Still no deposition from drug mule as recruiters’ trial resumes
CABANATUAN CITY—Government prosecutors have not yet secured the deposition of convicted drug mule Mary Jane Veloso, whose death sentence from an Indonesian court had been suspended because of the ongoing human trafficking trial of her alleged recruiters.
In a September decision, Judge Anarica Castillo-Reyes of the Regional Trial Court Branch 88 in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija province, allowed government lawyers to proceed to Indonesia and secure Veloso’s testimony in relation to the trial of Ma. Cristina Sergio and Julius Lacanilao.
Reyes has not yet acted on the objections raised by the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), which is representing Sergio and Lacanilao, to the deposition.
The trial against Sergio and Lacanilao will resume today when Veloso’s estranged husband, Michael Candelaria, testifies for the prosecution.
Lawyer Edre Olalia, president of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) and who serves as counsel for Veloso and her family, said the defense filed a motion for reconsideration on Reyes’ ruling but the court has yet to issue a decision on this.
Heroin smuggling
Sergio and Lacanilao allegedly offered Veloso the overseas job that led to her conviction in Indonesia, where she was caught smuggling 2.2 kilograms of heroin into Yogyakarta airport in 2010.
Speaking for the Veloso family, Olalia said his clients hoped that the defendants’ lawyers would “just let Mary Jane speak so that justice will really be served for all.”
Veloso is supposed to provide oral testimony against Sergio and Lacanilao. But because she is in a foreign jail, Philippine judicial rules allow Filipino lawyers to take her testimony.
Reyes was supposed to join the lawyers of Veloso, Sergio and Lacanilao had they proceeded to Indonesia in August as scheduled.
In an omnibus motion for reconsideration filed on Aug. 24, PAO said that in allowing the deposition, the court “may expose the entire judiciary into the mockery of justice and judicial processes.”
“In ruling in favor of the prosecution for the deposition to proceed, albeit, unlawful, irregular and unprocedural, this … court became a willing participant in the continuing violation of the Constitutional rights of the accused which began from their alleged arrest and continued until their being dragged to trial for a non-existent offense,” it said.
