Previous 1 / 31 Next

PUTUSAN PENGADILAN NEGERI SLEMAN NO. 385/PID.B/2010/PN.SLMN Terdakwa: MARY JANE FIESTA VELOSO Diputus tanggal: 11 Oktober 2010. HAKIM MAJELIS, DAHLAN,SH.MH KADARISMAN A1 RISKANDAR,SH.MH SURATNO,SH PANITERA PENGGANTI, M.Y.SITI YURIAH,SH

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Mary Jane Fiesta Veloso

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

Indonesia

Nationalities

Filipino

Case Title: Mary Jane Fiesta Veloso

Age at Offence: 25

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Female

Religious Group at Offence: Other

Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group

Migrant Worker

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: -6.293782809685137

Longitude: 106.84001863002779

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): Indonesia

Contributing TRP Partner

Institute for Criminal Justice and Reform (Indonesia)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Reprieve by Executive

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2010s: 2010

Method of Execution: Firing/Shooting: Squad

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Excessive and disproportionate punishment
Fair Trial and Due Process: Fair investigation & fair disclosure
Fair Trial and Due Process: Interpreter
Fair Trial and Due Process: Right to fair hearing by impartial, independent tribunal

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Drug Crime

Case Background (300 words max): Mary Jane Fiesta Veloso (30 years old) is a Filipino migrant worker who was sentenced to death by the Sleman District Court on October 11, 2010, for acting as an intermediary in the trafficking of Class I narcotics, specifically heroin, weighing over 5 grams. Mary Jane was arrested at Adisucipto Airport in Yogyakarta after being scanned by an X-ray machine by authorities. The inspection revealed a brownish-green stain on the packaging of the travel bag Mary Jane was carrying. Further examination uncovered an aluminum foil package containing light brown powder hidden in the lining of the travel bag, which was later identified as heroin. Mary Jane claimed she was unaware of the heroin in her bag as the bag was given to her by someone named Maria Christina Sergio, who promised her a job.

Mary Jane ultimately had to undergo legal proceedings in Indonesia, but unfortunately, both the first trial and the review process resulted in a death sentence being upheld.

Despite being incarcerated for 15 years, on December 18, 2024, Mary Jane was repatriated to the Philippines at the request of Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos. However, Mary Jane still remains under the status of a death row convict.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.): Marry Jane's legal counsel stated that the defendant was still found guilty but asked for a lighter sentence on the grounds that the defendant behaved politely, had never been convicted, and was the backbone of the family. During the initial interrogation after her arrest and at her first trial, Mary Jane claimed she did not receive legal assistance and had to defend herself orally. In her petition for case review (PK), Mary Jane stated that the interpreter provided during the trial was ineffective because the interpreter was unqualified, not yet graduated, and only had a letter of assignment from an educational institution, which hindered her ability to present her defense properly.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max): The first-instance court panel considered Mary Jane's statement to be unfounded, as Mary Jane admitted that she opened the travel bag and noticed a cut on the inside that had been sealed with black tape. However, Mary Jane still left it as it was and later filled the bag with clothes. Additionally, Mary Jane was also deemed unable to prove the truth of her ignorance in court, so her denial alone could not be legally used as a reason to acquit her of criminal responsibility. In fact, the court panel considered that her denial could be used as an aggravating factor against her. Therefore, the court panel deemed that, legally, Mary Jane's testimony should be disregarded.

Regarding the petition for judicial review, the court panel also disagreed with Mary Jane's argument, stating that the new evidence submitted was not considered new evidence under the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), and the interpreter presented at the time had been sworn in during the trial, thus their presence was deemed legitimate.

Legal Representation Received

Trial: Private
Appeal: Private
Pre-trial: Unknown
Second Appeal: Unknown

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics

Case Brief Entry Status: Complete

Language of Case Materials

Bahasa Indonesia

Primary Documents

Putusan PN Mary Jane.pdf
Indonesian
Download View
Putusan Kasasi Mary Jane.pdf
Other
Download View
Putusan PK 1 Mary Jane.pdf
Other
Download View
Penetapan PK 2 Mary Jane.pdf
Indonesian
Download View
Putusan Banding Mary Jane.pdf
Indonesian
Download View