a circuitous, if not ceremonial, attempt at futility.
This situation negates the inherent expediency purpose of our
modes of discovery.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE;
RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES; A REQUEST
FOR ADMISSION EFFECTIVELY DENIES THE
ACCUSED THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE
WITNESSES AGAINST HIM DURING PUBLIC TRIAL.—
[A] request for admission effectively denies the accused the
right to confront the witnesses against him during public trial.
. . . In a request for admission, the accused will be asked to
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 287

admit “the genuineness of any material and relevant document

described in and exhibited with the request or of the truth of
any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request.”
The authentication of documents and any material fact that go
into a crime’s elements ought to be established through the
witnesses or other evidence presented by the State. But since
these are to be elicited through a mere paper request and not
through actual witnesses or evidence presented during trial,
the accused has no one to confront; consequently, there is likewise
no deportment to be observed by the judge in this respect.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE; A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION IS
PERMISSIBLE IN CIVIL CASES, BUT NOT IN
CRIMINAL CASES WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND THE OTHER
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED APPLY.— [T]he request for
admission, as a mode of discovery, contravenes the age-old
rule that “[a] criminal case rises or falls on the strength of
the prosecution’s case.” Notably, this rule is no simple
procedural axiom, but rather one that is founded in the
constitutional presumption of innocence. . . .
Needless to state, this presumption only applies to criminal
cases and not to civil cases. The non-existence of this presumption
in civil cases, as well as the other rights of the accused, . . .
therefore renders permissible a request for admission in civil,
and not criminal causes.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; HEARSAY EVIDENCE; IF AVAILED BY
THE ACCUSED, THE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION IS
NECESSARILY SERVED UPON THE STATE
REPRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTOR, WHOSE
STATEMENTS IN ANSWER THERETO ARE
HEARSAY FOR NOT BEING BASED ON PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE.— Under Rule 26, a request for admission is
served upon another party. Therefore, if the accused avails of
this mode of discovery, he or she necessarily would have to
serve his or her request upon the State. The State is considered
as a juridical person and, insofar as criminal actions are
concerned, is represented by the public prosecutor. While it is
indeed possible to serve the request upon the public prosecutor,
the same mode of discovery intends that the party served with
such request be the one to admit “[t]he genuineness of any

material and relevant document described in and exhibited with

the request or of the truth of any material and relevant matter
of fact set forth in the request.” For this purpose, “a request
for admission on the adverse party of material and relevant
facts at issue x x x are, or ought to be, within the personal
knowledge of the latter x x x.”
...
In the case of a public prosecutor, he cannot be considered
to have personal knowledge of the facts subject of the request
for admission because he is not privy to a document or any
factual occurrence subject of said request. Personal knowledge
requires first-hand knowledge of the events as they have
transpired, and not merely information relayed to him by others
as the assigned legal counsel. Knowledge of a handling lawyer
is second-hand information coming from parties or witnesses,
unless he himself is in some way privy to the document or the
occurrence. Thus, should the public prosecutor answer the request
for admission, his statements would technically be hearsay.
7. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; A PARTY SUBJECT OF THE REQUEST
IS REGARDED AS A WITNESS WHOSE PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE OF THE DISPUTED FACT IS
REQUIRED.—[A] party subject of a request for admission is
basically regarded as a witness because he is in a position to
deny or admit the genuineness of a document or the truth or
falsity of a fact relevant to the case. According to our
jurisprudence, “[t]he personal knowledge of a witness is a
substantive prerequisite for accepting testimonial evidence that
establishes the truth of a disputed fact. A witness bereft of
personal knowledge of the disputed fact cannot be called upon
for that purpose because [his or] her testimony derives its value
not from the credit accorded to [him or] her as a witness presently
testifying but from the veracity and competency of the
extrajudicial source of [his or] her information.”
8. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; THE PROSECUTION’S WITNESSES
CANNOT BE THE PROPER SUBJECTS OF THE
REQUEST, SINCE THEY ARE NOT PARTIES TO THE
CASE.— If at all, it would be the witnesses of the prosecution
who possess personal knowledge of the genuineness of the
documents or any material fact. However, these witnesses cannot
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 289

be the proper subjects of a request for admission because they

are not “parties” to the case. At any rate, even if they may be
loosely considered as “parties,” allowing the accused to subject
them to a request for admission would be tantamount to shifting
to the accused some form of control over the direction of the
prosecution. This would violate the basic principle that criminal
actions are prosecuted under the sole direction and control of
the public prosecutor.
LEONEN, J., separate concurring opinion:

ADVERSE PARTY; REQUEST FOR ADMISSION;
JOINDER OF ISSUES IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.—
Under Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a request for
admission may be served on the adverse party at any time after
the issues are joined.
There is a joinder of issues in criminal proceedings upon
the accused’s entry of plea during arraignment. The accused’s
plea controverts, and thus, puts at issue all the allegations in
the information.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION CANNOT
BE SERVED ON EITHER THE ACCUSED OR THE
PROSECUTOR, BUT ON THE PRIVATE OFFENDED
PARTY’S COUNSEL WITH REGARD TO THE CIVIL
ASPECT.— [A] request for admission cannot be served on
either the accused, owing to the right against self-incrimination,
or on the prosecutor, for lack of personal knowledge.
Nonetheless, it may be served on the private offended party’s
counsel with regard to the civil aspect. . . .
...
Yet, the facts that public prosecutors know are those merely
brought about by their inquiry or investigation. They file the
information in court based on their own study and appreciation
of the evidence at hand. They have no personal knowledge of
the facts material to the actual commission of the crime, and
thus, are not competent to answer a request for admission.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RULE ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE;
MATTERS FOR ADMISSION MUST BE WITHIN THE

PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE PERSON ON WHOM

THE REQUEST IS SERVED.— Rule 26, Section 1 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure provides the scope of matters that a
party may request the adverse party to admit, namely: (1)
“the genuineness of any material and relevant document
described in and exhibited with the request”; and (2) “the truth of
any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request.”
The matters requested for admission must be within the personal
knowledge of the person on whom the request was served, in
accordance with the rule excluding hearsay evidence.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION MAY BE
SERVED BY THE ACCUSED ON THE PRIVATE
OFFENDED PARTY AS REGARDS THE CIVIL ASPECT
OF THE CRIME.— [I]n criminal proceedings, the parties are
the People of the Philippines, represented by the public
prosecutor, and the accused.
...
However, with regard to the civil aspect of the criminal case,
the private complainant is the real party in interest. Banal v.
Tadeo, Jr., explains that the criminal and civil aspects are rooted
in the theory that a crime is both an offense against the State
whose law was violated and a direct injury to the person offended
by the act . . . .
...
Thus, a request for admission as regards the civil aspect of
the crime may be served by the accused on the private offended
party, and the answer thereto may be made by the private
offended party’s counsel.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT AGAINST SELF-
INCRIMINATION; SCOPE THEREOF.— [T]he accused’s
right against compulsory self-incrimination precludes the service
of a request for admission on them.
One’s right against self-incrimination is enshrined in Article
III, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, which reads: “No person
shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” This Court
explained the extent of this right in Rosete v. Lim:
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 291

The right against self-incrimination is accorded to every

person who gives evidence, whether voluntary or under
compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal or
administrative proceeding. The right is not to be compelled
to be a witness against himself. It secures to a witness,
whether he be a party or not, the right to refuse to answer
any particular incriminatory question, i.e., one the answer
to which has a tendency to incriminate him for some crime.
However, the right can be claimed only when the specific
question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the
witness. It cannot be claimed at any other time. It does
not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena, decline
to appear before the court at the time appointed, or to
refuse to testify altogether.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE; RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO BE
EXEMPT FROM BEING COMPELLED TO BE A
WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF; THE RIGHT AGAINST
SELF-INCRIMINATION IMPOSES AN ABSOLUTE
PROHIBITION AGAINST ANY KIND OF INQUIRY
FROM THE ACCUSED AFTER THE INFORMATION IS
FILED IN COURT.— Rule 115, Section 1 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure accords the accused in a criminal prosecution
the right “[t]o be exempt from being compelled to be a witness
against [themselves].” The accused are protected under this
Rule from testimonial compulsion or any legal process to extract
an admission of guilt against their will. . . .
After the information is filed in court, the right against self-
incrimination imposes an absolute prohibition against any kind
of inquiry from the accused. An accused on trial in a criminal
case may refuse, not only to answer incriminatory questions,
but also to take the witness stand. Neglect or refusal to be a
witness will not prejudice or be used against the accused.
Rule 26 seeks to obtain admissions from the adverse party
regarding the genuineness of relevant documents or the truth
of facts through requests for admissions. It “contemplates of
interrogatories that would clarify and tend to shed light on the
truth or falsity of the allegations in a pleading. That is its primary
function. It does not refer to a mere reiteration of what has
already been alleged in the pleadings.”

Considering its purpose, a request for admission cannot be

served on the accused in a criminal proceeding, owing to the
protection accorded by the Constitution and rules against self-
incrimination.
INTING, J., concurring opinion:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION; A REQUEST FOR
ADMISSION DOES NOT APPLY TO CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS, AS THE PARTY TO WHOM IT MAY
BE SERVED IS THE PEOPLE WHO IS REPRESENTED
BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, WHO HAS NO
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS THEREIN.—
Rule 26 does not apply to criminal proceedings. . . .
...
In criminal cases, the parties are the State and the accused.
The case is prosecuted in the name of the People and not the
private complainant who is merely a witness. Thus, if Rule
26 is applied in criminal proceedings, the party to whom the
accused may serve his request for admissions is the People
who is represented by the public prosecutor. It is the public
prosecutor who will be requested to admit the genuineness of
any material and relevant document described in and exhibited
with the request or the truth of any material and relevant fact
set forth in the request. It is the public prosecutor who must
execute a sworn statement specifically denying the matters on
which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the
reasons as to why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny
those matters.
However, . . . a cursory reading of Section 5, Rule 26
presupposes that the party upon whom the request for admission
is served has personal knowledge of the matters stated in the
request for admission. Undoubtedly, a public prosecutor cannot
be considered as either having personal knowledge of the facts
in the request for admission or being privy to a document subject
of the request. Thus, any statement made by the public prosecutor
in the sworn statement either admitting or specifically denying
the matters sought to be admitted in the request for admissions
would be mere hearsay and thus, lack probative value.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 293

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION MAY

BE AVAILED OF IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS TO
EXPEDITE THE TRIAL AND TO RELIEVE THE
PARTIES OF THE COSTS OF PROVING FACTS.— A
request for admission under Rule 26 is a mode of discovery
which may be availed of in civil proceedings. . . . [I]t is intended
to expedite the trial and to relieve the parties of the costs of
proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth
of which can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry. This mode
of discovery serves to avoid the unnecessary inconvenience to
the parties in going through the rigors of proof. Consequently,
under Section 1, Rule 26, a party may serve a request for
admission on the other party and request the latter to: (a) admit
the genuineness of any material and relevant document described
in and exhibited with the request; or (b) admit the truth of any
material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request.
Under Section 2, Rule 26, the failure of the other party to
either specifically deny the matters of which an admission is
requested therein or to set forth in detail the reasons why he
cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters shall result
in the deemed or implied admission of the matters stated in the
request for admissions.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; TO SERVE A REQUEST FOR
ADMISSION ON THE ACCUSED WOULD RUN
COUNTER TO THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED AGAINST
SELF-INCRIMINATION, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO
REFUSE TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND.— [T]o apply
Rule 26 to criminal cases would go against the constitutional
right of the accused against self-incrimination. This right is
enshrined in Section 17, Article III of the 1987
Constitution which provides that “[n]o person shall be compelled
to be a witness against himself.” As the Court explained in Rosete
v. Lim, the right against self-incrimination is accorded to every
person who gives evidence, whether voluntary or under
compulsion of subpoena in any civil, criminal or administrative
proceeding. However, unlike in civil cases, the right against
self-incrimination is wider in scope when it comes to the accused
in criminal cases . . . .
Thus, in criminal cases, the constitutional right against self-
incrimination of the accused is taken to mean the right to be
exempt from being a witness against himself. Unlike an ordinary

witness in a criminal case or a party in a civil action who may

be compelled to testify by subpoena, having only the right to
refuse to answer a particular incriminatory question at the time
it is put to him, the accused in a criminal action can refuse to
testify altogether or take the witness stand.
Consequently, . . . to serve a request for admission on the
accused would in effect require him to take the stand and testify
against himself. Such runs counter to the right of the accused
against self-incrimination, including the right to refuse to take
the witness stand.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION IN
CRIMINAL CASES WOULD ONLY BE AN EXERCISE
IN FUTILITY AND LEAD TO UNNECESSARY
DELAYS.— [T]o apply Rule 26 to criminal proceedings so
that the prosecution may serve a request for admission on the
accused would only be an exercise in futility and lead to
unnecessary delays as the accused may just simply invoke his
right against self-incrimination; or he may ignore a request for
admission served on him since to do so would not have any
prejudicial effect on his defenses.
Besides, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court provides for pre-
trial where the admissions of the accused may be taken. This
is already a sufficient measure to achieve the objective of
simplifying the trial by doing away with matters which are not
disputed by the parties. Section 1 of Rule 118 states that the
trial court shall order a pre-trial conference to consider plea
bargaining, stipulation of facts, and marking for identification
of evidence, among others. Further, Sections 2 and 4 provide
the manner by which the admissions of the accused during the
pre-trial may be used against him as well as the effect of these
admissions on the trial . . . .
[G]iven the availability of pre-trial as provided under Rule
118 of the Rules of Court, I find that the request for admission
in criminal cases, as in the present case, only invites delays
and is unnecessary in the conduct of the proceedings.
ZALAMEDA, J., separate concurring opinion:

VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 295

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION; A REQUEST FOR

ADMISSION UNDER RULE 26 OF THE RULES OF
COURT IS UNSUITED TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.—
It is essential for us to underscore that the procedural rules in
our jurisdiction are similarly structured to that of the U.S. There
are several available modes of discovery under our Rules of
Civil Procedure ranging from depositions, interrogatories, request
for admission, production or inspection of documents/things and,
physical and mental examination of persons, while analogous
provisions are absent in our Rules of Criminal Procedure. Such
comparable framework of our procedural rules to American
federal rules of procedure suggests a reasonable context from
which we derive a strict and narrow application of modes
of discovery in criminal proceedings.
Considering this and the continuous failure to include requests
for admission even on the emerging proposal or measures for
expanded discovery in criminal cases in the U.S., I am inclined
to believe that requests for admission under Rule 26 are unsuited
to our criminal proceedings.
2. ID.; ID.; APPEALS; THE SUPREME COURT HAS
AUTHORITY TO REVIEW MATTERS NOT ASSIGNED
AS ERRORS ON APPEAL IF THEY ARE CLOSELY
RELATED WITH THE ASSIGNED ERRORS.— Especially
noteworthy is that the Supreme Court is clothed with ample
authority to review matters even when they are not assigned as
errors on appeal if it finds their consideration necessary to arrive
at a just decision of the case. Further, an unassigned error that
is closely related to an error properly assigned, or upon which
the determination of the question or error properly assigned is
dependent, will be considered despite the failure to raise the
same. In the present case, it cannot be denied that the issue of
applicability of Rule 26 in criminal cases is an issue considerably
intertwined with petitioner’s assigned errors.
3. ID.; JUDGMENTS; VOID JUDGMENTS; A VOID
JUDGMENT MAY ALSO BE A SUBJECT OF A
COLLATERAL ATTACK VIA A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI.— Even more relevant, the import of
the ponencia is to treat the RTC’s Joint Orders dated 12 February
2015, 24 July 2015, along with the assailed Joint Orders dated
10 March 2016 and 05 September 2016, as void judgments . . . .

. . . [V]oid judgments may arise from a tribunal’s act adjudged

to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction. Such void judgments may also be
subject of a collateral attack, which is done through an action
asking for a relief other than the declaration of the nullity of
the judgment, but requires such a determination if the issues
raised are to be definitively settled.
In this case, the Court may consider the petition for certiorari
lodged by petitioner before the Sandiganbayan as a collateral
attack on the validity of not only the assailed Joint Orders dated
10 March 2016 and 05 September 2016, but also of Joint Orders
dated 12 February 2015 and 24 July 2015, so as to arrive at a
just decision and to have all issues definitively settled.
CAGUIOA, J., concurring and dissenting opinion:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION MAY REVEAL
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND NARROW FACTUAL
ISSUES.— At its core, Requests for Admission establish facts.
Requests for Admission lead to the narrowing of the factual
issues under contention. When a party serves to his adversary
a request to admit a relevant matter, it presupposes that he already
has knowledge of such fact or has possession of the documents
sought to be admitted and “merely wishes that his opponent
[admit to such relevant matters of fact] or concede [the]
genuineness of the document.
...
A Request for Admission properly served and answered by
the parties will reveal other undisputed facts of the case and
may further narrow and limit the issues raised in the pleadings.
The propositions raised in a request and the adversary’s admission
or denial thereof will also shed light as to the truth or falsity
of the allegations of the pleadings (or, when adopted to criminal
litigation, the relevant facts surrounding the accusation) and
may “unmask as quickly as may be feasible, and give short
shrift to, untenable causes of action or defenses and thus avoid
waste of time, effort and money.”
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 297

The establishment of uncontroverted facts and the abbreviation

of litigation are goals not unique to civil litigation. Surely, these
are paramount interests that the judicial process should be able
to extend to the accused, more so where life and liberty are at
stake.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PURPOSES OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION;
ADMISSIONS MADE PURSUANT TO A REQUEST
CONSTITUTE ADMISSIONS AND WILL NO LONGER
REQUIRE PROOF.— Requests for Admission serve two vital
purposes during pre-trial — (1) it limits the controversy or issues
of the case; and (2) it facilitates proof thereby reducing trial
time and costs. Requests for admission is a tool primarily
designed to streamline litigation and narrow issues for trial. It
is intended to expedite the trial and to relieve the parties of the
cost of proving facts that will not be disputed at trial, the truth
of which is known to the parties or can be ascertained by
reasonable inquiry. Admissions made pursuant to a request
constitute admissions for the purpose of the proceeding and
thus will no longer require proof during trial.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
COMPLEMENTS AND REINFORCES THE OBJECTIVES
OF PRE-TRIAL.— The proposition that criminal litigation
can do without Requests for Admission since the functions
thereof are already fulfilled by the now strengthened criminal
pre-trial process is, to my mind, hardly an argument at all. To
be sure, no such argument is being made in its civil counterpart
where Rule 26 on Requests for Admission and Rule 18 on Pre-
Trial have cumulatively been aiding parties in civil suits. No
prejudice is caused to the accused if he is allowed the use of
a mechanism, like a Request for Admission, to establish facts
surrounding the accusations against him over and above those
granted during pre-trial. In fact, as I see it, a Request for
Admission complements and reinforces the objectives of pre-
trial by providing sanctions against a failure to timely answer
a request and an improper denial.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; EXPANDING PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY
PROCEDURES IN CRIMINAL CASES ADDRESSES THE
INHERENT IMBALANCE BETWEEN THE STATE AND
THE ACCUSED AS TO PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATIVE

CAPACITY.— [T]he propositions that Rule 26 is inherently

incompatible with criminal litigation and runs the risk of violating
the constitutional rights of the accused are a function of the
Court’s restrictive approach to apply Rule 26, as worded, into
criminal cases. At this point, I wish to make it clear that I am
not advocating for the stock application of the provisions of
Rule 26 into criminal procedure. For the benefits of Rule 26 to
breathe meaning and significance into criminal litigation, it
must be tailor fit to operate within it.
. . . [T]he Court should not lose sight of the inherent imbalance
between the State and the accused with the scales tilted against
the latter. It is undeniable that the State has more pre-trial
investigative capacity both as a matter of law and practicality
than defendants do. An individual accused whose life and liberty
are at stake, “is but a speck of dust of particle or molecule vis-
à-vis the vast and overwhelming powers of government; His
only guarantee against oppression and tyranny are his
fundamental liberties under the Bill of Rights which shield him
in times of need.” Expanding pre-trial discovery procedures in
criminal cases will allow the accused to “have a better chance
to meet on more equal terms what the state, at its leisure and
without real concern for expense, gathers to convict them.”
Request for Admission, as a discovery tool, would bridge the
gap and aid the accused to achieve this goal.
5. POLITICAL LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF
RIGHTS; RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED; PRESUMPTION
OF INNOCENCE; REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE;
BURDEN OF PROOF; THE PROSECUTION HAS THE
BURDEN TO PROVE EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT OF
THE CRIME CHARGED.— The cornerstone of all criminal
prosecution is the right of the accused to be presumed innocent.
The Constitution guarantees that “[i]n all criminal prosecution,
the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved.” And this presumption of innocence is overturned if
and only if the prosecution has discharged its duty — that is,
proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The
Constitution places upon the prosecution the heavy burden to
prove each and every element of the crime charged in the
information as to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or
for any other crime necessarily included therein.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 299

It is worth emphasizing that this burden of proof never shifts.

The burden of proof remains at all times upon the prosecution
to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Conversely, as to his innocence, the accused has no burden of
proof. The accused does not even need to present a single
piece of evidence in his defense if the State has not discharged
its onus and can simply rely on his right to be presumed innocent.
A criminal case thus rises or falls on the strength of the
prosecution’s own evidence and never on the weakness or even
absence of that of the defense.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION;
EXTENT THEREOF.— Intimately related to the constitutional
right to presumption of innocence is the right against self-
incrimination. Section 17, Article III of the Constitution states
that “[n]o person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself.” Reinforcing this right in criminal prosecution, Section
1, Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedures provides
that “the accused shall be entitled x x x to be exempt from
being compelled to be a witness against himself” and “[h]is
silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.” The Court, in
People v. Ayson, explained the extent of the right of the accused
against self-incrimination:
The right of the defendant in a criminal case “to be exempt
from being a witness against himself” signifies that he cannot
be compelled to testify or produce evidence in the criminal
case in which he is the accused, or one of the accused. He
cannot be compelled to do so even by subpoena or other
process or order of the Court. . . . He can refuse to take the
witness stand, be sworn, answer any question. And, as the law
categorically states, “his neglect or refusal to be a witness
shall not in any manner prejudice or be used against him.”
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION DIRECTLY TRAMPLES
UPON THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED NOT TO BE
COMPELLED TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIMSELF.— A
Request for Admission served upon the accused directly tramples
upon the right of the accused not to be compelled to testify
against himself. Rule 26 mandates the party requested to answer

the request to admit within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof;
otherwise all relevant matters stated in the request shall be
deemed admitted. This forces the accused to answer a request
to admit served upon him at the expense of giving up his right
to remain silent.
Equally obtaining is the necessary conclusion that the accused
should not be prejudiced should he or she refuse or fail to answer
any such requests. No inference of guilt may be drawn against
an accused upon his or her failure to make a statement of any
sort. If an accused has the right to decline to testify at trial
without having any inference of guilt drawn from his failure to
go on the witness stand, then with more reason should the
accused not be prejudiced by the rules and effects of a Request
for Admission.
8. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; TO COMPEL THE ACCUSED TO ANSWER
A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION PLACES UPON HIM/
HER THE BURDEN OF PROVING HIS/HER
INNOCENCE.— [C]ompelling the accused to answer a request
to admit would place upon him the burden of proving his
innocence rather than the prosecution presenting evidence to
prove his guilt. When an accused admits the truth of a relevant
matter of fact or the genuineness of a relevant document contained
in the request, which may relate to the essential elements of
the crime charged, the Rules provide that these are considered
as admissions by the accused and will no longer require any
proof during trial. The prosecution is then relieved of its duty
to present evidence of such admitted fact during trial as the
accused has been imposed the “burden” to establish such fact
for the prosecution’s case. Pushing this scenario further, it
would not be farfetched for a conviction to rest solely on the
results of a request for admission. This goes against the rule
that an accused should be convicted on the strength of the
evidence presented by the prosecution.
9. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; GRANTING THE ACCUSED THE USE
OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION BENEFITS NOT ONLY
THE ACCUSED, BUT ALSO THE PROSECUTION.—
[W]hile the utility of Request for Admission is undoubted, its
translation into criminal litigation necessitates its modification.
The accused should have access to this procedural tool in order
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 301

to establish facts and narrow factual issues on trial, which may

be essential in the preparation of his defense. In recognition,
however, of the accused’s right against self-incrimination,
Requests for Admission cannot be wielded by the prosecution
to elicit admissions from the accused.
It may be argued that a one-sided approach may frustrate
the State’s interest to prosecute criminals because “allowing
the accused to subject [the prosecution or any of its witnesses]
to a request for admission would be tantamount to shifting to
the accused some form of control over the direction of the
prosecution,” which “would violate the basic principle that
criminal actions are prosecuted under the sole discretion and
control of the public prosecutor.”
However, as I see it, granting the accused the use of Request
for Admission does not in any way lessen its objectives or limit
its benefits only to the accused. The refining of issues and
establishment of the truthfulness or falsity of the facts
surrounding the accusation, achieved through the service of a
request to admit, may also benefit the prosecution in the form
of a guilty plea or an abbreviated litigation through plea-
bargaining.
10. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SCOPE OF REQUEST FOR
ADMISSION.— Rule 26 does not give the parties the unbridled
discretion to include in their request for admission any matter
related to the case. The scope of matters that a party may request
the adversary to admit is limited by Section 1 of Rule 26 and
has been clarified by relevant jurisprudence. Section 1 of Rule
26 clearly states that a Request for Admission should only pertain
to (1) the genuineness of relevant documents or (2) the veracity
of a relevant matter of fact. Thus, in Development Bank of the
Philippines v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that matters of
law, conclusions, or opinions cannot be subject of a Request
for Admission and are therefore not deemed impliedly admitted
under Rule 26.
Moreover, in a catena of cases, the Court has clarified that
the very subject matter of the complaint or matters which have
already been admitted or denied by a party are not proper subjects
of a request for admission. The Court explained that “[a] request

the allegations of the requesting party’s pleading but should

set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact, or documents
described in and exhibited with the request, whose purpose is
to establish said party’s cause of action or defense.”
11. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE
CRIME ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION ARE NOT
PROPER MATTERS OF A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION;
CASE AT BAR.— As applied to criminal cases, the essential
elements of the crime alleged in the Information are not proper
matters of a Request for Admission. An accused’s request for
admission therefore will not deprive the public prosecutor of
the discretion and control on what evidence should be presented
during trial because the burden to prove each and every element
of the crime charged in the information or any other crime
necessarily included therein remains with the prosecution. . . .
Request for Admission, as a discovery tool, simply aids the
parties in establishing undisputed and uncontroverted facts
leading to reduced trial time and costs.
Proceeding from the foregoing, I find that respondent Ang’s
Request for Admission does not fall under Rule 26 of the Rules
of Court. As aptly pointed out in the ponencia and by some of
our Colleagues, some of the matters contained in respondent
Ang’s Request intimately relate to the factual allegations of
the Information or the essential elements of the crimes charged
which the prosecution is obliged to prove, while other matters
are mere conclusions and opinions. These matters are not proper
subjects of a Request for Admission and therefore cannot be
deemed impliedly admitted pursuant to Rule 26.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Efren L. Dizon for respondent Leila L. Ang.

Jose Augusto J. Salvacion for respondents Vladimir Nieto
& Rosalinda Driz.
Glenn P. Tan for respondents Joey Ang & Anson Ang.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 303

DECISION
CARANDANG, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of

the Rules of Court assails the Decision2 dated March 1, 2017
and the Resolution3 dated May 15, 2017 of the Sandiganbayan
(SB), which dismissed the petition for certiorari4 and motion
for reconsideration5 filed by petitioner People of the Philippines
(People).
Facts of the Case
On April 4, 2005, a Resolution6 was issued by the Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon (OMB-Luzon) finding probable cause
to indict respondents Leila L. Ang, Rosalinda Driz, Joey Ang,
Anson Ang, and Vladimir Nieto as follows:
1. Leila Ang for Falsification of Public Documents (Criminal Case
No. 2005-1046);
2. Leila Ang, Rosalinda Driz, Joey Ang, Anson Ang, and Vladimir
Nieto for Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code [RPC] (Criminal Case No. 2005-1047); and
3. Leila Ang, Rosalinda Driz, Joey Ang, Anson Ang and Vladimir
Nieto for Violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (“Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act”) (Criminal Case No. 2005-1048). 7
1
Rollo, pp. 52-91.
2
Penned by Associate Justice Rafael L. Lagos, with the concurrence of
Associate Justices Reynaldo P. Cruz, Maria Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega, id. at
14-24.
3
Id. at 47-50.
4
Records, pp. 1-56.
5
Rollo, pp. 25-44.
6
Records, pp. 69-82.
7
Id. at 80.

Respondents Leila Ang and Rosalinda Driz (officers of

Development Bank of the Philippines [DBP]-Lucena City), in
conspiracy with respondents Joey Ang, Anson Ang and Vladimir
Nieto, were found to have defrauded and swindled the DBP in
the total amount of P4,840,884.008 by: (1) the unlawful practice
of crediting cash deposits to the current/savings accounts of
JEA Construction and Supplies; Cocoland Concrete Products,
and Unico Arte without actually depositing cash or with a lesser
amount of cash deposited; and (2) concealing the accumulated
cash shortage of P4,840,884.00 by passing and/or creating a
fictitious journal entry in the Bank’s General Ledger Transaction
File Report for April 20, 1999 denominated as “Due From Other
Banks” when there was no such actual cash deposit made. This
was the result of the special-audit and fact-finding investigation
conducted by the DBP personnel pursuant to DBP SL
Memorandum Order No. 99-007 dated May 3, 1999 to look into
the alleged Cash-In-Vault shortage at the DBP-Lucena City Branch.9
On November 10, 2005, three separate Informations were
filed by the OMB-Luzon before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Lucena, Branch 53. Said criminal cases were first handled by
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Lucena City (OCP-Lucena).
Respondent Leila Ang was then the Document Analyst of
DBP-Lucena Branch and the authorized Branch General Ledger
System and Ticketing System User. Rosalinda Driz was a Branch
Teller of said bank. Joey Ang, Anson Ang, and Vladimir Nieto
are owners of JEA Construction and Supplies, Cocoland Concrete
Products, and Unico Arte.10
On January 5, 2010, the OCP-Lucena received Leila Ang’s
Amended Accused’s Formal Request for Admission by Plaintiff
(Request for Admission)11 dated December 29, 2009, which Leila
Ang filed in relation to Criminal Case No. 2005-1048.12
8
Id.
9
Id. at 71-73.
10
Id. at 71.
11
Id. at 11-19.
12
Id.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 305

The OCP-Lucena, thereafter, filed an Amended Motion to

Expunge from the Records the Defense’s Request for Admission
by Plaintiff13 dated January 27, 2010. It claimed that the matters
sought for admission are either proper subjects of stipulation
during the pre-trial, or matters of evidence which should undergo
judicial scrutiny during the trial on the merits.14
In a Resolution15 dated April 13, 2010, the RTC of Lucena,
Branch 53 denied Leila Ang’s Request for Admission and ordered
that the same be expunged from the records. The RTC ruled
that the proposed admission can be tackled and be the proper
subject of stipulation during the pre-trial conference of the
parties.16
Leila Ang moved for partial reconsideration17 and a motion
to inhibit18 the Presiding Judge. Upon inhibition of Judge Rodolfo
D. Obnamia, Jr. of Branch 53, the cases were transferred to
RTC of Lucena, Branch 56 presided by Judge Dennis R. Pastrana
(Judge Pastrana), who granted Leila Ang’s motion for partial
reconsideration in the Joint Order dated February 12, 2015.19 The
RTC ruled that the prosecution failed to deny or oppose the
Request for Admission within the 15-day period from receipt
of the documents; hence, the facts stated in the Request for
Admission are deemed impliedly admitted by the People pursuant
to Section 2,20 Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. 21
13
Id. at 91-93.
14
Id. at 92-93.
15
Id. at 101-103.
16
Id. at 103.
17
Id. at 104-110.
18
Id. at 111-119.
19
Id. at 124-130; rollo, pp. 140-146.
20
Section 2. Implied admission. — Each of the matters of which an
admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless, within a period
designated in the request, which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days
after service thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow on
motion, the party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon the

The OCP-Lucena filed a Motion for Clarification22 arguing

in the main that the parties to whom the Request for Admission
was addressed were not served with copies of the same. It was
only served to the prosecutor, which does not constitute sufficient
compliance with Section 1, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court.23
On July 24, 2015, Judge Pastrana issued a Joint Order 24
denying the Motion for Clarification for being filed out of time.
He further declared that the People is represented by the City
Prosecutor and it is only through the said public prosecutor
that the plaintiff, as a party in the present case, can be served
or be deemed served, with the subject Request for Admission.
Judge Pastrana further ruled that the implied admissions are
also “judicial admissions by the plaintiff under Section 4, Rule
12925 of the Rules of Court.”26
Subsequently, respondent Leila Ang filed a Manifestation
formally adopting in Criminal Case Nos. 2005-1046 and 2005-
1047 the People’s implied admissions or judicial admissions
in Criminal Case No. 2005-1048. The other respondents filed
similar manifestations expressing their intent to adopt the implied
party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying specifically

the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the
reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.
Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to the court
by the party requested within the period for and prior to the filing of his
sworn statement as contemplated in the preceding paragraph and his
compliance therewith shall be deferred until such objections are resolved,
which resolution shall be made as early as practicable.
21
Id. at 126.
22
Rollo, pp. 147-150.
23
Id. at 148.
24
Id. at 159-164.
25
Section 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or written,
made by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does
not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that
it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
26
Rollo, pp. 161-163.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 307

admissions/judicial admissions declared in Criminal Case No.

2005-1048 insofar as they are concerned.27
On January 14, 2016, Atty. Michael Vernon De Gorio (Atty.
De Gorio) formally entered his appearance as special prosecutor
pursuant to the Deputization/Authority to Prosecute.28
The People also filed Requests for Admission in the three
criminal cases served on Leila Ang, Joey Ang, Anson Ang,
Vladimir Nieto, and Rosalinda Driz.29
Upon motion30 of the People, the three criminal cases were
consolidated as per Order dated May 16, 2016.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In the Joint Order31 dated March 10, 2016, the RTC denied
the People’s Requests for Admission stating that the “judicial
admissions (of the People) can no longer be varied or contradicted
by a contrary evidence much less by a request for admission
directly or indirectly amending such judicial admissions.” The
RTC took judicial notice of the adoption in Criminal Case Nos.
2005-1046 and 2005-1047 by Leila Ang of the implied
admissions declared as judicial admissions in Criminal Case
No. 2005-1048. 32
The People moved for reconsideration alleging that under
Section 3, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, any admission by a
party pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the pending
action only and shall not constitute admission by him for any
other purpose nor may the same be used against him in any
other proceeding. Further, there was no judicial admission,
27
Records, pp. 157-166.
28
Id. at 168.
29
Id. at 11-19.
30
Id. at 170-174.
31
Rollo, pp. 153-154.
32
Id.

whether verbal or written, made in the course of Criminal Case

No. 2005-1048 as required in Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules
of Court. 33
In the Joint Order 34 dated September 5, 2016, the RTC
maintained its ruling that the court’s judicial notice made on
the People’s judicial admissions in Criminal Case No. 2005-
1048 as also the People’s judicial admissions in the closely
related and interwoven Criminal Case Nos. 2005-1046 and 2005-
1047, which had been stated in the previous Joint Order dated
March 10, 2016. The RTC further ruled that in consolidated
cases, as in this case, the evidence in each case effectively
becomes the evidence of both, and there ceased to exist any
need for the deciding judge to take judicial notice of the evidence
presented in each case.35
The People filed a Petition for Certiorari36 (Rule 65) before
the SB.
Ruling of the Sandiganbayan
In the Decision37 dated March 1, 2017, the Sandiganbayan
dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The SB ruled that no
palpable error was committed by the RTC in declaring that the
implied admissions are regarded as judicial admissions in
Criminal Case Nos. 2005-1046, 1047, and 1048. While it may
be true that Section 3, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court limits the
effects of an implied admission only for the purpose of the
pending action, the consolidation of these cases extended the
effect of such implied admission to the other cases.38 The SB
declared that even assuming that the RTC committed mistakes
33
Records, pp. 184-188.
34
Rollo, at 155-158.
35
Id. at 157-158.
36
Records, pp. 1-56.
37
Supra note 2.
38
Rollo, p. 20.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 309

in arriving at the conclusions in the questioned orders, these

can be taken only as errors of judgment, and not errors of
jurisdiction which are correctible by certiorari. The SB also
noted infirmities in the petition itself: (1) lacks proper
verification; and (2) questionable authority on the part of Atty.
De Gorio to file the instant petition and sign the certificate of
non-forum shopping — whether he appeared as a “special prosecutor”
of the Ombudsman or as counsel “under the supervision and
control” of the Provincial or City Prosecutor of Lucena City.39
The People moved for reconsideration but it was denied in
the Resolution dated May 15, 2017.40
Hence, the People filed this Petition for Review
on Certiorari41 under Rule 45 invoking the following grounds
in support of the petition, viz.:
-I-
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN GRAVELY ERRED AND
DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A MANNER NOT
IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE WHEN: (A)
IT CONCLUDED THAT THE DEPUTIZED COUNSEL IS NOT
AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
SANDIGANBAYAN; (B) IT QUESTIONED THE OSP’S NON-
FILING OF ENTRY OF APPEARANCE BEFORE SAID COURT.
-II-
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED
REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT THE TRIAL
COURT DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION,
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE TRIAL COURT ACTED WITH
INDIFFERENT DISREGARD OF CONTROLLING
JURISPRUDENCE AND THE PROCEDURAL RULES INVOLVED,
AMOUNTING TO AN EVASION OF A POSITIVE DUTY OR A
VIRTUAL REFUSAL TO PERFORM A DUTY ENJOINED BY
LAW, OR TO ACT AT ALL IN CONTEMPLATION OF LAW.
39
Id. at 21-23.
40
Id. at 25-44.
41
Id. at 52-91.

-III-
THE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR
WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT
COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, DESPITE THE FACT
THAT THE TRIAL COURT IGNORED THE CLEAR AND
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW, JURISPRUDENCE, AND
THE TENETS OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WHICH CONDUCT
IS TANTAMOUNT TO A WHIMSICAL OR CAPRICIOUS
EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION. 42
The People’s Arguments
The People averred that the SB erred when it agreed with
the RTC that the consolidation of the three criminal cases
extended the effect of the alleged implied admissions in the
graft case to the other cases. The intent of the People in moving
for the consolidation of the criminal cases was only for purposes
of joint trial under Section 22, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court,
and not for “actual consolidation” resulting to a merger of
evidence found in Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court.
Actual consolidation of Criminal Case Nos. 2005-1046 to 2005-
1048 is not proper because: first, the accused in all those cases
are not the same;43 and second, actual consolidation was not
intended by the parties and the RTC as borne by the records of
the cases.44 Thus, the People argued that it was an error for the
RTC to take judicial notice of the so-called “implied admissions”
in Criminal Case No. 2005-1048 as supposedly “judicial
admissions” and according the same omnibus application in
all the three cases, supposedly on the basis of the consolidation
of the said criminal cases. Further, it asserted that the so-called
implied admissions under Section 3, Rule 26 of the Rules of
Court in Criminal Case No. 2005-1048 applies to Criminal Case
No. 2005-1048 only and shall not constitute an admission “for
any other purpose nor may the same be used against the People
42
Id. at 72-73.
43
Id. at 84.
44
Id.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 311

in any other proceedings.” 45 Since the implied admissions

obtained under Rule 26 are non-verbal and not written, they
cannot be considered as judicial admissions under Rule 129 of
the Rules of Court. Also, the parties to whom the Requests for
Admission were addressed were not furnished nor served with
a copy of the same especially since the matters set forth therein
specifically inquire into their “personal knowledge” of certain
acts, events or transactions (which are obviously not within
the personal knowledge of then handling public prosecutor).46
In addition, the People claimed that the SB erred when it
concluded that Atty. De Gorio, the deputized counsel, is not
authorized to represent the People before the SB. The
Deputization/Authority to Prosecute issued by the OMB clearly
authorizes Atty. Gorio to represent the prosecution in all
proceedings relative to the criminal cases in issue, for as long
as the proceedings with the RTC have not been concluded. When
Atty. Gorio filed the petition for certiorari before the SB
challenging the adverse orders of the RTC, he was clothed with
authority to do so.47
Leila Ang’s Comment
Leila Ang moved for the outright dismissal of the present
petition for being filed out of time. She claimed that the counting
of the 15-day period should start on May 17, 2017 when the
Solicitor General received a copy of the Resolution dated May
15, 2017 and not from May 30, 2017 only when the said
Resolution was allegedly indorsed by the Solicitor General to
the Special Prosecutor. The receipt of the Resolution by the
Solicitor General is receipt by the People. Hence, when the
Special Prosecutor moved for extension on June 14, 2017, there
was no more time to extend.48 Likewise, Leila Ang posited that
45
Id. at 85.
46
Id. at 85-87.
47
Id. at 73-76.
48
Id. at 178-180.

there are technical flaws to the instant petition warranting its

dismissal, i.e., Atty. De Gorio is not authorized to represent
the People, he did not state his Professional Tax Receipt in the
past petition, he violated the deputization given to him when
he signed the petition for certiorari on his own and without the
approval and signature of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon
and the Provincial Prosecutor or City Prosecutor, among others.49
Further, Leila Ang claimed that the modes of discovery
especially the Request for Admission under Rule 26 of the Rules
of Court also apply to criminal cases pursuant to Section 3,
Rule 1 of the Rules of Court.50 She pointed out that the subjects
of the instant petition are the Joint Orders dated March 10,
2016 and September 5, 2016, and not any other order like the
Joint Order dated February 12, 2015 and July 24, 2015, which
had become final and executory, declaring the People’s implied
admissions as judicial admissions in Criminal Case No. 2005-
1048.51 As regards the People’s assertion of actual consolidation,
Leila Ang did not have actual consolidation in mind but
consolidation for purposes of joint trial such that only one trial
proceeding will be conducted for the three cases. The three
criminal cases will not lose their respective identities and will
still be decided individually. In fact, the motion for consolidation
filed by the People was opposed by Leila Ang. Now, what the
People wants is the avoidance of the logical and legal effect of
consolidation by erroneously claiming that the consolidation
granted by the RTC is a merger or fusion of the three closely
related criminal cases into only one case.52
Leila Ang also averred that admissions obtained through
requests for admissions are also considered judicial admissions.
She maintained that the adoption of the People’s implied
admissions declared as judicial admissions in Criminal Case
49
Id. at 182-185.
50
Id. at 189.
51
Id. at 190.
52
Id. at 208-209.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 313

No. 2005-1048 as also the People’s implied admissions and

judicial admissions in Criminal Case Nos. 2005-1046 and 2005-
1047 is allowed. Such taking of judicial notice by the RTC of
the People’s judicial admissions in, and for purposes of, Criminal
Case Nos. 2005-1046 and 2005-1047, is not prohibited and
without legal basis.53
Respondents Vladimir Nieto, Rosalinda Driz, and Joey Ang
filed a Manifestation that they are adopting in toto Leila Ang’s
Comment on the petition as also their own Comment.54
Ruling of the Court
The petition is granted.
Before resolving the issues raised in this petition, the Court
should determine, first and foremost, whether a Request for
Admission under Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is
applicable in criminal proceedings.
Applicability of Modes of Discovery
in Criminal Proceedings
The rules regarding modes of discovery, along with the effects
of non-compliance therewith, are outlined in Rules 23 to 29 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. While the discovery
procedures contained in these provisions have been primarily
applied to civil proceedings in order to facilitate speedy resolution
of cases, there is no specific and express provision in the Rules
regarding their applicability in criminal proceedings.
Notwithstanding such observation, there have been past members
of the Court who opined that some discovery procedures in the
Rules of Civil Procedure may also be applied in criminal proceedings.
In People v. Webb,55 former Chief Justices Hilario G. Davide
and Reynato S. Puno were both in agreement in their respective
separate opinion and concurring opinion that discovery
53
Id. at 210-213.
54
Id. at 236-240.
55
371 Phil. 491 (1999).

procedures in the Rules of Civil Procedure could very well be

applied in criminal cases. Former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide
pointed out that provisions of Rule 24 may be applied suppletorily
to the taking of depositions of witnesses in criminal cases. On
the other hand, Former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno suggested
that since “[t]he liberalization of discovery and deposition rules
in civil litigation highly satisfied the objective of enhancing
the truth-seeking process” 56 and that there is a “growing
realization that disclosure, rather than suppression, of relevant
materials ordinarily promotes the proper administration of
criminal justice,”57 an expansive interpretation should be made
allowing the utilization of civil discovery procedures in criminal
cases. He further pointed out rhetorically that “prosecutors should
not treat litigation like a game of poker where surprises can be
sprung and where gain by guile is not punished.”58
Note should be made, however, that in said case of Webb,
the Court, speaking through Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-
Santiago, denied Webb’s request to take the oral depositions
of five citizens and residents of the United States before the
proper consular officer of the Philippines in Washington D.C.
and California, as the case may be. In his Motion before the
RTC, Webb claimed that said persons, being residents of the
United States, may not therefore be compelled by subpoena to
testify since the court had no jurisdiction over them. He further
averred that the taking of 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 of the Revised Rules of
Court. The RTC denied Webb’s motion stating 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. Webb elevated the
case to the CA which granted his petition for certiorari (Rule
65) and allowed the taking of deposition of said witnesses before
56
Id. at 518. J. Puno, concurring opinion.
57
Id. at 520.
58
Id. at 523.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 315

the proper consular officer. The People assailed the Decision

of the CA before the Court via Rule 45. In granting the petition,
the Court ruled that the depositions proposed to be taken from
the U.S. based witnesses would merely be corroborative or
cumulative in nature. Further, it is pointed out that the defense
has already presented at least 57 witnesses and 464 documentary
exhibits, many of them of the exact nature as those to be produced
or testified to by the proposed foreign deponents. The evidence
on the matter sought to be proved in the United States could
not possibly add anything substantial to the defense evidence
involved.59
In the case of Cuenco Vda. De Manguerra v. Risos,60 the
Court, through former Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B.
Nachura explained that, while it is true that the Rules of Civil
Procedure suppletorily applies in criminal proceedings, the same
type of proceedings are primarily governed by the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure.61 For this reason, there was no cogent
reason to suppletorily apply Rule 23 (Depositions Pending
Action) in criminal proceedings.62
The case of Cuenco Vda. De Manguerra, likewise, involves
a motion for the taking of deposition of Concepcion, due to
her weak physical condition and old age which limited her
freedom of mobility. The criminal case for estafa was pending
in the RTC of Cebu City and Concepcion was confined at the
Makati Medical Center. The RTC granted the motion and the
deposition-taking, after several motions for change of venue,
was taken at Concepcion’s residence. The CA declared void
any deposition that may have been taken. The Court affirmed
the CA Decision and held that:
It is true that Section 3, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides that
the rules of civil procedure apply to all actions, civil or criminal,
59
Id. at 518.
60
585 Phil. 490 (2008).
61
Id. at 502.
62
Id.

and special proceedings. In effect, it says that the rules of civil

procedure have suppletory application to criminal cases. However,
it is likewise true that criminal proceedings are primarily governed
by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Considering that Rule
119 adequately and squarely covers the situation in the instant case,
we find no cogent reason to apply Rule 23 suppletorily or otherwise.
To reiterate, the conditional examination of a prosecution witness
for the purpose of taking his deposition should be made before the
court, or at least before the judge, where the case is pending. Such
is the clear mandate of Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules. We find
no necessity to depart from, or to relax, this rule. As correctly held
by the CA, if the deposition is made elsewhere, the accused may not
be able to attend, as when he is under detention. More importantly,
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 true when the witness’ testimony is crucial to the
prosecution’s case.
While we recognize the prosecution’s right to preserve its witness’
testimony to prove its case, we cannot disregard rules which are
designed mainly for the protection of the accused’s constitutional
rights. The giving of testimony during trial is the general rule. The
conditional examination of a witness outside of the trial is only an
exception, and as such, calls for a strict construction of the rules.63
Eventually, the ruling in Cuenco Vda. De Manguerra was
later on expounded and clarified by former Associate Justice
Arturo D. Brion in an En Banc Decision in the case of Republic
v. Sandiganbayan,64 where it was held that “depositions are
not meant as substitute for the actual testimony in open court
of a party or witness.” 65 Generally, the deponent must be
presented for oral examination in open court at the trial or hearing.
This is a requirement of the rules on evidence under Section 1,
Rule 13266 of the Rules of Court. Even if an “opportunity for
63
Id.
64
678 Phil. 358 (2011).
65
Id. at 411.
66
Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. — The examination
of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open court, and
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 317

cross-examination was afforded during the taking of the

deposition,”67 such examination “must normally be accorded a
party at the time that the testimonial evidence is actually presented
against him [or her] during the trial or hearing of a case.”68 Thus,
any deposition taken by the prosecution will be considered
hearsay due to the “adverse party’s lack of opportunity to cross-
examine the out-of-court declarant.”69 In this case, the Court
ruled that the Bane deposition is not admissible under the rules
of evidence. By way of deposition upon oral examination,
Maurice V. Bane’s (Bane) deposition was taken before the Consul
General Ernesto Castro of the Philippine Embassy in London,
England. The Court saw no reason why the deposition could
not have been taken while Bane was still here in the Philippines
and held that it “can only express dismay on why the petitioner
had to let Bane leave the Philippines before taking his deposition
despite having knowledge already of the substance of what he
would testify on.”70
Subsequently, Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe
in Go v. People 71 echoed the ruling in Cuenco Vda. De
Manguerra, which refused the application of Rule 23 to criminal
proceedings. In this case, the private prosecutor filed a motion
to take oral deposition of Li Luen Ping, the private complainant,
alleging that he was being treated for lung infection at the
Cambodia Charity Hospital in Laos, Cambodia and that, upon
doctor’s advice, he could not make the long travel to the
Philippines by reason of ill health. The MeTC granted the motion.
Harry L. Go (Go) filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC
under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is incapacitated to speak, or

the question calls for a different mode of answer, the answers of the witness
shall be given orally.
67
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 64 at 411.
68
Id.
69
Id. at 413.
70
Id. at 424.
71
691 Phil. 440 (2012).

which declared null and void the MeTC ruling. The prosecution
elevated the case to the CA which allowed the taking of oral
depositions in Laos, Cambodia. Via Rule 45, Go assailed the
Decision of the CA before the Court. In the Decision dated
July 18, 2012, the Court disallowed the deposition-taking in
Laos, Cambodia explaining that the conditional examination
of a prosecution witness must take place at no other place than
the court where the case is pending. It upheld the right of the
accused to public trial and the right to confrontation of
witnesses.72 The Court further observed that Li Luen Ping had
managed to attend the initial trial proceedings before the MeTC
of Manila on September 9, 2004. At that time, Li Luen Ping’s
old age and fragile constitution should have been unmistakably
apparent and yet the prosecution failed to act with zeal and
foresight in having his deposition or testimony taken before
the MeTC pursuant to Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised
Rules of Court.73
Recently, in the case of People v. Sergio,74 the Court, speaking
through Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, allowed
the taking of deposition through written interrogatories of Mary
Jane Sergio (Mary Jane) before our Consular Office and officials
in Indonesia pursuant to the Rules of Court and principles of
jurisdiction. Mary Jane was convicted of drug trafficking and
sentenced to death by the Indonesian Government and is presently
confined in a prison facility in Indonesia. The Philippine
Government requested the Indonesian Government to suspend
the scheduled execution of Mary Jane. It informed the Indonesian
Government that the recruiters and traffickers of Mary Jane
were already in police custody, and her testimony is vital in
the prosecution of Cristina and Julius, her recruiters who were
charged with qualified trafficking in person, illegal recruitment,
and estafa. The Indonesian President granted Mary Jane an
indefinite reprieve, to afford her an opportunity to present her
72
Id. at 456-457.
73
Id.
74
G.R. No. 240053, October 9, 2019.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 319

case against Cristina, Julius, and a certain “Ike.” The State then
filed a motion to take the deposition upon written interrogatories
of Mary Jane before the RTC of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija,
Branch 88, which granted the motion. Julius and Cristina assailed
the ruling to the CA via a petition for certiorari. The CA reversed
the Resolution of the RTC ratiocinating, among others that,
pursuant to Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court the
taking of deposition of Mary Jane or her conditional examination
must be made not in Indonesia but before the court where the
case is pending. The State elevated the case to the Court which
granted the petition. The Court held that Section 15, Rule 11975 of
the Rules of Court is inapplicable in light of the unusual
circumstances surrounding the case. Mary Jane’s imprisonment
in Indonesia and the conditions attached to her reprieve denied
her of any opportunity to decide for herself to voluntarily appear
and testify before the trial court in Nueva Ecija. The denial by
the CA deprived Mary Jane and the People of their right to due
process by presenting their case against the accused. By not
allowing Mary Jane to testify through written interrogatories,
the CA deprived her of the opportunity to prove her innocence
before the Indonesian authorities and for the Philippine
Government the chance to comply with the conditions set for
the grant of reprieve to Mary Jane. Also, there is no violation
of the constitutional right to confrontation of a witness since
the terms and conditions laid down by the trial court ensure
that Cristina and Julius are given ample opportunity to cross-
examine Mary Jane by way of written interrogatories. 76 In
75
Section 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution. — When it
satisfactorily appears that a witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm
to appear at the trial as directed by the order of the court, or has to leave
the Philippines with no definite date of returning, he may forthwith be
conditionally examined before the court where the case is pending. Such
examination, in the presence of the accused, or in his absence after reasonable
notice to attend the examination has been served on him, shall be conducted
in the same manner as an examination at the trial. Failure or refusal of the
accused to attend the examination after notice shall be considered a waiver.
The statement taken may be admitted in behalf of or against the accused.
76
The trial court required Cristina and Julius, through their counsel, to
file their comment and may raise objections to the proposed questions in

conclusion, the Court suppletorily applied the provisions of

Rule 23 of the Rules of Court considering the extraordinary
factual circumstances surrounding the case of Mary Jane. While
depositions are recognized under Rule 23 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court held that it may be applied suppletorily
in criminal proceedings so long as there is compelling reason
— in this case, the conditions77 of Mary Jane’s reprieve and
her imprisonment in Indonesia.
Despite the aforementioned rulings and opinions regarding
the possibility of suppletorily applying the civil discovery
procedures, there have been no express discussions regarding
the nature and application of requests for admission in criminal
proceedings, the pivotal matter in this petition.
Request for Admission under
Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which delves on
admission by adverse party, is reproduced in verbatim as follows:
RULE 26
Admission by Adverse Party
the written interrogatories submitted by the prosecution. The trial court

judge shall promptly rule on the objections. Thereafter, only the final questions
would be asked by the Consul of the Philippines in Indonesia or his designated
representative. The answers of Mary Jane to the propounded questions must
be written verbatim, and a transcribed copy of the same would be given to
the counsel of the accused who would, in turn, submit their proposed cross
interrogatory questions to the prosecution. Should the prosecution raised
any objection thereto, the trial court judge must promptly rule on the same,
and the final cross interrogatory questions for the deposition of Mary Jane
will then be conducted. Mary Jane’s answers in the cross interrogatory shall
likewise be taken in verbatim and a transcribed copy thereof shall be given
to the prosecution.
77
The Indonesia Government imposed the following conditions in taking
the testimony of Mary Jane:
a) Mary Jane shall remain in detention in Yogyakarta, Indonesia;
b) No cameras shall be allowed;
c) The lawyers of the parties shall not be present; and
d) The questions to be propounded to Mary Jane shall be in writing.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 321

Section 1. Request for admission. — At any time after issues have

been joined, a party may file and serve upon any other party a written
request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of any
material and relevant document described in and exhibited with the
request or of the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set
forth in the request. Copies of the documents shall be delivered with
the request unless copy have already been furnished.
admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless, within a
period designated in the request, which shall not be less than fifteen
(15) days after service thereof, or within such further time as the
court may allow on motion, the party to whom the request is directed
files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn
statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission
is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot
truthfully either admit or deny those matters.
Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to the
court by the party requested within the period for and prior to the
filing of his sworn statement as contemplated in the preceding
paragraph and his compliance therewith shall be deferred until such
objections are resolved, which resolution shall be made as early as
practicable.
Section 3. Effect of admission. — Any admission made by a party
pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the pending action
only and shall not constitute an admission by him for any other purpose
nor may the same be used against him in any other proceeding.
Section 4. Withdrawal. — The court may allow the party making an
admission under the Rule, whether express or implied, to withdraw
or amend it upon such terms as may be just.
Section 5. Effect of failure to file and serve request for admission.
— Unless otherwise allowed by the court for good cause shown and
to prevent a failure of justice a party who fails to file and serve a
request for admission on the adverse party of material and relevant
facts at issue which are, or ought to be, within the personal knowledge
of the latter, shall not be permitted to present evidence on such facts.
The following inferences can be deduced from the
abovementioned provisions:
1) A request for admission may be served only on the
adverse party;

2) A request for admission may only be done after the issues

have been joined;
3) The adverse party being served with the request for
admission may admit:
(a) The genuineness of any material and relevant
document described in and exhibited with such
request; and
(b) The truth of any material and relevant matter of fact
set forth in such request.
4) Copies of the documents requested from the adverse
party for admission should be delivered with the request
unless copies have already been furnished to the latter
in advance;
5) The time to respond to the request for admission shall
be at least fifteen days or at a period fixed by the court
on motion;
6) The adverse party on whom the request for admission
was served is required to file a sworn
statement specifically denying the matters of which an
admission is requested or setting forth in detail the
reasons why he or she cannot truthfully either admit or
deny those matters;
7) Failure of the adverse party, on whom the request was
served, to respond shall be deemed as an admission to
the matter sought to be admitted;
8) Objections to any request for admission shall be
submitted to the court by the adverse party requested
within the period for and prior to the filing of his sworn
statement of denial;
9) Compliance of the request for admission by the adverse
party requested shall be deferred until the objection is
resolved by the court;
10) The resolution of any objection raised by the party on
whom the request for admission was served shall be
resolved by the court as early as practicable;
11) Any admission made by the adverse party may only be
used in the case where the request for admission was
made and not in any other proceeding; and
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 323

12) A party, except for good cause shown and to prevent

a failure of justice, cannot anymore be permitted to
present any evidence in support of a material and relevant
fact within the personal knowledge of the adverse party
which should have been the subject of a request for
admission.
Under Rule 26, a request for admission may be served on
the adverse party at any time after the issues are joined.
In civil cases, there is joinder of issues when the answer
makes a specific denial of the material allegations in the complaint
or asserts affirmative defenses, which would bar recovery by
the plaintiff.78
In a criminal case, “there is no need to file a responsive
pleading since the accused is, at the onset, presumed innocent,
and thus it is the prosecution which has the burden of proving
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”79 Nonetheless, it is the legal
duty of the accused to plead “guilty” or “not guilty” during
arraignment, for it is only after his plea had been entered, that
the issues are joined and trial can begin. In other words, “the
entry of plea during arraignment x x x signals joinder of
issues in a criminal action.” 80
In Corpus, Jr. v. Pamular, 81 We said:
An arraignment, held under the manner required by the rules, grants
the accused an opportunity to know the precise charge against him
or her for the first time. It is called for so that he or she is “made
fully aware of possible loss of freedom, even of his [or her] life,
depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him [or her]. At the
very least then, he [or she] must be fully informed of why the
prosecuting arm of the state is mobilized against him [or her].”
Thereafter, the accused is no longer in the dark and can enter his or
her plea knowing its consequences. It is at this stage that issues
78
Mongao v. Pryce Properties Corp., 504 Phil. 472, 488.
79
Enrile v. People, 766 Phil. 75, 332 (2015).
80
Cabaero v. Cantos, 338 Phil. 105 (1997).
81
Corpus, Jr. v. Pamular, G.R. No. 186403, September 5, 2018.

are joined, and without this, further proceedings cannot be held

without being void.82 (Emphasis supplied)
Further, in People v. Compendio, Jr.,83 the Court, in overruling
the trial court’s appreciation of the aggravating circumstance
of recidivism on account of the accused’s failure to object to
the prosecution’s omission to submit proof, instructed:
Recidivism is an aggravating circumstance under Article 14(9)
of the Revised Penal Code whose effects are governed by Article 64
thereof, and is, therefore, an affirmative allegation whenever alleged
in the information. Since the accused-appellant entered a plea of
not guilty to such information, there was a joinder of issues not
only as to his guilt or innocence, but also as the presence or absence
of the modifying circumstances so alleged. The prosecution was
thus burdened to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt and the existence of the modifying circumstances.
It was then grave error for the trial court to appreciate against the
accused-appellant the aggravating circumstance of recidivism simply
because of his failure to object to the prosecution’s omission as
mentioned earlier.84 (Emphasis supplied)
Given the foregoing, can requests for admission be applied

in criminal cases?
The Court answers in the negative for the following reasons:
I. A Request for Admission Cannot be
Served on the Prosecution Because it is
Answerable Only by an Adverse Party to
Whom such Request was Served
In civil actions, a party is one who: (a) is a natural or juridical
person as well as other “entities” recognized by law to be
parties;85 (b) has a material interest in issue to be affected by
the decree or judgment of the case (real party-in-interest);86 and
82
Id.
83
327 Phil. 888 (1996).
84
People v. Compendio, Jr., 327 Phil. 888, 906 (1996).
85
Section 1, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
86
Ang v. Pacunio, 763 Phil. 542, 547-548 (2015).
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 325

(c) has the necessary qualifications to appear in the case (legal

capacity to sue).87 In criminal actions, however, the only parties
are the State/People of the Philippines (as represented by the
Office of the Solicitor General or agencies authorized to prosecute
like the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice)
and the accused.
At this juncture, it is imperative to emphasize that the State
is the real party-in-interest in criminal proceedings.88 The private
offended party is merely regarded as a witness for the State.89 It
means that the State, being a juridical entity unlike the offended
party, cannot be privy to the execution of any document or
acquire personal knowledge of past factual events. Unlike natural
persons, the State cannot be reasonably thought of as capable
of perceiving as well as making known of its perception and,
therefore, incapable of being “privy” to the execution of
documents or acquiring “personal” knowledge of perceivable
facts.90 Such ability to perceive factual events or to be privy to
executions of documents can be reasonably attributed to a natural
person (a party or a witness) who can perceive through his/her
senses and make known of such perception drawn from mental
recollection. Such lack of sensory perception reasonably operates
as an inherent inability and incompetence on the part of the
State to make an admission of fact.
Moreover, it is already settled in jurisprudence that the express
mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the
exclusion of all others.91 Since Section 1, Rule 26 of the Rules
of Civil Procedure only mention of parties serving and answering
each other’s requests for admission, it cannot be reasonably
interpreted to include also witnesses who are incompetent to
give admissions that bind the parties to their declarations. In
87
Recreation and Amusement Association of the Philippines v. City of
Manila, 100 Phil. 950 (1957).
88
Bumatay v. Bumatay, 809 Phil. 302 (2017).
89
Heirs of Burgos v. Court of Appeals, 625 Phil. 603, 610-611 (2010).
90
R EVISED R ULES O F E VIDENCE, Rule 120, Section 20.
91
De La Salle Araneta University v. Bernardo, 805 Phil. 580, 601 (2017).

other words, witnesses such as the private complainant in criminal

proceedings cannot be served with a request for admission and
compelled to answer such request. Besides, witnesses in criminal
proceedings may be called upon to testify during the trial state
and be subjected to the crucible of cross-examination.
II. Criminal Proceedings Present
Inherent Limitations for the Use
of Rule 26 as a Mode of Discovery
The prosecution is strictly bound to observe the parameters
laid out in the Constitution on the right of the accused — one
of which is the right against self-incrimination. This right
proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communications from the accused.92 If she/he chooses to remain
silent, he/she suffers no penalty for such silence.93 Included in
the right against self-incrimination are: (1) to be exempt from
being a witness against himself; and (2) to testify as witness in
his own behalf. 94 It is accorded to every person who gives
evidence, whether voluntary or under compulsion of subpoena,
in any civil, criminal or administrative proceedings.95
If requests for admission are allowed to be utilized in criminal
proceedings, “any material and relevant matter of fact” requested
by the prosecution from the accused for admission is tantamount
to compelling the latter to testify against himself. This is because
failure to answer a request for admission will be deemed as an
admission of the fact requested to be admitted. More so, Section
2, Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires the party
requested to file a sworn statement thereby exposing him/her
to the additional peril of being held liable for perjury. Such
requirements unduly pressure the accused in making an admission
or denial, which is in itself a form of compulsion. Moreover,
92
Dela Cruz v. People, 739 Phil. 578 (2014).
93
People v. Alegre, 182 Phil. 477 (1979).
94
People v. Judge Ayson, 256 Phil. 671 (1989).
95
Rosete v. Lim, 523 Phil. 498, 511 (2006).
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 327

the refusal of the accused to answer to a request for admission

may later be taken against him under Section 3 (e), Rule 131
of the Rules on Evidence.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the constitutional privilege
against self-incrimination applies to evidence that is
communicative in essence taken under duress;96 not where the
evidence sought to be excluded is part of object evidence.97
Obviously, a response to any query is communicative in nature.
Being communicative, any compulsion on the part of the accused
to answer all the matters in a request for admission clearly violates
his or her right against self-incrimination. Any compulsory
process which requires the accused to act in way which requires
the application of intelligence and attention (as opposed to a
mechanical act) will necessarily run counter to such constitutional
right. 98
Relatedly, the rule on admission as a mode of discovery is
intended to expedite the trial and to relieve the parties of the
costs of proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and
the truth of which can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry.99 The
use of requests for admission is not intended to merely reproduce
or reiterate the allegations of the requesting party’s pleading
but it should set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact
described in the request, whose purpose is to establish said
party’s cause of action or defense.100 In a criminal proceeding,
most of the facts are almost always disputed as the prosecution
is tasked in proving all the elements of the crime as well as the
complicity or participation of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.101 Factual matters pertaining to the elements of the crime
96
Herrera v. Alba, 499 Phil. 185, 205 (2005).
97
People v. Yatar, 472 Phil. 560, 570 (2004).
98
Beltran v. Samson, 53 Phil. 571 (1929).
99
Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 507 Phil.
312, 321 (2005).
100
Limos v. Spouses Odones, 642 Phil. 438, 448 (2010).
101
People v. Maraorao, 688 Phil. 458, 466 (2012).

as well as the complicity or participation of the accused are

obviously determinative of the outcome of the case.
If requests for admission should be made applicable to criminal
proceedings, it is virtually certain that an accused who had already
entered a plea of “not guilty” would continue to deny the relevant
matters sought by the prosecution to be admitted in order to
secure an acquittal. Moreover, matters which tend to establish
the guilt or innocence of an accused (i.e., participation, proof
of an element of the offense, etc.) are necessarily disputed in
nature. Even if the Court were to carve out an exception by
permitting only those matters which have no relevant or material
relations to the offense to be discoverable through requests for
admission, the same discovery facility would serve no practical
and useful purpose tending only to delay the proceedings.
Therefore, it would be pointless on the part of the prosecution
to require an accused to admit to matters not relevant or material
to the offense as the same would be vented out during the pre-
trial anyway.
Besides, the facilities of a pre-trial — especially that provided
for in Section 1 (b), Rule 118 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure regarding stipulation of facts — are most likely serve
the same purpose without falling into the danger of violating
fundamental rights such as the right against self-incrimination.
During pre-trial, the accused (and even the prosecution) is free
to stipulate the facts that he or she is willing to admit or place
beyond the realm of dispute.
Application of the Foregoing
Principles to the Instant Case
With the above discussions, it is evident that Leila Ang’s
Request for Admission filed in Criminal Case No. 2005-1048
should have been denied by the RTC. Consequently, there are
no judicial admissions to be adopted in Criminal Case Nos.
2005-1046 and 2005-1047. Request for admission under Rule
26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is not applicable in criminal
proceedings. There is, therefore, no need for the Court to dwell
on the other issues raised by the People in this petition, i.e.,
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 329

effect of actual consolidation; service of the request for admission

to the parties.
Leila Ang argued that the Joint Orders dated February 12,
2015 and July 24, 2015 of the RTC, which declared that the
facts stated in her Request for Admission are deemed impliedly
admitted, and that such implied admissions are also “judicial
admissions” by the People, had become final, executory and
immutable, and therefore it cannot be annulled, set aside or
varied anymore. The Court disagrees.
The Joint Orders are void having been issued with grave
abuse of discretion. A void judgment is no judgment at all in
legal contemplation.102 It has no legal or binding effect or efficacy
for any purpose or at any place. It cannot affect, impair or create
rights. It is not entitled to enforcement and is, ordinarily, no
protection to those who seek to enforce. In other words, a void
judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same
as it would be if there was no judgment.103
In the case of Air Transportation Office v. Court of
Appeals,104 the Court explained that grave abuse of discretion
exists when the act is: (1) done contrary to the Constitution,
the law or jurisprudence; or (2) executed whimsically,
capriciously, or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will, or personal
bias. Patent violation of the Rules of Court merited a finding
that there was grave abuse of discretion.105 As in this case, it
was grave abuse on the part of the RTC to have allowed the
Request for Admission under Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure in criminal proceedings, disregarding the rules and
established jurisprudence. Hence, contrary to the arguments
of Leila Ang, the Joint Orders did not become final, executory,
and immutable.
102
Imperial v. Armes, 804 Phil. 439 (2017).
103
Id. See also Canero v. University of the Philippines, 481 Phil. 249
(2004).
104
353 Phil. 686 (1998).
105
Id.

The Court explained above that there are inherent limitations

in availing Rule 26 as a mode of discovery in criminal
proceedings taking into account the constitutional rights of the
accused, one of which is the right against self-incrimination.
Any material and relevant matter of fact requested by the
prosecution from the accused for admission is tantamount to
compelling the latter to testify against himself.
Note should be made that in this case, it was the accused,
Leila Ang, who filed for Request for Admission. It was not
initiated by the prosecution. Thus, it may be argued that there
is no violation of the right to self-incrimination as it was the
accused who requested for admission.
Pertinent portions of Leila Ang’s Request for Admission read:
xxxx
GREETINGS:
ACCUSED LEILA L. ANG, by counsel, respectfully request the
plaintiff People of the Philippines (with the attention of complainant
Development Bank of the Philippines [DBP], and individuals Abelardo
L. Monarquia, Eugenio S. Dela Cruz, Arlene E. Calimlim, Eduardo
Z. Rivera, and Norma P. Leonardo as the public officers or DBP
personnel who supposedly conducted a special audit or fact-finding
investigation pursuant to DBP SL Memorandum Order No. 99-007
dated May 3, 1999 to look into the alleged Cash-in-Vault (CIV)
shortage at the DBP-Lucena City Branch in the total amount of
P19,337,100.94 and executed Joint-Affidavit dated December 27,
1999 [notarized on January 17, 2000] which was submitted by the
DBP to the Ombudsman and became the basis for the filing of the
instant case at his Honorable Court), to make the following admissions
under oath (through or assisted by the City Prosecutor of Lucena
City), for purposes of the instant case only, which must be served to
the said Accused (Leila L. Ang), through the undersigned counsel,
within fifteen (15) days from notice or service hereof pursuant to
Rule 26 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
THAT UNLESS THE PLAINTIFF’S INDIVIDUAL DENIALS ARE
ACCOMPANIED BY COMPETENT DOCUMENTARY PROOF,
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS MATERIAL AND RELEVANT
TO THE INSTANT CASE ARE ABSOLUTELY TRUE:
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 331

1) That none of the DBP personnel (Monarquia, Dela Cruz, Calimlim,

Rivera and Leonardo) who as a (sic) Special Investigative Team or
Fact-Finding Committee conducted an audit or investigation on the
alleged Cash-in-Vault shortage of P19,337,100.94 was physically
present or assigned to work at the Cash Division and Accounting
Division of the DBP-Lucena City Branch from April 24, 1997 to
April 30, 1999 and not one of them saw, witnessed, heard or observed
or had personal knowledge of the transactions (especially deposits,
withdrawals, encashments, and recording or accounting thereof) and
the behavior or actuations of the various personnel in those two (2)
Divisions during the aforesaid period.
xxxx
3) That none of the Chairman/Team Leader and members of the Special
Investigative Team or Fact-Finding Committee created under SL
Memorandum Order No. 99-007 dated May 3, 1999, whether
individually or collectively, had personally and actually conducted
an actual audit or examination of the Cash-in-Vault (CIV) account
of the DBP-Lucena City Branch as of April 16, 1999, or as of April
17, 1999, neither had the said Team or Committee conducted an audit
or examination of the Cash-in-Vault (CIV) account on May 3, 1999
nor on May 4, 1999, nor on any date thereafter.
xxxx
6) That in the supposed special investigation conducted on the Cash-
in-Vault account. The Special Investigative Team/Fact-Finding
Committee of Monarquia, et al. did not find any documentary evidence
showing that Accused Leila Ang had personal transactions, whether
directly or indirectly (be they involved cash or personal checks),
with the Cashier (Victor Omana) or Acting Assistant Cashier (Edelyn
Tarranco) of the DBP-Lucena during the period from April 20, 1997
to April 29, 1999.
7) That the members of the aforesaid Special Investigative Team/
Fact-Finding Committee had not heard or seen, and it has no actual
documentary evidence showing, that Accused Leila Ang illegally
influenced, induced, and persuaded co-accused Rosalinda Driz to
credit cash deposits to the Current/Savings Accounts (CASA) of JEA
Construction and Supplies, Cocoland Concrete Products, and Unico
Arte. Even if there was no cash equivalent to, or even if the cash
deposited is lesser than, what is started in the deposit slip/s.

8) That the Special Investigative Team/Fact-Finding Committee of

Monarquia, et al. did not actually see or observe the alleged act of
funding and encashment of “inward clearing checks” supposedly
issued and transacted by Accused Leila Ang, Joey Ang, Anson Ang
and Vladimir Nieto under CASA accounts of JEA Construction and
Supplies, Cocoland Concrete Products, and Unico Arte, respectively.
xxxx
10) That that Special Investigative Team/Fact-Finding Committee
stated above has no documentary proof of the act that Accused Leila
Ang actually manipulated other DBP personnel or other persons in
order to commit any illegal transaction.
11) That Accused Leila Ang was not, and had never been an
accountable officer of the DBP-Lucena City Branch from April 20,
1997 to April 29, 1999 and therefore she could not have incurred
any cash shortage because she had no cash accountability in her name
whatsoever.
xxxx
23) That the Special Investigative Team/Fact-Finding Committee
concerned did not verify nor had seen nor had found any record or
document showing that Accused Leila Ang ever signed or
acknowledged the amount of P4,840,884.00 as her obligation,
accountability, shortage or amount taken or received from co-accused
Driz.
xxxx
28) That assuming arguendo that co-accused Rosalinda Driz was
imputed a cash shortage in the amount of P4,840,884.00 in her cash
accountability as DBP Bank Teller, the Special Investigative Team/
Fact-Finding Committee however does not believe that the said amount
was taken, appropriated, misappropriated or malversed by Accused
Leila Ang since the former (co-accused Driz) never had actual and
official custody and control of the said funds of the DBP.
29) That the Special Investigative Team/Fact-Finding Committee does
not believe that co-accused Victor Omana did not benefit fully from
his P19,337,100.94 Cash-in-Vault shortage because the said amount
was actually in his (Omana’s) official custody and control as DBP
Branch Cashier from April 20, 1997 to April 6, 1999 and on certain
dates prior or subsequent thereto.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 333

xxxx
32) That the DBP officers primarily accountable and responsible for
the Cash-in-Vault account and solely liable for any discrepancy therein
are the DBP Branch Cashier (Omana) and his Acting Assistant Cashier
(Tarranco) since that is their cash accountability and the said DBP
personnel (Omana and Tarranco) were the only ones who had actual
access to the bank vault or to the cash, records, and other items kept
therein.
xxxx
37) That an erroneous journal entry can be easily corrected by the
use of correcting entry, reversing entry, or adjusting entry which
was done in the case of the alleged false journal entry involving the
account “Due From Other Banks” with an amount of P9,550,000.00.
xxxx
47) That co-accused Rosalinda Driz was assigned at the Cash Division
during the period from April 16, 1997 to April 20, 1999 and therefore
she was not under the administrative supervision of Accused Leila
Ang who was assigned at the Accounting Department of DBP-Lucena
City Branch and that the latter (Leila Ang) had no legal authority or
moral ascendancy over the former and that the Special Investigative
Team/Fact-Finding Committee found no competent evidence
whatsoever to support the allegation that Accused Leila Ang induced,
influenced, or persuaded anyone to commit the crime subject of the
instant case.
48) That Audits or investigations conducted by the DBP Internal
Audit Group and Regional Management Teams between April 20,
1997 and April 29, 1999 or even those audits performed by the COA
resident auditors concerned had reported no cash shortage, nor did
their respective report disclose any check from Accused Leila Ang
and her relatives (and family & friend) during those cash counts/
audits.
49) That there is no documentary evidence whatsoever that Accused
Leila Ang actually receive the amount of P4,840,884.00 from co-
accused Rosalinda Driz nor any demand letter from anyone to pay
such amount.
50) That the Annual Audit Reports (AAR’s) of COA for DBP-Lucena
City Branch for calendar years 1997, 1998 and 1999 do not show

that Accused Leila Ang had been Involved in any anomaly and that
there is no audit finding in those AAR’s that a check from her or her
relatives and family friend was ever used to cover up the alleged
cash shortage of any of the accountable officers (DBP Cashier, Acting
Assistant Cashier, and Bank Tellers) of DBP-Lucena City Branch
from April 16, 1997 to April 29, 1999.
51) That the Report (including all cash counts sheets) of the Internal
Audit Group (IAG) of DBP Head Office that conducted internal audit
at DBP-Lucena City Branch last April 19 to 23, 1999 showed or
proved that at the time of cash count by the IAG Team during its
audit on those dates (April 19 to 23, 1999), Accused Leila Ang had
no cash shortage or that no check from her or her relatives as well
as family friend was found or discovered to have been used to cover
up anyone’s cash shortage.
xxxx x
59) That based on the above facts (nos. 1 to 58), there is no sufficient
evidence to charge much less to convict Accused Leila Ang and other
co-accused in the instant case.
60) That Accused Leila Ang voluntarily surrendered to the court and
that she acted in good faith in her work to dispel malice on her part
in the instant case both of which facts, among others, must be
appreciated as mitigating circumstances in her favor.
x x x x 106
All the matters set forth in the Request for Admission
are defenses of Leila Ang. Almost all of the paragraphs are
worded in the negative, with the end-goal of showing that Leila
Ang has no participation or complicity in the crime. These matters
cannot be the subject of admission by the prosecution but must
be duly proven by Leila Ang as a matter of defense in the trial
proceedings.
Similarly, this Request for Admission contains matters that
show the elements of the crime which the prosecution has the
burden to prove to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. It includes factual circumstances that should
106
Records, pp. 11-19.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 335

be presented by the prosecution during the trial of the case.

Settled is the principle that a criminal action is prosecuted under
the direction and control of the prosecutor. It cannot be the
other way around. Accused cannot dictate or control the
prosecution on how it will prove its case.
Be it noted that the matters stated in Leila Ang’s Request
for Admission were deemed impliedly admitted by the People
because of the latter’s failure to deny or oppose the Request of
Admission within the 15-day period pursuant to Section 2, Rule
26 of the Civil Procedure. If the Court allows the implied
admissions regarded also as judicial admissions by the RTC,
then it will have the effect of closing the case for the prosecution.
The inescapable conclusion would be the acquittal of the accused,
even before the trial begun.
This cannot be done.
Atty. De Gorio has Authority to Represent
the People before the Sandiganbayan
In the assailed Decision, the SB ruled that it is not clear
whether Atty. De Gorio has authority to file the petition either
by himself or as special prosecutor deputized by the Ombudsman,
and to sign the attestation in the certificate of non-forum shopping
without express authority from the DBP as the aggrieved party.
Also, the Deputization/Authority to Prosecute107 in favor of Atty.
De Gorio has a time limit, in that the deputization/authorization
shall only be in force and effect during the proceedings in the
trial court.
The criminal cases were first handled by the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Lucena City. On January 14, 2016, Atty.
De Gorio, Regional Lawyer, Regional Marketing Center (RMC),
Southern-Tagalog-Lucena City, DBP, was deputized by the OMB
to act as special prosecutor in assisting the Provincial Prosecutor’s
Office of Quezon and/or the City Prosecutor’s Office of Lucena
City.
107
Id. at 151-152.

The Deputization/Authority to Prosecute reads:

xxxx
In view of the technical nature of the case and voluminous records
involved, Deputization or Authority is hereby given to ATTY.
MICHAEL VERNON DE GORIO x x x
xxxx
It shall be understood that Atty. Michael Vernon De Gorio shall
be under the direct control and supervision of the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon (OMB-Luzon), assisted by the Provincial
Prosecution Office of Quezon, or the City prosecution Office of Lucena
city, as the case may be.
This deputization/authorization shall continue to be in force and
effect until the termination of the proceedings with the trial courts,
unless sooner revoked or amended by this Office.
x x x x 108
It was an error for the SB to rule that Atty. De Gorio’s
deputization/authorization is limited in the proceedings before
the RTC and that the petition for certiorari filed before the SB
is beyond the “proceedings with the trial court.” The interpretation
is too restrictive. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing
the Decision of the RTC is still part of the proceedings of the
criminal cases in issue. For as long as the proceedings in the
RTC have not been terminated, Atty. De Gorio’s deputization/
authorization shall continue to be in force and effect. Hence,
when he filed the petition for certiorari before the SB, Atty.
De Gorio was duly deputized to act as a special prosecutor
pursuant to Section 31 of Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise
known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989. He signed the petition
on behalf of the People, in his capacity as a deputized special
prosecutor of the OMB.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated
March 1, 2017 and the Resolution dated May 15, 2017 of the
Sandiganbayan are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Joint
Orders dated February 12, 2015, July 24, 2015, March 10, 2016,
108
Id.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 337

and September 5, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court are

declared VOID. The Regional Trial Court of Lucena City, Branch
56, is hereby DIRECTED to continue the trial proceedings in
Criminal Case Nos. 2005-1046, 2005-1047, and 2005-1048 with
reasonable dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, C.J., Gesmundo, Lazaro-Javier, Lopez, Delos Santos,
and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Inting, and Zalameda, JJ., see
separate concurring opinions.
Caguioa, J., see concurring and dissenting opinion.
Hernando, J., joins the concurring and dissenting opinion
of J. Caguioa.
Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.
CONCURRING OPINION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
I concur with the ponencia in setting aside the rulings of the

Sandiganbayan which, inter alia, recognized the validity of
the Request for Admission filed by the accused respondent Leila
L. Ang. As the ponencia eloquently explained, request for
admission, as a mode of discovery provided under Rule 26 of
the Rules of Civil Procedure, cannot be applied to criminal
proceedings, considering its inherent limitations to the nature
of said proceedings.1 Due to the novelty of the issue, I, however,
take this opportunity to briefly convey my thoughts on the subject.
Because of the essential variances between civil and criminal
actions, our Rules of Civil Procedure is treated as a separate
and distinct body of procedural rules from our Rules of Criminal
Procedure, although it is recognized that the former may
suppletorily apply in the absence of a specific rule of criminal
procedure stating otherwise. The general provisions of the Rules
of Court define a civil action as one by which a party sues
1
See ponencia, pp. 8-12.

another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the

prevention or redress of a wrong, whereas a criminal action is
one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission
punishable by law.2
The suppletory application of the Rules of Civil Procedure
to a criminal proceeding, however, presupposes that the procedure
to be suppletorily applied does not go against substantive
principles inherent to criminal proceedings. This stems from
the basic consideration that adjective law only sets out the
procedural framework in which substantive rights and obligations
are to be litigated. The distinction between substantive law and
adjective law was explained in Primicias v. Ocampo,3 wherein
it was also stated that “[r]emedial measures are but implementary
in character and they must be appended to the portion of the
law to which they belong”:4
Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and
regulates rights, or which regulates the right and duties which give
rise to a cause of action; that part of the law which courts are established
to administer; as opposed to adjective or remedial law, which prescribes
the method of enforcing rights or obtain [sic] redress for their invasions
x x x.5
Being “implementary” in character, procedural law cannot

trump fundamental premises of substantive law. The well-settled
rule is that “a substantive law cannot be amended by a
procedural rule.”6 Moreover, by its common acceptation, the
word “suppletory” means “supplying deficiencies”; 7 hence, it
is not tantamount to modifying or amending a rule.
2
Rule 1, R ULES O F C OURT .
3
93 Phil. 446 (1953).
4
Id. at 454.
5
Id. at 452; citations omitted.
6
Boston Equity Resources, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 711 Phil. 451, 473
(2013); emphasis supplied.
7
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppletory#
:~:text=%2D%CB%8Ct%C8%AFr%2D%C4%93%20%5C,
Definition%20of%24suppletory,rules%20suppletory%20to%20the%
20contract> (last visited July 22, 2020).
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 339

The issue at hand is whether Rule 26 on requests for admission to

an adverse party may suppletorily apply to criminal proceedings.
At the onset, it must be pointed out that it is no coincidence
that Rule 26, as well as the other modes of discovery under
Rule 23 (Depositions Pending Appeal) together with its subsets,
Rule 24 (Depositions Before Action or Pending Appeal) and
Rule 25 (Interrogatories to Parties), and the other modes found
in Rule 27 (Production or Inspection of Documents or Things)
and Rule 28 (Physical and Mental Examination of Persons),
are placed under the Rules of Civil Procedure, and not under
the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which for its part, has its
own in-built discovery procedures.
Specifically, under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
Sections 12, 13, and 15, Rule 119 set out the rules on conditional
examination of witnesses (for the defense and the prosecution)
before trial which are similar but not identical to depositions
under Rules 23 to 25. The same observations may be made
with Section 10, Rule 116 on the production or inspection of
material evidence in possession of prosecution (which is akin
to a motion for production or inspection of documents or things
under Rule 27), as well as Section 11, Rule 116 on motions to
suspend arraignment due to mental examination of the accused
(which is comparable to the physical and mental examination
of persons under Rule 28).
However, it must be pointed out that despite some prima
facie similarities to certain modes of discovery in civil procedure,
the actual parameters for the modes of discovery under the
Rules of Criminal Procedure still primarily operate. This
primacy was demonstrated in the case of Go v. People,8 wherein
the Court held that Rule 23 cannot be made to suppletorily
apply in criminal cases since the provisions of Rule 119
adequately covered the situation, and more significantly, the
examination of a witness applying Rule 23 violated the rights
of the accused to a public trial and to confront his witnesses
face to face. 9
8
691 Phil. 440 (2012).
9
See id. at 452.

Unlike the foregoing, it is glaring that there is no mode of

discovery under the Rules of Criminal Procedure that is somewhat
similar to Rule 26 on requests for admission. In my opinion,
this procedural lacuna in the Rules of Criminal Procedure evinces
the fact that this particular mode of discovery is conceptually
incompatible with some fundamental premises obtaining in
the prosecution of criminal cases. Thus, with the preliminary
discussions on substantive and adjective law in mind, these
modes of discovery cannot apply suppletorily. I further explain.
For reference, Rule 26 reads in full:
RULE 26
the request unless copies have already been furnished.
practicable.
nor may the same be used against him in any other proceeding.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 341

Section 4. Withdrawal. — The court may allow the party making

an admission under the Rule, whether express or implied, to withdraw
or amend it upon such terms as may be just.
By their nature, “[t]he various modes or instruments of
discovery are meant to serve (1) as a device, along with the
pre-trial hearing x x x, to narrow and clarify the basic issues
between the parties, and (2) as a device for ascertaining the
facts relative to those issues. The evident purpose is x x x to
enable the parties, consistent with recognized privileges, to obtain
the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before
x x x trials and thus prevent that said trials are carried on in the
dark.”10
meant to “expedite trial and relieve parties of the costs of proving
can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry.”11 Case law, however,
states that parties cannot use this tool to reproduce or reiterate
allegations in one’s pleadings, and should instead tackle new
evidentiary matters of fact which will help establish a party’s
cause of action or defense.12
The defining feature of a request for admission is the provision
which states that every matter raised in a request for admission
that is not specifically denied shall be deemed admitted:
10
See Malonzo v. Sucere Foods Corp., G.R. No. 240773, February 5,
2020.
11
Lañada v. Court of Appeals and Nestle Phils. v. Court of Appeals, 426
Phil. 249, 261 (2002), citing Concrete Aggregates Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, 334 Phil. 77 (1997).
12
See Limos v. Spouses Odones, 642 Phil. 438, 448 (2010).


practicable. (Emphasis supplied)
This provision on implied admissions gives “teeth” to the
rule, allowing it to be an effective and expeditious mode of
discovery. However, right off the bat, it is apparent that this
provision cannot be made to apply in criminal proceedings
without running afoul of an accused’s right against self-
incrimination, also known as his right not to be compelled to
be a witness against himself.
To be sure, in civil cases, a party may only raise his right
against self-incrimination if a particularly incriminatory question
is propounded to him. He cannot altogether refuse to testify or
disregard a subpoena by claiming that his right against self-
incrimination will be violated. It is only when a specific question
is addressed to him which may incriminate him for some offense
that he may refuse to answer on the strength of the constitutional
guaranty.13 However, in criminal cases, the accused can refuse
to take the stand altogether as he “occupies a different tier
of protection from an ordinary witness.”14 He is not even
susceptible to a subpoena issued by the court itself. As
discussed in People v. Ayson:15
13
People v. Ayson, 256 Phil. 671 (1989).
14
Id. at 685; emphasis supplied.
15
Id.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 343

An accused “occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary

witness.” Under the Rules of Court, in all criminal prosecutions the
defendant is entitled among others —
1) to be exempt from being a witness against himself, and
2) to testify as witness in his own behalf; but if he offers himself
as a witness he may be cross-examined as any other witness; however,
his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall not in any manner prejudice
or be used against him.
from being a witness against himself” signifies that he cannot be
compelled to testify or produce evidence in the criminal case in
which he is the accused, or one of the accused. He cannot be
compelled to do so even by subpoena or other process or order
of the Court. He cannot be required to be a witness either for the
prosecution, or for a co-accused, or even for himself. In other words
— unlike an ordinary witness (or a party in a civil action) who may
be compelled to testify by subpoena, having only the right to refuse
to answer a particular incriminatory question at the time it is put to
him — the defendant in a criminal action can refuse to testify altogether.
He can refuse to take the witness stand, be sworn, answer any
question. x x x 16 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
By the mere allowance of a request for admission, the accused
is effectively forced upon the proverbial “stand” which, by and
of itself, contravenes the right against self-incrimination as
recognized in criminal cases. Further, on a practical level, since
an accused has the right to altogether refuse to entertain a
request for admission, allowing such request would then just
result into a circuitous, if not ceremonial, attempt at futility.
This situation negates the inherent expediency purpose of our
modes of discovery.
In addition, a request for admission effectively denies the
accused the right to confront the witnesses against him during
public trial. As case law states, the right of confrontation is
held to apply specifically to criminal proceedings and has a
“twofold purpose: (1) to afford the accused an opportunity to
16
Id. at 685-686.

test the testimony of witnesses by cross-examination, and (2)

to allow the judge to observe the deportment of witnesses.”17
In a request for admission, the accused will be asked to admit
“the genuineness of any material and relevant document described
in and exhibited with the request or of the truth of any material
and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request.” 18 The
authentication of documents and any material fact that go into
a crime’s elements ought to be established through the
witnesses or other evidence presented by the State. But since
these are to be elicited through a mere paper request and not
through actual witnesses or evidence presented during trial,
the accused has no one to confront; consequently, there is likewise
no deportment to be observed by the judge in this respect.
Overall, the request for admission, as a mode of discovery,
contravenes the age-old rule that “[a] criminal case rises or
falls on the strength of the prosecution’s case.”19 Notably,
this rule is no simple procedural axiom, but rather one that is
founded in the constitutional presumption of innocence. In People
v. Rodrigo:20
This principle, a right of the accused, is enshrined no less in our
Constitution. It embodies as well a duty on the part of the court to
ascertain that no person is made to answer for a crime unless his
guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Its primary consequence
in our criminal justice system is the basic rule that the prosecution
carries the burden of overcoming the presumption through proof of
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, a criminal case
rises or falls on the strength of the prosecution’s case, not on the
weakness of the defense. Once the prosecution overcomes the
presumption of innocence by proving the elements of the crime and
the identity of the accused as perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt,
the burden of evidence then shifts to the defense which shall then
test the strength of the prosecution’s case either by showing that no
17
Go v. People, supra note 8, at 454.
18
R ULES O F C IVIL P ROCEDURE , Rule 26, Section 1.
19
Supplement Opinion of retired Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion in
Lejano v. People, 652 Phil. 512, 707 (2010); emphasis supplied.
20
586 Phil. 515 (2008).
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 345

crime was in fact committed or that the accused could not have
committed or did not commit the imputed crime, or at the very least,
by casting doubt on the guilt of the accused. We point all these out
as they are the principles and dynamics that shall guide and structure
the review of this case.21 (Emphasis supplied)
Needless to state, this presumption only applies to criminal
cases and not to civil cases. The non-existence of this presumption
in civil cases, as well as the other rights of the accused as above-
mentioned, therefore renders permissible a request for admission
in civil, and not criminal, cases.
Further, not only do the parameters of a request for admission
go against the substantive rights of the accused, it is also
incompatible with certain substantive precepts of criminal
prosecution wherein the State is the one which receives the
admission request.
It is hornbook doctrine that “[i]n criminal cases, the offended
party is the State, and ‘the purpose of the criminal action is
to determine the penal liability of the accused for having outraged
the State with his crime. . . . In this sense, the parties to the
action are the People of the Philippines and the accused. The
offended party is regarded merely as a witness for the state.’
As such, the Rules dictate that criminal actions are to be
prosecuted under the direction and control of the public
prosecutor.”22
Under Rule 26, a request for admission is served upon another
party. Therefore, if the accused avails of this mode of discovery,
he or she necessarily would have to serve his or her request
upon the State. The State is considered as a juridical person
and, insofar as criminal actions are concerned, is represented
by the public prosecutor. While it is indeed possible to serve
the request upon the public prosecutor, the same mode of
discovery intends that the party served with such request be
21
Id. at 527.
22
See Montelibano v. Yap, December 6, 2017, G.R. No. 197475; emphases
supplied.

the one to admit “[t]he genuineness of any material and relevant

document described in and exhibited with the request or of the
truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the
request.”23 For this purpose, “a request for admission on the
adverse party of material and relevant facts at issue x x x are,
or ought to be, within the personal knowledge of the latter
x x x.”24
In this regard, it must be pointed out that a party subject of
a request for admission is basically regarded as a witness because
he is in a position to deny or admit the genuineness of a document
or the truth or falsity of a fact relevant to the case. According
to our jurisprudence, “[t]he personal knowledge of a witness
is a substantive prerequisite for accepting testimonial evidence
that establishes the truth of a disputed fact. A witness bereft of
personal knowledge of the disputed fact cannot be called upon
for that purpose because [his or] her testimony derives its value
not from the credit accorded to [him or] her as a witness presently
testifying but from the veracity and competency of the
extrajudicial source of [his or] her information.”25
In the case of a public prosecutor, he cannot be considered
to have personal knowledge of the facts subject of the request
for admission because he is not privy to a document or any
factual occurrence subject of said request. Personal knowledge
requires first-hand knowledge of the events as they have
transpired, and not merely information relayed to him by others
as the assigned legal counsel. Knowledge of a handling lawyer
is second-hand information coming from parties or witnesses,
unless he himself is in some way privy to the document or the
occurrence. Thus, should the public prosecutor answer the request
for admission, his statements would technically be hearsay.
If at all, it would be the witnesses of the prosecution who
possess personal knowledge of the genuineness of the documents
23
Rule 26, Section 1.
24
Rule 26, Section 5; emphasis supplied.
25
Patula v. People, 685 Phil. 376 (2012).
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 347

or any material fact. However, these witnesses cannot be the

proper subjects of a request for admission because they are not
“parties” to the case. At any rate, even if they may be loosely
considered as “parties,” allowing the accused to subject them
prosecution. This would violate the basic principle that criminal
actions are prosecuted under the sole direction and control of
the public prosecutor.
This shifting of control to the accused can be easily seen in
this case wherein an expansive request for admission was made
to the State. 26 As aptly pointed out by the ponencia, “[a]ll the
matters set forth in the Request for Admission are defenses of
Leila Ang. Almost all paragraphs are worded in the negative,
with the end-goal of showing that Leila Ang has no participation
or complicity in the crime. x x x. Similarly, [the request] contains
matters that show the elements of the crime which the prosecution
has the burden to prove to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. It includes factual circumstances that
should be presented by the prosecution during the trial of the
case.”27 While it has been suggested that certain matters be
stricken out due to their impropriety, this process of nit-picking
which is or which is not the proper subject of a request for
admission appears to create further complications that defeat
the expediency purpose of this mode of discovery. A party may
question the judge’s order allowing or disallowing a particular
matter in a request and hence, entail prolonged litigation.
In fine, as herein explained, the essential parameters of Rule
26 as a mode of discovery on requests for admission, are simply
incompatible with the core substantive premises in criminal
cases. This incompatibility exists not only on the side of the
accused but also on the side of the State. As I have discussed
in the beginning, adjective law must not contravene substantive
law which it only seeks to implement. Neither should the concept
26
See ponencia, pp. 18-22.
27
Id. at 23.

of suppletory application amount to a substantive modification

or amendment of our prevailing modes of discovery and their
intended placement.
Accordingly, I join the ponencia and vote to GRANT the
petition.
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
LEONEN, J.:
I concur with the ponencia. However, I write this separate

opinion to emphasize a few points.
Under Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a request for
admission may be served on the adverse party at any time after
the issues are joined.
There is a joinder of issues in criminal proceedings upon
the accused’s entry of plea during arraignment.1 The accused’s
plea controverts, and thus, puts at issue all the allegations in
the information.2
However, a request for admission cannot be served on either
the accused, owing to the right against self-incrimination, or
on the prosecutor, for lack of personal knowledge. Nonetheless,
it may be served on the private offended party’s counsel with
regard to the civil aspect.
Criminal actions are commenced either by filing a complaint
or information in the name of the People of the Philippines.3
1
Corpus, Jr. v. Pamular, G.R. No. 186403, September 5, 2018, <https:/
/elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64644> [Per J. Leonen,
Third Division].
2
Id.
3
Pili, Jr. v. Resurreccion, G.R. No. 222798, June 19, 2019, <https://
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65289> [Per J. Caguioa,
Second Division]; Ha Datu Tawahig v. Lapinid, G.R. No. 221139, March
20, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65145>
[Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 349

This is because a crime is an offense against the State, and not

only against the directly injured party.4 Rule 110, Section 5 of
the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that “[a]ll criminal
actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor.”
Thus, in criminal proceedings, the parties are the People of
the Philippines, represented by the public prosecutor, and the
accused.
Rule 26, Section 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides
the scope of matters that a party may request the adverse party
to admit, namely: (1) “the genuineness of any material and
relevant document described in and exhibited with the request”;
and (2) “the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact
set forth in the request.” The matters requested for admission
must be within the personal knowledge of the person on whom
the request was served, in accordance with the rule excluding
hearsay evidence.
Hearsay evidence has been defined in Miro v. Vda. de
Erederos,5 which provides:
It is a basic rule in evidence that a witness can testify only on the
facts that he knows of his own personal knowledge, i.e., those which
are derived from his own perception. A witness may not testify on
what he merely learned, read or heard from others because such
testimony is considered hearsay and may not be received as proof
of the truth of what he has learned, read or heard. Hearsay evidence
is evidence, not of what the witness knows himself but, of what he
has heard from others; it is not only limited to oral testimony or
statements but likewise applies to written statements, such as
affidavits.6 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
It falls on the public prosecutor, as the State’s counsel, to
ensure that the People’s rights are protected during trial. This
4
Guy v. Tulfo, G.R. No. 213023, April 10, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.
gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65234> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
5
721 Phil. 772 (2013) [Per J. Brion, First Division].
6
Id. at 790.

includes the legal obligation to protect the offended party’s

interest, at least insofar as the criminal aspect is concerned.7 A
public prosecutor has the full discretion in prosecuting criminal
cases, including whether, what, and whom to charge, along with
what evidence to present.8 This discretion likewise extends to
plea bargaining, stipulation of facts, and other matters enumerated
in Section 2 of Republic Act No. 8493.9
Yet, the facts that public prosecutors know are those merely
brought about by their inquiry or investigation. They file the
information in court based on their own study and appreciation
of the evidence at hand.10 They have no personal knowledge of
the facts material to the actual commission of the crime, and
thus, are not competent to answer a request for admission.
However, with regard to the civil aspect of the criminal case,
the private complainant is the real party in interest. Banal v.
Tadeo, Jr.,11 explains that the criminal and civil aspects are
rooted in the theory that a crime is both an offense against the
State whose law was violated and a direct injury to the person
offended by the act:
Generally, the basis of civil liability arising from crime is the
fundamental postulate of our law that “Every man criminally liable
is also civilly liable.” Underlying this legal principle is the traditional
theory that when a person commits a crime he offends two entities
7
Merciales v. Court of Appeals, 429 Phil. 70, 79 (2002) [Per J. Ynares-
Santiago, En Banc].
8
Gonzales v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., 562 Phil. 841, 855
(2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division] citing Webb v. De Leon, 317
Phil. 758 (1995) [Per J. Puno, Second Division]; Potot v. People, 432 Phil.
1028 (2002) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third Division].
9
People v. Judge Tac-an, 446 Phil. 496, 505 (2003) [Per J. Callejo, Sr.,
Second Division].
10
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Price Richardson Corp., 814
Phil. 589, 608 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]; Pilapil v.
Sandiganbayan, 293 Phil. 368, 378 (1993) [Per J. Nocon, En Banc].
11
Banal v. Tadeo, Jr., 240 Phil. 327 (1987) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., Third
Division].
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 351

namely (1) the society in which he lives in or the political entity

called the State whose law he had violated; and (2) the individual
member of that society whose person, right, honor, chastity or property
was actually or directly injured or damaged by the same punishable
act or omission. . . . While an act or omission is felonious because
it is punishable by law, it gives rise to civil liability not so much
because it is a crime but because it caused damage to another. Viewing
things pragmatically, we can readily see that what gives rise to the
civil liability is really the obligation and the moral duty of everyone
to repair or make whole the damage caused to another by reason of
his own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently, whether
or not the same be punishable by law. In other words, criminal liability
will give rise to civil liability only if the same felonious act or omission
results in damage or injury to another and is the direct and proximate
cause thereof. Damage or injury to another is evidently the foundation
of the civil action. Such is not the case in criminal actions for, to be
criminally liable, it is enough that the act or omission complained of
is punishable, regardless of whether or not it also causes material
damage to another.12 (Citations omitted)
Thus, a request for admission as regards the civil aspect of

the crime may be served by the accused on the private offended
party,13 and the answer thereto may be made by the private
offended party’s counsel.14
On the other hand, the accused’s right against compulsory
self-incrimination precludes the service of a request for admission
on them.15
One’s right against self-incrimination is enshrined in Article
III, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, which reads: “No person
shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” This Court
explained the extent of this right in Rosete v. Lim:16
12
Id. at 331.
13
See Briboneria v. Court of Appeals, 290-A Phil. 396, 406-408 (1992)
[Per J. Padilla, First Division]. See also Duque v. Court of Appeals, 433
Phil. 33 (2002) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, First Division].
14
See PSCFC Financial Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 290-A Phil. 636
(1992) (Resolution) [Per J. Bellosillo, First Division].
15
Ponencia, pp. 16-17.
16
523 Phil. 498 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division].

The right against self-incrimination is accorded to every person

who gives evidence, whether voluntary or under compulsion of
subpoena, in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding. The
right is not to be compelled to be a witness against himself. It secures
to a witness, whether he be a party or not, the right to refuse to
answer any particular incriminatory question, i.e., one the answer to
which has a tendency to incriminate him for some crime. However,
the right can be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory
in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at
any other time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a
subpoena, decline to appear before the court at the time appointed,
or to refuse to testify altogether. The witness receiving a subpoena
must obey it, appear as required, take the stand, be sworn and answer
questions. It is only when a particular question is addressed to which
may incriminate himself for some offense that he may refuse to answer
on the strength of the constitutional guaranty.17 (Citation omitted)
However, Rule 115, Section 1 of the Rules of Criminal

Procedure accords the accused in a criminal prosecution the
right “[t]o be exempt from being compelled to be a witness
against [themselves].” The accused are protected under this
Rule from testimonial compulsion or any legal process to extract
an admission of guilt against their will. As this Court explained
in People v. Ayson:18
An accused “occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary
witness.” Under the Rules of Court, in all criminal prosecutions the
defendant is entitled among others —
2) to testify as witness in his own behalf; but if he offers himself
as a witness he may be cross-examined as any other witness; however,
his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall not in any manner prejudice
or be used against him.
The right of the defendant in a criminal case “to be exempt from
being a witness against himself” signifies that he cannot be compelled
to testify or produce evidence in the criminal case in which he is the
17
Id. at 511.
18
256 Phil. 671 (1989) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division].
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 353

accused, or one of the accused. He cannot be compelled to do so

even by subpoena or other process or order of the Court. He cannot
be required to be a witness either for the prosecution, or for a co-
accused, or even for himself. In other words — unlike an ordinary
witness (or a party in a civil action) who may be compelled to testify
by subpoena, having only the right to refuse to answer a particular
incriminatory question at the time it is put to him — the defendant
in a criminal action can refuse to testify altogether. He can refuse to
take the witness stand, be sworn, answer any question. And, as the
law categorically states, “his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall
not in any manner prejudice or be used against him.”19 (Citations
omitted)
After the information is filed in court, the right against self-
incrimination imposes an absolute prohibition against any kind
of inquiry from the accused. An accused on trial in a criminal
case may refuse, not only to answer incriminatory questions,
but also to take the witness stand. Neglect or refusal to be a
witness will not prejudice or be used against the accused.
Rule 26 seeks to obtain admissions from the adverse party
regarding the genuineness of relevant documents or the truth
of facts through requests for admissions. It “contemplates of
interrogatories that would clarify and tend to shed light on the
truth or falsity of the allegations in a pleading. That is its primary
function. It does not refer to a mere reiteration of what has
already been alleged in the pleadings.”20
Considering its purpose, a request for admission cannot be
served on the accused in a criminal proceeding, owing to the
protection accorded by the Constitution and rules against self-
incrimination.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the Petition.
19
Id. at 685-686.
20
Concrete Aggregates Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 77, 80 (1997)
[Per J. Bellosillo, First Division].

CONCURRING OPINION
INTING, J.:
I concur with the ponencia in ruling that a request for admission

under Rule 26 of the Rules of Court is inapplicable to criminal
cases; and consequently, declaring as null and void not only
the Joint Orders dated March 10, 2016 and September 5, 2016
of Branch 56, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Lucena City, Quezon
in Criminal Case Nos. 2005-1046, 2005-1047 and 2005-1048,
but also the Joint Orders dated February 12, 2015 and July 24,
2015.
I reiterate in part the ponencia’s narration of the proceedings
in the three criminal cases from which the present petition
originated.
Prior to the Joint Orders dated March 10, 2016 and September
5, 2016, Judge Dennis R. Pastrana (Judge Pastrana) of Branch
56, RTC, Lucena City, Quezon rendered the Joint Order dated
February 12, 2015 which granted, among others, Leila Ang’s
(Ang) motion for partial reconsideration from the denial of her
Amended Accused’s Request for Admission by Plaintiff (Request
for Admission) filed in relation to Criminal Case No. 2005-
1048. In this Joint Order, Judge Pastrana allowed Ang’s Request
for Admission and deemed the facts stated therein as impliedly
admitted by the People pursuant to Section 2, Rule 26 of the
Rules of Court. This was due to the latter’s failure to deny or
oppose the matters stated in the request within the 15-day period
from receipt of documents as required in the Rule.1
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Lucena City filed a
motion for clarification, but this was denied by Judge Pastrana
in the Joint Order dated July 24, 2015 for being filed out of
time. Judge Pastrana also declared that the People was represented
by the City Prosecutor and it was only through the public
prosecutor that the plaintiff, as party in the present case, can
1
See ponencia, p. 3.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 355

be served or deemed served, with the Request for Admission.

Judge Pastrana ruled that the implied admissions are also “judicial
admissions by the plaintiff under Section 4, Rule 129 of the
Rules of Court.”2
Thereafter, Ang filed a Manifestation formally adopting in
Criminal Case Nos. 2005-1046 and 2005-1047 the People’s
implied admissions or judicial admissions in Criminal Case
No. 2005-1048.3
The People also filed Requests for Admission in the three
criminal cases, i.e., Criminal Case Nos. 2005-1046, 2005-1047
and 2005-1048, which were served upon Ang and the other
accused.4
Upon motion of the People, the three criminal cases were
consolidated per Order dated May 16, 2016.5
In the Joint Order dated March 10, 2016, the RTC denied
the Requests for Admission filed by the People in the three
criminal cases. The RTC reasoned that the judicial admissions
of the People can no longer be varied or contradicted by contrary
evidence much less by a request for admission directly or
indirectly amending such judicial admissions. The RTC took
judicial notice of the adoption in Criminal Case Nos. 2005-
1046 and 2005-1047 by Ang of the implied admissions declared
as judicial admissions in Criminal Case No. 2005-1048.6
The People moved for reconsideration but was denied by
the RTC in its Joint Order dated September 5, 2016. The
RTC maintained its ruling that the court’s judicial notice made
on the People’s judicial admissions in Criminal Case No. 2005-
1048 were also the People’s judicial admissions in the closely
2
Id. at 3-4.
3
Id. at 4.
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
Id.

related and interwoven Criminal Case Nos. 2005-1046 and 2005-

1047, as previously stated in the Joint Order dated March 10,
2016. The RTC further ruled that in consolidated cases, such
as the one at bar, the evidence in each case effectively becomes
the evidence of both; thus, there ceased to exist any need for
the deciding judge to take judicial notice of the evidence
presented in each case.7
The People filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before
the Sandiganbayan assailing the Joint Orders dated March 10,
2016 and September 5, 2016. In the Resolution dated March 1,
2017, the Sandiganbayan affirmed the two Joint Orders. The
subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the
Sandiganbayan in the Resolution dated May 15, 2017.8
Hence, the People filed a petition for review on certiorari
before the Court assailing the Sandiganbayan Resolutions.9
The ponencia resolved to reverse and set aside the assailed
Sandiganbayan Resolutions, and declare as void not only the
RTC Joint Orders dated March 10, 2016 and September 5, 2016,
but also the Joint Orders dated February 12, 2015 and July 24,
2015. The ponencia then directed the RTC to resume the
proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. 2005-1046, 2005-1047 and
2005-1048 with reasonable dispatch.10
In brief, the ponencia cited the following reasons: (1) a request
for admission may only be done after the issues are joined which
applies only in ordinary civil actions; (2) a request for admission
cannot be served on the prosecution because it is answerable
only by an adverse party to whom such request was served;
and (3) criminal proceedings present inherent limitations for
the use of Rule 26 as a mode of discovery, i.e., that the prosecution
is strictly bound to observe the parameters laid out in the
7
Id. at 4-5.
8
Id. at 5.
9
Id. at 5-6.
10
Id. at 25.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 357

Constitution on the right of the accused — one of which is the

right against self-incrimination.11
I concur with the disposition of the case as well as the grounds
relied upon by the ponencia.
Notably, while the People assailed the Joint Orders dated
March 10, 2016 and September 5, 2016, it is undisputable that
the substance of these two orders are heavily intertwined with
the earlier Joint Orders dated February 12, 2015 and July 24,
2015. To recall, in the Joint Order dated March 10, 2016, the
RTC denied the People’s Request for Admission as it sought
to amend the implied admissions which resulted from the People’s
failure to deny or oppose Ang’s Request for Admission within
the given period. However, the validity of the Joint Orders dated
March 10, 2016 and September 5, 2016 hinges on whether the
RTC, through its Joint Orders dated February 12, 2015 and
July 24, 2015, was correct in ruling the following: (1) allowing
Ang’s Request for Admission; (2) considering as deemed
admitted the matters requested therein for failure of the
prosecution to deny or oppose within the 15-day period from
receipt of documents; and (3) in effect, ruling that request for
admission under Rule 26 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
applies to criminal cases.
Thus, in the event of a finding that a request for admission
under Rule 26 does not apply to criminal cases, the Court will
necessarily declare the Joint Orders dated February 12, 2015
and July 24, 2015 as null and void for being rendered with
grave abuse of discretion. This is what the ponencia did. Further,
while what the People assailed are the Joint Orders dated March
10, 2016 and September 5, 2016, the Court is not precluded
from nullifying the Joint Orders dated February 12, 2015 and
July 24, 2015 because void judgments do not attain finality
and may be collaterally attacked.12
11
Id. at 15-18.
12
Imperial v. Armes, 804 Phil. 439 (2017). The Court in Imperial v.
Armes defined collateral attack as one which is “done through an action
which asks for a relief other than the declaration of the nullity of the judgment

I agree with the ponencia that Rule 26 does not apply to

criminal proceedings.
The entire Rule 26 provides:
RULE 26
the request unless copies have already been furnished. (1a)
practicable. (2a)
nor may the same be used against him in any other proceeding. (3)
Section 4. Withdrawal. — The court may allow the party making
an admission under the Rule, whether express or implied, to withdraw
or amend it upon such terms as may be just. (4)
but requires such a determination if the issues raised are to be definitively

settled.”
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 359


(n)

which may be availed of in civil proceedings. As explained by
the ponencia, it is intended to expedite the trial and to relieve
the parties of the costs of proving facts which will not be disputed
on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained by reasonable
inquiry.13 This mode of discovery serves to avoid the unnecessary
inconvenience to the parties in going through the rigors of proof.14
Consequently, under Section 1, Rule 26, a party may serve a
request for admission on the other party and request the latter
to: (a) admit the genuineness of any material and relevant
document described in and exhibited with the request; or (b)
admit the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set
forth in the request.15
Under Section 2, Rule 26, the failure of the other party to
either specifically deny the matters of which an admission is
requested therein or to set forth in detail the reasons why he
cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters shall result
in the deemed or implied admission of the matters stated in the
request for admissions.
The applicability of Rule 26 in the present case must be
examined in the light of the nature of criminal cases and the
rights of the accused particularly the right against self-
incrimination.
In criminal cases, the parties are the State and the accused.
The case is prosecuted in the name of the People and not the
13
See ponencia, p. 17, citing Development Bank of the Philippines v.
Court of Appeals, 507 Phil. 312 (2005).
14
Riano, Civil Procedure Vol. I, p. 470 (2011).
15
Id.

private complainant who is merely a witness.16 Thus, if Rule

26 is applied in criminal proceedings, the party to whom the
accused may serve his request for admissions is the People
who is represented by the public prosecutor. It is the public
prosecutor who will be requested to admit the genuineness of
any material and relevant document described in and exhibited
with the request or the truth of any material and relevant fact
set forth in the request. It is the public prosecutor who must
execute a sworn statement specifically denying the matters on
which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the
reasons as to why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny
those matters.
However, as aptly pointed out by Associate Justice Estela
M. Perlas-Bernabe in her Concurring Opinion, a cursory reading
of Section 5, Rule 26 presupposes that the party upon whom
the request for admission is served has personal knowledge of
the matters stated in the request for admission.17 Undoubtedly,
a public prosecutor cannot be considered as either having personal
knowledge of the facts in the request for admission or being
privy to a document subject of the request. Thus, any statement
made by the public prosecutor in the sworn statement either
admitting or specifically denying the matters sought to be
admitted in the request for admissions would be mere hearsay
and thus, lack probative value.
Further, to apply Rule 26 to criminal cases would go against
the constitutional right of the accused against self-incrimination.
This right is enshrined in Section 17, Article III of the 1987
Constitution which provides that “[n]o person shall be compelled
to be a witness against himself.” As the Court explained in
Rosete v. Lim,18 the right against self-incrimination is accorded
to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntary or under
compulsion of subpoena in any civil, criminal or administrative
16
Montelibano v. Yap, G.R. No. 197475, December 6, 2017.
17
See Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe,
p. 7.
18
523 Phil. 498 (2006).
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 361

proceeding. However, unlike in civil cases, the right against

self-incrimination is wider in scope when it comes to the accused
in criminal cases. The Court explained:
x x x The right is not to be compelled to be a witness against
himself. It secures to a witness, whether he be a party or not, the
right to refuse to answer any particular incriminatory question, i.e.,
one the answer to which has a tendency to incriminate him for some
crime. However, the right can be claimed only when the specific
question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness.
It cannot be claimed at any other time. It does not give a witness the
right to disregard a subpoena, decline to appear before the court at
the time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. The witness
receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as required, take the stand,
be sworn and answer questions. It is only when a particular question
is addressed to which may incriminate himself for some offense that
he may refuse to answer on the strength of the constitutional guaranty.
As to an accused in a criminal case, it is settled that he can refuse
outright to take the stand as a witness. In People v. Ayson, this Court
clarified the rights of an accused in the matter of giving testimony
or refusing to do so. We said:
An accused “occupies a different tier of protection from an
ordinary witness.” Under the Rules of Court, in all criminal
prosecutions the defendant is entitled among others —
2) to testify as witness in his own behalf; but if he offers
himself as a witness he may be cross-examined as any other
witness; however, his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall
not in any manner prejudice or be used against him.
from being a witness against himself” signifies that he cannot
be compelled to testify or produce evidence in the criminal
case in which he is the accused, or one of the accused. He
cannot he compelled to do so even by subpoena or other process
or order of the Court. He cannot be required to be a witness
either for the prosecution, or for a co-accused, or even for himself.
In other words — unlike an ordinary witness (or a party in a
civil action) who may be compelled to testify by subpoena,
having only the right to refuse to answer a particular incriminatory

question at the time it is put to him — the defendant in a criminal

action can refuse to testify altogether. He can refuse to take
the witness stand, be sworn, answer any question. . . .
(Underscoring supplied.)
It is clear, therefore, that only an accused in a criminal case can
refuse to take the witness stand. The right to refuse to take the stand
does not generally apply to parties in administrative cases or
proceedings. The parties thereto can only refuse to answer if
incriminating questions are propounded. This Court applied the
exception — a party who is not an accused in a criminal case is
allowed not to take the witness stand — in administrative cases/
proceedings that partook of the nature of a criminal proceeding or
analogous to a criminal proceeding. It is likewise the opinion of the
Court that said exception applies to parties in civil actions which
are criminal in nature. As long as the suit is criminal in nature, the
party thereto can altogether decline to take the witness stand. It is
not the character of the suit involved but the nature of the proceedings
that controls. 19
Thus, in criminal cases, the constitutional right against self-
incrimination of the accused is taken to mean the right to be
exempt from being a witness against himself. Unlike an ordinary
witness in a criminal case or a party in a civil action who may
be compelled to testify by subpoena, having only the right to
refuse to answer a particular incriminatory question at the time
it is put to him, the accused in a criminal action can refuse to
testify altogether or take the witness stand.
Consequently, as aptly pointed out by the ponencia and
Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, to serve a request
for admission on the accused would in effect require him to
take the stand and testify against himself.20 Such runs counter
to the right of the accused against self-incrimination, including
the right to refuse to take the witness stand.
Equally important, as similarly espoused by Associate Justice
Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, I find that to apply Rule 26 to criminal
19
Id. at 511-513.
20
See ponencia, p. 16 and Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Estela
M. Perlas-Bernabe, p. 5.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 363

proceedings so that the prosecution may serve a request for

admission on the accused would only be an exercise in futility
and lead to unnecessary delays as the accused may just simply
invoke his right against self-incrimination; or he may ignore a
request for admission served on him since to do so would not
have any prejudicial effect on his defenses.21
Besides, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court provides for pre-
trial where the admissions of the accused may be taken. This
is already a sufficient measure to achieve the objective of
simplifying the trial by doing away with matters which are not
disputed by the parties. Section 1 of Rule 118 states that the
trial court shall order a pre-trial conference to consider plea
bargaining, stipulation of facts, and marking for identification
of evidence, among others. Further, Sections 2 and 4 provide
the manner by which the admissions of the accused during the
pre-trial may be used against him as well as the effect of these
admissions on the trial. The pertinent Sections of Rule 118 of
the Rules of Court read, as follows:
Section 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. — In all criminal
cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal
Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the court shall after
arraignment and within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a shorter period
is provided for in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court,
order a pre-trial conference to consider the following:
(a) plea bargaining;
(b) stipulation of facts;
(c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties;
(d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
(e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the
charge but interposes a lawful defense; and
(f) such other matters as will promote a fair and expeditious
trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the case. (secs. 2 and
3, cir. 38-98)
21
Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe,
p. 5.

Section 2. Pre-trial agreement. — All agreements or admissions

made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced
in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they
cannot be used against the accused. The agreements covering the
matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be approved by the
court.
xxxx
Section 4. Pre-trial order. — After the pre-trial conference, the
court shall issue an order reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated,
and evidence marked. Such order shall bind the parties, limit the
trial to matters not disposed of, and control the course of the
action during the trial, unless modified by the court to prevent
manifest injustice. (Emphasis supplied.)
This view is consistent with American jurisprudence. While

American jurisprudence is merely persuasive in our jurisdiction,
it must be noted that, as pointed out by Associate Justice Rodil
V. Zalameda in his Separate Concurring Opinion, the definition
and purpose of a request for admission in our jurisprudence
can be traced or quoted from American sources. 22 Hence,
reference to American rules, laws, and policies may serve as
proper guides in resolving the present case.
Thus, the Court can rely on the ruling of the Supreme Court
of Indiana in State ex rel. Grammer v. Tippecanoe Circuit Court23
which is instructive.
In the case, the defendant wanted to use written interrogatories
and requests for admission to prepare for his second-degree
murder case. However, the trial court denied the request for
admission as it was not applicable to criminal cases. It also
issued the state a protective order. Subsequently, the defendant
22
See Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Rodil V.
Zalameda, p. 1, citing Briboneria v. Court of Appeals, 290-A Phil. 396
(1992); Po v. Court of Appeals, 247 Phil. 637 (1988); Uy Chao v. De la
Rama Steamship Co., Inc., 116 Phil. 392 (1962).
23
State ex rel. Grammer v. Tippecanoe Circuit Court, 268 Ind. 650, 377
N.E.2d 1359 (1978).
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 365

filed an action for a writ of prohibition and writ of mandate

concerning criminal discovery techniques.
The Supreme Court of Indiana denied the defendant’s action
for a writ of prohibition and writ of mandate. As to the
applicability of requests for admission in criminal cases, the
Supreme Court of Indiana ruled that the requests were
unnecessary because the Indiana Code provided the vehicle
for admissions through an omnibus hearing and pre-trial. The
Supreme Court of Indiana ruled:
The second error alleged by the defendant is the denial of his Request
for Admissions. The request for admissions is used in civil cases
as a device to get uncontested facts out of the way. It is unnecessary
to use this device in criminal cases as there is already a mechanism
established for this purpose. Ind. Code § 35-4.1-3-1 (Burns 1975)
provides for an omnibus hearing and pretrial conference. At the time
of this hearing, the statute provides:
“[T]he court, upon motion of any party or upon its own
motion, may order one or more conferences x x x to consider
any matters related to the disposition of the proceeding
including the simplification of the issues to be tried at trial
and the possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and of
documents which will avoid unnecessary proof.”
Ind. Code § 35-4.1-3-1(b).
Furthermore, the prosecutor is under the constitutional duty to disclose
any exculpatory evidence to the defense. United States v. Agurs,
(1976) 427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342; Brady v. Maryland,
(1963) 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215. There was no
abuse of discretion in the denial of the request for admissions.24
Similarly, given the availability of pre-trial as provided under
Rule 118 of the Rules of Court, I find that the request for
admission in criminal cases, as in the present case, only invites
delays and is unnecessary in the conduct of the proceedings.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the petition and declare
as null and void not only the Joint Orders dated March 10,
24
Id.

2016 and September 5, 2016, but also the Joint Orders dated
February 12, 2015 and July 24, 2015 of Branch 56, Regional
Trial Court, Lucena City, Quezon.
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
ZALAMEDA, J.:
I agree with the core of the ponencia’s exposition on the

inherent limitations effected by the Constitution and other
pertinent rules for the use of Rule 26 as a mode of discovery
in criminal cases. Notwithstanding, I submit the following
additional grounds for the inapplicability of Rule 26 in criminal
cases.
In our jurisprudence, the definition and purpose of a request
for admission can be traced to or were derived from American
sources.1 Hence, reference to American rules, laws, and policies
may serve as proper guides in resolving the present case.
In American states, discovery under civil proceedings is
supported by a liberal policy requiring almost total, mutual
disclosure of each party’s evidence prior to trial. Accordingly,
a litigant may use several modes of discovery, as allowed under
the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such as the use of
depositions,2 interrogatories,3 request for production,4 physical
and mental examinations,5 and request for admission.6
1
See Briboneria v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101682, 290-A Phil. 396
(1992); Po v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-34341, 247 Phil. 637 (1988);
Uy Chao v. De la Rama Steamship Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-14495, 116 Phil.
392 (1962).
2
Rule 27-31, U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3
Rule 33, U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4
Rule 34, U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Producing Documents,
Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto
Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes).
5
6
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 367

This broad disclosure is intended to “take the sporting element

out of litigation,” to fully reveal the nature and limits of the
case, to simplify the issues involved, and to provide all parties
with the information necessary to fully prepare for trial. The
objective is to eliminate needless and time-consuming legal
maneuvering in civil trials.7 In fact, restrictions on civil discovery
are directed chiefly on utilization rather than procurement of
information.8
In contrast, discovery provisions under the U.S. Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure are restricted and narrow. Prosecutorial
discovery, which aims to either gather additional evidence or
gain an idea of the structure of the defense’s case, is limited
due to possible infringement of a defendant’s Fourth9 and Fifth10
Amendment rights. Similarly, discovery by the criminal
defendant is restricted to avoid unfettered discovery of the
prosecutor’s case, which would give the defendant an immense
advantage such as would make securing convictions almost
impossible. 11 This policy was explained by the New Jersey
Supreme Court in State v. Tune,12 to wit:
7
Mitchell, Robert B. Comment: Federal Discovery in Concurrent Criminal
and Civil Proceedings, 52 Tul. L. Rev. 769 (1978).
8
Amand v. Pennsylvania R.R., 17 F.R.D. 290, 294 (D.N.J. 1955).
9
Amendment IV, U.S. Constitution. The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
10
Amendment V, U.S. Constitution. No person shall be held to answer
for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put
in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation.
11
Mitchell, Robert B. Comment: Federal Discovery in Concurrent Criminal
12
13 N.J. 203 98 A.2d 881 (1953).

x x x In criminal proceedings long experience has taught the courts

that often discovery will lead not to honest fact-finding, but on the
contrary to perjury and the suppression of evidence. Thus the criminal
who is aware of the whole case against him will often procure perjured
testimony in order to set up a false defense, State v. Rhoads, 81
Ohio St. 397, 423-4, 91 N.E. 186, 192, 27 L.R.A., N.S. 558 (Sup.
Ct. 1910); Commonwealth v. Mead, 12 Gray 167, 170 (Mass. 1858).
Another result of full discovery would be that the criminal defendant
who is informed of the names of all of the State’s witnesses may
take steps to bribe or frighten them into giving perjured testimony
or into absenting themselves so that they are unavailable to testify.
Moreover, many witnesses, if they know that the defendant will have
knowledge of their names prior to trial, will be reluctant to come
forward with information during the investigation of the crime, People
v. Di Carlo, 161 Misc. 484, 485-6, 292 N.Y.S. 252, 254 (Sup. Ct.
1936). All these dangers are more inherent in criminal proceedings
where the defendant has much more at stake, often his own life,
than in civil proceedings.
The continuing struggle to establish the limits of discovery
in criminal proceedings stems from the need to protect the
interests of opposing sides. The primary concern of the
prosecution is the enforcement of the law and the conviction
of those guilty of committing a crime, while the defendant’s
concern is to avoid punishment or prove his innocence. The
opposing pull of these interests has led to a narrower system
of discovery than that provided for in civil cases, as embodied
by the limited provisions of discovery in the U.S. Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure wherein only depositions13 and, discovery
(disclosures) and inspection,14 are specifically outlined.15
The current narrow scope of criminal discovery in the U.S.
was borne from the prevailing notion that civil and criminal
wrongs inherently require different procedural treatment.
13
Rule 15, U.S. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
14
15
Mitchell, Robert B. Comment; Federal Discovery in Concurrent Criminal
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 369

Initially, the first draft of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

in 1941 contemplated the integration of the then-new rules of
civil procedure in order to reform criminal procedure. At that
time, civil reform had introduced a new robust discovery phase
and changed the deep structure of litigation from pleading and
trial into pleading, discovery, and trial. Yet, the attempt to
have a unified procedural code was defeated by the recognition
that policies animating criminal and civil law were too different
to share the same procedural backbone, thereby resulting to a
more traditional take on discovery in criminal cases.16
To recall, there are two (2) modes of discovery in the U.S.
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: (1) Depositions under
Rule 15; and (2) Discovery and Inspection under Rule 16.
Under Rule 15, the court may, under exceptional circumstances
and in the interest of justice, grant a motion to have a prospective
witness be deposed in order to preserve his or her testimony
for trial.17 This includes the taking of depositions outside the
U.S., without the defendant’s presence, after the court makes
certain case-specific findings.18
Meanwhile, under Rule 16, a defendant may, under specific
conditions, make a request for government disclosure of any
of the following: (a) substance of any relevant oral statement
made by the defendant, before or after arrest, in response to
interrogation; (b) relevant written or recorded statement within
the government’s custody; (c) prior criminal record that is within
the government’s possession; (d) any material document or object
within the government’s possession to be inspected or copied
by defendant; (e) any material report of physical or mental
examination or any scientific test or experiment within the
government’s possession; and (f) a written summary of an expert
witness’ testimony. If a defendant requires government disclosure
16
Ion Meyn, Why Civil and Criminal Procedure Are So Different: A
Forgotten History, 86 Fordham L. Rev. 697 (2017).
17
Rule 15 (a) (1), U.S. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
18
Rule 15 (c) (3), U.S. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

and the government complies, then he or she has the reciprocal

obligation to permit the government, upon request, to allow
such disclosure. Failing to respond to a request for disclosure
may result in the exclusion of the requested information from
being disclosed during trial. There are certain materials, however,
that are not subject to disclosure, such as reports made in
connection with investigating or prosecuting the case, or
statements made by prospective witnesses.19
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, information or materials
subject to disclosures are evidence that the parties intend to
use during trial. The origin for this rule lies in the well-known
1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Brady v. Maryland,20
which held that under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments,
the prosecutor has a duty to disclose favorable evidence to
defendants upon request, if the evidence is “material” to either
guilt or punishment.21 The subject of this kind of discovery
clearly differs from the subject of a request for admission since
the latter centers on: (a) facts, the application of law to fact, or
opinions about either; and (b) the genuineness of any described
documents.
There have been calls and measures to expand the scope of
discovery proceedings in criminal cases in the U.S. One such
proposition is for open-file discovery, wherein the defense and
prosecution freely exchange each and every information and
evidence to allow all sides to adequately prepare for the prospect
of trial and to help the defendant in deciding how to plead.
The call for expanded discovery in criminal cases stems from
the belief that discovery provides a crucial procedural safeguard.
Not only does it protect against wrongful imprisonment, it
likewise makes the legal system more transparent by increasing
19
20
373 U.S. 83 (1963).
21
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/federal-discovery-and-inspection-
procedures-27302.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 371

pre-trial disclosure, and it ensures a fair procedure by allowing

each side in a trial to adequately prepare their case.22
For instance, in 1996, North Carolina passed a law granting
death row inmates full access to police and prosecution files
during appeal. Due to its success, the North Carolina General
Assembly passed legislation in 2004 instituting open-file
discovery, which grants the defense pre-trial access to the
prosecution’s files, including police reports and witness
statements. Meanwhile, the state of Florida adopted broad rules
regulating discovery in criminal cases, specifically on
depositions. Similarly, Colorado statutes require a continuing
mandatory obligation to disclose evidence it secures, including
witness lists, police reports, expert statements, any electronic
surveillance of conversations involving accused, relevant
statements, as well as any and all mitigating or exculpatory
evidence. Such mandatory discovery laws make it obligatory
for the state to produce materials without the need for the defense
to file discovery motions. Comparably, prosecutors in New Jersey
are required to disclose the names, not only of witnesses, but
of all people with relevant information relating to the crime.
Likewise, Arizona mandates automatic discovery of all reports
from law enforcement already available during arraignment,23
recognizing the need to provide the defense resources to mount
an adequate defense at the earliest stage of the proceedings.
Notably, the call for expanded discovery in criminal procedure
centers on the disclosure of evidence within the possession of
either the prosecution or the defense. In fact, the model bill for
expanded discovery in criminal cases proposed by the American
Bar Association focuses on open-file discovery of materials,
information, files, or any other matter of evidence.24 This supports
22
The Justice Project, Expanded Discovery in Criminal Cases: A Policy
Review;https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/
reports/death_penalty_reform/expanded 20discovery20policy20briefpdf.pdf
23
Id.
24
Id.

the theory that requests for admission cannot be used in criminal

procedure since it was not even suggested as an added method
for expanded discovery in criminal cases.
It is essential for us to underscore that the procedural rules
in our jurisdiction are similarly structured to that of the U.S.
There are several available modes of discovery under our Rules
of Civil Procedure ranging from depositions,25 interrogatories,26
request for admission,27 production or inspection of documents/
things28 and, physical and mental examination of persons,29 while
analogous provisions are absent in our Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Such comparable framework of our procedural rules
to American federal rules of procedure suggests a reasonable
context from which we derive a strict and narrow application
of modes of discovery in criminal proceedings.
Considering this and the continuous failure to include requests
for admission even on the emerging proposal or measures for
expanded discovery in criminal cases in the U.S., I am inclined
to believe that requests for admission under Rule 26 are unsuited
to our criminal proceedings.
Especially noteworthy is that the Supreme Court is clothed
with ample authority to review matters even when they are not
assigned as errors on appeal if it finds their consideration
necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case. Further, an
unassigned error that is closely related to an error properly
assigned, or upon which the determination of the question or
error properly assigned is dependent, will be considered despite
the failure to raise the same.30 In the present case, it cannot be
25
Rules 23-24, Rules of Civil Procedure.
26
Rule 25, Rules of Civil Procedure.
27
28
29
30
Heirs of Doronio v. Heirs of Doronio, G.R. No. 169454, 27 December
2007, 565 Phil. 766 (2007).
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 373

denied that the issue of applicability of Rule 26 in criminal

cases is an issue considerably intertwined with petitioner’s
assigned errors.
Even more relevant, the import of the ponencia is to treat
the RTC’s Joint Orders dated 12 February 2015, 24 July 2015,
along with the assailed Joint Orders dated 10 March 2016 and
05 September 2016, as void judgments. In Imperial v. Armes, 31
the Court explained that void judgments are:
x x x not entitled to the respect accorded to a valid judgment, but
may be entirely disregarded or declared inoperative by any tribunal
in which effect is sought to be given to it. It has no legal or binding
effect or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. It cannot affect,
impair or create rights. It is not entitled to enforcement and is,
ordinarily, no protection to those who seek to enforce. In other words,
a void judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the
same as it would be if there was no judgment.
To recall, void judgments may arise from a tribunal’s act
adjudged to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Such void judgments may also
be subject of a collateral attack, which is done through an action
asking for a relief other than the declaration of the nullity of
the judgment, but requires such a determination if the issues
raised are to be definitively settled.32
In this case, the Court may consider the petition for certiorari
lodged by petitioner before the Sandiganbayan as a collateral
attack on the validity of not only the assailed Joint Orders dated
10 March 2016 and 05 September 2016, but also of Joint Orders
dated 12 February 2015 and 24 July 2015, so as to arrive at a
just decision and to have all issues definitively settled.
Besides, the Court is currently in the process of revising the
rules of criminal procedure and the case at bar presents an
excellent opportunity to resolve this matter, which may be
31
G.R. Nos. 178842 & 195509, 30 January 2017, 804 Phil. 439 (2017).
32
Id. at 110.

reflected in the revised rules. In any case, to avoid further

confusion, and considering that similar issues will necessarily
be decided in the future, we should correspondingly exercise
our duty to educate the Bench, the Bar, and the public on the
reasons why Rule 26 may or may not be applied in criminal
procedure.
For the aforementioned reasons, I concur with the ponencia’s
reversal of the Decision dated 01 March 2017 and Resolution
dated 15 May 2017 of the Sandiganbayan, and declaration of
the Orders dated 12 February 2015, 24 July 2015, 10 March
2016 and 05 September 2016 of the RTC as void.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
CAGUIOA, J.:
I concur in the result. The present petition should be granted

but only because the matters contained in respondent Leila L.
Ang’s (respondent Ang) Request for Admission are not proper
subjects of a Request for Admission under Rule 26 of the Rules
of Court.
I disagree, however, to the majority’s ruling that Rule 26
does not apply to criminal proceedings. I am of the considered
opinion that Requests for Admission should be made available
in criminal litigation, but only to the accused. This availability
is premised on the inherent imbalance between the State’s
resources in prosecuting the accused on the one hand, and the
accused’s severely limited access to pre-trial information on
the other. Circumscribed by the accused’s right against self-
incrimination and to remain silent, Requests for Admission,
while available to the accused, cannot be made to extend for
the use of the prosecution.
The Court should have granted
the parties the opportunity to be
heard on the issue of whether or
not Rule 26 applies to criminal
proceedings.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 375

Preliminarily, I find that the majority should have first allowed

the parties to comment on the issue of whether or not Rule 26
is available to criminal proceedings because this issue was never
raised and argued by the parties before the trial court, the
Sandiganbayan and this Court. Basic tenets of fairness and due
process demand that the parties be given the opportunity to be
heard before the Court may render a judgment on said issue.
For proper context, a restatement of the facts is in order.
Respondent Ang filed a Request for Admission in Criminal
Case No. 2005-1048 addressed to the People and was served
to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Lucena City.1
The People moved to expunge respondent Ang’s Request
for Admission arguing that “[t]he matters sought for admission
in the defense’s pleading are either proper subjects of stipulation
during pre-trial, or matters of evidence which should undergo
judicial scrutiny during trial on the merits. They need
confirmation from witnesses who should be placed under oath,
since there is no summary trial in criminal cases, except those
covered by the summary proceedings under the Rules.”2
In a Resolution dated April 13, 2010, Acting Presiding Judge
Rodolfo D. Obnamia (Judge Obnamia) of the Regional Trial
Court, Lucena City (RTC-Lucena) Branch 53, denied respondent
Ang’s Request for Admission and ordered that the same be
expunged from the records of the case.3 According to the court,
“the proposed admission can be tackled and be the proper subject
of stipulation during the pre-trial conference of the parties held
mandatory by law aimed towards early disposition of cases.”4
Respondent Ang moved for reconsideration and filed a motion
to inhibit Judge Obnamia. 5 Upon inhibition of Judge Obnamia,
1
Rollo, pp. 16-17.
2
Id. at 67-68; underscoring omitted.
3
Id. at 68.
4
Id.
5
Id. at 17.

the three cases filed against respondents were transferred to

RTC-Lucena, Branch 56, presided by Judge Dennis R. Pastrana
(Judge Pastrana).6
In the Joint Order7 dated February 12, 2015, Judge Pastrana
granted respondent Ang’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration
and ruled that since the prosecution failed to deny or oppose
the Request for Admission within the 15-day period from receipt
of the documents, the facts stated therein are deemed impliedly
admitted by the People pursuant to Section 2, Rule 26 of the
Rules of Court.8
The People filed a Motion for Clarification9 claiming that
copies of the Request for Admission were to the public prosecutor
only and not to the parties to whom it was addressed.10
However, in the Joint Order11 dated July 24, 2015, Judge
Pastrana denied the People’s Motion for Clarification for being
filed out of time.12 In the same Joint Order, Judge Pastrana
ruled the facts stated in respondent Ang’s Request for Admission
are final as such implied admission by the People under Rule
26 of the Rules of Court and are consequently retained in the
court records as judicial admissions under Section 4, Rule 129
of the Rules of Court.13
Thereafter, respondents filed their separate Manifestations
adopting in Criminal Case Nos. 2005-1046 and 2005-1047 the
implied admissions declared as judicial admissions in Criminal
Case No. 2005-1048. 14
6
Id.
7
Id. at 140-146.
8
Id. at 142.
9
Id. at 147-150.
10
Id. at 70.
11
Id. at 159-164.
12
Id. at 161.
13
Id. at 164.
14
Id. at 17.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 377

Meanwhile, the People also filed its Requests for Admissions

in the three criminal cases, which were served on respondents.15
The People also moved for the consolidation of the three cases
for purpose of trial, to which respondent Ang opposed.16
In the Joint Order 17 dated March 10, 2016, Judge Pastrana
denied the People’s Request for Admission stating that the judicial
admissions of the People can no longer be varied or contradicted
by contrary evidence much less by a request for admission directly
or indirectly amending such judicial admission. In the same
Order, the RTC-Lucena, Branch 56 took judicial notice of the
adoption in the other two criminal cases of the implied admissions
declared as judicial admissions in Criminal Case No. 2005-
1048.
The People filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) based
on the following grounds: (1) under Section 3, Rule 26 of the
Rules of Court, any admission by a party pursuant to such request
is only for the purpose of the pending action and shall not
constitute admission by him for any other proceeding; (2) there
was no judicial admission, whether verbal or written, made in
Criminal Case No. 2005-1048 as Section 4, Rule 139 of the
Rules of Court requires; and (3) the Manifestations filed by
respondents were not set for hearing.18
Meanwhile, in the Order dated May 16, 2016, the RTC-Lucena,
Branch 56 granted the People’s motion to consolidate.19
However, in the Joint Order20 dated September 5, 2016, the
RTC-Lucena, Branch 56 denied the People’s MR and maintained
that the court can take judicial notice of the People’s admissions
in Criminal Case No. 2005-1048 as also the People’s admissions
15
Id.
16
Id. at 71.
17
Id. at 153-154.
18
Id. at 71.
19
Id.
20
Id. at 155-158.

in the other closely related and interwoven cases. It also ruled

that in consolidated cases, as in this case, the evidence in each
case effectively becomes the evidence of both.21
When the People elevated the case before the Sandiganbayan,
through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, what the People
assailed and sought to remedy were the RTC’s Joint Orders
dated March 10, 2016 and September 5, 201622 (assailed Joint
Orders) — Orders that pertain to the adoption in the other two
criminal cases of the People’s implied admissions declared as
judicial admissions in Criminal Case No. 2005-1048.
Consequently, the assigned errors and arguments raised by the
People in their petition were limited to the following:
1. The public respondent committed a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the
assailed orders and taking judicial notice in Criminal Case
Nos. 2005-1046 and 2005-1047 of the “implied admissions
declared as judicial admissions” in Criminal Case No. 2005-
1048 despite the express prohibition in Section 3, Rule 26
of the Rules of Court.
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction x x x in issuing
the assailed orders and taking judicial notice in Criminal
Case Nos. 2005-1046 and 2005-1047 of the “implied
admissions declared as judicial admissions” in Criminal Case
No. 2005-1048 despite the clear provision of Section 4, Rule
129 of the Rules of Court.
No. 2005-1048 without a hearing.
21
Id. at 157.
22
Id. at 14.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 379


No. 2005-1048 on the ground that all three cases are
considered as only one proceeding.23
In the assailed Decision, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the
People’s petition, confining itself to the issue of whether or
not Judge Pastrana had committed grave abuse of discretion in
issuing the assailed Joint Orders. The Sandiganbayan held that
there was no such grave abuse of discretion because the Joint
Orders were issued after the RTC had considered the facts and
jurisprudence attendant in the case.24 The Sandiganbayan further
held that while it may be true that Section 3, Rule 26 of the
Rules of Court limits the application of an admission made
pursuant to a Request for Admission only for the purpose of
the pending action (i.e., Criminal Case No. 2005-1048), the
consolidation of the three cases extended the effect of such
admission to the other cases.25
Upon denial of the People’s MR in the assailed Sandiganbayan
Resolution, the People filed the present petition where it claims
that the Sandiganbayan gravely erred when it agreed with the
RTC-Lucena, Branch 56 that the People’s implied admission
obtained under Rule 26 are equivalent to judicial admissions
under Rule 129 and that the consolidation of the three criminal
cases extended the effect of the alleged implied admissions in
Criminal Case No. 2005-1048 to the other criminal cases filed
against respondents. 26 The People insist that the implied
admissions declared as judicial admissions should only apply
to Criminal Case No. 2005-1048.27 The People likewise assert
that the subject Requests for Admission were not served to the
23
Id. at 15.
24
Id. at 18-20.
25
Id. at 20.
26
Id. at 86.
27
Id.

proper parties and the matters set forth therein are not proper
subjects of a request.28
Thus, the People prayed of this Court that (1) the assailed
Sandiganbayan Decision and Resolution be reversed and set
aside; (2) the assailed Joint Orders of the RTC-Lucena, Branch
56 declaring the matters made subject of the Request for
Admission filed by respondents as implied admissions, and taking
judicial notice thereof as judicial admissions in the three criminal
cases filed against respondents be nullified; (3) an Order be
issued directing the RTC-Lucena, Branch 56 to hear and decide
the three criminal cases with utmost dispatch.29
It is thus quite clear that the issue on whether or not a Request
for Admission is available to criminal proceedings is not the
actual issue of the instant petition.
When the People filed a petition before the Sandiganbayan
and thereafter to this Court, the issue brought for resolution
was whether the RTC-Lucena, Branch 56 gravely abused its
discretion in taking judicial notice in Criminal Cases Nos. 2005-
1046 and 2005-1047 of the People’s admissions in Criminal
Case No. 2005-1048. The Joint Orders dated February 12, 2015
and July 24, 2015, wherein Judge Pastrana admitted respondent
Ang’s Request for Admission and declared that the facts contained
therein are deemed impliedly admitted by the People and are
also considered as judicial admissions, were never assailed by
the People before the Sandiganbayan and this Court.
More importantly, this issue on the suppletory application
of Rule 26 to criminal cases was never raised and argued
by the parties in their pleadings filed before the courts.
From the time respondent Ang filed her Request for Admission
with the RTC-Lucena, Branch 53, until the filing of the instant
petition before this Court, the issues and arguments raised by
the parties were confined to the following: (1) the proper service
of respondent Ang’s Request for Admission; (2) the propriety
28
Id. at 87-89.
29
Id. at 89.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 381

of the matters set forth in said Request; (3) the declaration that
the matters contained in said Request being deemed impliedly
admitted and also considered as judicial admissions by the People;
and (4) the adoption of the implied admissions declared as judicial
admissions in the other two criminal cases against respondents.
While the Court is indeed clothed with the ample authority
to review issues or errors not raised by the parties on appeal,30
such power should not be exercised at the expense of elementary
rules on due process. In its bare minimum, the standard of due
process in judicial proceedings require that the parties be given
notice and opportunity to be heard before a judgment is
rendered.31 Thus, to my mind, it would be offensive to due
process for the Court to motu proprio resolve issues, albeit
closely related or dependent to an error properly raised, and
deprive the parties of the opportunity to be heard on the matter.
Indeed, this Court has previously declared that:
x x x “[C]ourts of justice have no jurisdiction or power to decide
a question not in issue” and that a judgment going outside the issues
and purporting to adjudicate something upon which the parties were
not heard is not merely irregular, but extrajudicial and invalid. The
rule is based on the fundamental tenets of fair play x x x.32
Thus, prudence dictates that the Court should have first heard
the parties’ arguments on the issue of whether Rule 26 applies
to criminal cases, before rendering a full-blown decision on
the present petition. To be sure, this practice of directing the
parties to comment on an issue which the Court finds relevant
and necessary for the resolution of the case, is not new. There
have been cases filed before the Court where parties were directed
to file a comment on certain issues not raised in their pleadings
but were found necessary for a just resolution of their cases.
30
Vda. de Javellana v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 60129, July 29, 1983,
123 SCRA 799, 805.
31
Mabaylan v. NLRC, G.R. No. 73992, November 14, 1991, 203 SCRA
570, 575.
32
Bernas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85041, August 5, 1993, 225
SCRA 119, 129.

On the merits, prudence should have likewise dictated the

adoption of a framework both mindful of the peculiarities of
criminal proceedings and the proven utility provided by modes
of discovery in uncovering the truth and delivering swift justice.
The wholesale rejection of the application of Requests for
Admission in criminal proceedings is an unfortunate missed
opportunity towards achieving the aims of our criminal justice
system.
Rule 26 should be made available
to the accused only.
I approach the question of whether Rule 26, as a mode of
civil discovery that can be applied in criminal cases, with an
analysis of the inherent differences between civil and criminal
proceedings.
Procedural laws enacted to litigate claims and the discovery
procedures available in civil and criminal proceedings traversed
markedly different paths. That being said, however, the means
to gather and compel evidence were traditionally enforced
through the trial process.33 Under common law, the written
pleading was generally the only pre-trial source for information.34
Means of gathering evidence before trial were minimal both at
common and statutory law until the mid-twentieth century35
with the introduction of the American Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure in 1938 and, with it, the procedures allowing parties
to gather and compel evidence before trial.36 The Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure were adopted in 1946,37 almost a decade
after its civil counterpart, but it contained none of the discovery
devices formally adopted by the civil rules. Since its inception,
33
See generally John H. Langbein, The Disappearance of Civil Trial in
the United States, 122 Yale L.J. 522 (2012).
34
George Ragland, Jr., Discovery Before Trial, Chicago: Callaghan and
Company (1932).
35
John H. Langbein, supra note 33, at 542-548.
36
Id. at 543.
37
First iterations of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted
by order of the Supreme Court of the United States on December 26, 1944
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 383

the federal rules have expanded modestly but has not reached
the same level of scope as in civil discovery.
As a general proposition, it has become widely recognized
that the scope of civil discovery is broader than the scope of
criminal discovery.38 Specifically, Requests for Admission has
not made it across criminal litigation and there appears to be
no statutory basis or jurisprudential precedent in common law
applying the same in criminal litigation.39
The foregoing, however, is not an argument against restricting
the accused’s access to discovery and, by extension, to Requests
for Admission. If anything, it suggests only an all too common
reluctance towards extending civil discovery procedures to
criminal litigation due to the belief that an expansive discovery
stood as a threat to the adversarial process.40 This, in turn, is
rooted in the old age belief that a purely adversarial proceeding
is the only proven tool in finding out the truth of conflicting
claims. Times have changed, however, and the common law
roots of the adversarial process with its elements of game and
surprise is a thing of the past.
If the Court approaches the question with the belief that
criminal prosecution is an adversarial process between two
relatively equal litigants, then it is almost inevitable that the
scales will tip towards refusing to apply civil discovery
for procedures up to verdict, and on February 8, 1946 for post-verdict

procedures. The complete rules took effect on March 21, 1946.
38
Dominguez v. Hartford Fin. Serv’s Group, Inc., 530 F. Supp. 2d 902,
905 (S.D. Tex. 2008): “The scope of criminal discovery is significantly
narrower than the scope of civil discovery,” p. 907.
39
See State ex rel. Grammer v. Tippecanoe Circuit Court, 377 N.E.2d
1359 (1978) (where the Supreme Court of Indiana refused the application
of the rules on requests for admission in a criminal suit). See also Separate
Concurring Opinion of Justice Zalameda, p. 4 and Concurring Opinion of
Justice Inting, pp. 10-11.
40
See Stephen N. Subrin, Fishing Expeditions Allowed: the Historical
Background of the 1938 Federal Rules, 39 B.C. L. Rev., 691 (1998).

procedures to criminal prosecution41 even if the former is altered

to suit the contours of the latter.
However, if the Court views criminal prosecution as a quest for
truth,42 recognizes an affirmative duty upon the State to guarantee
fair trial, and approaches the issue cognizant of the unequal
footing between the State, with its immense investigatory
resources,43 and the accused who, most often than not, does not
have access to the same, then it should be difficult to conceive an
argument against ensuring the accused access to all possible fact-
finding mechanisms — Requests for Admissions being one of them.
I submit that the Court should adopt a framework firmly
rooted on this second view.
Detached from its origins in civil litigation44 and focusing
instead on how this mode of discovery operates, there is little
debate as to the functions and office of Requests for Admissions.
At its core, Requests for Admission establish facts.45 Requests
for Admission lead to the narrowing of the factual issues under
contention.46 When a party serves to his adversary a request to
admit a relevant matter, it presupposes that he already has
knowledge of such fact or has possession of the documents
41
See Bruce E. Gaynor, Defendant’s Right of Discovery in Criminal
Cases, 20 Clev. St. L. Rev. 31 (1971) at 33-34, accessed at <https://
engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol20/iss1/57> (Based upon the
premise that the adversary system elicits justice, current limited discovery
practice is predicated upon the legal fiction that all counsel are equally
competent).
42
Id. at 34.
43
Id. at 33 (Advocates of liberal discovery practices in criminal causes
rely on the premise that the balance of advantage in any criminal trial rests
with the prosecution, which usually has extensive financial and manpower
resources at its disposal.)
44
Origins include Equity Rule 58 of the English Rules under the Judicature
Act as stated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 Advisory Committee Note of April 1937,
p. 89.
45
Id. at 88.
46
See generally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 Advisory Committee Note of June
1946, pp. 54-55.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 385

sought to be admitted and merely wishes that his opponent [admit

to such relevant matters of fact] or concede [the] genuineness
of the document.47
Requests for Admission serve two vital purposes during pre-
trial — (1) it limits the controversy or issues of the case; and
(2) it facilitates proof thereby reducing trial time and costs.48
Requests for admission is a tool primarily designed to streamline
litigation and narrow issues for trial.49 It is intended to expedite
the trial and to relieve the parties of the cost of proving facts
that will not be disputed at trial, the truth of which is known
to the parties or can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry.50
Admissions made pursuant to a request constitute admissions
for the purpose of the proceeding and thus will no longer require
proof during trial.51
A Request for Admission properly served and answered by
the parties will reveal other undisputed facts of the case and
may further narrow and limit the issues raised in the pleadings.
The propositions raised in a request and the adversary’s admission
or denial thereof will also shed light as to the truth or falsity
of the allegations of the pleadings52 (or, when adopted to criminal
litigation, the relevant facts surrounding the accusation) and
may “unmask as quickly as may be feasible, and give short
47
See Jeffrey S. Kinsler, Requests for Admission in Wisconsin Procedure:
Civil Litigation’s Double Edged Sword, 78 Marq. L. Rev. 625 (1995) 631,
citing Report on Practice under Rule 36: Requests for Admission, 53 ALB.
L. Rev. 35.
48
Id. at 633, citing Ted Finman, The Request for Admission in Federal
Criminal Procedure, The Yale Law Journal, Volume 71, Number 3 (1962)
375.
49
Id. at 638.
50
Uy Chao v. De la Rama Steamship Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-14495,
September 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 69, 73.
51
Bar Matter No. 411, Revised Rules on Evidence (Rules 128-134),
Rule 129, Sec. 4, July 1, 1989.
52
Concrete Aggregates Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117574,
January 2, 1997, 266 SCRA 88, 93.

shrift to, untenable causes of action or defenses and thus avoid

waste of time, effort and money.”53
The establishment of uncontroverted facts and the abbreviation
of litigation are goals not unique to civil litigation. Surely, these
are paramount interests that the judicial process should be able
to extend to the accused, more so where life and liberty are at
stake.
It becomes clear then that the objections raised against the
availability of Requests for Admission in criminal litigation
are not on an absence of utility nor on a perceived inherent
vice in its operation.
Instead, opposition gravitates among three propositions: first,
that the office of Requests for Admission is performed by the
criminal pre-trial process;54 second, that the operation of Rule
26 is inherently incompatible with criminal litigation;55 and
third, the constitutional rights of the accused are in danger of
being infringed. 56 These are hurdles, true, but none are so
insurmountable as to absolutely bar any translation of Requests
for Admission into the realm of criminal litigation.
The proposition that criminal litigation can do without
Requests for Admission since the functions thereof are already
fulfilled by the now strengthened criminal pre-trial process is,
to my mind, hardly an argument at all. To be sure, no such
argument is being made in its civil counterpart where Rule 26
on Requests for Admission and Rule 18 on Pre-Trial have
cumulatively been aiding parties in civil suits. No prejudice is
caused to the accused if he is allowed the use of a mechanism,
like a Request for Admission, to establish facts surrounding the
accusations against him over and above those granted during
53
Diman v. Alumbres, G.R. No. 131466, November 27, 1998, 299 SCRA
459, 464-465.
54
See ponencia, p. 18; Concurring Opinion of Justice Inting, p. 10.
55
See Concurring Opinion of Justice Perlas-Bernabe, p. 8.
56
See ponencia, pp. 16-19; Concurring Opinion of Justice Perlas-Bernabe,
pp. 5-7; Concurring Opinion of Justice Inting, pp. 7-10.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 387

pre-trial. In fact, as I see it, a Request for Admission complements

and reinforces the objectives of pre-trial by providing sanctions
against a failure to timely answer a request and an improper denial.57
Also, the propositions that Rule 26 is inherently incompatible
with criminal litigation and runs the risk of violating the
constitutional rights of the accused are a function of the Court’s
restrictive approach to apply Rule 26, as worded, into criminal
cases. At this point, I wish to make it clear that I am not
advocating for the stock application of the provisions of Rule
26 into criminal procedure. For the benefits of Rule 26 to breathe
meaning and significance into criminal litigation, it must be
tailor fit to operate within it.
As I earlier emphasized, the Court should not lose sight of
the inherent imbalance between the State and the accused with
the scales tilted against the latter. It is undeniable that the State
has more pre-trial investigative capacity both as a matter of
law and practicality than defendants do. An individual accused
whose life and liberty are at stake, “is but a speck of dust of
particle or molecule vis-à-vis the vast and overwhelming powers
of government; His only guarantee against oppression and
tyranny are his fundamental liberties under the Bill of Rights
which shield him in times of need.” 58 Expanding pre-trial
discovery procedures in criminal cases will allow the accused
to “have a better chance to meet on more equal terms what the
state, at its leisure and without real concern for expense, gathers
to convict them.”59 Request for Admission, as a discovery tool,
would bridge the gap and aid the accused to achieve this goal.
The foregoing considerations that support Requests for
Admissions to be available to the accused are the same
57
See 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure as amended, Rule 26,
Secs. 2, 3 and Rule 29, Sec. 4.
58
Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, January 18, 2000,
322 SCRA 160, 169.
59
William J. Brennan Jr., The Criminal Prosecution: Sporting Event or
Quest for Truth?, 1963 WASH. U. L. Q. 279, 286 (1963) accessed at <https:/
/openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol1963/iss3/1>.

considerations that should deny the prosecution access to the

procedural tool. Not only is the prosecution already at an
advantage in gathering facts and building its case, it cannot
pursue a Request for Admission without violating the accused’s
constitutional right to presumption of innocence, the right against
self-incrimination and the right to be silent.
The cornerstone of all criminal prosecution is the right of
the accused to be presumed innocent. 60 The Constitution
guarantees that “[i]n all criminal prosecution, the accused shall
be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.”61 And this
presumption of innocence is overturned if and only if the
prosecution has discharged its duty — that is, proving the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Constitution places
upon the prosecution the heavy burden to prove each and every
element of the crime charged in the information as to warrant
a finding of guilt for that crime or for any other crime necessarily
included therein. 62
It is worth emphasizing that this burden of proof never shifts.63
The burden of proof remains at all times upon the prosecution
to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 64
Conversely, as to his innocence, the accused has no burden of
proof. 65 The accused does not even need to present a single
piece of evidence in his defense if the State has not discharged
its onus and can simply rely on his right to be presumed
innocent.66 A criminal case thus rises or falls on the strength
60
People v. Luna, G.R. No. 219164, March 21, 2018, 860 SCRA 1, 32.
61
C ONSTITUTION , Art. III, Sec. 14, par. (2).
62
People v. Luna, supra note 60.
63
People v. Ordiz, G.R. No. 206767, September 11, 2019, accessed at
<https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65741>.
64
People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 134309, November 17, 2000, 345 SCRA
1, 10.
65
People v. Catalan, G.R. No. 189330, November 28, 2012, 686 SCRA
631, 646.
66
People v. Ordiz, supra note 63.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 389

of the prosecution’s own evidence and never on the weakness

or even absence of that of the defense.67
Intimately related to the constitutional right to presumption
of innocence is the right against self-incrimination. Section 17,
Article III of the Constitution states that “[n]o person shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself.” Reinforcing this
right in criminal prosecution, Section 1, Rule 115 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedures provides that “the accused shall
be entitled x x x to be exempt from being compelled to be a
witness against himself” and “[h]is silence shall not in any manner
prejudice him.” The Court, in People v. Ayson,68 explained the
extent of the right of the accused against self-incrimination:
The right of the defendant in a criminal case “to be exempt from
being a witness against himself” signifies that he cannot be compelled
to testify or produce evidence in the criminal case in which he is
the accused, or one of the accused. He cannot be compelled to do
so even by subpoena or other process or order of the Court. He
cannot be required to be a witness either for the prosecution, or for
a co-accused, or even for himself. In other words — unlike an ordinary
witness (or a party in a civil action) who may be compelled to testify
by subpoena, having only the right to refuse to answer a particular
incriminatory question at the time it is put to him — the defendant
in a criminal action can refuse to testify altogether. He can refuse to
take the witness stand, be sworn, answer any question. And, as the
law categorically states, “his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall
not in any manner prejudice or be used against him.”69 (Emphasis,
underscoring and italics supplied)
A Request for Admission served upon the accused directly
tramples upon the right of the accused not to be compelled to
testify against himself. Rule 26 mandates the party requested
to answer the request to admit within fifteen (15) days from
receipt thereof; otherwise all relevant matters stated in the request
67
King v. People, G.R. No. 131540, December 2, 1999, 319 SCRA 654,
670.
68
G.R. No. 85215, July 7, 1989, 175 SCRA 216.
69
Id. at 233.

shall be deemed admitted. This forces the accused to answer a

request to admit served upon him at the expense of giving up
his right to remain silent.
Equally obtaining is the necessary conclusion that the accused
should not be prejudiced should he or she refuse or fail to answer
any such requests. No inference of guilt may be drawn against
an accused upon his or her failure to make a statement of any
sort.70 If an accused has the right to decline to testify at trial
without having any inference of guilt drawn from his failure to
go on the witness stand, 71 then with more reason should the
accused not be prejudiced by the rules and effects of a Request
for Admission.
Furthermore, compelling the accused to answer a request to
admit would place upon him the burden of proving his innocence
rather than the prosecution presenting evidence to prove his
guilt. When an accused admits the truth of a relevant matter of
fact or the genuineness of a relevant document contained in
the request, which may relate to the essential elements of the
crime charged, the Rules provide that these are considered as
admissions by the accused and will no longer require any proof
during trial.72 The prosecution is then relieved of its duty to
present evidence of such admitted fact during trial as the accused
has been imposed the “burden” to establish such fact for the
prosecution’s case.73 Pushing this scenario further, it would
not be farfetched for a conviction to rest solely on the results
of a request for admission. This goes against the rule that an
accused should be convicted on the strength of the evidence
presented by the prosecution.74
70
People v. Arciaga, G.R. No. L-38179, June 16, 1980, 98 SCRA 1, 17.
71
See People v. Gargoles, G.R. No. L-40885, May 18, 1978, 83 SCRA
282, 294.
72
See Bar Matter No. 411, Revised Rules on Evidence (Rules 128-134),
Rule 129, Sec. 4, July 1, 1989.
73
See F.W. Means & Co. v. Carstens, 428 N.E.2d 251 (1981).
74
People v. Arciaga, supra note 70, 17-18; People v. Legaspi, G.R. No.
117802, April 27, 2000, 331 SCRA 95, 127.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 391

As such, while the utility of Request for Admission is

undoubted, its translation into criminal litigation necessitates
its modification. The accused should have access to this
procedural tool in order to establish facts and narrow factual
issues on trial, which may be essential in the preparation of his
defense. In recognition, however, of the accused’s right against
self-incrimination, Requests for Admission cannot be wielded
by the prosecution to elicit admissions from the accused.
It may be argued that a one-sided approach may frustrate
the State’s interest to prosecute criminals because “allowing
the accused to subject [the prosecution or any of its witnesses]
prosecution,” which “would violate the basic principle that
criminal actions are prosecuted under the sole discretion and
control of the public prosecutor.”75
However, as I see it, granting the accused the use of Request
for Admission does not in any way lessen its objectives or limit
its benefits only to the accused. The refining of issues and
establishment of the truthfulness or falsity of the facts surrounding
the accusation, achieved through the service of a request to
admit, may also benefit the prosecution in the form of a guilty
plea or an abbreviated litigation through plea-bargaining.76
Further, the argument is premised on an “expansive” Request
for Admission which is not sanctioned by the rules.
To be sure, Rule 26 does not give the parties the unbridled
discretion to include in their request for admission any matter
related to the case. The scope of matters that a party may request
the adversary to admit is limited by Section 1 of Rule 26 and
75
76
See William J. Brennan, Jr., supra note 59, at 288, citing Anderson,
What Price Conviction?, AMERICAN BAR ASSN. SECTION OF
CRIMINAL LAW PROCEEDINGS 41 (1958); Fletcher, Pretrial Discovery
in State Criminal Cases, 12 Stan. L. Rev. 293, 319 (1960); Comment, Pre-
Trial Disclosure in Criminal Cases, 60 YALE L.J. 626, 646 (1951), Cf. 4
MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 26.02 (3d ed. 1962).

has been clarified by relevant jurisprudence. Section 1 of Rule

26 clearly states that a Request for Admission should only pertain
to (1) the genuineness of relevant documents or (2) the veracity
of a relevant matter of fact. Thus, in Development Bank of the
Philippines v. Court of Appeals,77 the Court held that matters
of law, conclusions, or opinions cannot be subject of a Request
for Admission and are therefore not deemed impliedly admitted
under Rule 26.
Moreover, in a catena of cases,78 the Court has clarified that
the very subject matter of the complaint or matters which have
already been admitted or denied by a party are not proper subjects
of a request for admission. The Court explained that “[a] request
the allegations of the requesting party’s pleading but should
set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact, or documents
described in and exhibited with the request, whose purpose is
to establish said party’s cause of action or defense.”79
As applied to criminal cases, the essential elements of the
crime alleged in the Information are not proper matters of a
Request for Admission. An accused’s request for admission
therefore will not deprive the public prosecutor of the discretion
and control on what evidence should be presented during trial
because the burden to prove each and every element of the
crime charged in the information or any other crime necessarily
included therein remains with the prosecution. As explained,
Request for Admission, as a discovery tool, simply aids the
parties in establishing undisputed and uncontroverted facts
leading to reduced trial time and costs.
Proceeding from the foregoing, I find that respondent Ang’s
Request for Admission does not fall under Rule 26 of the Rules
77
G.R. No. 153034, September 20, 2005, 470 SCRA 317, 326.
78
Po v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-34341, August 22, 1988, 164
SCRA 668; Concrete Aggregates Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 117574, January 2, 1997, 266 SCRA 88, 94; Lañada v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. Nos. 102390 & 102404, February 1, 2002, 375 SCRA 543, 553; See
Duque v. Yu, Jr., G.R. No. 226130, February 19, 2018, 856 SCRA 97.
79
Po v. Court of Appeals, id. at 670.
VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 393

of Court. As aptly pointed out in the ponencia80 and by some

of our Colleagues, some of the matters contained in respondent
Ang’s Request intimately relate to the factual allegations of
the Information81 or the essential elements of the crimes charged
which the prosecution is obliged to prove,82 while other matters
are mere conclusions and opinions.83 These matters are not proper
subjects of a Request for Admission and therefore cannot be
deemed impliedly admitted pursuant to Rule 26. Hence, it was
a grave and serious error on the part of the trial court to declare
the matters contained in respondent Ang’s Request for Admission
as the People’s implied and judicial admissions in the
consolidated criminal cases filed against respondents. In this
regard, the nullification of the Joint Orders dated February 12,
2015, July 24, 2015, March 10, 2016, and September 5, 2016
issued by the trial court was proper.
All told, I submit that the Court should not absolutely bar
the accused from availing of mechanisms which may aid in his
defense. The inherent imbalance in our criminal justice system
and the constitutional rights of the accused, which courts are
duty bound to protect, should prompt the Court to afford the
accused all available remedies, including relevant discovery
procedures, such as a Request for Admission under Rule 26 of
the Rules of Court.
Unfortunately, however, in the present case, respondent Ang
improperly availed of such discovery procedure. The matters
contained in her Request for Admission are beyond the scope
of Rule 26 and cannot therefore be considered as the People’s
implied and judicial admissions in the consolidated criminal
cases filed against respondents.
In this light, I vote to grant the petition.
80
See ponencia, p. 24.
81
See Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Leonen, pp. 11-15.
82
83
See Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Leonen, pp. 15-17.

People V Ang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Ang

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Ang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court E-Library

VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 277

[G.R. No. 231854. October 6, 2020]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LEILA L.

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; ADMISSION BY

278 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

statement specifically denying the matters of

VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 279

3. ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; JOINDER OF ISSUES IN

280 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

be privy to executions of documents can be reasonably attributed

VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 281

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION; TO ALLOW REQUESTS

282 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

set forth relevant evidentiary matters of fact described in the

VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 283

regarding stipulation of facts—[will] most likely serve the same

284 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

PERLAS-BERNABE, J., concurring opinion:

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; THE

VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 285

out the procedural framework in which substantive rights and

286 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; POLITICAL LAW;

VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 287

admit “the genuineness of any material and relevant document

288 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

material and relevant document described in and exhibited with

VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 289

be the proper subjects of a request for admission because they

LEONEN, J., separate concurring opinion:

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; ADMISSION BY

290 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE PERSON ON WHOM

VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 291

The right against self-incrimination is accorded to every

292 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

Considering its purpose, a request for admission cannot be

INTING, J., concurring opinion:

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; MODES OF

VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 293

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION MAY

294 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

witness in a criminal case or a party in a civil action who may

ZALAMEDA, J., separate concurring opinion:

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; MODES OF

VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 295

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION; A REQUEST FOR

296 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

. . . [V]oid judgments may arise from a tribunal’s act adjudged

CAGUIOA, J., concurring and dissenting opinion:

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; ADMISSION BY

VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 297

The establishment of uncontroverted facts and the abbreviation

298 PHILIPPINE REPORTS

CAPACITY.— [T]he propositions that Rule 26 is inherently

VOL. 887, OCTOBER 6, 2020 299

It is worth emphasizing that this burden of proof never shifts.

300 PHILIPPINE REPORTS