G.R. No. 240053 - People vs. Sergio

Case Summary (G.R. No. 240053)

Factual Background

MARY JANE VELOSO was arrested upon arrival at Adisucipto International Airport in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, for carrying 2.6 kilograms of heroin in her travel luggage. She was tried, convicted for drug trafficking under Indonesian jurisdiction, and sentenced to death by firing squad. Mary Jane had traveled to Indonesia upon the false promise of work abroad proffered by MARIA CRISTINA P. SERGIO and JULIUS L. LACANILAO. Philippine prosecutors deemed Mary Jane an essential witness in the criminal case against those respondents and secured from the Indonesian government a suspension of her execution to permit her testimony, subject to conditions imposed by Indonesia.

Trial Court Proceedings

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 88 of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, granted the prosecution leave to take Mary Jane’s testimony by way of a deposition upon written interrogatories under Rules 23 and 25 of the Revised Rules of Court. The trial court ordered that the prosecution submit proposed written interrogatories and gave the accused ten days to comment; that the deposition be scheduled in Yogyakarta to be presided by the trial judge; that the final questions, after ruling on objections, be propounded by the Philippine Consul in Indonesia or a designated representative; that answers be transcribed verbatim by competent staff of the Philippine Consulate; that the transcribed answers be furnished to the accused to enable submission of proposed cross-interrogatories; and that, unless redirect written interrogatories were sought, the deposition would be deemed terminated upon the completion of written cross-interrogatories.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

The respondents opposed the trial court’s resolution and filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court had gravely abused its discretion in permitting the deposition upon written interrogatories and thus reversed the trial court. The prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Decision of October 9, 2019

On October 9, 2019, the Supreme Court rendered a Decision affirming the trial court. The Court allowed the taking of Mary Jane’s testimony by deposition upon written interrogatories and reinstated and affirmed the August 16, 2016 RTC Resolution with the modification that the deposition would be taken before Philippine consular office and officials in Indonesia pursuant to the Rules of Court and principles of jurisdiction. The Court noted and referred to the Committee on Revision of the Rules the Office of the Solicitor General’s recommendation that the Court promulgate guidance for future transnational cases in which a vital witness is unavailable for reasons other than those enumerated in Section 15, Rule 119.

Post-Decision Developments and Urgent Omnibus Motion

The October 9, 2019 Decision became final on March 4, 2020. The Office of the Solicitor General subsequently filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion seeking to supplement the Decision with specific instructions adapting the deposition procedure to new, more specific conditions stated in an Indonesian letter dated December 4, 2020. The letter allegedly required that the deposition be conducted by the Indonesian Attorney General or officials appointed thereby, permitted the presence of a Philippine consular officer and the presiding judge only as possible, and required that the deposition occur in the prison facility in Wirogunan where Mary Jane was detained.

The Court’s Ruling on the Motion

The Court noted the Urgent Omnibus Motion without action. It explained that final and executory judgments and decisions are immutable and unalterable except in established narrow instances: clerical correction, judgments nunc pro tunc, and void judgments, citing One Shipping Corp. v. Penafiel and Mocorro v. Ramirez. The Court held that the requested supplementation of its final Decision did not fall within those exceptions. The Court further explained the limited office of an entry nunc pro tunc, relying on Briones-Vasquez v. Court of Appeals and the authorities cited therein, and stated that no inadvertent omission or unrecorded judicial action justified a nunc pro tunc remedy.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court found that the October 9, 2019 Decision had been issued after full consideration of the records and that the conditions then disclosed as imposed by Indonesia were that Mary Jane remain in detenti

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 240053)

Parties and Posture

People of the Philippines is the petitioner through the Office of the Solicitor General seeking supplementation of this Court's prior Decision permitting foreign deposition by written interrogatories.
Maria Cristina P. Sergio and Julius L. Lacanilao are the respondents and accused in the underlying criminal prosecution for Qualified Trafficking in Persons, Illegal Recruitment, and Estafa.
The prosecution initially moved the trial court for leave to take overseas testimony of an essential witness by deposition upon written interrogatories.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija granted the prosecution leave to take the deposition under conditions set forth in its August 16, 2016 Resolution.
The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and reversed the trial court on December 13, 2017.
This Court on October 9, 2019 affirmed the trial court's allowance of deposition upon written interrogatories and modified the disposition to require that the deposition be taken before consular officers in Indonesia.
The October 9, 2019 Decision became final on March 4, 2020.
The Office of the Solicitor General subsequently filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion seeking specific implementation instructions to adapt the prior Decision to newly communicated Indonesian conditions.

Key Factual Allegations

The witness Mary Jane Veloso was arrested in Yogyakarta, Indonesia for carrying 2.6 kilograms of heroin and was convicted and sentenced to death by firing squad under Indonesian jurisdiction.
Mary Jane allegedly traveled to Indonesia upon false promises of work abroad made by Cristina and Julius.
Cristina and Julius were charged in the Philippines with Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Republic Act No. 9208, Illegal Recruitment under RA 8042, and Estafa under the Revised Penal Code.
The Philippine prosecutors regarded Mary Jane as an essential witness and successfully obtained an Indonesian suspension of execution to permit her testimony on condition that she remain within Indonesian territory and that questions be submitted in writing.

Trial Court Ruling

The RTC granted leave to take Mary Jane's testimony by deposition upon written interrogatories pursuant to Rules 23 and 25 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The RTC ordered that the accused be given ten days from receipt of the Resolution to comment on proposed direct interrogatories and directed the court to promptly rule on objections.
The RTC directed that the trial judge would preside over the taking of the deposition in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and that final questions, after ruling on objections, would be propounded by the Philippine Consul or his designated representative.
The RTC required that the deponent's answers be taken verbatim by competent staff of the Philippine Consulate and that the transcribed answers be furnished to the accused who would have ten days to submit proposed cross-interrogatories.
The RTC afforded the Prosecution ten days to comment on the proposed cross-interrogatories and directed the court to promptly rule on objections, with cross-interrogatories to be propounded at the scheduled deposition in Yogyakarta by the Consul or his representative.
The RTC provided that the deposition would be deemed terminated unless the Prosecution opted to propound re-direct written interrogatories, in which case the same procedures would apply.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting the use of deposition by written interrogatories and therefore reversed the RTC resolution.
The CA decision was penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios