1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Indonesian Government that the recruiters and traffickers of Mary Jane were already in police custody, and her testimony is vital in the prosecution of Cristina and Julius. Thus, on April 28, 2015, or a few hours before the scheduled execution of Mary Jane, the President of Indonesia, His Excellency Joko Widodo, granted her an indefinite reprieve. The Cabinet Secretary of the Indonesian Government informed the public that President Widodo received reports about the on-going legal proceedings in the Philippines with respect to the case of Mary Jane, and that her recruiters were already in police custody. Hence, pursuant to its obligations under the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters entered into by Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty), the Indonesian authorities deferred indefinitely the execution of Mary Jane to afford her an opportunity to present her case against Cristina, Julius, and "Ike" who were allegedly responsible for recruiting and exploiting her to engage in drug trafficking. The Indonesian authorities however imposed the following conditions relative to the taking of Mary Jane's testimony, viz.: (a) Mary Jane Indonesia; shall remain in detention in Yogyakarta, (b) No cameras shall be allowed; (c) The lawyers of the parties shall not be present; and (d) The questions to be propounded to Mary Jane shall be in writing. Thereafter, the State filed a "Motion for Leave of Court to Take the Testimony of Complainant Mary Jane Veloso by Deposition Upon Written Interrogatories. "[7] 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 https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65855 3/22