G.R. No. 161886 - Filipinas Port Services, Inc. vs. Cruz

The case involves the People of the Philippines as petitioner and the Court of Appeals along with Chief Inspector Jose T. Pring as respondents.
The controversy centers on the discharge of accused Nonilo Arile to serve as a state witness in Criminal Case No. 94159, where private respondent Jose Pring was charged with Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.
The trial court, during the proceedings, resolved on September 8, 1992, to discharge Nonilo Arile as a state witness based primarily on the records already in its possession.

Prior to the discharge, no separate hearing was conducted on the motion to discharge accused Nonilo Arile; instead, the trial court’s records merely showed that the motion was submitted for resolution.
The timeline of events involved:

The filing of the information against multiple accused including Nonilo Arile and Jose Pring.
Private respondent Jose Pring’s petition for bail with hearings initially scheduled on August 31, 1992, and September 2, 1992.
The prosecution filing a motion on August 28, 1992 to discharge Nonilo Arile as a state witness, with its own scheduled hearing on September 4, 1992.
A subsequent filing by Pring’s counsel also scheduled for a bail hearing on September 4, 1992.

Due to the absence of most accused except Nonilo Arile, the trial court issued an order resetting the arraignment, pre-trial conference, and petition for bail on various dates.
The trial court then issued an order on September 8, 1992, granting the motion to discharge Nonilo Arile on the basis that the submitted sworn statement and other probative evidence satisfied the required conditions.

On October 23, 1992, the Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the trial court’s Order of discharge, holding that a hearing was mandatory in applying Section 9, Rule 119 of the 1985 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Private respondent Jose Pring, who had vigorously opposed the discharge by highlighting the absence of the required hearing and raising concerns in his petition for bail, argued that the lack of an actual hearing infringed his due process.
The prosecution, in response, contended that the submission of the sworn statement and supporting evidence, accompanied by the opportunity for opposition from Pring through his filings, constituted sufficient compliance with procedural requirements.
In view of the conflicting interpretations, the prosecution filed a special civil action for certiorari—and an urgent motion for a temporary restraining order—to enjoin the trial court from resolving Pring’s bail petition pending resolution of the discharge issue.
On March 30, 1993, the Supreme Court En Banc issued a temporary restraining order directing Judge Apolinario Santos to suspend the resolution or granting of the bail motion until the petition was resolved.

Whether the trial court’s resolution of the prosecution’s motion to discharge accused Nonilo Arile without conducting a separate hearing, as required by Section 9, Rule 119 of the 1985 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, violates due process.

Specifically, the inquiry centers on whether the mere submission of the sworn statement and supporting evidence—available in the record and opposed by the defense through pleadings—satisfies the statutory mandate calling for a hearing.
Additionally, whether such a presentation effectively permits the accused witness’s testimony to form part of the trial despite the absence of an actual oral hearing.