Requisites for discharge of accused as state witness | Trial (RULE 119) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Below is a comprehensive discussion of the discharge of an accused to become a state witness under Philippine criminal procedure, specifically under Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. I have organized the material into clear sections for ease of reference.

I. LEGAL BASIS

  1. Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (particularly Sections 17, 18, and 19) governs the trial of criminal cases and sets out the rules on how an accused may be discharged from the information to become a state witness.

  2. Statutory References

    • Section 17: Details the grounds and requisites for the discharge of an accused to become a state witness.
    • Section 18: Provides for the effects of such discharge.
    • Section 19: Governs the reinstatement of the criminal charge if the discharged accused fails or refuses to testify truthfully.

  3. Relevant Jurisprudence: Numerous Supreme Court decisions interpret and clarify the requirements and effects of discharge, among them:

    • People v. Follantes, G.R. No. 129893 (2002)
    • People v. Esparas, G.R. No. 102581 (1993)
    • People v. Cuyos, G.R. No. 182341 (2009)
    • People v. Balila, G.R. No. 107720 (1996)

II. REQUISITES FOR DISCHARGE (SECTION 17, RULE 119)

Before the prosecution is allowed to discharge one of the accused to become a state witness, all of the following conditions must be satisfied:

  1. Absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested.

    • The prosecution must show that there is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of the accused sought to be discharged.
    • “Absolute necessity” means the case against the other accused cannot proceed successfully without such testimony.

  2. There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense.

    • This is tied to the “absolute necessity” requirement. If there are other available witnesses or evidence that can establish the guilt of the other accused, discharge should not be granted.

  3. The testimony of the accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points.

    • It is not enough that the accused’s testimony is relevant; it must also be supported or confirmed by other evidence in its essential aspects to ensure its reliability.

  4. The accused does not appear to be the most guilty.

    • The court evaluates the degree of participation of the accused vis-à-vis the rest of the conspirators or co-accused. The one who is “most guilty” or principally responsible should not be allowed to obtain the benefit of discharge.
    • The rationale is grounded on fairness: the mastermind or principal malefactor cannot be the one going free while lesser participants are prosecuted.

  5. The accused has not been previously convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.

    • This requirement aims to ensure the credibility of the witness and maintain the integrity of the prosecution’s case.

All these elements must concur. Failure to meet any one of them will result in the denial of the motion to discharge.

III. PROCEDURE FOR DISCHARGE

  1. Filing of the Motion to Discharge

    • The prosecution (public prosecutor) files a motion in court, specifying the name of the accused to be discharged and stating the grounds and reasons.
    • The motion must be filed before the prosecution rests its case—i.e., generally before presenting all its evidence. Once the prosecution formally rests, it cannot seek the discharge of an accused, barring very exceptional circumstances.

  2. Hearing on the Motion

    • The court conducts a hearing where the prosecution must present evidence (or justification) to show compliance with the requisites of Section 17.
    • The defense (of the other accused) may object to or comment on the discharge. However, the final determination rests on the court’s discretion based on the evidence presented.

  3. Court’s Order

    • If satisfied that all the statutory and jurisprudential requirements are met, the court issues an order discharging the accused so that he or she may be utilized as a state witness.
    • If the court denies the motion, the accused remains charged in the information and the trial continues as to all the accused.

IV. EFFECTS OF DISCHARGE (SECTION 18, RULE 119)

  1. Equivalent to an Acquittal

    • The order discharging an accused is tantamount to an acquittal, thus ending his or her criminal liability for the offense charged.
    • Hence, a person who has been discharged cannot be prosecuted again for the same offense (the principle of double jeopardy applies), provided that the conditions of the discharge are complied with.

  2. Participation as a Prosecution Witness

    • Once discharged, the accused has the obligation to testify fully and truthfully against the remaining accused.
    • The discharged accused must divulge all knowledge about the commission of the crime. Any material omission or falsehood may lead to severe consequences (see below on reinstatement).

  3. Impact on the Remaining Accused

    • The discharge strengthens the prosecution’s case against the remaining accused, using the insider information provided by the discharged accused, alongside other evidence.

V. REINSTATEMENT OF CRIMINAL CHARGE (SECTION 19, RULE 119)

If the accused refuses or fails to testify against his or her co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement, or testifies falsely, the following are the consequences:

  1. Setting Aside the Discharge
    • The court can set aside or revoke the order of discharge.
  2. Reinstatement of the Criminal Charge
    • The discharged accused may be re-arraigned and prosecuted anew for the same offense, despite the previous order of discharge.
    • This is an exception to the principle that discharge is equivalent to acquittal. It is justified by the condition subsequent that the accused must testify truthfully and fully.
  3. Possible Prosecution for Perjury
    • The discharged accused may also be exposed to liability for perjury or false testimony if he or she makes material false statements during testimony.

VI. RATIONALE AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

  1. Necessity of Insider Testimony

    • The primary purpose behind allowing the discharge of an accused is to secure the conviction of criminals when evidence would otherwise be insufficient. An accomplice-turned-state-witness often provides critical testimony about the planning, execution, and participants of a crime.

  2. Balance of Interests

    • Discharge is a judicial prerogative, not a unilateral act by the prosecution. The strict requirements ensure that the State does not unfairly allow the guilty to go free when sufficient evidence can be obtained from other sources.

  3. Avoiding Abuse of Discharge

    • The condition that the accused must “not be the most guilty” prevents the injustice of a mastermind being exonerated at the expense of lesser participants.
    • Courts ensure that the rule is not misused as a convenient route for an accused to evade liability without significantly aiding the ends of justice.

VII. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS & BEST PRACTICES

  1. Prosecutor’s Due Diligence

    • The prosecutor must thoroughly evaluate (a) the potential testimony, (b) the credibility of the accused, and (c) supporting evidence before seeking a discharge.
    • A weak or uncorroborated testimony that fails to meet the strict requirements of the law risks denial of the motion to discharge.

  2. Defense Strategy

    • Counsel for the non-discharged accused must consider cross-examining the discharged accused thoroughly to test credibility, especially if the defense disputes the claim that the discharged accused is “not the most guilty” or that his testimony is reliable.
    • Counsel may also challenge any non-compliance with the requisites during the hearing on the motion for discharge.

  3. Court’s Vigilance

    • The court, mindful of potential abuses, must require strict adherence to the requirements. It must ensure that the discharge is not granted unless absolutely justified by the prosecution’s demonstration of necessity.

  4. Post-Discharge Cooperation

    • Once discharged, the accused-turned-witness should fully cooperate with the prosecution. Failure to comply places the discharged accused at risk of perjury charges, re-prosecution, and the setting aside of the discharge order.

VIII. SUMMARY

  • Legal Foundation: Sections 17 to 19 of Rule 119, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
  • Mandatory Requisites (all must concur):
    1. Absolute necessity of the testimony;
    2. No other direct evidence available;
    3. Testimony can be substantially corroborated;
    4. Accused is not the most guilty;
    5. Accused has not been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
  • Procedure: Motion by prosecution → Hearing → Court’s determination → Order granting or denying discharge.
  • Effect of Discharge: Operates as an acquittal, preventing re-prosecution for the same offense, unless the discharged accused fails or refuses to testify truthfully, in which case the court may reinstate the case.
  • Policy Rationale: Aims to secure critical testimony against co-accused when such testimony is indispensable, while avoiding injustice by ensuring that the “most guilty” does not escape punishment.

In essence, the discharge of an accused under Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is a powerful but carefully guarded mechanism. It reflects a balancing act: the State’s need to obtain crucial testimony that can secure the conviction of other malefactors, weighed against the strict requirement that an accused must not be “most guilty” and must fulfill the promise of providing truthful, material testimony in court.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login