GR L 54258; (November, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-54258. November 27, 1987. DOMINGO CAN, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE NICOLAS GALING, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch III, Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, 10th Judicial District, respondent.
FACTS:
An Information for Robbery was filed against Domingo Can, Emilio Daria, Sgt. Jesus Abion, and Francisco Lizardo. During trial, the prosecuting fiscal moved to discharge accused Emilio Daria to be utilized as a state witness, alleging compliance with the requisites under Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, including the absolute necessity of his testimony and that he did not appear to be the most guilty. Petitioner Domingo Can opposed the motion.
The respondent Judge issued an Order dated May 12, 1980, granting the discharge of Daria. A motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated June 10, 1980. Petitioner thus filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus, arguing the discharge was improper.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in discharging accused Emilio Daria to be a state witness.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the discharge. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory requirements for discharge under Section 9, Rule 119, which were not satisfied. First, there was no “absolute necessity” for Daria’s testimony. The prosecution’s own records, including its Rejoinder, admitted that witness Michael Yu had already identified petitioner Domingo Can as a perpetrator, and the PC investigators had solved the case based on admissions from other accused. Thus, Daria’s testimony would be merely corroborative, not indispensable.
Second, the accused Daria was disqualified for having been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. The records disclosed his convictions for Attempted Murder, Slander by Deed, and other offenses. Following jurisprudence, Attempted Murder is a crime of moral turpitude, as it involves a base and depraved attempt on human life. His other convictions further established his untrustworthiness. The respondent Judge therefore gravely abused his discretion in disregarding these clear legal disqualifications and in finding the statutory criteria met. The Orders of discharge were reversed and set aside, and Daria was ordered reinstated as an accused.