GR L 15081; (December, 1919) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15081, December 19, 1919
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROSAURO ENRIQUEZ, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
Rosauro Enriquez was charged with violating the Gambling Law ( Act No. 1757 ) for acting as a banker in the illegal game of jueteng in Malolos, Bulacan, during August and September 1916. The game was conducted in the house of Pedro San Agustin, with Quirino Reyes and Marcelo Santiago serving as collectors who delivered bets to Enriquez. The prosecution presented Reyes and Santiago as witnesses, who testified to Enriquez’s involvement. Enriquez pleaded not guilty, denying knowledge of the collectors and claiming he was at the house due to illness. The trial court convicted Enriquez, sentencing him to two months’ imprisonment. On appeal, the defense argued that the testimonies of Reyes and Santiago were inadmissible because, as participants in the crime, they could not testify for the prosecution unless first charged in the information and subsequently discharged under Act No. 2709.
ISSUE:
Whether the testimonies of Quirino Reyes and Marcelo Santiago, who were accomplices in the crime but not charged in the information, are admissible as evidence for the prosecution.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the testimonies of Reyes and Santiago were admissible. The Court interpreted Act No. 2709, which requires the prosecution of all persons responsible for a crime but allows for the discharge of an accused to become a state witness under specific conditions. The Court ruled that the law does not require accomplices to be first charged in the information before they can testify. The fiscal has discretion to present any person with knowledge of the crime as a witness, even if they participated in it, provided they are competent to testify. The purpose of the law is to prevent arbitrary exclusion of the most guilty accused, not to restrict the fiscal’s ability to present witnesses. The Court found the testimonies of Reyes and Santiago, corroborated by other evidence, sufficient to prove Enriquez’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty was modified to include a fine of ₱200, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Note: The dissenting opinion argued that Act No. 2709 requires accomplices to be charged and then formally discharged by the court to qualify as witnesses, ensuring their testimony is free from coercion or undue influence.