Title
Bernardo vs. Rosario
Case
G.R. No. L-18237
Decision Date
Jan 31, 1964
A discharged co-accused, failing to testify as promised, must be re-included in the same information, not prosecuted separately, to uphold judicial integrity and avoid procedural complications.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18237)

Facts:

Background of the Case:

  • On April 28, 1960, Fiscal Irineo Bernardo, as a special prosecutor, filed an amended information charging Gregorio Orfanel and eleven others, including Angel Veran, with kidnapping for ransom in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Quezon, Gumaca Branch (Criminal Case No. 901-G).
  • The accused pleaded not guilty after arraignment.
  • The prosecution began presenting evidence on September 19, 1960, but had not completed its case by the time of the petition.

Discharge of Angel Veran:

  • On February 23, 1961, Fiscal Bernardo filed a petition to discharge Angel Veran from the information under Section 9 of Rule 115, to use him as a state witness.
  • The court granted the discharge on March 2, 1961.
  • During the hearing on March 2, 1961, Veran was presented as a witness but failed to testify as promised, showing signs of hostility.
  • The Fiscal requested a suspension of proceedings and later filed a motion to reinclude Veran in the information on March 4, 1961.

Court's Decision on Re-inclusion:

  • On March 9, 1961, the court denied the motion to reinclude Veran, stating that his discharge operated as an acquittal since he had partially complied with his promise to testify.
  • The court suggested that if the prosecution believed Veran violated the agreement, a separate information should be filed against him.

Motion for Reconsideration:

  • On March 15, 1961, Fiscal Bernardo filed a motion for reconsideration, emphasizing Veran's prior confessions and his hostile testimony in court.
  • The court denied the motion on March 17, 1961, reiterating that Veran's discharge amounted to an acquittal.

Petition for Certiorari:

  • Fiscal Bernardo filed a petition for certiorari with a writ of preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court, challenging the lower court's orders.
  • The Supreme Court issued a preliminary injunction on March 22, 1961, halting the trial until further orders.

Respondent Veran's Defense:

  • Veran argued that he did not turn hostile and only testified truthfully, as previously disclosed to the Fiscal.
  • He claimed that the Fiscal relied on records from the PC and Provincial Fiscal of Quezon without conducting an independent investigation.

Issue:

  1. Whether a discharged co-accused who fails to fulfill his promise to testify for the State should be re-included in the same information or prosecuted under a separate information.
  2. Whether the facts and circumstances warrant the re-inclusion of Angel Veran in the same information.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Fiscal Irineo Bernardo, and set aside the orders of the lower court dated March 9, 1961, and March 17, 1961. The Court held that:

  1. Re-inclusion in the Same Information:

    • A discharged accused who fails to comply with his promise to testify should be re-included in the same information, not prosecuted under a separate information.
    • Filing a separate information would lead to unnecessary complications, such as splitting the case, reproducing evidence, and potentially raising issues of double jeopardy.
  2. Re-inclusion of Angel Veran:

    • The evidence showed that Veran had promised to testify against his co-accused but failed to fulfill this promise.
    • Veran's partial compliance (identifying co-accused) did not absolve him of his obligation to testify fully.
    • The trial court erred in concluding that Veran's discharge operated as an acquittal.

The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.

Ratio:

  1. Discharge Operates as Acquittal Only if Promise is Fulfilled:

    • Under Section 11 of Rule 115, the discharge of an accused operates as an acquittal only if the accused fulfills his promise to testify against his co-accused.
    • If the accused fails or refuses to testify, the discharge does not amount to an acquittal, and he should be re-included in the same information.
  2. Contractual Nature of Discharge:

    • The discharge of an accused is akin to a contract between the accused and the State.
    • The accused must fully and honestly disclose the crime to receive immunity. Partial or corrupt testimony forfeits his rights under the contract.
  3. Judicial Discretion and Fairness:

    • Courts should not allow an accused to benefit from a discharge if he fails to comply with his obligations.
    • Allowing a discharged accused to avoid prosecution after failing to testify would undermine the purpose of the rule and could lead to injustice.
  4. Practical Considerations:

    • Re-including the accused in the same information avoids unnecessary duplication of proceedings and ensures that the case is handled efficiently.
    • Filing a separate information could lead to procedural complications and potential issues of double jeopardy.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, set aside the lower court's orders, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court emphasized that a discharged accused who fails to testify as promised should be re-included in the same information, not prosecuted separately. This ruling ensures that the integrity of the judicial process is maintained and that the accused does not benefit from his failure to fulfill his obligations.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.