G.R. No. L-5242; April 20, 1953
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. FILOMENO B. IBAÑEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon, TEOFILO SALCEDO and MELECIO QUIRAB, respondents.

FACTS

The Provincial Fiscal of Bukidnon filed an information charging Teofilo Salcedo (Mayor) and Melecio Quirab (road capataz) with falsification of a public document for allegedly making a false payroll entry stating that Pascual Ma-aliao worked for 12 days when he was not employed. Before trial, the Provincial Fiscal moved to discharge Quirab from the prosecution to use him as a state witness against Salcedo, alleging the conditions under Rule 115, Section 9 were met: absolute necessity for his testimony, no other direct evidence, his testimony could be substantially corroborated, he did not appear to be the most guilty, and he had no prior conviction involving moral turpitude. Respondent Judge Filomeno B. Ibañez denied the motion, reasoning that the payroll required both signatures, the evidence was mostly documentary and could be established without Quirab’s testimony, and both accused appeared equally important. The Judge also noted the Fiscal could not specify the points needing Quirab’s testimony and suggested the motion could be renewed later. The People, through a petition for certiorari treated as mandamus, sought to compel the Judge to grant the discharge.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the prosecution’s motion to discharge accused Melecio Quirab so he could be used as a state witness.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the respondent Judge’s order. The discharge of an accused to become a state witness is expressly left to the sound discretion of the trial court under Rule 115, Section 9, which requires the court to determine the existence of the statutory conditions. The Court found no abuse of discretion. Based on the information, both accused appeared at least equally guilty, and by the nature of their duties, Quirab’s testimony would likely be presented in his own defense even if not discharged, which could be as effective against Salcedo. The Judge’s caution was justified as a discharge, once granted, is irrevocable under the rules. The Court found the Judge acted in good faith, with circumspection, and to serve justice, leaving the door open for a renewed motion later in the trial before the defense presents evidence. The order was commended, not reversed.