CASE DIGEST: People of the Philippines vs. Maria Cristina Sergio

 

People of the Philippines Vs. Maria Cristina P. Sergio and Julius L. Lacanilao

G.R. No. 240053. October 9, 2019

 

FACTS:

Mary Jane, Maria Cristina Sergio, and Julius Lacanilao were friends and neighbors. Cristina and Julius offered Mary Jane a job as a domestic helper in Malaysia. On April 21, 2010, Mary Jane, together with Cristina, eventually left the Philippines for Malaysia. However, to Mary Jane's dismay, she was informed by Cristina upon their arrival in Malaysia that the job intended for her was no longer available. After spending a few days in Malaysia, Cristina sent Mary Jane to Indonesia for a  seven-day holiday with a promise that she will have a job upon her return in Malaysia. Cristina gave Mary Jane her plane ticket as well as a luggage to bring on her trip. Upon Mary Jane's arrival at the Adisucipto International Airport in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, she was apprehended by the police officers for allegedly carrying 2.6 kilograms of heroin inside her luggage.

Mary Jane's family immediately confronted Cristina who instead of helping them even threatened them to keep the matter to themselves and not to divulge the same especially to the media. She even told Mary Jane's family that she is  part of an international drug syndicate who would spend millions to get Mary Jane out of prison.

However, in October 2010, the District Court of Sleman, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, convicted Mary Jane of drug trafficking and sentenced her to death by firing squad. After the affirmance of her conviction by the High Court and the Supreme Court of Indonesia, Mary Jane and eight other felons who were similarly convicted of drug-related offenses were brought to a prison facility in the island of Nusakambangan, off Central Java, Indonesia, to await their execution by firing squad.

Meanwhile, in the Philippines, Cristina and Julius were arrested by the operatives of the Anti-Human Trafficking Division of the National Bureau of Investigation. Thereafter, they were charged with qualified trafficking in person in violation of Section 4(a) in relation to Sections 3(a) and 6 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9208. Cristina and Julius were likewise charged in two separate Informations with the crime of illegal recruitment as penalized under Section 6, par. (k) and (1) of R.A. No. 8042 and estafa in violation of Section 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Upon arraignment, Cristina and Julius entered a plea of “not guilty” on all charges.

On March 31, 2015, representatives from the PDEA, the PNP Crime Laboratory, and the DFA went to Wirugonan Prison to interview Mary Jane. She executed a document known as "Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Mary Jane Fiesta Veloso. "

In her Sinumpaang Salaysay, Mary Jane maintained her innocence and narrated how she was recruited by Cristina and Julius. She alleged that while in Malaysia, she and Cristina stayed at Sun Inn Lagoon since her supposed employer was not in Malaysia. Cristina has a boyfriend named Prince whom she conversed only by phone. Prince has a brother named "Ike. " On April 24, 2010, Mary Jane and Cristina went to the hotel parking lot and met with "Ike" who was on board a white car. They then went inside the car wherein "Ike" handed the luggage to Cristina. When they returned to the hotel room, Cristina gave Mary Jane the luggage. Mary Jane noticed that it was unusually heavy but, upon checking, found nothing inside. She then asked Cristina why the luggage was heavy but the latter simply replied that because it was new. The luggage was the same bag she used on her trip to Indonesia. It was only after she was apprehended at the airport when Mary Jane realized that it contained prohibited drugs.

On the basis of her affidavit, the Philippine Government requested the Indonesian Government to suspend the scheduled execution of Mary Jane. It informed the Indonesian Government that the recruiters and traffickers of Mary Jane were already in police custody, and her testimony is vital in the prosecution of Cristina and Julius. Thus, a few hours before the scheduled execution of Mary Jane, the President of Indonesia granted her an indefinite reprieve.

Hence, the Indonesian authorities deferred indefinitely the execution of Mary Jane to afford her an opportunity to present her case against Cristina, Julius, and "Ike" who were allegedly responsible for recruiting and exploiting her to engage in drug trafficking.

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.

Thereafter, the State filed a “Motion for Leave of Court to Take the Testimony of Complainant  Mary Jane Veloso by Deposition Upon Written Interrogatories." It averred that the taking of Mary Jane's testimony through the use of deposition upon written interrogatories is  allowed under Rule 23 of the Revised Rules of Court because she is  out of the country and will not be able to testify personally before the court due to her imprisonment. The prosecution also pointed out that Rule 23 of the Rules of Court applies suppletorily in criminal proceedings and the use of deposition upon written interrogatories in criminal cases is not expressly prohibited under the Rules of Court. Further, it pointed out that the Supreme Court has allowed dispensation of direct testimony in open court under the Rules of Environmental Cases and the Judicial Affidavit Rule. Lastly, the OSG averred that Cristina and Julius will still have an opportunity to examine Mary Jane by propounding their own set of written interrogatories through the designated consular officer who will be taking the deposition; moreover, they were not precluded from objecting to the questions and answers.

Cristina and Julius objected to the motion asserting that the deposition should be made before and not during the trial. Also, they argued that such method of taking testimony will violate their right to confront the witness, Mary Jane, or to meet her face to face as provided under Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution.

The trial court granted the prosecution’s motion but subject to conditions one of which is that Cristina and Julius, through their counsel, can file their comment and may raise objections to the proposed questions in the written interrogatories submitted by the prosecution.

Cristina and Julius then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Urgent Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction before the CA.

The CA granted the petition. It held that the conditional examination of witnesses in criminal proceedings are primarily governed by Rule 119 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. According to the appellate court, the State failed to establish compelling reason to depart from such rule and to apply instead Rule 23 of the Rules on Civil Procedure which only applies in civil cases. Thus, 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 and that Cristina and Julius, being the accused in the criminal proceedings, should be notified thereof so they can attend the examination.

The appellate court further reasoned that 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.

ISSUE:

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

RULING:

The Court cannot subscribe to the pronouncement by the appellate court that the State failed to show compelling reasons to justify the relaxation of the Rules and the suppletory application of Rule 23. The Court also cannot agree to its declaration that the constitutional rights of Cristina and Julius to confront a witness will be violated since safeguards were set in place by the trial court precisely to protect and preserve their rights.

Under Sec. 15, Rule 119 of the ROC, 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. The case of Mary Jane does not fall under either category.

The CA’s strict and rigid application and interpretation of Sec. 15, Rule 119 without taking into consideration the concomitant right to due process of Mary Jane and the State impaired the substantial rights of Mary Jane and the State. It was akin to a denial of due process on the part of Mary Jane as well as of the State to establish its case against the respondents. The peculiar circumstances obtaining in the present case made it impossible for Mary Jane to appear before the RTC of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija.

Moreover, by denying the prosecution's motion to take deposition by written interrogatories, the appellate court in effect silenced Mary Jane and denied her and the People of their right to due process by presenting their case against the said accused. By its belief that it was rendering justice to the respondents, it totally forgot that it in effect impaired the rights of Mary Jane as well as the People. By not allowing Mary Jane to testify through written interrogatories, the Court of Appeals deprived her of the opportunity to prove her innocence before the Indonesian authorities and for the Philippine Government the chance to comply with the conditions set for the grant of reprieve to Mary Jane.

Rules 23 to 28 provide for the different modes of discovery that may be resorted to by a party to an action:

a. Depositions pending action (Rule 23);

b. Depositions before action or pending appeal (Rule 24);

c. Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25);

d. Admission by adverse party (Rule 26);

e. Production or inspection of documents or things (Rule 27); and

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: (a) Depositions on oral examination and depositions upon written interrogatories; or (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, while 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.

Interestingly, nowhere in the present Rules on 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.

Furthermore, to disallow the written interrogatories will curtail Mary Jane's right to due process. The benchmark of the right to due process in criminal justice is to ensure that all the parties have their day in court. It is in accord with the duty of the government to follow a fair process of decision-making when it acts to deprive a person of his liberty. But just as an accused is accorded this constitutional protection, so is the State entitled to due process in criminal prosecutions. It must likewise be given an equal chance to present its evidence in support of a charge.

Further, 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. The fundamental rights of both the accused and the State must be equally upheld and protected so that justice can prevail in the truest sense of the word. To do justice to accused and injustice to the State is  no justice at all. Justice must be dispensed to all the parties alike.

Similarly, the deposition by written interrogatories will not infringe the constitutional right to confrontation of a witness of Cristina and Julius.

he right to confrontation of a witness is one of the fundamental basic rights of an accused. It is ingrained in our justice system and guaranteed by no less than the 1987 Constitution as stated under its Article III, Section 14(2). It has a two-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.

True, Cristina and Julius have no opportunity to confront Mary Jane face to face in light of the prevailing circumstance. However, 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 right.

The second purpose of the constitutional right to confrontation has likewise been upheld. As aptly stated in the terms and conditions for the taking of deposition, the trial court judge will be present during the conduct of written interrogatories on Mary Jane. This will give her ample opportunity to observe and to examine the demeanor of the witness closely.