Case Digest (G.R. No. 110249)
Facts:
In Manuel J. Jimenez, Jr. v. People of the Philippines (G.R. Nos. 209195 & 209215, September 17, 2014), the petitioner, Manuel J. Jimenez, Jr., together with four co-accused and one state witness, Manuel A. Montero, was charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 170 in Malabon. On May 18 and June 11, 2009, Montero executed extrajudicial confessions implicating Jimenez and others in the abduction and killing of Ruby Rose Barrameda, leading to the recovery of the victim’s cadaver encased in a steel drum. On August 20, 2009, the People filed an Information for murder. Montero then moved for discharge pursuant to Section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure under the Witness Protection Program (R.A. 6981), which Jimenez opposed. Acting Judge Hector B. Almeyda denied the motion on March 19, 2010 for lack of compliance with the statutory requisites. Judge Zaldy B. Docena, upon review, reversed that order on July 30, 2010, finding that Montero’Case Digest (G.R. No. 110249)
Facts:
- Parties and Consolidation
- Manuel J. Jimenez, Jr. (petitioner) vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 209195, and People of the Philippines (petitioner) vs. Manuel J. Jimenez, Jr., G.R. No. 209215, consolidated under Rule 45.
- Both petitions assail the Court of Appeals’ (CA) amended decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 121167: Jimenez challenges the grant of Montero’s discharge as state witness; the People challenge the CA’s order to re-raffle the case to avoid alleged bias.
- Factual and Procedural Background
- May–June 2009: Manuel A. Montero, former employee of BSJ Company, executes two sworn statements confessing his role in the murder of Ruby Rose Barrameda and naming Jimenez and others as co-conspirators; leads to recovery of an encased cadaver.
- August 20, 2009: Information for murder filed against Jimenez, his brother Lope, Lennard Descalso, Robert Ponce, Eric Fernandez, and Montero. Montero and the People move to discharge him as state witness under Rule 119, Sec. 17 (R.A. 6981); Jimenez opposes.
- RTC and CA Proceedings
- March 19, 2010: Acting RTC Judge Almeyda denies discharge for non-compliance with Rule 119, Sec. 17 (lack of necessity, insufficient corroboration, no proof of guilt against Jimenez).
- July 30, 2010: Newly-appointed RTC Judge Docena grants discharge, finding clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence of necessity, corroboration, Montero not most guilty, and absence of prior conviction for moral turpitude; denies reconsideration and inhibition motions through December 2010 and June 2011 omnibus orders.
- CA’s May 22, 2012 Decision grants Jimenez’s certiorari petition; on reconsideration, Amended Decision (Oct. 2012) finds no grave abuse in discharge but orders re-raffle to avoid any claim of bias; denies show-cause motion.
- Present Petitions and Main Contentions
- Jimenez (G.R. 209195) argues: no absolute necessity, other conspirators equally knowledgeable, lack of hearing, Montero most guilty, inconsistencies in evidence, no basis for inducement vs. participation distinction, and mootness by withdrawal of consent.
- People (G.R. 209215) contends: no ground to re-raffle absent proof of bias; inhibition requires clear, statutory cause under Rule 137; speculative bias and unrelated administrative case insufficient.
Issues:
- Did the CA err in upholding RTC Judge Docena’s grant of discharge of Montero as state witness—i.e., was there grave abuse of discretion?
- Did the CA err in ordering the re-raffle of Criminal Case No. 39225-MN on the ground of bias, contrary to Rule 137?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)