This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-04-03 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| While it is true that, as a general rule, the discharge or exclusion of a co-accused from the information in order that he may be utilized as a Prosecution witness rests upon the sound discretion of the trial court,[42] such discretion is not absolute and may not be exercised arbitrarily, but with due regard to the proper administration of justice.[43] Anent the requisite that there must be an absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is sought, the trial court has to rely on the suggestions of and the information provided by the public prosecutor. The reason is obvious the public prosecutor should know better than the trial court, and the Defense for that matter, which of the several accused would best qualify to be discharged in order to become a state witness. The public prosecutor is also supposed to know the evidence in his possession and whomever he needs to establish his case,[44] as well as the availability or non-availability of other direct or corroborative evidence, which of the accused is the 'most guilty' one, and the like.[45] | |||||
|
2007-05-21 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| As part of the conspiracy, Abutin and Tampelix can testify on the criminal plan of the conspirators. Where a crime is contrived in secret, the discharge of one of the conspirators is essential because only they have knowledge of the crime.[8] The other prosecution witnesses are not eyewitnesses to the crime, as, in fact, there is none. No one except the conspirators knew and witnessed the murder. The testimonies of the accused and proposed state witnesses Abutin and Tampelix can directly link petitioner to the commission of the crime. | |||||