G.R. No. 108000 June 17, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and CHIEF INSPECTOR JOSE T. PRING, respondents.

FACTS

Criminal Case No. 94159 was filed against several accused, including private respondent Chief Inspector Jose T. Pring, for kidnapping for ransom. The prosecution filed a motion to discharge accused Nonilo Arile to be a state witness. The motion was set for hearing on September 4, 1992. On that date, during the scheduled arraignment, pre-trial, and hearing on Pring’s petition for bail, only accused Arile appeared. The trial court issued an order resetting the arraignment and pre-trial and stating, “The motion to discharge accused Nonilo Arile to be state witness is hereby considered submitted for resolution.” Without conducting a separate hearing on the motion, the trial court issued an Order on September 8, 1992, granting the discharge after examining Arile’s sworn statement and other prosecution evidence. Pring assailed this order via a special civil action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. The appellate court annulled the discharge order, ruling that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of a hearing under Section 9, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. The People, through the Solicitor General, filed the instant petition, arguing that the requirement was substantially complied with since the sworn statement and other evidence were already part of the record and Pring had filed an opposition to the motion, thereby being afforded due process.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court, without conducting a formal hearing as required by Section 9, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, could validly resolve the prosecution’s motion to discharge an accused to be a state witness, given that the proposed witness’s sworn statement and other evidence were already before the court and the private respondent had filed an opposition challenging the discharge.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals, and REINSTATED the trial court’s Order discharging Nonilo Arile. The Court ruled that while Section 9, Rule 119 requires a hearing, the lack of an actual, formal hearing was not fatal under the circumstances of the case. The prosecution had submitted the sworn statement of Arile and other evidence to satisfy the conditions for discharge. The defense, through private respondent Pring, had filed a detailed opposition to the motion to discharge and had also discussed the material points of Arile’s testimony in his petition for bail. Thus, both parties were able to present their positions, and the trial court had sufficient basis to determine compliance with the legal conditions for discharge. The Court held there was no violation of due process, as the opportunity to be heard can be through pleadings and not solely through oral arguments. The essence of the hearing requirement was substantially complied with, and the discharge of Arile was valid.