Case Summary (G.R. No. 240053)
Petitioner
People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General.
Respondents
Maria Cristina P. Sergio and Julius L. Lacanilao, accused of qualified trafficking in persons (RA 9208), illegal recruitment (RA 8042), and estafa (RPC, Art. 315, Sec. 2(a)).
Key Dates
• April 21, 2010 – Mary Jane departs for Malaysia with respondents.
• October 2010 – Indonesian courts convict Mary Jane of drug trafficking; death sentence affirmed on appeal.
• April 28, 2015 – Scheduled execution deferred by Indonesian President; reprieve granted pending Philippine proceedings.
• March 31, 2015 – Mary Jane executes a “Sinumpaang Salaysay” affidavit in Indonesian prison.
• August 16, 2016 – RTC, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija grants prosecution’s motion to depose Mary Jane by written interrogatories.
• December 13, 2017 – Court of Appeals grants certiorari petition of respondents, nullifies RTC order.
• October 9, 2019 – Supreme Court decision reversing the CA.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14(2) – Right to “meet the witnesses face to face.”
• Rules of Court:
– Rule 119, Sec. 15 (Criminal Procedure) – Conditional examination of sick or non-resident prosecution witnesses.
– Rule 23 (Civil Procedure) – Depositions by oral examination or written interrogatories, including persons confined in prison.
• ASEAN Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters – Permits taking evidence in foreign jurisdictions subject to conditions.
Factual Antecedents
Mary Jane, in dire financial straits, was recruited by Sergio and Lacanilao under the guise of domestic helper employment abroad. After paying placement fees, she was taken to Malaysia, then sent on a supposed holiday to Indonesia, where she was arrested for carrying 2.6 kg of heroin. Unaware of the concealed drugs, Mary Jane was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death by Indonesian courts. During her detention, she executed an affidavit detailing respondents’ roles in her trafficking and later became the prosecution’s vital witness in the Philippines, where Sergio and Lacanilao faced charges under RA 9208, RA 8042, and the Revised Penal Code.
Procedural History
- RTC, Sto. Domingo: Prosecution moves to take Mary Jane’s testimony by deposition through written interrogatories in Yogyakarta. RTC grants the motion under Rule 23, establishing a detailed procedure for pre-trial direct and cross-interrogatories via the Philippine Consulate.
- CA: Respondents file certiorari, alleging the RTC misapplied Rule 23 (civil discovery) instead of Rule 119 (criminal conditional examination) and violated their confrontation rights. The CA reverses the RTC, holding that Mary Jane’s deposition must occur in open court under Rule 119.
- Supreme Court: OSG petitions for review under Rule 45, arguing certiorari was improper and that Rule 23 should apply suppletorily given Mary Jane’s unique circumstances.
Issues
- Was the CA’s grant of certiorari proper, given the RTC’s rulings were discretionary and reviewable by appeal?
- May the testimony of a death-row, foreign-detained witness be acquired through deposition by written interrogatories without violating the accused’s confrontation right?
Ruling of the Supreme Court
1. Impropriety of Certiorari Petition
• Certiorari under Rule 65 lies only to correct jurisdictional excesses or grave abuse of discretion. Errors of judgment or procedural misapplication are not certifiable and are reviewable by appeal or petition for review under Rule 43.
• Respondents failed to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion by the RTC; the court’s decision was reasoned, based on novel factual and legal circumstances, and not arbitrary or capricious.
• The CA erred in entertaining certiorari instead of an appeal, and its conclusion that the RTC exceeded jurisdiction was unsupported.
2. Inapplicability of Section 15, Rule 119
• Rule 119, Sec. 15, permits conditional examination of a prosecution witness only if she is “too sick or infirm” or “has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning.”
• Mary Jane is neither infirm nor voluntarily absents herself; she is confined abroad under a death sentence. Her situation is qualitatively different—deprivation of liberty in a foreign prison—making strict application of Rule 119 impossible.
3. Suppletory Application of Rule 23
• Procedural rules must be liberally construed to secure just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition; rigid application should not frustrate substantial justice.
• Rule 23 (Civil Procedure) authorizes, by leave of court, depositions upon written interrogatories, including of persons confined in prison. Sections 1, 11, and 25 outline procedures and designate consular officers or diplomats to take such depositions abroad.
• The ASEAN MLAT obliges member states to assist in taking evidence in criminal matters, subject to conditions. Indonesian authorities imposed conditions on Mary Jane’s testimony (e.g., detention in Indonesia, written questions only, no lawyers present).
• Given Mary Jane’s extraordinary circumstances—death-row status, indefinite reprieve conditioned on her Philippine tes
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 240053)
Facts of the Case
- Mary Jane Veloso, Cristina Sergio, and Julius Lacanilao were friends and neighbors in Talavera, Nueva Ecija.
- Sergio and Lacanilao recruited Veloso to work as a domestic helper in Malaysia, collecting insufficient placement fees, prompting Veloso’s husband to sell their motorcycle.
- Upon arrival in Malaysia (April 21, 2010), Veloso learned her intended job no longer existed; after a few days, Sergio sent her to Indonesia on a “holiday,” providing a ticket and luggage.
- At Yogyakarta’s Adisucipto International Airport, Indonesian police found 2.6 kg of heroin in Veloso’s luggage; she was charged, convicted, and sentenced to death by firing squad.
- Veloso’s family confronted Sergio, who threatened them and claimed international syndicate ties. Eight co-accused were executed; Veloso remains detained in Nusakambangan pending execution.
Philippine Criminal Charges
- Sergio and Lacanilao were arrested by the NBI’s Anti-Human Trafficking Division and charged with:
• Qualified trafficking in persons (R.A. No. 9208, Sec. 4(a) in relation to Secs. 3(a), 6) – Criminal Case No. SD(15)-3723
• Illegal recruitment (R.A. No. 8042, Sec. 6(k), (l)) – Criminal Case No. SD(15)-3724
• Estafa (RPC Art. 315, Sec. 2(a)) – Criminal Case No. SD(15)-3753 - Both pleaded “not guilty” upon arraignment.
Veloso’s Affidavit and Indonesian Reprieve
- March 31, 2015: PDEA, PNP Laboratory, and DFA representatives obtained Veloso’s “Sinumpaang Salaysay” at Wirogunan Prison.
- Veloso’s statement described how “Ike” handed her luggage, which she only discovered contained heroin upon arrest.
- Philippine government requested Indonesia suspend Veloso’s execution so she could testify; hours before the scheduled firing squad (April 28, 2015), President Joko Widodo granted an indefinite reprieve.
- Indonesian conditions for testimony:
• Veloso remain detained in Yogyakarta
• No cameras, no foreign lawyers present
• All questions i