crimpro case 119

7/24/2019 Crimpro Case 119

1/4

NOEL EPHRAIM R. ANTIGUA Bachelor of Laws IIICases in Criminal Procedre

Peo!le "s. OcimarGR No. #$%%%

&ac's(

Eduardo Ocimar and Alexander mendoza, together with Alfonso Bermudez, Alberto

Cruz, Venzio Cruz, and John Doe alias "B!O" were charged in the court a #uo for$iolation of %&D& '(), otherwise *nown as the "Anti+%irac and -ighwa .obber /awof 0123,4 On Jul 2,0152, Alfonso Bermudez was 6nall brought before the court& -ewas accordingl arraigned and with the assistance li*ewise of counsel de o6cio, heentered a 7lea of "8uilt"&

On October )5,0152, the 7rosecuting 9iscal mo$ed for the discharge ofaccused Bermudez to be utilized as state witness& Ocimar contends that no accusedin a cons7irac can lawfull be discharged and utilized as a state witness, for notone of them could satisf the re#uisite of a77earing not to be the most guilt&A77ellant asserts that since accused Bermudez was 7art of the cons7irac, he is

e#uall guilt as the others&

Isse(:hether or not a co+cons7irator can satisf the re#uisite of a77earing not to

be the most guilt&

Held(A co+cons7irator can #ualif as a state witness and can satisf there#uisite of

a77earing not to be the most guilt&As the e$idence re$eals, he was onl in$ited to a drin*ing 7art without

ha$ing an 7rior *nowledge of the 7lot to stage a highwa robber& But e$en

assuming that he later became 7art of the cons7irac, he does not a77ear to be themost guilt& B "most guilt", it means the highest degree of cul7abilit in termsof 7artici7ation in the commission of the o;ense, and not necessaril the se$erit ofthe 7enalt im7osed& :hile all the accused ma be gi$en the same 7enalt breason of cons7irac, et one ma be considered least guilt if we ta*e into accounthis degree of 7artici7ation in the 7er7etration of the o;ense&


2/4

Peo!le "s. CA and Ins!ec'or )oe Prin*))( C.A 32'

&ac's(:enceslao Es7ino s a?da$it was gi$en to the defense counsel of %ring& Based on this e$ents, the courtordered the discharge of Arile&

%ring #uestioned such 7rocedure, arguing that the discharge was in$alid due to thewant of hearing& According to %ring, Arile should testif in the witness stand sub


3/4

Rosales "s. CA+,% -CRA ,+

&ac's( An @nformation was 6led before .=C of /ucena Cit charging Eduardo .osales,

together with Crisanto Bautista and 7ri$ate res7ondents !elson Exconde and .oniloAonue$o for the murder of arcial %unzalan, an ex+aor of an Antonio and =iaongtowns in uezon %ro$ince, and his leader, Demetrio .amos& @n the trial of the case, the7rosecution 7resented Eduardo .osales and then Crisanto Bautista as witnesses beforemo$ing for their discharge& Admittedl, their testimonies led to the identi6cation of thealleged masterminds of the slaings, which included 7rominent local 7olitical leaders li*eex+aor Ananiano :agan of an Antonio and ex+aor 9rancisco Escueta of =iaong aswell as two ) baranga ca7tains, and to the 6ling of an information against the four& =hetrial court granted the discharge of .osales but deferred action on the motion to dischargedBautista 7ending resolution of this case& %ri$ate res7ondents 7leaded for thereconsideration of .osalesF discharge b the same was denied& 7on 7etition for certiorari

with the Court of A77eals, howe$er, the order of discharge was recalled as the a77ellatecourt found no 7lausible reason for the discharge of .osales after he admitted his guilt inthe course of his testimon& -ence, this 7etition for re$iew on certiorari of the Decision ofthe Court of A77eals and its .esolution dening reconsideration&

Isse(@s the Court of A77eals correct in annulling the discharge of the accusedG

Held(!O& At the time of .osalesF discharge, the corres7onding @nformation against the

alleged masterminds had not et been 6led& -is testimon, if e$er, was then to be a future

underta*ing on his 7art, and the successful 7rosecution of those res7onsible for the

dastardl acts would hinge solel on his testimon as a state witness& As such, his dischargesatis6ed the intent of ec& 1 of .ule 001 that one or more discharged accused "ma be

witnesses for the tate" and was therefore in accord with law& =he rule is that the discharge

of an accused is left to the sound discretion of the lower court, which has the exclusi$e

res7onsibilit to see to it that the conditions 7rescribed b the .ules are met& :hile it is the

usual 7ractice of the 7rosecution to 7resent the accused who turns state witness onl after

his discharge, the trial court ma ne$ertheless sanction his discharge after his testimon if

circumstances so warrant& @n this case, the imminent ris* to his life


4/4

Bernardo "s. CA)25 C.A 25)

&ac's(-erein 7etitioner %az Bernardo is charged with $iolation of B% !o& )) in the .=C of

uezon Cit&During the course of the trial and after the 7rosecution rested its case, the defense

counsel, instead of 7resenting witnesses, mo$ed for lea$e to 6le a demurrer to e$idence,which was denied b the

crimpro case 119

Documents