The bid of overseas Filipino worker Mary Jane Veloso to get justice against her alleged illegal recruiters suffered another legal setback after the Court of Appeals has nullified a regional trial court order allowing to take her testimony against the accused through a deposition inside her detention cell in Indonesia where she is facing death sentence for illegal drugs trafficking.
In a decision, the CA’s Former Eleventh Division through Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato Jr. granted the appeal of petitioners Ma. Cristina P. Sergio and Julius L. Lacanilao to nullify and set aside the orders of Presiding Judge Anarica J. Castillo-Reyes of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija RTC, Branch 88, allowing the taking of deposition of Veloso inside her cell in Indonesia.
Petitioners Sergio and Lacanilao along with a certain Ike have been charged before the lower court with qualified trafficking in persons case, a criminal offense punishable under Republic Act No. 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, in connection with the alleged illegal recruitment of Veloso. They have been detained since then.
“We are not unmindful of the gravity of the offenses charged against the petitioners. Likewise, we are not oblivious of the sad and unfortunate fate that befell Mary Jane. However, the circumstances in this case call for the application of Rule 119 which categorically states that the conditional examination of a prosecution witness shall be made before the court where the case is pending in light of the constitutionally enshrined right of the petitioners to meet the witnesses face to face or the right of confrontation and cross examination,” the CA ruled.
It cited Section 1, Rule 115 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled… to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial.”
A deposition is a written testimony made under oath by a witness who is unable to testify in person concerning facts known to him or her.
Veloso was arrested upon her arrival at the Yogyakarta airport in Indonesia for bringing a drug-laden luggage in 2010. She was sentenced to death.
The death sentence has been deferred last April 29, 2015 after then President Aquino appealed her case to Indonesian President Joko Widodo.
On motion by the prosecution, Judge Reyes ordered the Philippine Consulate in Indonesia to secure Veloso’s deposition from her cell in Wirongan Penitentiary.
When the trial court denied Sergio and Lacanilao’s plea to reconsider the judge’s order, they elevated the issue before the appellate court.
In their petition, Sergio and Lacanilao asked the CA to nullify and set aside the lower court’s orders, arguing that the taking of Veloso’s deposition in Indonesia would be prejudicial to their constitutional rights to confront the witnesses face to face.
In March last year, the CA issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the order of the trial court judge. The TRO ripened into a preliminary injunction that put on hold the enforcement of the trial court’s order until the resolution of the case filed by Sergio and Lacanilao.
In ruling against the prosecution, the CA said: “As correctly pointed out by the petitioners, the procedure set forth in Rule 119 and the pronouncements in Vda. De Manguerra v. Rlsos and Go, et al. v. People should be applied in this case because just like a witness who is sick or infirm, Mary Jane’s imprisonment in lndonesia presents a limitation on her mobility.”
“In addition, the conditional examination of witnesses in criminal proceedings are primarily governed by Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure … that the taking of her deposition or her conditional examination be made before the court where the case is pending and that the petitioners be notified thereof so that they can attend the examination. Certainly, to take the deposition of the prosecution witness elsewhere and not before the very same court where the case is pending would deprive a detained accused of his right to attend the proceedings,” the appellate court stressed.
The CA ruled that allowing the deposition of Veloso would violate the constitutional rights of the accused for the right to meet the witnesses face to face or the right of confrontation.
“The right to confront a witness applies with particular urgency in criminal proceedings, for at stake is a man’s personal liberty, universally cherished among all human rights,” the appellate court said.
Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Renato C. Francisco concurred with the ruling.