THE Court of Appeals (CA) has reversed a resolution by a local court allowing the deposition of convicted drug trafficker Ms. Mary Jane F. Veloso against her alleged recruiters Ms. Maria Cristina P. Sergio and Mr. Julius L. Lacanilao.

Ms. Veloso is unable to personally testify in the illegal recruitment case against Ms. Sergio and Mr. Lacanilao because of her continued detention in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, where she was scheduled for execution in 2015 until a last-minute stay that year.

She was apprehended in Indonesia in April 2010 after she was found in possession of 2.6 kilograms or 2,600 grams of heroin in her luggage. Possession of drugs is penalized by death under Indonesian laws.

Judge Anarica J. Castillo-Reyes of Nueva Ecija Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 88, in a resolution dated Aug. 16, 2016, ordered the taking of Ms. Veloso’s testimonies in Indonesia, but this was challenged by Ms. Sergio and Mr. Lacanilao.

The CA, in a ruling on Jan. 4, Thursday, said “the circumstances in this case call for the application of Rule 119” of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which “categorically states that the conditional examination of a prosecution witness (Ms. Velos, in this case) shall be made before the court where the case is pending.”

This is in recognition of the constitutional right of confrontation and cross-examination of Ms. Maria Cristina P. Sergio and Mr. Julius L. Lacanilao, the two accused in the illegal recruitment case filed by the parents of Ms. Veloso.

“The respondent Judge has committed grave abuse of discretion when it granted the Motion for Leave of Court to Take the Testimony of Complainant Mary Jane Veloso by Deposition Upon Written lnterrogatories,” said the CA decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred by Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Renato C. Francisco.

“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,” the decision stated.

A lawyer of Ms. Veloso said the CA ruling is “both frustrating and ironic.”

“We are disappointed that the taking her material testimony is being prevented by our own courts, the Court of Appeals in particular, upon the motion of the accused illegal recruiters’ defense team,” lawyer Edre U. Olalia of the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) said in a press statement. NUPL stands as the private prosecutors and Philippine counsel for Ms. Veloso.

Mr. Olalia insisted that “no fundamental right is violated” should Ms. Veloso testify in writing as the “counsel will be present when her disposition is taken in Indonesia in the presence not only of the same Philippine judge hearing the case” and “other concerned judicial and consular officials of the Philippines and Indonesia.”

“Given the novelty of the legal situation involving two jurisdictions and her circumstances of being detained in a foreign land unable or disallowed to go home as yet, her deposition would shed light on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” Mr. Olalia added. — Minde Nyl R. Dela Cruz

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR