i&epubhc of tbe ~bihppines

~upreme <1:ourt
:fflanila

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 240053

Petitioner,
Present:

LEONEN,
Chairperson,
- versus - HERNANDO,
INTING,
LOPEZ, J., and
DIMAAMPAO, JJ.

MARIA CRISTINA P. SERGIO Promulgated:

and JULIUS L. LACANILAO,
Respondents. March 21, 2022
~,-;.\~~--'?t
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

HERNANDO, J.:

Recall that Mary Jane Veloso (Mary Jane) was an-ested upon her arrival
at Adisucipto International Airport in Yogyakarta, Indonesia for carrying 2.6
kilograms of heroin in her travel luggage. She was tried and later convicted
for drug trafficking under Indonesian jurisdiction and sentenced to death by
firing squad. Mary Jane traveled to Indonesia upon Maria Cristina Sergio
(Cristina) and Julius Lacanilao's (Julius) false promise of work abroad.

Cristina and Julius were eventually charged before a Philippine court

with Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Republic Act No. (RA) 9208,
Illegal Recruitment under RA 8042, and Esta/a under the Revised Penal Code.
Believing Mary Jane to be an essential witness, the Philippine prosecutors

7v
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 240053

made a daring move - they requested the Indonesian government to suspend

the execution of Mary Jane's sentence in order to take her testimony in
Cristina and Julius' Qualified Trafficking in Persons case. The move
succeeded. Indonesia, however, required that Mary Jane remain within the
confines of their territory, and that the questions to be propounded to her be
put in writing.

Faced with these conditions, the prosecution resorted to deposition by

written interrogatories. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 88 of Sto. Domingo,
Nueva Ecija approved the use of this mode of discovery in the following
manner:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING REASONS , leave of court is hereby

GRANTED to the Prosecution to take the testimony of Mary Jane Veloso by
way of deposition upon written interrogatories in accordance with Rules 23 and
25 of the Revised Rules of Court under the following terms and conditions:

1. Considering that the Prosecution has already submitted their proposed

questions in the written interrogatories, the accused, through counsel, is given
a period of ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution to submit their
comment to the proposed questions on the deposition upon written
interrogatories for the witness Mary Jane Veloso. Upon receipt of the
Comment, the Court shall promptly rule on the objections;

2. The Court shall schedule the taking of the deposition in

Yogyakarta, Indonesia, which shall be presided by the undersigned trial
judge. The final questions for the deposition (after ruling on the Defense
objections), shall be propounded by the Consul of the Philippines in the
Republic of Indonesia or his designated representative. The answers of the
deponent of the written interrogatories shall be taken verbatim by a competent
staff in the Office of the Philippine Consulate in the Republic of Indonesia;

3. The transcribed copy of the answers of the deponent shall be furnished

the accused, through counsel, who shall thereafter submit their proposed cross
interrogatory questions to the Prosecution within ten (10) days from receipt;

4. The Prosecution is given the same period often (10) days from receipt
of the proposed cross interrogatory questions of the Defense stating the ground
for the objections. Upon receipt of the comment, the Cowi shall promptly rule
on the objections;

5. The Court shall schedule the conduct of the cross interrogatory

questions for the deposition of Mary Jane Veloso in Yogyakarta, Indonesia,
which shall be presided by the undersigned trial judge. The final questions
for the written cross interrogatories (after ruling on the Prosecution's
objections), shall be propounded by the Consul of the Philippines in the
Republic of Indonesia or his designated representative. The answers of the
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 240053

deponent to the written cross interrogatories shall be taken verbatim by a

competent staff in the Office of the Philippine Consulate in the Republic
of Indonesia;

6. Unless the Prosecution opts to conduct re-direct written

interrogatories, the testimony of Mary Jane Veloso by way of deposition upon
written interrogatories shall be deemed terminated. In case the Prosecution
propounds re-direct written interrogatories on the deponent, the above-
mentioned procedure for the conduct of direct and cross interrogatories shall
be observed.

SO ORDERED.' (Emphasis supplied)

Cristina and Julius opposed the trial court's ruling. They raised the matter
via a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).

The appellate court favored Cristina and Julius and reversed the trial
court, finding the latter to have gravely abused its discretion in granting the
remedy sought by the prosecution. 2 The prosecution appealed the CA
Decision to this Court.

On October 9, 2019, the Court affirmed the trial court and rendered a
Decision3 allowing the taking of Mary Jane's testimony by deposition upon
written interrogatories -

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the instant petition. The December

13, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 149002 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The August 16, 2016 Resolution of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 88 of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija is REINSTATED and
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the deposition will be taken before
our Consular Office and officials in Indonesia pursuant to the Rules of
Court and principles of jurisdiction.

The recommendation by the Office of the Solicitor General for this Court
to promulgate a set of rules for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar in
transnational cases that may arise in the future, where a prosecution's vital
witness in a criminal proceeding is unavailable for reasons other than those
listed in Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure vis-a-vis the
enforcement of the accused's constitutional right to confront witnesses face-to-
face is NOTED and REFERRED to this Court's Committee on Revision of the
Rules for appropriate action.

SO ORDERED. 4 (Emphasis supplied.)

1
Rollo, pp. 128-129. Penned by Presiding Judge Anarica J. Castillo-Reyes.
2
Id. at 90-107; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concun-ed in by Associate Justices
Manuel M. Ban-ios and Renato C. Francisco.
3
Id. at 844-895 ; penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando and concurTed in by Associate
Justices Diosdado M. Peralta, Marvic M. V. F. Leonen, and Andres B. Reyes .
4
Id. at 893.

V
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 240053

The October 9, 2019 Decision attained finality on March 4, 2020. 5

However, the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the

Solicitor General (OSG), now brings before the Court an Urgent Omnibus
Motion 6 (Motion), seeking to supplement the October 9, 2019 Decision with
specific instructions as to the conduct of the taking of depositions by Mary
Jane by written interrogatories. The OSG manifests that the dispositions of the
trial court in its August 16, 2016 Resolution and of this Court in its October
9, 2019 Decision emphasized above conflicted with the conditions imposed
by the Government of Indonesia per its letter dated December 4, 2020, to wit:

a) The deposition taking will be conducted by the Indonesian Attorney

General or official/officials appointed by the Attorney General. The
[Ministry of Law of Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia] said
that the presence of the consular officer of the Philippine Embassy
in Jakarta and the Presiding Judge during the deposition taking is
possible;

b) The deposition taking will be conducted in the prison facility in

Wirogunan, Indonesia, where [Mary Jane] is currently detained .7
(Emphasis supplied.)

The Court resolves to note the Motion without action.

In general, final and executory judgments are immutable, unalterable in

any respect, and irreversible even if correctible. 8 "The orderly administration
of justice requires that, at the risk of occasional errors, [judgments or
resolutions] of a court must reach a point of finality set by the law. The noble
purpose is to write finis to [a] dispute once and for all. This is a fundamental
principle in our justice system, without which there would be no end to
litigations." 9 Established exceptions to this rule are (a) correction of clerical
errors; (b) judgments nunc pro tune; and (c) void judgments. 10

The Motion cannot be treated as an exception to the general rule.

What the OSG requests is a formulation of guidelines in the conduct of

the taking of Mary Jane's deposition to adapt to the conditions set by

5
Id . at 1341-1342 .
6
Fully titled as Omnibus Motion with Leave of Court, id. at 1352-1360.
7
Id. at 1361.
8
One Shipping Corp. v. Peifojiel, 751 Phil. 204, 211 (2015), citing Mocorro v. Ramirez, 582 Phil. 357, 366
(2008).
9
Id .
io Id.
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 240053

Indonesia. This task is not at all a mere correction of clerical error but an
amendment of the October 9, 2019 Decision. There is also no move to nullify
this Decision, much less is the Court inclined to strike the same as void.

Neither can it be addressed with a judgment nunc pro tune. Briones-

Vasquez v. Court ofAppeals 11 described judgments and entries nunc pro tune,
viz.:

The office of a judgment nune pro tune is to record some act of the court
done at a former time which was not then carried into the record, and the power
of a court to make such entries is restricted to placing upon the record
evidence of judicial action which has been actually taken. It may be used
to make the record speak the truth, but not to make it speak what it did
not speak but ought to have spoken. If the court has not rendered a judgment
that it might or should have rendered, or if it has rendered an imperfect or
improper judgment, it has no power to remedy these errors or omissions by
ordering the entry nune pro tune of a proper judgment. Hence a court in
entering a judgment nimc pro tune has no power to construe what the
judgment means, but only to enter of record such judgment as had been
formerly rendered, but which had not been entered of record as
rendered. In all cases the exercise of the power to enter judgments nune pro
tune presupposes the actual rendition of a judgment, and a mere right to a
judgment will not furnish the basis for such an entry. (15 R. C. L. , pp. 622-
623 .)

XXX XXX XXX

The object of a judgment nune pro tune is not the rendering of a new
judgment and the ascertainment and determination of new rights, but is one
placing in proper form on the record, the judgment that had been previously
rendered, to make it speak the truth, so as to make it show what the judicial
action really was, not to correct judicial errors, such as to render a judgment
which the court ought to have rendered, in place of the one it did erroneously
render, nor to supply non action by the court, however erroneous the judgment
may have been. (Wilmerding vs. Corbin Banking Co., 28 South, 640, 641; 126
Ala. , 268.)

A nune pro tune entry in practice is an entry made now of something

which was actually previously done, to have effect as of the former date. Its
office is not to supply omitted action by the court, but to supply an
omission in the record of action really had, but omitted through
inadvertence or mistake. 12 (Perkins vs. Haywood, 31 N. E., 670, 672.)
(Emphasis supplied.)

There was no inadvertent omission. The Decision was issued upon full
consideration of all the documents submitted. From the trial comi, through the

11
491 Phil. 81, 91-93 (2005), citing lichauco v. Tan Pho, 51 Phil. 862, 879-881 (1923).
12
Id. at 91-93.
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 240053

CA, and up to this Court, records state in consistent terms that the only
conditions set by the Indonesian authorities were that (1) Mary Jane shall
remain in detention in Yogyakarta, Indonesia; (2) no cameras may be used in
the taking of her testimony; (3) none of the lawyers in the case shall be present
during the taking of her testimony; and (4) the questions to be propounded
must be in writing. These conditions were the ones prevailing before the Court
upheld them in the October 9, 2019 Decision. It was only now in the Urgent
Omnibus Motion that it was made known to this Court, or daresay to all the
parties here, that the Indonesian government sent a letter on December 4, 2020
making new and specific proposals as to the conduct of Mary Jane's
deposition.

The Court, even being the highest court of the land, cannot alter what is
already rendered absolute. The case has already been completely put to rest
- Mary Jane is allowed by our law to give her testimony in Cristina and
Julius' case by deposition through written interrogatories under Rules 23 and
25 of our country's Rules of Court.

The Court finds this moment opportune to remark that the executive
depai1ment need not obtain the assent of the judiciary in accepting, rejecting,
or modifying the conditions set by Indonesia. The executive depai1ment has
already done so before when, through the ardent efforts of the Department of
Justice, it magnificently secured this legal miracle for Mary Jane, that she may
air her side of the story despite her incarceration and conviction in a foreign
country.

It remains entirely within the prerogative of the executive department to

handle matters and fill in the details of foreign policy and negotiations. If it
would be of any relevance, the Court only disposed that the deposition will be
taken before our consular office and officials stationed in Indonesia. Although
it denotes the same futurity as the word will, shall expresses a heavier
inevitability and mandatoriness, but was not used in the dispositive portion.
The Court leaves it up to the Department of Justice and the involved executive
department agencies to discuss the technicalities of implementation with the
Indonesian authorities and yield to their sound demands, bearing in mind the
spirit of the October 9, 2019 Decision, the applicable international treatises,
the real circumstances of Mary Jane's detention, and the fact that we are the
requesting state, and Indonesia is the requested state.

WHEREFORE, the Urgent Omnibus Motion is NOTED WITHOUT

ACTION.

7J
Reso luti (,;, 7 G.R. No. 240053

SO ORDERED.

'11.ssociate Justice

WE CONC UR :

Associate Justice

HE NR JHOSE~OPEZ
Associate Justice
R eso lu1i (1n 8 G.R. No. 240053

ATTESTATION

attest that the conc lusions in the above Resolution were reached in
cons ultntion before the case was ass igned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court ' s Divi s ion.

c..

Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFI CATION

Pursu :.-1111 to Section 13, A rt icl e VI II of the Constitution and the Division
C hairperson 's Attestat ion, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Re soluti on '.,vet·e reached in co nsultat ion before the case was assigned to the
write r of the op ini on of the Court's Div ision.