G.R. No. 115439-41 - People vs. Sandiganbayan

Parties and Procedural Posture
Petitioner: People of the Philippines, seeking certiorari to annul two Sandiganbayan resolutions (Dec. 22, 1993 and Mar. 7, 1994) that denied the discharge of Generoso S. Sansaet as a state witness.
Respondents:

Sandiganbayan (Second Division)
Mansueto V. Honrada – Clerk of Court and Acting Stenographer, First Municipal Circuit Trial Court, San Francisco-Bunawan-Rosario, Agusan del Sur
Ceferino S. Paredes Jr. – former Provincial Attorney, later Governor and Congressman of Agusan del Sur
Generoso S. Sansaet – private respondent, counsel for Paredes

Land Patent and Civil Proceedings
1976: Paredes applied for and obtained a free patent and certificate of title over Lot No. 3097-A in Rosario Public Land Subdivision.
1985: Director of Lands filed Civil Case No. 512 to cancel the patent and title reserved as school site; RTC, Branch 6, Prosperidad, nullified the patent for fraud; Sansaet appeared as Paredes’s counsel.

Perjury and Graft Proceedings Against Paredes
Perjury Information No. 1393 filed in MCTC San Francisco-Rosario-Bunawan for false statements in the patent application; dismissed Nov. 27, 1985 on prescription per DOJ directive; Sansaet as counsel.
Tanodbayan preliminary investigation for violation of RA 3019 §3(a) (graft) based on alleged misuse of influence in the land application; Aug. 29, 1988 resolution recommended prosecution; Sansaet moved for reconsideration citing double jeopardy based on falsified arraignment documents.
Sandiganbayan Criminal Case No. 13800 filed; Aug. 1, 1991 resolution granted defense motion to quash and dismissed for prescription.

Falsification Charges Against Honrada, Paredes and Sansaet
Jan. 23, 1990: Taxpayer Teofilo Gelacio wrote Ombudsman alleging that Honrada, Paredes and Sansaet conspired to falsify notice of arraignment and transcripts in the perjury case.
Ombudsman investigation: respondents filed counter-affidavits; Sansaet later repudiated his affidavit and filed an Affidavit of Explanations admitting he and the others prepared falsified documents at Paredes’s house, instigated by Paredes.
Feb. 24, 1992: Ombudsman approved filing of three informations for falsification of public documents, one against each private respondent, and denied Sansaet’s discharge as state witness, invoking attorney-client privilege; denial of reconsideration Mar. 1992.
The three separate informations were consolidated for joint trial in Sandiganbayan Second Division.

Motion to Discharge Sansaet as State Witness
July 27, 1993: People moved under Sec. 9, Rule 119, Rules of Court to discharge Sansaet as state witness, arguing his eyewitness testimony was indispensable.
Sandiganbayan Second Division denied the motion (Dec. 22, 1993) and denied reconsideration (Mar. 7, 1994), holding Sansaet’s testimony barred by attorney-client privilege.
Petition for certiorari filed in the Supreme Court to annul the Sandiganbayan resolutions.

Does the attorney-client privilege bar Generoso S. Sansaet from testifying as a state witness against his client, Ceferino S. Paredes Jr.?
If privilege does not apply, does Sansaet qualify for discharge as a particeps criminis to testify for the prosecution under Sec. 9, Rule 119, Rules of Court?