HARRY L. GO, TONNY NGO, JERRY NGO AND JANE GO, Petitioners, vs.

THE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HIGHDONE COMPANY, LTD., ET AL.,
Respondents.
(G.R. No. 185527 : July 18, 2012)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

An illegal recruitment case for separate informations filed against recruiters Sergio and
Lacanilao to the ir friend Mary Jane Veloso, who was later on sentenced in Indonesia of
death by firing squad due to apprehension by the authorities of illegal drugs that was
found in the bag of Jane, as domestic helper.

To resolve the imminent danger to Veloso, our authorities were able to caught the two
illegal recruiters and was able to suspend by request of our Government to execute
Jane with a condition that the latter be stay in Indonesia’s detention and questions to
Jane must be in writing.

Henceforth, our State filed to our Court a “MOTION TO LEAVE OF COURT TO TAKE
TESTIMONY OF COMPLAINANT MARY JANE VELOSO BY DEPOSITION UPON
WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES” that shall be used to pursue the case to Sergio and
Lacanilao citing Rule 23 due to: out of the country, cannot testify to Court due to
imprisonment, applies as SUPPLETORY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, use of
deposition upon written interrogatories in criminal cases is NOT EXPRESSLY
P{PROHIBITED under Rules of Court.

On the contrary, defendants argued that Rules 23 and 25 applied only to civil cases and
violated their rights to public trial and confront witnesses.

The Regional Trial Court suddenly granted the motion due to the questions was already
submitted to Indonesia and ordered to schedule the deposition to Jane by signed judge
as presiding officer and the prosecution shall prepare for cross-interrogatory questions.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling on the ground of violation of
Constitutional Rights of the accused and there was no notification to defendants about
the actions so that they can also attend hearings.

ISSUE:
Whether or not taking deposition in criminal cases is allowed in this case due to
imprisonment?

HELD:

The Court upheld that it was CLEAR that Jane was deprived of mobility and cannot
voluntarily take witness stand and testify before trial court because the latter is facing
severe consequences.

In case that the decision be denied in favor of Jane, it was already a clear violation of
DUE PROCESS by presenting a case against the accused.

Hence, this is a case of EXTRAORDINARY FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCE that warrant

to resort to Rule 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to here such case

DECISION:
WHEREFORE, petition GRANTED.