GR L 18237; (January, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18237; January 31, 1964
IRENEO V. BERNARDO, petitioner, vs. VICENTE DEL ROSARIO, Judge, Court of First Instance, Gumaca, Quezon, and ANGEL VERAN, respondents.
FACTS
Special Prosecutor Ireneo Bernardo charged Gregorio Orfanel and others, including Angel Veran, with kidnapping for ransom. Upon the prosecution’s motion under Rule 115, Section 9, the trial court, presided by Judge Vicente del Rosario, discharged Veran from the information to become a state witness. During the hearing, Veran was presented but failed to testify as promised, showing hostility by presenting an alibi contrary to his prior confessions. He informed the prosecutor he would no longer testify against his co-accused. Consequently, the prosecution moved to reinstate Veran as an accused in the information.
The respondent judge denied the motion for reinclusion. The court reasoned that Veran had partially complied with his promise by answering some questions, and thus his discharge operated as an acquittal. The judge held that the proper remedy was for the prosecution to file a separate information against Veran for his failure to fulfill his agreement. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to reinstate the discharged accused, Angel Veran, into the information after he refused to testify as promised.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, setting aside the trial court’s orders. The legal logic is anchored on the conditional nature of a discharge under Rule 115, Section 9. The discharge of an accused to become a state witness is not an absolute acquittal but a contractual immunity contingent upon the accused fulfilling his obligation to testify fully and truthfully. When Veran reneged on his promise by refusing to testify and presenting a hostile alibi, he breached this condition. His partial compliance, by merely answering preliminary questions, was insufficient to consummate the contract with the state and claim immunity. The Court emphasized that a discharge operates as an acquittal only if the accused fulfills his undertaking. To rule otherwise would allow an accused to deceitfully secure an acquittal. The trial court’s refusal to reinstate him, despite his clear breach, constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, including Veran’s reinstatement in the information.