1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly burden of proving bad faith or ill-motive."[26] As such, no abuse of discretion, much more grave abuse of discretion, may be successfully imputed against the trial court. In fine, this Court holds that the Court of Appeals erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court and in holding that respondents' resort to a Petition for Certiorari was proper. This now brings our discussion to the substantive issues. On Substantive Matters The OSG asserts that the presence of extraordinary circumstances, i.e., Mary Jane's conviction by final judgment and her detention in a prison facility in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, while awaiting execution by firing squad; the grant by the Indonesian President of an indefinite reprieve in view of the ongoing legal proceedings against Cristina and Julius in the Philippines; and the conditions attached to the reprieve particularly that Mary Jane should remain in confinement in Indonesia, and any question propounded to her must only be in writing, are more than enough grounds to have allowed the suppletory application of Rule 23 of the Rules of Court. The OSG's contentions are meritorious. The Court cannot subscribe to the pronouncement by the appellate court that the State failed to show compelling reasons to justify the relaxation of the Rules and the suppletory application of Rule 23. The Court also cannot agree to its declaration that the constitutional rights of Cristina and Julius to confront a witness will be violated since safeguards were set in place by the trial court precisely to protect and preserve their rights. Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court is inapplicable in the instant case In its assailed Decision, the appellate court held that the deposition of Mary Jane's testimony through written interrogatories in Indonesia is not sanctioned by Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and that the pronouncements of the Court in Go v. People[27] and Cuenco vda. De Manguerra v. Risos[28] that Section 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure should not be given any suppletory application. It held that "just like a witness who is sick or infirm, Mary Jane's imprisonment in Indonesia presents a limitation on her mobility."[29] According to the Court of Appeals, Section 15, Rule 119 which applies to the taking of depositions of prosecution witnesses in criminal cases, Mary Jane's deposition must be taken before the court where the case is pending. In other words, the appellate court opines that Mary Jane's testimony must be taken before the trial court, where the cases of respondents are being heard, and not in Indonesia. The Court begs to differ. Section 15, Rule 119 of the revised Rules of Criminal Procedure reads: Section 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution. — When it satisfactorily appears that a witness for the prosecution is too sick or https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65855 10/22