Photo from Pexels | Christina Morillo
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The Court is always guided by the principle that rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Simply put, the rules of procedure should facilitate an orderly administration of justice. They should not be strictly applied causing injury to a substantive right of a party to case.
In the case of People of the Philippines v. Sergio, G.R. No. 240053, October 9, 2019, Mary Jane Veloso (Veloso), Cristina Sergio (Sergio), and Julius Lacanilao (Lacanilao) were friends and neighbors in Nueva Ecija. Sergio and Lacanilao offered Veloso a job as a domestic helper in Malaysia. Believing that the job was a ray of hope, Veloso scraped whatever meager money she had to pay Sergio and Lacanilao the placement fee.
Veloso left Philippines for Malaysia with Sergio. However, upon arrival, she was informed by Sergio that the intended job for her was no longer available. Sergio sent Veloso to Indonesia for a holiday with a promise that she will have a job upon her return to Malaysia. Sergio gave her a plane ticket as well as a luggage to bring on her trip.
Upon arrival at the airport in Indonesia, Veloso was apprehended by the police officers for allegedly carrying heroin inside her luggage. Accordingly, she was charged with drug trafficking before the court of Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
The court of Yogyakarta, Indonesia convicted Veloso of drug trafficking and sentenced her to death. Meanwhile, in the Philippines, Sergio and Lacanilao were arrested and charged with qualified trafficking in person, illegal recruitment, and estafa.
Representatives from PDEA, PNP, and DFA went to Wirugonan Prison to interview Veloso. She then executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay. The Philippine Government informed the Indonesian Government to suspend the execution of Veloso because the recruiters and traffickers of Veloso were already in police custody and her testimony is vital in the prosecution of Sergio and Lacanilao.
The State filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Take the Testimony of Veloso by Deposition Upon Written Interrogatories. It averred that the taking of Veloso’s testimony through the use of deposition upon written interrogatories is allowed under Rule 23 of the Revised Rules of Court because she us out of the country and will not be able to testify personally before the court due to her imprisonment.
Sergio and Lacanilao objected to the motion asserting that the deposition should be made before and not during the trial. The depositions under the Rules of Court are not designed to replace the actual testimony of the witness in open court and the use thereof is confined only in civil cases.
Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
“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.”
Surely, the case of Veloso does not fall under the foregoing provision. She is neither too sick nor infirm to appear at the trial nor has to leave the Philippines indefinitely. To recall, Veloso is imprisoned in Indonesia. Her situation is not akin to a person whose limitation of mobility is by reason of ill-health or feeble age.
Nowhere in the present Rules of Criminal Procedure does it state how a deposition, of a prosecution witness who is at the same time convicted of a grave offense by final judgment and imprisoned in a foreign jurisdiction, may be taken to perpetuate the testimony of such witness. The Rules, in particular, are 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 the said Rule, the Court holds that it may be applied suppletorily in criminal proceedings so long as there is compelling reason.
The Indonesia Government imposed the following conditions in taking the testimony of Veloso:
- a) Veloso shall remain in detention in Yogyakarta, Indonesia;
- b) No cameras shall be allowed;
- c) The lawyers of the parties shall not be present;
- d) The questions to be propounded to Veloso shall be in writing.
These conditions support the allowance of written interrogatories under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
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 subpoena as provided in Rule 21. Depositions shall be taken only in accordance with these Rules. The deposition of a person confined in person may be taken only by leave of court on such terms as the court prescribes.
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 section 14 hereof.
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) days thereafter, the latter may serve re-direct interrogatories upon a party who has served cross-interrogatories upon the party proposing to take the deposition.
In this case, a strict application of the procedural rules will defeat the very purpose for the grant of reprieve by the Indonesia authorities to Veloso. Veloso’s testimony, being the victim, is vital in the prosecution of the pending criminal cases that were filed against Sergio and Lacanilao.
In the 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.
Related Articles:
- Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (A.M. No. 004-07-SC)
- Effect of Non-Compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.