Scribd
Upload
48 views1 page

Mary Jane Veloso

The prosecution filed a motion requesting permission to take testimony from the complainant Mary Jane Veloso through written interrogatories because she is imprisoned overseas and unable to testify in person. The defense objected on the grounds that deposition by written interrogatories is meant for civil cases only and would violate the defendants' constitutional right to confront the witness face to face. The defense also argued that Mary Jane should testify before trial rather than during it.

Uploaded by

MarkJobelleMantilla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
48 views1 page

Mary Jane Veloso

The prosecution filed a motion requesting permission to take testimony from the complainant Mary Jane Veloso through written interrogatories because she is imprisoned overseas and unable to testify in person. The defense objected on the grounds that deposition by written interrogatories is meant for civil cases only and would violate the defendants' constitutional right to confront the witness face to face. The defense also argued that Mary Jane should testify before trial rather than during it.

Uploaded by

MarkJobelleMantilla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

the State filed a "Motion for Leave of Court to Take the Testimony of Complainant Mary Jane Veloso by

Deposition Upon Written Interrogatories.

It averred that the taking of Mary Jane's testimony through the use of deposition upon written
interrogatories is allowed under Rule 23 of the Revised Rules of Court because she is out of the country
and will not be able to testify personally before the court due to her imprisonment.

The prosecution also pointed out that Rule 23 of the Rules of Court applies suppletorily in criminal
proceedings and the use of deposition upon written interrogatories in criminal cases is not expressly
prohibited under the Rules of Court.

Further, it pointed out that the Supreme Court has allowed dispensation of direct testimony in open
court under the Rules of Environmental Cases and the Judicial Affidavit Rule. Lastly, the OSG averred
that Cristina and Julius will still have an opportunity to examine Mary Jane by propounding their own set
of written interrogatories through the designated consular officer who will be taking the deposition;
moreover, they were not precluded from objecting to the questions and answers.

Cristina and Julius objected to the motion asserting that the deposition should be made before and not
during the trial.

The depositions under Rules 23 and 25 of the Rules of Court are not designed to replace the actual
testimony of the witness in open court and the use thereof is confined only in civil cases.

Also, they argued that such method of taking testimony will violate their right to confront the witness,
Mary Jane, or to meet her face to face as provided under Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution.

Finally, they claimed that the prosecution's reliance on the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
and the Judicial Affidavit Rule was misplaced because the affiants therein were still subject to cross-
examination.

You might also like