PP V Sergio & Lacanilao, GR No. 240053, Oct 9, 2019 Facts

12. Pp v Sergio & Lacanilao, GR No.
240053, Oct 9, 2019
FACTS:
Mary Jane Veloso, Maria Cristina P. Sergio (Cristina), and Julius L. Lacanilao (Julius) were
friends and neighbors in Talavera, Nueva Ecija. Taking advantage of her dire situation and
susceptibility, Cristina and Julius offered Mary Jane a job as a domestic helper in Malaysia.
Cristina gave Mary Jane her plane ticket as well as a luggage to bring on her trip. She then asked
Cristina why the luggage was heavy but the latter simply replied that because it was new. The
luggage was the same bag she used on her trip to Indonesia. It was only after she was
apprehended at the airport when Mary Jane realized that it contained prohibited drugs.
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.
The Indonesian authorities however imposed the following conditions relative to the taking of
Mary Jane's testimony, viz.:
(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.
Thereafter, the State filed a "Motion for Leave of Court to Take the Testimony of Complainant
Mary Jane Veloso by Deposition Upon Written Interrogatories. " It averred that the taking of
Mary Jane's testimony through the use of deposition upon written interrogatories is allowed
under Rule 23 of the Revised Rules of Court because she is out of the country and will not be
able to testify personally before the court due to her imprisonment.
Cristina and Julius objected to the motion asserting that the deposition should be made before
and not during the trial. The depositions under Rules 23 and 25 of the Rules of Court are not
designed to replace the actual testimony of the witness in open court and the use thereof is
confined only in civil cases. Also, they argued that such method of taking testimony will violate
their right to confront the witness, Mary Jane, or to meet her face to face as provided under
Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution. Finally, they claimed that the prosecution's reliance on
the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases and the Judicial Affidavit Rule was misplaced
because the affiants therein were still subject to cross-examination.
ISSUES:
[1] Does Rule 23 apply to criminal cases?
[2] Will allowing deposition of Mary Jane violate the right of the accused to confront the
witnesses?
RULING:
On Substantive Matters. The OSG asserts that the presence of extraordinary circumstances, i.e.,
Mary Jane's conviction by final judgment and her detention in a prison facility in Yogyakarta,
Indonesia, while awaiting execution by firing squad; the grant by the Indonesian President of an
indefinite reprieve in view of the ongoing legal proceedings against Cristina and Julius in the
Philippines; and the conditions attached to the reprieve particularly that Mary Jane should remain
in confinement in Indonesia, and any question propounded to her must only be in writing, are
more than enough grounds to have allowed the suppletory application of Rule 23 of the Rules of
Court.
The OSG's contentions are meritorious. The Court cannot subscribe to the pronouncement by the
appellate court that the State failed to show compelling reasons to justify the relaxation of the
Rules and the suppletory application of Rule 23. The Court also cannot agree to its declaration
that the constitutional rights of Cristina and Julius to confront a witness will be violated since
safeguards were set in place by the trial court precisely to protect and preserve their rights.
Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court is inapplicable in the instant case. Under Section 15,
Rule 119 of the revised Rules of Criminal Procedure , in order for the testimony of the
prosecution witness be taken before the court where the case is being heard, it must be shown
that the said prosecution witness is either: (a) too sick or infirm to appear at the trial as directed
by the order of the court, or; (b) has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning.
Surely, the case of Mary Jane does not fall under either category. Therefore, a liberal
interpretation of the Rules should be allowed. We should not silence Mary Jane and deny her and
the People of their right to due process by presenting their case against the said accused. By the
CA's belief that it was rendering justice to the respondents, it totally forgot that it in effect
impaired the rights of Mary Jane as well as the People. By not allowing Mary Jane to testify
through written interrogatories, the Court of Appeals 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.
The extraordinary factual circumstances surrounding the case of Mary Jane warrant the resort to
Rule 23 of the Rules of Court
Is the prosecution's resort to Rule 23 of the Rules of Court in taking Mary Jane's testimony as a
prosecution witness proper?
Yes. Interestingly, nowhere in the present Rules on Criminal Procedure does it state how a
deposition, of a prosecution witness who is at the same time convicted of a grave offense by final
judgment and imprisoned in a foreign jurisdiction, may be taken to perpetuate the testimony of
such witness. The Rules, in particular, are silent as to how to take a testimony of a witness who is
unable to testify in open court because he is imprisoned in another country.
Depositions, however, are recognized under Rule 23 of the Rules on Civil Procedure. Although
the rule on deposition by written interrogatories is inscribed under the said Rule, the Court holds
that it may be applied suppletorily in criminal proceedings so long as there is compelling reason.
Verily, in light of the unusual circumstances surrounding the instant case, the Court sees no
reason not to apply suppletorily the provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules on Civil Procedure in the
interest of substantial justice and fairness. Hence, the taking of testimony of Mary Jane through a
deposition by written interrogatories is in order.
The second purpose of the constitutional right to confrontation has likewise been upheld. As
aptly stated in the terms and conditions for the taking of deposition, the trial court judge will be
present during the conduct of written interrogatories on Mary Jane.
Indubitably, the constitutional rights of Cristina and Julius are equally safeguarded. The
parameters laid down by the trial court are sufficient in detail ensuring that Mary Jane will give
her testimony under oath to deter lying by the threat of perjury charge. She is still subjected to
cross-examination so as to determine the presence of any falsehood in her testimony. Lastly, the
guidelines enable the trial court judge to observe her demeanor as a witness and assess her
credibility. SO ORDERED.

PP V Sergio & Lacanilao, GR No. 240053, Oct 9, 2019 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PP V Sergio & Lacanilao, GR No. 240053, Oct 9, 2019 Facts

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

PP V Sergio & Lacanilao, GR No. 240053, Oct 9, 2019 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12. Pp v Sergio & Lacanilao, GR No.

240053, Oct 9, 2019

(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.

You might also like