1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Cristina and Julius immediately filed their "Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to Suspend Period of Time to File Comments to Proposed Questions for Deposition of Mary Jane Veloso. "[9] However, the trial court denied their Omnibus Motion in its November 3, 2016 Resolution.[10] Undeterred, Cristina and Julius filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Urgent Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction[11] before the Court of Appeals averring that the trial court judge gravely abused her discretion in the issuance of the assailed Resolutions. Ruling of the Court of Appeals: Finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, the appellate court, in its assailed December 13, 2017 Decision, granted the Petition for Certiorari and reversed the August 16, 2016 Resolution of the trial court. It held that, contrary to the RTC's. findings, the conditional examination of witnesses in criminal proceedings are primarily governed by Rule 119 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. According to the appellate court, the State failed to establish compelling reason to depart from such rule and to apply instead Rule 23 of the Rules on Civil Procedure which only applies in civil cases. Thus, pursuant to Rule 119, the taking of deposition of Mary Jane or her conditional examination must be made not in Indonesia but before the court where the case is pending, i.e., the Regional Trial Court of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, Branch 88, and that Cristina and Julius, being the accused in the criminal proceedings, should be notified thereof so they can attend the examination. The appellate court further reasoned that to allow the prosecution to take the deposition of Mary Jane through written interrogatories will violate the right of Cristina and Julius as the accused to confront a witness or to meet the witness face to face. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) sought for reconsideration[12] but it was denied by the appellate court in its June 5, 2018 Resolution.[13] Aggrieved, the OSG filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before this Court alleging mainly that: (a) the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to Crisitina and Julius's petition for certiorari because there was another plain, speedy and adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law; in addition, the OSG contended that the Petition for Certiorari should not have been given due course considering the lack of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court; and; (b) Rule 23 of the Rules of Court with respect to deposition under written interrogatories can be applied suppletorily in the taking of the testimony of Mary Jane given her extraordinary circumstances. Meantime, spouses Cesar and Celia Veloso, parents of Mary Jane, filed a "Motion for Leave to Intervene and to Admit Attached Petition-In-Intervention."[14] They prayed to be allowed to intervene, on behalf of Mary Jane, in the instant proceeding for the purpose of protecting and preserving their daughter's substantial and immediate interest. Attached to their motion was their Petition-in-Intervention.[15] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65855 5/22