Mule’s plea to testify vs recruiters rejected
THE Court of Appeals (CA) on Friday set aside a ruling of a lower court in Nueva Ecjja that granted a plea of convicted drug mule Mary Jane Veloso to testify in a criminal case against her recruiters from her detention cell in Indonesia.
In an 18-page ruling, dated December 13, the CA’s 11th Division gave its nod to a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Veloso’s alleged recruiters, Ma. Cristina Sergio and Julius Lacanilao to junk the ruling of the Nueva Ecija Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The decision was written by Associate Justice Associate Justice Ramon Bato Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Manuel Barrios and Renato Francisco.
The appellate court has just issued a temporary restraining order and then an injunction order, which halted the taking of Veloso’s deposition.
With the latest ruling, the injunction order is now made permanent by the CA.
“Wherefore, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is granted. The resolutions dated 16 August 2016 and 3 November 2016 issued by Presiding Judge Anarica J. Castillo-Reyes [Branch 88] Regional Trial Court Santo Domingo, Nueva Ecija)... are reversed and set aside [the writ of preliminary injunction earlier issued is thus made permanent]”, the ruling stated.
Veloso is on death row in Indonesia for illegal drugs but her death sentence was held in abeyance upon the decision of Indonesian President Joko Widodo.
The CA ruled that while they “commiserate with the plight of Mary Jane and recognize the prosecution’s need to take and perpetuate her testimony, unless and until the aforementioned constitutional and statutory provisions are revised, modified or amended, we have no other option but to apply the same.”
“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 constitutionality enshrined right of the petitioners to meet the witnesses face-to-face or the right of confrontation and cross-examination. Especially since the cross-examination of a witness is an absolute right, not a mere privilege, of the party against whom he is called,” it said.
The CA has affirmatively acted on a petition filed by the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), led by lawyer Persida Acosta, in behalf of the accused Sergio and Lacanilao.
The deposition is meant to be used as evidence against the two recruiters who have been charged with qualified trafficking in persons filed by the family of Veloso.
The PAO had argued that the taking of deposition by written interrogatories of Veloso is in violation of the constitutional right of the petitioners to confront the witnesses against them face to face.
It believed that such proceedings are only allowed under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court in civil cases, not in criminal cases.
The supposed deposition will be administered by Philippine consular officials in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, where Veloso is imprisoned and to be personally observed by the respondent judge.