PEOPLE V. FELICIANO Vitug, J.

October 10, 2001 Automatic review of the decision of the Regional Trial ourt RATIO DECIDENDI: The discharge of an accused to become a state witness has the same effect as an ac!uittal. The im"ro"riet# of the discharge would not have an# effect on the com"etenc# and !ualit# of the testimon#, nor would it have the conse!uence of withdrawing his immunit# from "rosecution. QUICK FACTS: $eliciano and %e la ru&, both securit# guards were accused with robber# with homicide. 'rosecution succeeded in convincing the court to allow de la ru& to be a state witness instead. $eliciano contends that de la ru& should not be allowed to be a state witness. FACTS: The accused arlos $eliciano, was a securit# guard of Atlantic (ecurit# Agenc# in )alibo, A*lan. +e was assigned to the ,(u"erstar, disco "ub and his duties ranged from refusing entr# to dubious characters to ma*ing certain that no customer would leave without first "a#ing his bill. Rodel de la ru&, a securit# guard from another agenc#, the Rhea&a (ecurit# Agenc#, was stationed at the "ar*ing lot of the same building. The two securit# guards would re"ort for dut# at -.00 in the evening until the wee hours of the ne/t morning or when the last customer would have b# then left the "remises. $eliciano and de la ru& centrall# figured in the investigation over the grisl# death of an unidentified woman. The auto"s# re"ort showed that whoever bludgeoned the ha"less Teresita $uentes to death had used a blunt instrument, inflicting twelve different wounds on her head and face. The cause of death was noted to be severe hemorrhage secondar# to lacerated wounds and s*ull fracture. An 0nformation was filed against de la ru& and $eliciano for robber# with homicide. The "rosecution sought the discharge of accused Rodel de la ru& so that the latter could testif# against his co1accused arlos $eliciano. 'ending resolution b# the trial court on the motion, arlos $eliciano and Rodel de la ru& were arraigned. The two accused entered a "lea of not guilt#. The court a !uo granted the motion of the "rosecution and the name of Rodel de la ru&, an accused turned state witness, was forthwith stric*en off from the 0nformation. $eliciano, in his testimon#, denied the asseverations of state witness de la ru&. +e claimed that the accusations were motivated out of "ure s"ite and revenge borne of the hostilit# between them due to wor*1related differences. An altercation arose between him and de la ru& two months before the incident when a customer had com"lained to the )ingsmen 2uilding manager that the toolbo/ of his tric#cle, "ar*ed near the building, was missing. The manager then ordered $eliciano to go to the "ar*ing lot and summon de la ru&. $eliciano re"orted bac* to sa# that he did not find de la ru& in his designated "ost, a fact that de la ru& later resented. The ne/t incident ha""ened the following month. 3#ca 2anson, the live1in girlfriend of de la ru&, was to be ,ta*en out, b# a customer. $eliciano, u"on orders of the management, refused de la ru& entr# within the "remises of the "ub house, in order to avoid an# "ossible trouble, which culminated in a "h#sical tussle between the two men and ended with de la

ru& aiming his gun at $eliciano. The third incident occurred when a motorc#cle "ar*ed at the )ingsmen "ar*ing lot could not be located and de la ru& again was not at his "ost. $eliciano re"orted the matter to the manager and, two da#s later, de la ru& was fired from wor*. The RT of )alibo found accused arlos $eliciano guilt# be#ond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robber# with +omicide and sentenced him to suffer the e/treme "enalt# of death.

ISSUE: 4O5 the discharge of de la ru& as a state witness is a""ro"riate des"ite the strong ob6ections from the defense DECISION: 7es. Judgment A$$0R38%. 'enalt# reduced to reclusion "er"etua for failure of the "rosecution to establish be#ond reasonable doubt an# of the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information HELD: The ourt is inclined to agree with a""ellant that state witness Rodel de la ru& a""ears to be far from being the incul"able #oung man who has sim"l# been an unwitting and reluctant accom"lice to a gruesome crime. (everal incidents militate against his innocence. The events, related b# him, ma*e tenuous the "ur"orted threat and intimidation e/erted b# a""ellant over him. The behavior of Rodel de la ru& during and immediatel# after the crime could not be that of a threatened, frightened man. 0f he indeed wanted to esca"e, he had in his "ossession his own service gun, and he was in control of the tric#cle. +e had enough advantage and chances to esca"e, if he reall# wanted to, from $eliciano who was at that time engrossed at restraining a struggling victim. Another damning evidence against de la ru& was the letter introduced b# "olice ins"ector 4innie Jere&a, hief of 0ntelligence of the 'hili""ine 5ational 'olice of )alibo, A*lan, who, after ta*ing the witness stand for the "rosecution, testified for the defense. The letter, dated 02 June 199:, came from one Roger R. ;aradulla, "ro"rietor of the Rhea&a (ecurit# Agenc#, addressed to ('O< =regorio $. 0ngenerio of the )alibo 'olice (tation, to the effect that the detail order of Rodel de la ru& to the )ingsmen %isco "ub had e/"ired as of <1 3a# 199:. According to ;aradulla, de la ru& was nowhere to be found and his whereabouts were un*nown. A""rehensive that de la ru& had gone on A4O> without first surrendering to the agenc# the firearm issued to him, ;aradulla sought the arrest of de la ru& b# the "olice. The evident attem"t, nevertheless, of the accused turned state witness to mitigate his own cul"abilit# did not adversel# affect his discharge nor did it render com"letel# weightless the evidentiar# value of his testimon#. The "ractice allowing the discharge of an accused to be a witness instead is recogni&ed through wides"read statutor# enactments in other 6urisdictions, and has finall# found its wa# to 'hili""ine criminal "rocedure in a short and com"act militar# =eneral Order 5o. :? issued in 1900. 0ts ado"tion highlights the em"hasis "laced b# the new s#stem on the "resum"tion of innocence in favor of the accused, on the re!uirement that the (tate must first establish its case be#ond a reasonable doubt before an accused can be called u"on to defend himself, and on the "roscri"tion against com"elling an accused to be a witness against himself as well as against drawing inferences of guilt from his silence. @nderl#ing the rule is the dee"1l#ing intent of the (tate not to let a crime that has been committed go un"unished b# allowing an accused who a""ears not to be the most guilt# to

testif#, in e/change for an outright ac!uittal, against a more guilt# co1accused. 0t is aimed at achieving the greater "ur"ose of securing the conviction of the most guilt# and the greatest number among the accused for an offense committed. 0n this 6urisdiction, it is the trial court 6udge who has the e/clusive res"onsibilit# of ensuring that the conditions "rescribed b# the rules e/ist. This grant is not one of arbitrar# discretion but rather a sound 6udicial "rerogative to be e/ercised with due regard to the "ro"er and correct dis"ensation of criminal 6ustice. 2ut that there would be the "ossibilit# of error on the "art of the 6udge is understandable. A trial 6udge cannot be e/"ected or re!uired to inform himself with absolute certaint# at the outset of the trial as to ever#thing which ma# develo" in the course of the trial in regard to the guilt# "artici"ation of the accused in the commission of the crime charged in the com"laint. Thus, here, even while one might be convinced that state witness Rodel de la ru& would, on the basis of evidence ultimatel# submitted, a""ear to be e!uall# as, and not less than, guilt# in cons"irac# with a""ellant arlos $eliciano, the hands of the (tate are now sta#ed and the ourt must assure the e/em"tion of the witness from "unishment. 0t is widel# acce"ted that the discharge of an accused to become a state witness has the same effect as an ac!uittal. The im"ro"riet# of the discharge would not have an# effect on the com"etenc# and !ualit# of the testimon#, nor would it have the conse!uence of withdrawing his immunit# from "rosecution. The rule, of course, is not alwa#s irreversible. 0n an instance where the discharged accused fails to fulfill his "art of the bargain and refuses to testif# against his co1accused, the benefit of his discharge can be withdrawn and he can again be "rosecuted for the same offense. %es"ite an obvious attem"t to downgrade his own "artici"ation in the crime, state witness de la ru&, nevertheless, did not renege from his agreement to give a good account of the crime, enough to indeed substantiate the conviction of his co1accused, now a""ellant arlos $eliciano, b# the trial court. A""ellant arlos $eliciano was not able to sufficientl# dis"ute his "artici"ation therein. 5either his blan*et denial nor his alibi, both inherentl# wea* defenses, was am"l# "roved.