[#24] [PEOPLE v.

SERGIO] The Supreme Court reversed the CA and granted the petition of the
G.R. NO. 240053 | [October 9, 2019] | [J. Hernando] State. It ruled that based on the peculiar factual circumstances of the case,
and in the interest of upholding the right to due process of both Mary Jane
TOPIC: Modes of Discovery: Depositions (Rule 23) and the State, Mary Jane should be allowed to testify via deposition by
ACTION: Petition for Review on Certiorari under ROC Rule 45 written interrogatories.

SUMMARY: In 2010, on the promise of a job as a domestic helper made by The extraordinary factual circumstances surrounding Mary Jane’s case of
Cristina Sergio and Julius Lacanilao, Mary Jane Veloso (w/ Cristina) flew to warrant the resort to ROC Rule 23 in taking her testimony as a prosecution
Malaysia. However, when she got there, the promised job was already witness. The ROC is silent as to how to take a testimony of a witness who is
unavailable. After staying in Malaysia for a few days, Cristina sent Mary Jane unable to testify in open court because he is imprisoned in another country.
to Indonesia for a 7-day holiday promising that she would have a job upon Depositions, however, are recognized under Rule 23 of the Rules on Civil
her return to Malaysia. Cristina gave Mary Jane a plane ticket and luggage to Procedure. Although the rule on deposition by written interrogatories is
take on the trip. However, upon arriving in Indonesia, Mary Jane was inscribed under Rule 23, the Court holds that it may be applied suppletorily in
apprehended by airport authorities for carrying 2.6kg of heroin inside her criminal proceedings so long as there is compelling reason. In a long line of
luggage. She was convicted of drug trafficking by an Indonesian Court and cases, the SC has relaxed the procedural rules by applying suppletorily
was sentenced to death by firing squad; her execution was scheduled for 28 certain provisions of the Rules on Civil Procedure in criminal proceedings.
April 2015. While awaiting execution, she was detained at the Wirogunan The SC finds no reason to depart from this practice.
Penitentiary in Indonesia.

Meanwhile, in early 2015 back in the Philippines, Cristina and Julius were DOCTRINE: Rule 23 of the Rules on Civil Procedure (on depositions) may
arrested by the NBI and charged with qualified trafficking in person, illegal be applied suppletorily in criminal proceedings so long as there is compelling
recruitment, and estafa. Finding Mary Jane’s testimony to be vital in the reason.
prosecution of the same given her status as the victim, representatives from
the PDEA, DFA and PNP visited Mary Jane to have her execute a PROVISIONS:
Sinumpaang Salaysay. The PH Government then requested the Indonesian
Government to suspend Mary Jane’s execution for the purposes of allowing Rule 23 (Civil Procedure)
her to testify against Cristina and Julius. The Indonesian Government Section 1. Depositions pending action, when may be taken. – Upon ex parte
acquiesced and suspended the execution hours before it was to take place, motion of a party, the testimony of any person, whether a party or not, may
based on its obligations under the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in be taken by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories. The
Criminal Matters entered into by Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN Mutual attendance of witnesses may be compelled by the use of a subpoena as
Legal Assistance Treaty, or ASEAN MLAT). However, the Indonesian provided in Rule 21. Depositions shall be taken only in accordance with these
Government imposed conditions on the taking of Mary Jane’s testimony. Rules. The deposition of a person confined in prison may be taken only by
leave of court on such terms as the court prescribes. (1a)
Before the RTC where the criminal cases against Cristina and Julius were
pending, the State filed a "Motion for Leave of Court to Take the Testimony Section 11. Persons before whom depositions may be taken in foreign
of Complainant Mary Jane Veloso by Deposition Upon Written countries. – In a foreign state or country, depositions may be taken (a) on
Interrogatories,” averring among other things that ROC Rule 23 applies notice before a secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul,
suppletorily in criminal proceedings. Cristina and Julius objected, claiming vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines; (b) before
that ROC Rule 23 applies only to civil cases, and that such method of taking such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or under letters
Mary Jane’s testimony would violate their Constitutional right to confront the rogatory; or (c) the person referred to in [S]ection 14 hereof. (11)
witness.
Section 25. Deposition upon written interrogatories; service of notice and of
The RTC granted the State’s motion, subject to certain conditions. However, interrogatories. – A party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon
the CA reversed. written interrogatories shall serve them upon every other party with a notice
stating the name and address of the person who is to answer them and the
name or descriptive title and address of the officer before whom the
deposition is to be taken. Within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, a party so
served may serve cross-interrogatories upon the party proposing to take the
deposition. Within five (5) calendar days thereafter, the latter may serve re-
direct interrogatories upon a party who has served cross-interrogatories.
Within three (3) calendar days after being served with re-direct
interrogatories, a party may serve recross-interrogatories upon the party
proposing to take the deposition. (25a)

Rule 119 (Criminal Procedure)

Section 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution. — When it
satisfactorily appears that a witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm to
appear at the trial as directed by the order of the court, or has to leave the
Philippines with no definite date of returning, he may forthwith be
conditionally examined before the court where the case is pending. Such
examination, in the presence of the accused, or in his absence after
reasonable notice to attend the examination has been served on him, shall
be conducted in the same manner as an examination at the trial. Failure or
refusal of the accused to attend the examination after notice shall be
considered a waiver. The statement taken may be admitted in behalf of or
against the accused. (7a)
FACTS: o That Cristina and Julius had recruited her;
o That her and Cristina stayed in a motel in Malaysia for a few
Preliminaries: Mary Jane’s arrest in Indonesia days before she flew to Indonesia;
 Mary Jane Veloso (Mary Jane), Maria Cristina Sergio (Cristina) and o That the man who owned the luggage with the drugs was a
Julius Lacanilao (Julius) were friends and neighbors in Talavera, man named “Ike”, who was the brother of Cristina’s
Nueva Ecija. boyfriend.
 Taking advantage of Mary Jane’s dire situation, Cristina and Sergio  On the basis of said affidavit, the PH Government requested the
offered Mary Jane a job as a domestic helper in Malaysia. Mary Jane Indonesian Government to suspend Mary Jane’s execution.
scraped all the money she had (even borrowing from relatives) to fly  On 28 April 2015, a few hours before Mary Jane’s execution,
to Malaysia. Indonesian President Joko Widodo granted her an indefinite
 On 21 April 2010, Mary Jane and Cristina flew to Malaysia. However, reprieve, pursuant to its obligations under the Treaty on Mutual Legal
the job intended for her by Cristina was no longer available. Cristina Assistance in Criminal Matters entered into by Southeast Asian
then sent Mary Jane to Indonesia for a 7-day holiday promising that Nations (ASEAN Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, or ASEAN MLAT),
she would have a job upon her return to Malaysia. She then gave for the purposes of giving her the chance to testify against Cristina,
Mary Jane her plane ticket to Indonesia and her luggage for the trip. Julius and “Ike.”
 Upon her arrival in Indonesia, Mary Jane was apprehended by police  The Indonesian Government, however, imposed the ff. conditions on
officers for carrying 2.6kg of heroin inside her luggage. She was the taking of Mary Jane’s testimony:
charged with drug trafficking before the District Court of Sleman, o (a) She shall remain in detention in Indonesia;
Yogyakarta, Indonesia. o (b) No cameras shall be allowed;
 In October 2010, the District Court convicted Mary Jane and o (c) The lawyers of the parties shall not be present; and
sentenced her to death by firing squad; this conviction was affirmed o (d) The questions to be propounded to Mary Jane shall be in
by the High Court and the Supreme Court of Indonesia. writing.
 Mary Jane, together with 8 other felons also convicted of drug-
related offenses, were brought a prison to await their execution, Preliminaries: Proceedings in the Philippines
scheduled on April 28, 2015.  In the criminal proceedings against Cristina and Julius, the State filed
 Mary Jane is currently detained at the Wirogunan Penitentiary in a "Motion for Leave of Court to Take the Testimony of Complainant
Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Mary Jane Veloso by Deposition Upon Written Interrogatories.” The
State averred that:
Preliminaries: the cases against Cristina and Julius o The taking of Mary Jane’s testimony via depositions upon
 Meanwhile in the PH, in early 2015, Cristina and Julius were arrested written interrogatories is allowed under ROC Rule 23;
by operatives of the Anti-Human Trafficking Division of the NBI. They o That ROC Rule 23 applies suppletorily in criminal
were charged with qualified trafficking in person 1, illegal recruitment2,
proceedings and the use of deposition upon written
and estafa.3
interrogatories in criminal cases is not expressly prohibited
under the ROC;
Preliminaries: Mary Jane’s reprieve and testimony
 Cristina and Julius objected to the motion asserting that:
 On 31 March 2015, representatives from the PDEA, PNP Crime
o The deposition should be made before and not during the
Laboratory, and DFA went to the Wirogunan Penitentiary to interview
trial;
Mary Jane.
o Depositions under ROC Rules 23 & 25 are not designed to
 She executed a document called “"Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Mary
replace the actual testimony of the witness in open court and
Jane Fiesta Veloso" detailing the ff:
the use thereof is confined only in civil cases;
o Such method will violate their right to confront the witness
1
Section 4 (a) in relation to Sections 3 (a) and 6 of RA 9208 ("Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of under the Constitution.
2003).
2
Section 6, par. (k) and (l) of RA 8042 ("Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Workers Act of RTC
1995”)
3
Section 2(a), Article 315 of the RPC.
  The RTC granted the prosecution’s motion, subject to the ff. compelling reason to depart from such rule and to apply
conditions: instead ROC Rule 23, which only applies in civil cases.
o 1. The accused, through counsel, is given a period of 10 o Thus, pursuant to ROC Rule 119, the taking of deposition of
days from receipt….. to submit their comment to the Mary Jane or her conditional examination must be made not
proposed questions….. Upon receipt of the Comment, the in Indonesia but before the court where the case is pending,
Court shall promptly rule on the objections; i.e. , the RTC of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, Branch 88, and
o 2. The Court shall schedule the taking of the deposition in that Cristina and Julius, being the accused, should be
Indonesia, which shall be presided by the undersigned trial notified so they can attend the examination.
judge. The final questions for the deposition (after ruling on o To allow the prosecution to take the deposition of Mary Jane
the accused’s objections) shall be propounded by the Consul through written interrogatories will violate the right of Cristina
of the Philippines in the Republic of Indonesia or his and Julius as the accused to confront a witness or to meet
designated representative. [Mary Jane’s] answers shall be the witness face to face.
taken verbatim by a competent staff in the Office of the  The State via the OSG filed an MR, but it was denied by the CA.
Philippine Consulate in the Republic of Indonesia;
o 3. The transcribed copy of the answers shall be furnished the Supreme Court
accused, through counsel, who shall thereafter submit their  The OSG filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under
proposed cross interrogatory questions to the Prosecution ROC Rule 45 before this Court.
within 10 days from receipt;  Mary Jane’s parents filed a "Motion for Leave to Intervene and to
o 4. The Prosecution is given the same period of 10 days from Admit Attached Petition-In- Intervention." They prayed to be allowed
receipt of the proposed cross interrogatory questions of the to intervene for the purpose of protecting and preserving their
Defense stating the ground for the objections. Upon receipt daughter's substantial and immediate interest. This was denied by
of the comment, the Court shall promptly rule on the the SC for failure to establish actual & material legal interest.
objections;
o 5. The Court shall schedule the conduct of the cross
interrogatory questions for the deposition of Mary Jane ISSUES/HOLDING/RATIONALE:
Veloso in Indonesia, which shall be presided by the
undersigned trial judge. [same protocols as #2] [1] W/N the CA erred in granting the writ of certiorari – YES.
o Unless the Prosecution opts to conduct re-direct written ● Certiorari is proper to correct errors of jurisdiction, and not errors of
interrogatories, the testimony of Mary Jane shall be deemed procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower
terminated. if the Prosecution opts for the same, same court. Thus, any alleged errors committed by the trial court within the
procedure as #2 and #5. bounds of its jurisdiction and in the exercise of its discretion are mere
 Cristina and Julius immediately filed their "Omnibus Motion for errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal or a petition for review
Reconsideration and to Suspend Period of Time to File Comments to under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, and not by a petition for
Proposed Questions for Deposition of Mary Jane Veloso”, but the certiorari.
same was denied by the RTC. ● The errors imputed against the trial court by Cristina and Julius in
their Petition for Certiorari pertained only to its appreciation of the
Court of Appeals factual milieu, and the application of pertinent law and rules.
 Cristina and Julius filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with ● Plainly, their Petition did not contain factual allegations that can
Urgent Prayer for TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction before the CA, support a finding of GAD. These alleged errors, if at all, amounted
averring that the trial court judge gravely abused her discretion in the only to erroneous exercise of the lower court's judgment, an error of
issuance of the assailed Resolutions. judgment, not an error of jurisdiction, which does not justify resort to
 The CA reversed the RTC ruling, finding that: a certiorari proceeding.
o The conditional examination of witnesses in criminal ● They did not even attempt to show that the trial court abused its
proceedings are primarily governed by ROC Rule 119 discretion, much less that the exercise thereof was so patent and
( Rules on Criminal Procedure). The State failed to establish gross and to amount to lack of jurisdiction; in fact, even the CA
simply stated that the trial court merely erred, and not abused its
 discretion, much more grave, in applying Rule 23 instead of Rule ● Rules of procedure are liberally construed in order to promote their
119. objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
● This case is unprecedented, involves novel issues and poses difficult every action and proceeding. They should not be strictly applied
questions of law. A doubtful or difficult question of law may become causing injury to a substantive right of a party to case.
the basis of good faith and, in this regard, the law always accords to ● The 2004 Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters
public officials the presumption of good faith and regularity in the (The ASEAN MLAT) aims to improve the effectiveness of the law
performance of official duties. As such, no abuse of discretion, much enforcement authorities of the state parties in the prevention,
● more grave abuse of discretion, may be successfully imputed against investigation and prosecution of offenses through cooperation and
the trial court. mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.
● Thus, the CA erred in finding GAD on the part of the trial court and in o Art. 1, par. 2(a) thereof states that mutual legal assistance
holding that respondents' resort to a Petition for Certiorari was can be rendered by the state parties in case of taking
proper. evidence or obtaining voluntary statements from
persons, among others.
[2] (MAIN) W/N Mary Jane's testimony may be validly acquired through o However, this legal assistance is delineated by Article 3 par.
deposition by written interrogatories. – YES. 7, which imposes certain conditions which the requesting
● Rule 119 Sec. is inapplicable in this case. State must observe.
o Under Rule 119 Sec. 15, in order for the testimony of the  To recall, the Indonesian Government imposed the ff. conditions on
prosecution witness be taken before the court where the the taking of Mary Jane’s testimony:
case is being heard, it must be shown that the said o (a) Mary Jane shall remain in detention in Indonesia;
prosecution witness is either: (a) too sick or infirm to appear o (b) No cameras shall be allowed;
at the trial as directed by the order of the court, or; (b) has to o (c) The lawyers of the parties shall not be present; and
leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning. o (d) The questions to be propounded to Mary Jane shall
o Mary Jane’s situation does not fall under either category.
be in writing. (emphasis supplied)
She is currently imprisoned in Indonesia for a drug trafficking ● The ROC is silent as to how to take a testimony of a witness who is
conviction, and has been sentenced to death. Her unable to testify in open court because he is imprisoned in another
predicament is not a restriction of movement, but a country. Depositions, however, are recognized under Rule 23 of the
deprivation of liberty with little to no hope of being saved. Her Rules on Civil Procedure.
conditions denied her of any opportunity to decide for herself ● Although the rule on deposition by written interrogatories is
to voluntarily appear and testify before the RTC where the inscribed under Rule 23, the Court holds that it may be applied
cases were pending. suppletorily in criminal proceedings so long as there is
● In denying the State’s motion and effectively requiring Mary Jane’s compelling reason.
presence before the RTC, the CA rigidly applied Rule 119 Sec. 15 o In a long line of cases, the SC has relaxed the procedural
w/o taking into account the right to due process of both Mary Jane
rules by applying suppletorily certain provisions of the Rules
and the State.
on Civil Procedure in criminal proceedings.
o Considering Mary Jane’s circumstances, the CA demanded
o The SC finds no reason to depart from its practice to liberally
for the impossible to happen and thus impaired her and the
construe procedural rules for the orderly administration of
State’s substantial rights.
substantial justice.
o It was akin to a denial of due process on the part of Mary
● The conditions laid down by the Indonesian Government support the
Jane and the State to establish its case against the allowance of written interrogatories under ROC Rule 23.
respondents. The CA did not account for the fact that the ● A strict application of the procedural rules will defeat the very
case of the prosecution against Cristina and Julius can only purpose for the grant of reprieve by the Indonesian authorities to
be erected through Mary Jane’s testimony. Mary Jane.
● The extraordinary factual circumstances surrounding Mary o To reiterate, as the victim, her testimony is vital to the
Jane’s case of warrant the resort to ROC Rule 23 in taking her
prosecution of Cristina and Julius. This has been recognized
testimony as a prosecution witness.
by no less than the Indonesian Government itself and its
President Widodo.
● Additionally, the disallowance of the written interrogatories is not in the witness by cross-examination; and (2) secondarily, to
congruence with the aim of ASEAN MLAT, that is to render mutual allow the judge to observe the deportment of the witness.
legal assistance in criminal matters among signatory states including o (1) Though Cristina and Julius cannot confront Mary Jane in
the Philippines. The ASEAN MLAT is enforced precisely to be person, the terms and conditions laid down by the trial court
applied in circumstances like in the case of Mary Jane. ensure that they are given ample opportunity to cross-
● Verily, in light of the unusual circumstances surrounding the examine Mary Jane by way of written interrogatories, so as
instant case, the Court sees no reason not to apply suppletorily not to defeat the first purpose of their constitutional rights.
the provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules on Civil Procedure in the o (2) as stated in the terms & conditions, the trial court judge
interest of substantial justice and fairness. Hence, the taking of will be present during the conduct of written interrogatories to
testimony of Mary Jane through a deposition by written Mary Jane. This will give her ample opportunity to observe
interrogatories is in order. and to examine the demeanor of the witness closely.
● To disallow the written interrogatories will curtail Mary Jane's o Indubitably, the constitutional rights of Cristina and Julius are
right to due process. equally safeguarded.
o The due process clause ● Finally, it must be mentioned that a "dying declaration" is one of
▪ The due process clause has been interpreted as “not the recognized exceptions to the right to confrontation.
denying to the law the capacity for progress and o Mary Jane's deposition through written interrogatories is akin
improvement.” It is elastic in its interpretation, and is to her dying declaration. She will be answering the written
dynamic and resilient in character, to make it interrogatories under the consciousness of an impending
capable to meet every modern problem. death by firing squad. She has already availed of all
▪ To avoid the confines of a legal straitjacket, the available legal remedies and there is no expectation that her
meaning of the due process clause has been conviction will be overturned. The only purpose for the grant
“gradually ascertained by the process of inclusion of the temporary reprieve was for her to assist the
and exclusion in the course of the decisions of cases prosecution in erecting its case against her recruiters and
as they arise.” traffickers.
o The grant of the written interrogatories by the Indonesian
Government perceives the State's opportunity to present all RULING: WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the instant petition. CA
its desired witnesses in the prosecution of its cases against Decision
Cristina and Julius. It is afforded fair opportunity to present REVERSED and SET ASIDE. RTC Decision is REINSTATED and
witnesses and evidence it deems vital to ensure that the AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the deposition will be taken before our
injury sustained by the People will be well compensated and, Consular Office and officials in Indonesia pursuant to the Rules of Court and
most of all, that justice be achieved. principles of jurisdiction.
o The right of the State to prove the criminal liability of Cristina
and Julius should not be derailed and prevented by the The recommendation by the Office of the Solicitor General for this Court to
stringent application of the procedural rules. Otherwise, it will promulgate a set of rules for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar in
constitute a violation of the basic constitutional rights of the transnational cases that may arise in the future, where a prosecution's vital
State and of Mary Jane to due process which this Court witness in a criminal proceeding is unavailable for reasons other than those
cannot disregard. listed in Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure vis-a vis the
o The fundamental rights of both the accused and the State enforcement of the accused's constitutional right to confront witnesses face-
must be equally upheld and protected so that justice can to-face is NOTED and REFERRED to this Court's Committee on Revision of
prevail. the Rules for its appropriate action.
● The deposition by written interrogatories will not infringe the
constitutional right to confrontation of a witness of Cristina and SO ORDERED.
Julius.
o The right to confrontation has a 2-fold purpose: (1) primarily,
to afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of
ANNEX
Discussion on Depositions by Justice Regalado
 Rules 23-28 provide for the different modes of discovery that may be
resorted to by a party to an action:
o a. Depositions pending action (Rule 23) ;
o b. Depositions before action or pending appeal (Rule 24) ;
o c. Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25) ;
o d. Admission by adverse party (Rule 26) ;
o e. Production or inspection of documents or things (Rule 27);
and
o f. Physical and mental examination of persons (Rule 28).
Rule 29 provides for the legal consequences for the refusal
of a party to comply with such modes of discovery lawfully
resorted to by the adverse party.
 In criminal cases, the taking of the deposition of witnesses for the
prosecution was formerly authorized by Sec. 7, Rule 119 for the
purpose of perpetuating the evidence to be presented at the trial,
without a similar provision for defense witnesses. However, in the
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, only the conditional examination,
and not a deposition, of prosecution witnesses was permitted (Sec.
7, Rule 119) and this was followed in the latest revision (Sec. 15,
Rule 119).
 Depositions are classified into:
o a. Depositions on oral examination and depositions upon
written interrogatories; or
o b. Depositions de bene esse and depositions in perpetuam
rei memoriam.
Depositions de bene esse are those taken for purposes of a
pending action and are regulated by Rule 23. Depositions in
perpetuam rei memoriam are those taken to perpetuate
evidence for purposes of an anticipated action or further
proceedings in a case on appeal and are now regulated by
Rule 24.
 The court may determine whether the deposition should be taken
upon oral examination or written interrogatories to prevent abuse or
harassment.