G.R. No. 240053 , October 09, 2019
People of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Maria Cristina P. Sergio and Julius Lacanilao, Respondents.

FACTS

Mary Jane Veloso, a prosecution witness, was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death in Indonesia. She is detained at the Wirogunan Penitentiary in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. In the Philippines, respondents Maria Cristina P. Sergio and Julius Lacanilao were charged with qualified trafficking in persons, illegal recruitment, and estafa for allegedly recruiting and exploiting Mary Jane. The Philippine government requested the Indonesian government to suspend Mary Jane’s execution, informing them that her testimony was vital for prosecuting the respondents. Indonesia granted an indefinite reprieve but imposed conditions for taking her testimony: Mary Jane remains detained in Indonesia; no cameras are allowed; lawyers of the parties shall not be present; and questions shall be in writing. The prosecution filed a motion to take Mary Jane’s testimony by deposition upon written interrogatories. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the motion, subject to specific conditions. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s resolution, holding that the use of deposition under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court is confined to civil cases and allowing it in a criminal case would violate the respondents’ constitutional right to confrontation. The prosecution elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

May a prosecution witness, who is convicted and detained abroad, testify by way of deposition upon written interrogatories in a criminal case without violating the accused’s constitutional right to confrontation?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that the constitutional right of the accused to meet the witnesses face to face is a fundamental right that cannot be dispensed with lightly. While the Rules of Court allow depositions under Rule 23, this rule applies only to civil actions, proceedings, and other matters. The Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for the taking of depositions of prosecution witnesses to be used in lieu of their actual testimony in court. The right to confrontation includes the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, which is not adequately preserved by written interrogatories as it deprives the court of observing the witness’s demeanor and the accused of conducting a spontaneous and immediate cross-examination. The conditions imposed by Indonesia, which prohibit the presence of the parties’ lawyers and restrict questioning to writing, further undermine the accused’s right to effective cross-examination. The Court distinguished the Judicial Affidavit Rule and the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, noting that in those instances, the affiants are still presented in court for cross-examination. The unavailability of the witness due to detention abroad does not constitute an exception under the Rules of Criminal Procedure that would justify dispensing with her physical presence in court. The right to confrontation is a cornerstone of due process in criminal trials and cannot be supplanted by deposition-taking under the civil procedure rules.