[#24] [PEOPLE v.

SERGIO]
G.R. NO. 240053 | [October 9, 2019] | [J. Hernando]
TOPIC: Modes of Discovery: Depositions (Rule 23)
ACTION: Petition for Review on Certiorari under ROC Rule 45
The Supreme Court reversed the CA and granted the petition of the
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
and the State, Mary Jane should be allowed to testify via deposition by
written interrogatories.

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

Meanwhile, in early 2015 back in the Philippines, Cristina and Julius were
arrested by the NBI and charged with qualified trafficking in person, illegal
recruitment, and estafa. Finding Mary Jane’s testimony to be vital in the
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
Sinumpaang Salaysay. The PH Government then requested the Indonesian
Government to suspend Mary Jane’s execution for the purposes of allowing
her to testify against Cristina and Julius. The Indonesian Government
acquiesced and suspended the execution hours before it was to take place,
based on its obligations under the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in
Criminal Matters entered into by Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN Mutual
Legal Assistance Treaty, or ASEAN MLAT). However, the Indonesian
Government imposed conditions on the taking of Mary Jane’s testimony.
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
of Complainant Mary Jane Veloso by Deposition Upon Written
Interrogatories,” averring among other things that ROC Rule 23 applies
suppletorily in criminal proceedings. Cristina and Julius objected, claiming
that ROC Rule 23 applies only to civil cases, and that such method of taking
Mary Jane’s testimony would violate their Constitutional right to confront the
witness.
The RTC granted the State’s motion, subject to certain conditions. However,
the CA reversed.
DOCTRINE: Rule 23 of the Rules on Civil Procedure (on depositions) may
be applied suppletorily in criminal proceedings so long as there is compelling
reason.
PROVISIONS:
Rule 23 (Civil Procedure)
Section 1. Depositions pending action, when may be taken. – Upon ex parte
motion of a party, the testimony of any person, whether a party or not, may
be taken by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories. The
attendance of witnesses may be compelled by the use of a subpoena as
provided in Rule 21. Depositions shall be taken only in accordance with these
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)
Section 11. Persons before whom depositions may be taken in foreign
countries. – In a foreign state or country, depositions may be taken (a) on
notice before a secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul,
vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines; (b) before
such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or under letters
rogatory; or (c) the person referred to in [S]ection 14 hereof. (11)
Section 25. Deposition upon written interrogatories; service of notice and of
interrogatories. – A party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon
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:
Preliminaries: Mary Jane’s arrest in Indonesia
 Mary Jane Veloso (Mary Jane), Maria Cristina Sergio (Cristina) and
Julius Lacanilao (Julius) were friends and neighbors in Talavera,
Nueva Ecija.
 Taking advantage of Mary Jane’s dire situation, Cristina and Sergio
offered Mary Jane a job as a domestic helper in Malaysia. Mary Jane
scraped all the money she had (even borrowing from relatives) to fly
to Malaysia.
 On 21 April 2010, Mary Jane and Cristina flew to Malaysia. However,
the job intended for her by Cristina was no longer available. Cristina
then sent Mary Jane to Indonesia for a 7-day holiday promising that
she would have a job upon her return to Malaysia. She then gave
Mary Jane her plane ticket to Indonesia and her luggage for the trip.
 Upon her arrival in Indonesia, Mary Jane was apprehended by police
officers for carrying 2.6kg of heroin inside her luggage. She was
charged with drug trafficking before the District Court of Sleman,
Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
 In October 2010, the District Court convicted Mary Jane and
sentenced her to death by firing squad; this conviction was affirmed
by the High Court and the Supreme Court of Indonesia.
 Mary Jane, together with 8 other felons also convicted of drug-
related offenses, were brought a prison to await their execution,
scheduled on April 28, 2015.
 Mary Jane is currently detained at the Wirogunan Penitentiary in
Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Preliminaries: the cases against Cristina and Julius
 Meanwhile in the PH, in early 2015, Cristina and Julius were arrested
by operatives of the Anti-Human Trafficking Division of the NBI. They
were charged with qualified trafficking in person 1, illegal recruitment2,
and estafa.3
Preliminaries: Mary Jane’s reprieve and testimony
 On 31 March 2015, representatives from the PDEA, PNP Crime
Laboratory, and DFA went to the Wirogunan Penitentiary to interview
Mary Jane.
 She executed a document called “"Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Mary
Jane Fiesta Veloso" detailing the ff:
1
Section 4 (a) in relation to Sections 3 (a) and 6 of RA 9208 ("Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of
2003).
2
Section 6, par. (k) and (l) of RA 8042 ("Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Workers Act of
1995”)
3
Section 2(a), Article 315 of the RPC.
o That Cristina and Julius had recruited her;
o That her and Cristina stayed in a motel in Malaysia for a few
days before she flew to Indonesia;
o That the man who owned the luggage with the drugs was a
man named “Ike”, who was the brother of Cristina’s
boyfriend.
 On the basis of said affidavit, the PH Government requested the
Indonesian Government to suspend Mary Jane’s execution.
 On 28 April 2015, a few hours before Mary Jane’s execution,
Indonesian President Joko Widodo granted her an indefinite
reprieve, pursuant to its obligations under the Treaty on Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters entered into by Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, or ASEAN MLAT),
for the purposes of giving her the chance to testify against Cristina,
Julius and “Ike.”
 The Indonesian Government, however, imposed the ff. conditions on
the taking of Mary Jane’s testimony:
o (a) She shall remain in detention in Indonesia;
o (b) No cameras shall be allowed;
o (c) The lawyers of the parties shall not be present; and
o (d) The questions to be propounded to Mary Jane shall be in
writing.
Preliminaries: Proceedings in the Philippines
 In the criminal proceedings against Cristina and Julius, the State filed
a "Motion for Leave of Court to Take the Testimony of Complainant
Mary Jane Veloso by Deposition Upon Written Interrogatories.” The
State averred that:
o The taking of Mary Jane’s testimony via depositions upon
written interrogatories is allowed under ROC Rule 23;
o That ROC Rule 23 applies suppletorily in criminal
proceedings and the use of deposition upon written
interrogatories in criminal cases is not expressly prohibited
under the ROC;
 Cristina and Julius objected to the motion asserting that:
o The deposition should be made before and not during the
trial;
o Depositions under ROC Rules 23 & 25 are not designed to
replace the actual testimony of the witness in open court and
the use thereof is confined only in civil cases;
o Such method will violate their right to confront the witness
under the Constitution.
RTC
  The RTC granted the prosecution’s motion, subject to the ff.
conditions:
o 1. The accused, through counsel, is given a period of 10
days from receipt….. to submit their comment to the
proposed questions….. Upon receipt of the Comment, the
Court shall promptly rule on the objections;
o 2. The Court shall schedule the taking of the deposition in
Indonesia, which shall be presided by the undersigned trial
judge. The final questions for the deposition (after ruling on
the accused’s objections) shall be propounded by the Consul
of the Philippines in the Republic of Indonesia or his
designated representative. [Mary Jane’s] answers shall be
taken verbatim by a competent staff in the Office of the
Philippine Consulate in the Republic of Indonesia;
o 3. The transcribed copy of the answers shall be furnished the
accused, through counsel, who shall thereafter submit their
proposed cross interrogatory questions to the Prosecution
within 10 days from receipt;
o 4. The Prosecution is given the same period of 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 Court shall promptly rule on the
objections;
o 5. The Court shall schedule the conduct of the cross
interrogatory questions for the deposition of Mary Jane
Veloso in Indonesia, which shall be presided by the
undersigned trial judge. [same protocols as #2]
o Unless the Prosecution opts to conduct re-direct written
interrogatories, the testimony of Mary Jane shall be deemed
terminated. if the Prosecution opts for the same, same
procedure as #2 and #5.
 Cristina and Julius immediately filed their "Omnibus Motion for
Reconsideration and to Suspend Period of Time to File Comments to
Proposed Questions for Deposition of Mary Jane Veloso”, but the
same was denied by the RTC.
Court of Appeals
 Cristina and Julius filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with
Urgent Prayer for TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction before the CA,
averring that the trial court judge gravely abused her discretion in the
issuance of the assailed Resolutions.
 The CA reversed the RTC ruling, finding that:
o The conditional examination of witnesses in criminal
proceedings are primarily governed by ROC Rule 119
( Rules on Criminal Procedure). The State failed to establish
compelling reason to depart from such rule and to apply
instead ROC Rule 23, which only applies in civil cases.
o Thus, pursuant to ROC 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 RTC of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, Branch 88, and
that Cristina and Julius, being the accused, should be
notified so they can attend the examination.
o To allow the prosecution to take the deposition of Mary Jane
through written interrogatories will violate the right of Cristina
and Julius as the accused to confront a witness or to meet
the witness face to face.
 The State via the OSG filed an MR, but it was denied by the CA.
Supreme Court
 The OSG filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under
ROC Rule 45 before this Court.
 Mary Jane’s parents filed a "Motion for Leave to Intervene and to
Admit Attached Petition-In- Intervention." They prayed to be allowed
to intervene for the purpose of protecting and preserving their
daughter's substantial and immediate interest. This was denied by
the SC for failure to establish actual & material legal interest.
ISSUES/HOLDING/RATIONALE:
[1] W/N the CA erred in granting the writ of certiorari – YES.
● Certiorari is proper to correct errors of jurisdiction, and not errors of
procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower
court. Thus, any alleged errors committed by the trial court within the
bounds of its jurisdiction and in the exercise of its discretion are mere
errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal or a petition for review
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, and not by a petition for
certiorari.
● The errors imputed against the trial court by Cristina and Julius in
their Petition for Certiorari pertained only to its appreciation of the
factual milieu, and the application of pertinent law and rules.
● Plainly, their Petition did not contain factual allegations that can
support a finding of GAD. These alleged errors, if at all, amounted
only to erroneous exercise of the lower court's judgment, an error of
judgment, not an error of jurisdiction, which does not justify resort to
a certiorari proceeding.
● They did not even attempt to show that the trial court abused its
discretion, much less that the exercise thereof was so patent and
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
119.
● This case is unprecedented, involves novel issues and poses difficult
questions of law. A doubtful or difficult question of law may become
the basis of good faith and, in this regard, the law always accords to
public officials the presumption of good faith and regularity in the
performance of official duties. As such, no abuse of discretion, much
● more grave abuse of discretion, may be successfully imputed against
the trial court.
● Thus, the CA erred in finding GAD on the part of the trial court and in
holding that respondents' resort to a Petition for Certiorari was
proper.
[2] (MAIN) W/N Mary Jane's testimony may be validly acquired through
deposition by written interrogatories. – YES.
● Rule 119 Sec. is inapplicable in this case.
o Under Rule 119 Sec. 15, in order for the testimony of the
prosecution witness be taken before the court where the
case is being heard, it must be shown that the said
prosecution witness is either: (a) too sick or infirm to appear
at the trial as directed by the order of the court, or; (b) has to
leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning.
o Mary Jane’s situation does not fall under either category.
She is currently imprisoned in Indonesia for a drug trafficking
conviction, and has been sentenced to death. Her
predicament is not a restriction of movement, but a
deprivation of liberty with little to no hope of being saved. Her
conditions denied her of any opportunity to decide for herself
to voluntarily appear and testify before the RTC where the
cases were pending.
● In denying the State’s motion and effectively requiring Mary Jane’s
presence before the RTC, the CA rigidly applied Rule 119 Sec. 15
w/o taking into account the right to due process of both Mary Jane
and the State.
o Considering Mary Jane’s circumstances, the CA demanded
for the impossible to happen and thus impaired her and the
State’s substantial rights.
o It was akin to a denial of due process on the part of Mary
Jane and the State to establish its case against the
respondents. The CA did not account for the fact that the
case of the prosecution against Cristina and Julius can only
be erected through Mary Jane’s testimony.
● The extraordinary factual circumstances surrounding Mary
Jane’s case of warrant the resort to ROC Rule 23 in taking her
testimony as a prosecution witness.
● Rules of procedure are liberally construed in order to promote their
objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
every action and proceeding. They should not be strictly applied
causing injury to a substantive right of a party to case.
● The 2004 Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters
(The ASEAN MLAT) aims to improve the effectiveness of the law
enforcement authorities of the state parties in the prevention,
investigation and prosecution of offenses through cooperation and
mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.
o Art. 1, par. 2(a) thereof states that mutual legal assistance
can be rendered by the state parties in case of taking
evidence or obtaining voluntary statements from
persons, among others.
o However, this legal assistance is delineated by Article 3 par.
7, which imposes certain conditions which the requesting
State must observe.
 To recall, the Indonesian Government imposed the ff. conditions on
the taking of Mary Jane’s testimony:
o (a) Mary Jane shall remain in detention in Indonesia;
o (b) No cameras shall be allowed;
o (c) The lawyers of the parties shall not be present; and
o (d) The questions to be propounded to Mary Jane shall
be in writing. (emphasis supplied)
● The ROC is silent as to how to take a testimony of a witness who is
unable to testify in open court because he is imprisoned in another
country. Depositions, however, are recognized under Rule 23 of the
Rules on Civil Procedure.
● Although the rule on deposition by written interrogatories is
inscribed under Rule 23, the Court holds that it may be applied
suppletorily in criminal proceedings so long as there is
compelling reason.
o In a long line of cases, the SC has relaxed the procedural
rules by applying suppletorily certain provisions of the Rules
on Civil Procedure in criminal proceedings.
o The SC finds no reason to depart from its practice to liberally
construe procedural rules for the orderly administration of
substantial justice.
● The conditions laid down by the Indonesian Government support the
allowance of written interrogatories under ROC Rule 23.
● A strict application of the procedural rules will defeat the very
purpose for the grant of reprieve by the Indonesian authorities to
Mary Jane.
o To reiterate, as the victim, her testimony is vital to the
prosecution of Cristina and Julius. This has been recognized
by no less than the Indonesian Government itself and its
President Widodo.
● Additionally, the disallowance of the written interrogatories is not in
congruence with the aim of ASEAN MLAT, that is to render mutual
legal assistance in criminal matters among signatory states including
the Philippines. The ASEAN MLAT is enforced precisely to be
applied in circumstances like in the case of Mary Jane.
● Verily, in light of the unusual circumstances surrounding the
instant case, the Court sees no reason not to apply suppletorily
the provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules on Civil Procedure in the
interest of substantial justice and fairness. Hence, the taking of
testimony of Mary Jane through a deposition by written
interrogatories is in order.
● To disallow the written interrogatories will curtail Mary Jane's
right to due process.
o The due process clause
▪ The due process clause has been interpreted as “not
denying to the law the capacity for progress and
improvement.” It is elastic in its interpretation, and is
dynamic and resilient in character, to make it
capable to meet every modern problem.
▪ To avoid the confines of a legal straitjacket, the
meaning of the due process clause has been
“gradually ascertained by the process of inclusion
and exclusion in the course of the decisions of cases
as they arise.”
o The grant of the written interrogatories by the Indonesian
Government perceives the State's opportunity to present all
its desired witnesses in the prosecution of its cases against
Cristina and Julius. It is afforded fair opportunity to present
witnesses and evidence it deems vital to ensure that the
injury sustained by the People will be well compensated and,
most of all, that justice be achieved.
o The right of the State to prove the criminal liability of Cristina
and Julius should not be derailed and prevented by the
stringent application of the procedural rules. Otherwise, it will
constitute a violation of the basic constitutional rights of the
State and of Mary Jane to due process which this Court
cannot disregard.
o The fundamental rights of both the accused and the State
must be equally upheld and protected so that justice can
prevail.
● The deposition by written interrogatories will not infringe the
constitutional right to confrontation of a witness of Cristina and
Julius.
o The right to confrontation has a 2-fold purpose: (1) primarily,
to afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of
the witness by cross-examination; and (2) secondarily, to
allow the judge to observe the deportment of the witness.
o (1) Though Cristina and Julius cannot confront Mary Jane in
person, the terms and conditions laid down by the trial court
ensure that they are given ample opportunity to cross-
examine Mary Jane by way of written interrogatories, so as
not to defeat the first purpose of their constitutional rights.
o (2) as stated in the terms & conditions, the trial court judge
will be present during the conduct of written interrogatories to
Mary Jane. This will give her ample opportunity to observe
and to examine the demeanor of the witness closely.
o Indubitably, the constitutional rights of Cristina and Julius are
equally safeguarded.
● Finally, it must be mentioned that a "dying declaration" is one of
the recognized exceptions to the right to confrontation.
o Mary Jane's deposition through written interrogatories is akin
to her dying declaration. She will be answering the written
interrogatories under the consciousness of an impending
death by firing squad. She has already availed of all
available legal remedies and there is no expectation that her
conviction will be overturned. The only purpose for the grant
of the temporary reprieve was for her to assist the
prosecution in erecting its case against her recruiters and
traffickers.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the instant petition. CA
Decision
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. RTC Decision 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 its appropriate action.
SO ORDERED.
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.