By Rey Panaligan Government lawyers have asked the Court of Appeals (CA) to reconsider its ruling that barred Mary Jane Veloso from testifying against her alleged illegal recruiters through a deposition inside her detention cell in Indonesia where she awaits a death sentence for trafficking in illegal drugs in 2010. In a motion, Solicitor General Jose Calida said the CA “grossly ignored the extraordinary circumstances” of the case and should not have applied strictly the rules on conditional examination of a prosecution witness like Veloso. Solicitor General Jose Calida
(AP | Aaron Favila | Manila Bulletin) The Rules of Court under Section 15, Rule 19 provide that prosecution witnesses may be conditionally examined only on two basis: that the witness is too sick or infirm to appear in court and that the witness has to leave the country with no definite date of return, Calida said. But Calida said Veloso should be exempted from the provision of the rules because she is under detention in Indonesia which has jurisdiction over her. "The People respectfully submits that Mary Jane Veloso, a Filipina OFW convicted of drug trafficking in Indonesia and sentenced to death but granted reprieve, thus, remains under the custody of law in Indonesia, is suffering from an unusual predicament," he pointed out in the OSG’s motion. "Verily, her personal appearance before the trial court (in the Philippines) for the presentation of her testimony cannot be reasonably expected owing to her detention in an Indonesian jail,” he stressed. 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 was temporarily put on halt last April 29, 2015 after then president Benigno Aquino III appealed her case to Indonesian President Joko Widodo. In a decision that reversed the ruling of the regional trial court (RTC) that allowed the prosecution to take Veloso’s deposition in Indonesia, the CA said: “We are not unmindful of the gravity of the offenses charged against the petitioners (Ma. Cristina P. Sergio and Julius L. Lacanilao, the alleged illegal recruiters). 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.” Section 1, Rule 115 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure states 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….” Calida said allowing the taking of Veloso’s deposition in Indonesia would not violate the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the constitutional rights of Sergio and Lacanilao. “The Court of Appeals should recognize that, in the performance of their duties amid the constantly and rapidly changing legal landscape, trial courts are persistently called upon to read laws not as estate mausoleums of texts, but as living, breathing and evolving documents,” he said.