People v. Sergio - REM

PEOPLE V.
SERGIO
G.R. NO. 240053| OCTOBER 09, 2019
HERNANDO, J.
Modes of Discovery: Deposition
FACTS: SUMMARY:
Maria Cristina P. Sergio (Cristina), and Julius L. Lacanilao (Julius) were friends and neighbors in
Talavera, Nueva Ecija. Due to dire situations, they forced Mary Jane to accept a domestic helper job
in Malaysia. Upon arrival in Malaysia, the intended job was unavailable. Cristina then sent Mary Jane
to Indonesia only to be arrested for drug trafficking. Cristina and Julius were arrested for human
trafficking and illegal recruitment. Prosecution requested leave of court to take deposition from
Mary Jane. This was opposed by Cristina and Julius. The RTC granted the prosecution's motion. The
CA reversed the decision hence, the present petition for writ of certiorari.
Due to President’s Widodo’s clemency, Mary Jane’s execution was indefinitely postponed pursuant
to the ongoing investigation on the illegal recruiters in the Philippines who are now in police custody.
This is to afford Mary Jane 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.Thereafter, the State
filed a "Motion for Leave of Court to Take the Testimony of Complainant Mary Jane Veloso by Deposition
Upon Written Interrogatories.
The RTC granted the prosecution’s motion provided the trial judge will preside the deposition of
Mary Jane in Indonesia and the answers of Mary Jane taken verbatim by competent staff in the Office of
the Philippine Consulate in Indonesia and the Court shall schedule the conduct of the cross interrogatory
questions for the deposition of Mary Jane Veloso in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, which shall be presided by
the undersigned trial judge.
The Omnibus motion for reconsideration by Cristina and Julius was denied. Finding grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the trial court, the CA reversed the decision of the Trial Court. It held
that, contrary to the RTC's findings, 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 and 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:
WON there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
RULING:
No. In the case at bench, respondents 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 appellate court simply stated in its assailed Decision that the
trial court merely erred, and not abuse its discretion, much more grave, in applying Rule 23 of the
Rules on Civil Procedure instead of Rule 119 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which particularly
deals with the conditional examination of a prosecution witness, like Mary Jane in this case, in
criminal cases. There was absence of any proof that the grant of the taking of deposition through
written interrogatories by the trial court was made in an arbitrary, whimsical, and capricious
manner.
Although the rule on deposition by written interrogatories is inscribed under the said Rule (23),
the Court holds that it may be applied suppletorily in criminal proceedings so long as there is compelling
reason. A strict application of the procedural rules will defeat the very purpose for the grant of reprieve
by the Indonesian authorities to Mary Jane. Mary Jane's testimony, being the victim, is vital in the
prosecution of the pending criminal cases that were filed against Cristina and Julius.
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.
Questions and Answers:

1. What are the modes or methods of discovery provided for by the Rules of Court?
a. Depositions pending action (R23) or before action or pending appeal. (R24).
b. Interrogatories to parties. (R25).
c. Request for admission by adverse party. (R26).
d. Motion for Qroduction or inspection of documents or things. (R27).
e. Motion for physical or mental §.xamination of a party. (R28).
2. What is a deposition and its kinds?

Deposition is a method of pre-trial discovery which consists in taking the testimony of a person
under oath upon oral examination (oral deposition) or upon written interrogatories. The term
deposition also refers to the testimony or statement so taken.
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.
3. How is deposition applied in criminal proceedings?
Depositions 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 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.

People v. Sergio - REM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Sergio - REM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Sergio - REM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE V.

Questions and Answers:

2. What is a deposition and its kinds?

Depositions are classified into:

You might also like