Flores v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 5, 1982, the Legaspi City Branch of the Central Bank of the Philippines was robbed of P19,731,320.00. A portion of the money was recovered on June 9, 1982, in Intramuros, Manila. Procedural History: An information for robbery was filed by the Tanodbayan with the Sandiganbayan against several individuals, including Modesto Licaros, Leo Flores, and Mario Lopez Vito as principals, and Abelardo B. Licaros as an accessory. Initially, the National Bureau of Investigation recommended Abelardo B. Licaros be charged as a principal, but the Tanodbayan included him only as an accessory after the fact. An amended information was filed, naming the same persons as principals, except for Rogelio dela Cruz who was charged as an accessory, along with Abelardo B. Licaros. The Petition: The Tanodbayan filed a motion to discharge Abelardo B. Licaros to be utilized as a state witness, alleging compliance with Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner Leo Flores opposed this, arguing that the prosecution's assertions of absolute necessity, lack of other direct evidence, and substantial corroboration were unsubstantiated and self-serving. Flores further claimed that Abelardo B. Licaros appeared to be the most guilty and the mastermind. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion, ordering Abelardo B. Licaros' discharge. A motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to nullify these orders and enjoin the presentation of Abelardo B. Licaros as a state witness.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the discharge of Abelardo B. Licaros as a state witness without sufficient basis, considering the necessity of his testimony and his potential role as the most guilty party. Whether the Sandiganbayan prematurely resolved the motion for discharge before the prosecution presented all its evidence, thereby preventing a full determination of whether the requisites of Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court were met.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated February 11, 1983, ordering the discharge of Abelardo B. Licaros, and its resolution dated March 21, 1983, denying the motion for reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of discharging an accused as a state witness: The Court reiterated that the discharge of an accused to be a state witness is governed by Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, requiring absolute necessity of the testimony, absence of other direct evidence, substantial corroboration, the defendant not being the most guilty, and no conviction of moral turpitude. The determination of absolute necessity rests exclusively with the trial court but must be exercised judiciously. The expedient of discharging an accused should only be availed of when his testimony is essential, not merely corroborative. The Court implicitly agreed with the petitioners' argument that the testimony of Abelardo B. Licaros was not absolutely necessary, especially in light of other available evidence and the claim that he was the most guilty. On the procedural aspect of the motion for discharge: The Court found that considering the opposition from the petitioners, particularly their contention that Abelardo B. Licaros was the most guilty and that his testimony was not absolutely necessary, the Sandiganbayan should have deferred its resolution on the motion for discharge until after the prosecution had presented all its other evidence. This would allow the court to fully determine whether the requisites prescribed in Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court were indeed met. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the danger of discharging an accused before the commencement of the hearing, as the accused might disappear, rendering the purpose of their exclusion moot.
Main Doctrine
The Sandiganbayan should have deferred its resolution on the motion for discharge of an accused to be a state witness until after the prosecution has presented all its other evidence, to fully determine if the requisites under Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court are complied with, especially considering the opposition alleging the accused to be the most guilty and his testimony not to be absolutely necessary.