Case Digest (G.R. No. 240053)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Maria Cristina P. Sergio and Julius Lacanilao, G.R. No. 240053, October 09, 2019, the Supreme Court Third Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court.The case arises from the recruitment, overseas travel, arrest and conviction of Mary Jane Fiesta Veloso (Mary Jane) in Indonesia, and subsequent criminal prosecutions in the Philippines against her alleged recruiters, Maria Cristina P. Sergio (Cristina) and Julius L. Lacanilao (Julius). Mary Jane left the Philippines in April 2010 after Cristina and Julius arranged employment abroad; she was later apprehended in Indonesia with 2.6 kilograms of heroin, convicted by Indonesian courts and sentenced to death. Following finality of her conviction, the Indonesian President granted an indefinite reprieve shortly before a scheduled execution so that Mary Jane could assist in criminal proceedings in the Philippines against those who allegedly recruited her.
Back home, Cristina and Julius were arrested and charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 88, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, with qualified trafficking in persons (R.A. No. 9208) and related offenses. The Philippine prosecution moved for leave to take Mary Jane’s testimony by deposition upon written interrogatories in Indonesia under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, citing her detention abroad and the conditions imposed by Indonesian authorities (she must remain in detention; no cameras; lawyers not present; questions in writing).
In an August 16, 2016 Resolution the RTC granted the prosecution’s motion, prescribing a procedure: submission of proposed interrogatories, defense opportunity to comment and object, presence of the presiding judge or his designate, taking by Philippine consular officials in Indonesia, verbatim transcription, and cross- and re-direct interrogatories subject to the court’s rulings. Cristina and Julius moved for reconsideration; the RTC denied it.
Cristina and Julius petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari and prohibition, arguing the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion by applying Rule 23 (civil depositions) instead of Section 15, Rule 119 (criminal conditional examination) and that taking testimony by written interrogatories would violate their constitutional right to meet witnesses face to face. The CA granted the petition in a December 13, 2017 Decision, holding Rule 119 applicable and that depositions should be conducted before the trial court where the accused may attend.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) sought reconsideration before the CA which was denied. The OSG then filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, contending the CA erred in entertaining certiorari (there were adequate remedies) and that Rule 23 may be applied suppletorily given Mary Jane’s extraordi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in granting the petition for certiorari (i.e., was certiorari the proper remedy and did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion)?
- May the testimony of Mary Jane Veloso, a convicted and detained foreign prisoner, be validly taken by deposition upon written interrogatories (suppletorily applying Rule 23) without violating the accused’s constitutio...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)