People of the Philippines v. Benjamin Aniñon Case Digest

G.R. No. L-39083
March 16, 1988

CASE PRINCIPLE

A co-accused can only be discharged as a state witness provided that the requisites under Section 17, Rule 117 was satisfied. However, an improper discharge of a co-accused cannot invalidate the latter’s acquittal, unless he failed to testify against the co-accused.

The discharge contemplated under Section 17, Rule 119 is one effected or which can be effected at any stage of the proceedings, from the filing of the information to the time the defense starts to offer any evidence.

FACTS

Benjamin Aniñon and Policarpio Saycon were charged with murder. Upon arraignment, Aniñon and Saycon pleaded not guilty. In the course of trial, Saycon was discharged and utilized as a state witness. Thereafter, the trial court convicted Aniñon. Hence, this appeal.

Aniñon contended that “it was a grave error for the Lower Court to discharge accused Policarpio Saycon after the prosecution was practically through with the presentation of their evidence and the accused had already started in their defense in the cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution.”

ISSUE

1. Whether or not the lower court erred in discharging accused Policarpio Saycon and allowing him to testify against his co-accused Benjamin Aniñon after the prosecution was through with the presentation of their evidence.
2. Whether or not the improper discharge of Policarpio Saycon will invalidate his acquittal.

RULING

First Issue

Yes. In Mangubat v. Sandiganbayan, the Court enumerated the requisites for a valid discharge of a defendant to be a state witness under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:

1. Two or more persons are charged with the commission of a certain offense;
2. The petition for discharge is filed before the defense has offered its evidence;
3. There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the defendant whose discharge is requested;
4. There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said defendant;
5. The testimony of said defendant can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
6. Said defendant does not appear to be the most guilty; and
7. Said defendant has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.

Moreover, the discharge contemplated under the Rule is one effected or which can be effected at any stage of the proceedings, from the filing of the information to the time the defense starts to offer any evidence.

In the instant case, the failure to comply with the requisites established by law and jurisprudence is apparent. There was no absolute necessity for the testimony of Saycon, since the prosecution had already presented Dr. Antonio Trasmonte, who testified on the victim’s wounds and his cause of death, Lauro Ibalig, who positively identified Aniñon as the person who stabbed Cesar Agustin, and Rodolfo Tagaboin, who corroborated Ibalig’s presence at the scene of the crime when it was committed. Thus, it cannot be said that there was no other direct evidence available for the prosecution of the offense committed except the testimony of Saycon. His testimony merely served to corroborate and strengthen the earlier testimony of Lauro Ibalig and furnish further details on antecedent events.

Hence, Policarpio Saycon was irregularly discharged as state witness.

Second Issue

No. Under Section 18 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the acquittal of the discharged accused becomes ineffective only if he fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused. In this case, Policarpio Saycon did not refuse to testify against his co-accused. Hence, the irregular discharge of Policarpio Saycon will not invalidate his acquittal.