Mangubat v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners, along with Delia Preagido and others, were charged in eight separate informations with estafa through falsification of public or commercial documents. Delia Preagido was an accused in six of these cases. The prosecution sought to discharge Preagido, along with two other co-accused, to serve as state witnesses after several witnesses had testified and others became unavailable. 2. Procedural History: The Sandiganbayan (First Division) granted the prosecution's motion to discharge Delia Preagido as a state witness, despite petitioners' opposition. The Sandiganbayan reasoned that Preagido's previous conviction, which was still on appeal, did not preclude her discharge, as she was presumed innocent until final conviction. The Sandiganbayan also deferred to the prosecution's judgment in seeking her testimony. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was denied. Subsequently, this Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining Preagido's testimony. The Supreme Court had previously denied Preagido's petition for review of her conviction in 126 counts of estafa through falsification of public/commercial documents, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. 3. The Petition: Petitioners seek a writ of certiorari and prohibition, arguing that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in discharging Delia Preagido as a state witness. They contend that Preagido is disqualified due to a previous conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude. The petition also notes that Preagido had already testified on direct examination as a state witness before the petition was filed, and that eleven witnesses had already testified. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition, lifting the temporary restraining order, and found that the discharge of a co-defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and that sufficient proof existed to support the Sandiganbayan's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in discharging private respondent Delia Preagido as an accused to be utilized as a state witness. Whether Delia Preagido's previous conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude disqualified her from being discharged as a state witness.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED and the temporary restraining order issued on June 8, 1962, is hereby LIFTED. Costs to be taxed against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in discharging Delia Preagido as a state witness: The Court held that the discharge of a co-defendant under Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court is a matter that lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. In this case, the Sandiganbayan was in a position to determine whether the motion to discharge should be granted after hearing eleven (11) witnesses of the prosecution. The Court found it safe to assume that the discharge was allowed because there was an absolute necessity for the testimony of Delia Preagido. Furthermore, the Court noted that the joint trial had commenced, eleven witnesses had testified, and Delia Preagido had already testified on direct examination as a state witness before the petition was filed. Sufficient proof existed in the records to support the Sandiganbayan's findings and conclusions. On the issue of Delia Preagido's disqualification due to a previous conviction involving moral turpitude: The Court reiterated its stance that even if a discharged witness lacks some of the qualifications enumerated in Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, their testimony will not be discarded solely for that reason. The Court cited People vs. Jamero (24 SCRA 206, 247) for the principle that an error in discharging an accused is not a reversible one and does not affect the competency or quality of the testimony. The Court also pointed out that Delia Preagido's previous conviction was still on appeal, and she enjoyed the constitutional presumption of innocence until a final conviction was promulgated. The Sandiganbayan's decision to grant the discharge was based on the prosecution's assessment of necessity and the existing evidence.
Main Doctrine
The discharge of a co-defendant to be a state witness is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and an error in such discharge is not necessarily a reversible one, especially when sufficient proof exists to support the findings and conclusions of the court in ordering the discharge.