G.R. No. L-14426; May 20, 1960
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, ALEJANDRO SALAZAR, ANDRES SUNGA, BONIFACIO GABRIEL, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On November 28, 1956, an information was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Criminal Case No. 38164) charging multiple accused, including Alejandro Salazar, Andres Sunga, and Florentino M. Villaflor, with falsification of public documents. The information alleged that from June 16, 1949, to April 28, 1956, the accused conspired to falsify Back Pay Form No. 1, Processing Questionnaires, and supporting affidavits by falsely stating under oath that certain individuals were employed in the Labor and Farmer Battalions, CEA, from December 1, 1941, to January 3, 1942, to fraudulently claim and receive back pay from the government, causing damage totaling P33,377.08. After the filing of the information, the prosecution filed a motion to discharge accused Andronico Duque, Andres Sunga, and Florentino Villaflor from the information to be utilized as state witnesses under Section 9, Rule 115 of the Rules of Court. The motion alleged the absolute necessity of their testimonies, the lack of other available evidence, that their testimonies could be substantially corroborated, that they did not appear to be the most guilty, and that they had no prior convictions for moral turpitude. Accused Aurelio Intertas opposed the motion, arguing that the accused to be discharged had convicted themselves of the offense and perjury, that their testimonies were worthless, and that direct evidence was available. The prosecution replied that the claimants were induced by the alleged mastermind, Alejandro Salazar, and that the accused sought to be discharged were not the most guilty. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the accused (Duque, Sunga, and Villaflor) were claimants who made sworn applications and statements, collected back pay, and later admitted their statements were false; thus, they were guilty of falsification and the documents were direct evidence against them. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in denying the prosecution’s motion to discharge accused Andronico Duque, Andres Sunga, and Florentino Villaflor as state witnesses under Section 9, Rule 115 of the Rules of Court, based on the ground that they were guilty of falsification.

RULING

Yes, the trial court committed an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s order and directed the proceedings to continue in accordance with its ruling. The Court held that Section 9, Rule 115 does not disqualify an accused from being discharged as a state witness merely because he has committed falsification or is guilty of the crime charged. The rule only requires that the accused “does not appear to be the most guilty.” The guilt of an accused is not a bar to being a state witness; in fact, a candid admission of participation can be a guarantee of truthful testimony. The trial court’s reasoning would render the rule impossible to comply with, as it would prevent the prosecution of crimes where only the participants can testify against the most guilty. The underlying purpose of the rule is to prevent crimes from going unpunished by allowing a less guilty accused to testify against the more guilty, thereby securing convictions for the offense.