1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, the Court of Appeals appeared to have strictly and rigidly applied and interpreted Section 15, Rule 119 without taking into consideration the concomitant right to due process of Mary Jane and the State as well as the prejudice that will be caused to Mary Jane or the People with its pronouncement. Considering the circumstances of Mary Jane, the Court of Appeals demanded for the impossible to happen and thus impaired the substantial rights of Mary Jane and the State. It was akin to a denial of due process on the part of Mary Jane as well as of the State to establish its case against the respondents. The peculiar circumstances obtaining in the present case made it impossible for Mary Jane to appear before the RTC of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. Just like when Mary Jane was recruited by the respondents and taken advantage of because of her poor condition, the same scenario is being repeated because the respondents are again taking advantage of Mary Jane's dire circumstances which they themselves put her in, by depriving her the opportunity to speak and obtain justice for herself. The Court of Appeals did not take into account the fact that the case of the prosecution against Cristina and Julius can only be erected through the testimony of Mary Jane herself. Moreover, by denying the prosecution's motion to take deposition by written interrogatories, the appellate court in effect silenced Mary Jane and denied her and the People of their right to due process by presenting their case against the said accused. By its belief that it was rendering justice to the respondents, it totally forgot that it in effect impaired the rights of Mary Jane as well as the People. By not allowing Mary Jane to testify through written interrogatories, the Court of Appeals deprived her of the opportunity to prove her innocence before the Indonesian authorities and for the Philippine Government the chance to comply with the conditions set for the grant of reprieve to Mary Jane. It is well to remind the Court of Appeals at this point that as held in Secretary of Justice v. Lantion,[30] "[t]he due process clauses in the American and Philippine Constitutions are not only worded in exactly identical language and terminology, but more importantly, they are alike in what their respective Supreme Courts have expounded as the spirit with which the provisions are informed and impressed, the elasticity in their interpretation, their dynamic and resilient character which make them capable of meeting every modern problem, and their having been designed from earliest time to the present to meet the exigencies of an undefined and expanding future. The requirements of due process are interpreted in both the United States and the Philippines as not denying to the law the capacity for progress and improvement. Toward this effect and in order to avoid the confines of a legal straitjacket, the courts instead prefer to have the meaning of the due process clause 'gradually ascertained by the process of inclusion and exclusion in the course of the decisions of cases as they arise' (Twining vs. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78). Capsulized, it refers to 'the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play' (Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Owner's Association vs. City Mayor of Manila, 20 SCRA 849 [1967]). It relates to certain immutable principles of justice which inhere in the very idea of free government (Holden vs. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366)." Thus, it behooved upon the Court of Appeals to have provided some leeway in its interpretation of the subject provision. At this juncture, we find the discussion on the matter by Justice Florenz D. Regalado instructive and relevant, viz.[31]: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65855 12/22