G.R. No. L-6481 May 17, 1954
Jesus Guiao, petitioner-appellee, vs. Albino L. Figueroa, in his capacity as Provincial Fiscal of the Province of Pampanga, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

In the trial of Criminal Case No. 1273 for kidnapping with murder, the provincial fiscal presented Porfirio Dizon and Emiliano Manalo as witnesses for the prosecution. Their testimonies implicated themselves, along with others, in the crime against Felix Lampa. Dizon testified about guarding a plantation and seeing the accused with the victim. Manalo gave a detailed account of being summoned, witnessing the victim being tied, digging a hole, and the victim being shot on orders from Eulogio Serrano. Based on these testimonies, the lower court ordered a reinvestigation. An amended information was subsequently filed in Criminal Case No. 1453, including new accused Jesus Guiao and Eulogio Serrano, but excluding Dizon and Manalo. The fiscal’s reason for exclusion was that they were “indispensable witnesses for the prosecution aside from the fact that they are the least guilty.” After a motion for contempt against the fiscal was dismissed, Jesus Guiao filed an action for mandamus to compel the fiscal to include Dizon and Manalo as accused.

ISSUE

Whether a provincial fiscal may be compelled by mandamus to include in an information persons who appear to be responsible for the crime, but whom the fiscal believes to be indispensable witnesses for the State.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment granting the writ of mandamus. The Court held that Section 1, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court (derived from Act No. 2709) mandates that criminal actions shall be brought “against all persons who appear to be responsible therefor.” This provision is mandatory, not merely directory, to prevent prosecuting officers from shielding favorites. The fiscal’s discretion is limited to determining whether sufficient evidence of guilt exists; if it does, the persons must be included. The law’s procedure for utilizing an accused as a State witness is outlined in Section 9, Rule 115 (formerly Section 2 of Act No. 2709), which requires court approval based on specific conditions, including that the accused does not appear to be the most guilty. The power to exclude an accused for this purpose rests solely with the competent court, not the fiscal. Since Dizon and Manalo admittedly participated in the crime, the fiscal had a legal duty to include them in the information. The proper course was to include them and then follow the court procedure for their possible discharge as state witnesses. The Court also held that a co-accused, like petitioner Jesus Guiao, has a clear legal right to demand the inclusion of all apparent co-conspirators, as they are jointly and severally liable.