Case Digest (G.R. No. 154629)
Facts:
SPO4 Marino Soberano, SPO3 Mauro Torres and SPO3 Jose Escalante v. The People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 154629, October 05, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.In November 2000, public relations practitioner Salvador “Bubby” Dacer and his driver Emmanuel Corbito were abducted in Manila; their charred remains were later identified and found to have died by strangulation. A Department of Justice panel of prosecutors conducted the preliminary investigation and, on 11 May 2001, filed an Information in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), City of Manila (Criminal Case No. 01‑191969), charging numerous persons, including the petitioning police officers, with double murder. The case was assigned to RTC, Branch 41, presided by Judge Rodolfo A. Ponferrada.
The prosecution later sought to amend the Information (an Amended Information dated 17 September 2001) to substitute certain accused, add new accused (including P/Sr. Supt. Michael Ray Aquino, P/Sr. Supt. Cezar Mancao II and P/Sr. Supt. Teofilo Vina), and to exclude or discharge others (Jimmy and William Lopez, Alex Diloy and P/Sr. Supt. Glen G. Dumlao) to be used as State witnesses. The trial court initially denied the prosecution’s motion to admit the Amended Information, reasoning that exclusion of accused to be state witnesses must comply with Section 17, Rule 119 (the discharge procedure). The trial court had earlier granted the prosecution’s motion for reinvestigation and had ordered a reinvestigation to be conducted.
The trial court later re‑raffled the case to Branch 18. The prosecution petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in a Decision dated 04 April 2002, annulled and set aside the RTC orders of 01 and 24 October 2001 and directed Judge Laguio (Branch 18) to admit the Amended Information, to exclude only the Lopezes and Diloy, and to proceed with the case; the CA left the original Information as to Dumlao intact. A motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied on 12 August 2002.
Petitioners Soberano, Torres and Escalante filed the instant petition for review with prayer for a temporary restraining order (dated 28 August 2002) assailing the CA ruling. They contended that the trial court should have applied Section 17,...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court gravely abuse its discretion in denying the admission of the Amended Information?
- Which provision governs when an information already filed is amended to exclude accused to be state witnesses: Section 14, Rule 110 or Section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure?
- Does the trial court’s grant of a motion for reinvestigation operate as the “leave of court” required under Section 14, Rule 110 to amend an information before plea?
- Does Republic Act No. 6981 (Witness Protection Program) bar the discharge of a law‑enforcement officer from the i...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)