Trial

G.R. No. 103397 Chua v. CA

Hermosisima, Jr., J.
When there is a conspiracy, and the crime is committed in secret, then the discharge of a conspirator is necessary to
testify against the other conspirator. Thus, a conspirator may be discharged as state witness.

DOCTRINE
Sec. 17, Rule 119. Discharge of accused to be state witness. When two or more persons are jointly charged with the
commission of any offense, upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or more of the
accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state when, after requiring the
prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the
discharge, the court is satisfied that:
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the
testimony of said accused;
(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. If the court denies the motion for
discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.
Sec. 18, Rule 119. Discharge of accused operates as acquittal. The order indicated in the preceding section shall
amount to an acquittal of the discharged accused and shall be a bar to future prosecution for the same offense, unless the
accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement constituting the basis for
his discharge.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Wilson Chua petitioner; accused
Arcadio Enriquez co-accused; intended state witness
FACTS
1. Tolong Aquaculture Corporation (TAC) filed a case for falsification of private documents against Wilson Chua and
Arcadio Enriquez.
TAC alleged that Chua (from whom TAC leased earth-moving equipment) told Enriquez to make changes in
the Daily Equipment Utilization Reports (DEUR) so he could charge TAC more than what they should pay for
the use of the equipment.
2. The Inquest Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause.
3. On appeal by complainant to the DOJ, the prosecutor was ordered to file the corresponding information on the ground
that there exists a prima facie case of falsification of private documents.
4. Prosecution filed a motion to discharge accused Enriquez as a state witness.
TC denied the motion because 1) the prosecution failed to prove that all the requirements for the discharge of
Enriquez had been complied with; and 2) that Enriquez, being in possession of the documents in question
and admitting that he falsified them, thus being the most guilty of the crime.
Prosecution filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the CA. CA granted.
5. Petitioner filed this petition for review on certiorari of the CA decision.
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. W/N Enriquez may be discharged as a state witness Yes.
Petitioners main argument is that Enriquez, being a co-conspirator in the crime, is the most guilty (there being
only two accused, and as conspirators they must be equally guilty); thus, he cannot be a state witness.
o SC: When a crime is committed in secret, the discharge of one of the conspirators is essential so he
can testify against the other conspirators.
o Only Enriquez can supply the direct evidence required in Sec. 17, Rule 119 (see Doctrine), because
only he and petitioner were privy to the criminal conspiracy.
Petitioner: only the trial court has the responsibility to discharge an accused for use as a state witness.

o SC: The courts discretion is not absolute, and should be exercised with due regard to the proper
administration of justice.
o TC should rely on the suggestions and the information presented by the public prosecutor, who
knows better than it as to which of the accused would best qualify as a state witness, as he knows the
evidence he needs to establish his case.
What, then, is the meaning of absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is
sought?
o The expedient should be availed of only when there is absolute necessity for the testimony of the
accused whose discharge is requested, as when he alone has knowledge of the crime, and not when
his testimony would simply corroborate or otherwise strengthen the evidence in the hands of the
prosecution.
o When there is a conspiracy for example, and the crime is committed clandestinely, then the discharge
of a conspirator is necessary to testify against the other conspirator. A conspiracy can be established
by the testimony of a co-conspirator.
o In a conspiracy which was done in secret, there is a necessity to discharge one of the accused to
provide direct evidence of the commission of the crime. For who else outside the conspiracy can
testify on what was concocted between the conspirators, but they themselves?
Petitioner: CA erred in not finding Enriquez the most guilty.
o SC: No it didnt. The crime of falsification of private documents took place because petitioner induced
Enriquez to alter the DEURs. Without the inducement, the crime wouldnt have taken place. Thus,
petitioner, and not Enriquez, is the most guilty.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Petition denied. CA affirmed.

DIGESTER: Cristelle Elaine Collera