G.R. No. L-13933; May 25, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. PERFECTO PALACIO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Branch I, JOSE BADIABLE, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

1. An information for murder was filed against Jose Badiable and others. During the trial on August 27, 1957, the defense moved for the prosecution to furnish a list of all its witnesses. Both the private prosecutor and the Assistant Provincial Fiscal did not object, and the court ordered the prosecution to submit the list within ten days.
2. On September 11, 1957, the defendants filed a motion noting the prosecution’s non-compliance with the court’s order and prayed that the prosecution be limited to presenting only the witnesses named in the information. The court granted this motion on September 14, 1957.
3. At the trial on April 17, 1958, the prosecution attempted to present witnesses (Estelita Niebres, Soledad Abaño, Jose Seguerra, and Jose Ibarando) whose names were not listed in the information. The defense objected, citing the court’s September 14, 1957 order. The court sustained the objection and disallowed these witnesses from testifying.
4. The prosecution filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus, seeking to annul the court’s orders dated August 27, 1957, September 14, 1957, and April 17, 1958. Although the petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration in the lower court, the Supreme Court took cognizance because the respondent judge’s remarks indicated any such motion would be denied, making it a useless step.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the orders that (a) directed the prosecution to furnish a list of all its witnesses, and (b) subsequently limited the prosecution to presenting only witnesses named in the information, thereby disallowing unlisted witnesses from testifying.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the writ. The respondent judge’s orders were SET ASIDE.
1. The Court held that under Section 1, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, an accused is entitled to a list of witnesses as part of the arraignment process. However, the last sentence of the same rule explicitly states: “The prosecution may, however, call at the trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information.”
2. Therefore, while the accused has a right to know the nature of the accusation and to a list of witnesses, this does not entitle him to know in advance the names of all prosecution witnesses. Requiring such a complete list could endanger the prosecution’s case by exposing witnesses to potential pressure or coercion.
3. The proper time for the accused to know all witnesses against him is when they take the stand. If the defense wished to exclude witnesses from the courtroom, it should have invoked the rule on exclusion of witnesses (Section 14, Rule 115).
4. Consequently, the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion by ordering the prosecution to furnish a complete witness list and by later restricting the prosecution to only those listed witnesses. The prosecution has the right to present witnesses not named in the information.
5. The respondent court was directed to allow the witnesses called by the prosecution (whose names did not appear in the information) to testify in the criminal case.