107] [People v Sergio]

240053.| 9 October 2019 | Topic  | Hernando J| 

Petitioner: People of the Philippines

Respondents: MARIA CRISTINA P. SERGIO AND JULIUS LACANILAO

Recit-Ready:  
Christina and Julius recruited Mary Jane Veloso as house help in Malaysia, however, upon arriving it was found out
that there was no available job and was offered a vacation to Indonesia. They provided her a luggage that was found
to have heroin in the airport.

Mary Jane Veloso was convicted of drug tracking and sentenced to death by firing squad by the Indonesian
Government

Pending the execution, Christina and Julius were charged with qualified trafficking in person, illegal recruitment, and
estafa before the RTC. 

On her basis of her affidavit, the Philippine Government requested the Indonesian Government to suspend the
scheduled execution of Mary Jane and have her testimony because it is vital in the prosecution of Cristina and Julius.

The Indonesian authorities however imposed the following conditions relative to the taking of Mary Jane's testimony,
a) Mary Jane shall remain in detention in Yogyakarta, Indonesia; (b) No cameras shall be allowed;   
(c) The lawyers of the parties shall not be present; and   
(d) The questions to be propounded to Mary Jane shall be in writing.

The state filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Take the Testimony of Complainant Mary Jane Veloso by Deposition
Upon Written Interrogatories. The Rtc granted. The accused filed a petition for certiorari which the CA granted and
reversed the decision of RTC. pursuant to Rule 119, the taking of deposition of Mary Jane or her conditional
examination must be made not in Indonesia but before the court where the case is pending, i.e., the Regional Trial
Court of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, Branch 88, and that Cristina and Julius, being the accused in the criminal
proceedings, should be notified thereof so they can attend the examination.    

Issue:
Whether Mary Jane's testimony may be validly acquired through deposition by written interrogatories

Held:
Yes. The OSG asserts that the presence of extraordinary circumstances, i.e., Mary Jane’s conviction by final
judgment and her detention in a prison facility in Indonesia, while awaiting execution by firing squad; the grant by the
Indonesian President of an indefinite reprieve in view of the ongoing legal proceedings against Cristina and Julius in
the Philippines; and the conditions attached to the reprieve particularly that Mary Jane should remain in confinement
in Indonesia, and any question propounded to her must only be in writing, are more than enough grounds to have
allowed the suppletory application of Rule 23 of the Rules of Court.
Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court
is inapplicable in the instant case  

the case of Mary Jane does not fall under either category. She is neither too sick nor infirm to appear at the trial nor
has to leave the Philippines indefinitely. To recall, Mary Jane is currently imprisoned in Indonesia for having been
convicted by final judgment of the crime of drug trafficking, a grave offense in the said state. In fact, she was already
sentenced to death and is only awaiting her execution by firing squad. Her situation is not akin to a person whose
limitation of mobility is by reason of ill-health or feeble age, the grounds cited in Section 15 of Rule 119. In fact, Mary
Jane's predicament does not in way pertain to a restriction in movement from one place to another but a deprivation
of liberty thru detention in a foreign country with little or no hope of being saved from the extreme penalty of death by
firing squad.  

Case Doctrine :
Section 15, Rule 119 of the revised Rules of Criminal Procedure reads:

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 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 accuse