MOTION: This house shall prosecute crimes without the aid of

the accused as state witness.

I. Introduction:

A cooperating criminal is dangerous for it has its own mind not

encumbered by the values and principles that animate our laws and
constitutions. It is motivated by socio-pathic self-interest that
wherever he perceives will be best served.

Having said that, will we meet the ends of justice in their hands
or will we distort the legal system?

Who can be a state witness? This query is addressed by

Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, to wit:

“Sec. 9. Discharge of accused to be state witness.

When two or more persons are jointly charged with the commission of
any offense, upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case,
the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged
with their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state when
after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn
statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of
the discharge, the court is satisfied that:

(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused

whose discharge is requested;

(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper

prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said
accused;

(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated

in its material points;

(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty;

(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense
involving moral turpitude.

Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall

automatically form part of the trial. If the court denies the motion for
discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall
be inadmissible in evidence.”

The discharge of an accused operates as acquittal and shall be

a bar to future prosecution for the same offense, unless the accused
fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with
his sworn statement constituting the basis for his discharge.
 The requisites are clear but even if there is anyone who would
qualify as state witness, how can our judicial system assure the
people that justice will be served upon reliance on the testimonies
and evidence of an accused or a co-accused? Is it not a question of
credibility? or is it not even a question of possible miscarriage of
justice?

Hence, this house believes that crimes shall be prosecuted

without the aid of an accused as state witness. The reasons can be
explained by the following arguments:

II. Arguments:

1. Prosecuting a crime with the aid of an accused may give rise to

issues on credibility of testimonies and evidence.

2. Prosecuting a crime with the aid of an accused may lead to

miscarriage of justice.

3. Established circumstantial evidence and testimonies of ordinary

witnesses, star witness and eye witness are sufficient enough to
prosecute a crime.

1. Prosecuting a crime with the aid of an accused may give rise

to issues on credibility of testimonies and evidence.

One of the most frequent ways in which the criminal disposition

of an accused will be introduced in evidence will occur when each
accused denies being involved in any criminal activity but says the
other was.

Whether one accused who give evidence of the criminal

disposition of the other should be the subject of a warning to the jury
has been a matter of some debate. It was that King CJ Said: “I
consider that in the generality of cases in which an accused person
gives evidence implicating a co-accused, it would be necessary, or at
least desirable, to advise the jury to exercise caution in relying on that
evidence alone to convict a co accused because of the interest of his
own which the implicating accused has to serve”. 1

There are conflicting interests that govern the practice of having

a co-accused as witness to give evidence for the prosecution. This
goes to the issue of credibility.

There are many reasons why the evidence of an accused may

be unreliable and bereft of credibility. It is only natural that a witness
who was, or might have been, involved in the alleged crime, may
want to shift the blame from himself or herself onto others, and to
justify his or her own conduct. In the process, the witness may
construct untruthful stories, which tend to play down his or her own
part in the crime and play up the part of others in the crime, even

1
David Ross, One Accused’s Evidence of Another Criminal’s Disposition, 191.
going so far as to blame quite innocent people. Persons who are, or
might have been, involved in an alleged crime may make false claims
as to the involvement of others out of motives of revenge or a feeling
of dislike or hostility.

It must also be noted that it is a common practice to refer to

such testimony of fellow accused as ‘tainted’ without further
corroboration. The statements given by them, are not accorded the
same weight as independent witnesses. There are primarily three
reasons for viewing such statements with an eye of suspicion:
a. because they are likely to swear falsely in a bid to shift the
guilt from himself;
b. because as a participator in the crime, being presumed an
immoral person, is likely to disregard the oath;
c. because he gives his evidence under promise of a pardon, if
he discloses all he knows against those with whom he acted
criminally and this hope would lead him to favour the
prosecution.
The solution to the credibility issue is to make sure that
sentence is passed on a co-accused before he or she testifies for the
prosecution against a co-accused. On the other hand there is the
need to sentence all co-accused in a consistent way as possible.

Section 16 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, when

two or more accused are jointly charged with the offense, they should
be tried jointly. However, the court in its discretion and upon motion of
the prosecutor or any accused, may order separate trial for one of the
accused.

This requires that all co-accused be sentenced at the same

time and that sentence of the one who pleads or is found guilty
should wait until all co-accused have been convicted (or acquitted). In
this way, subsequent evidence by a co-accused that distorts the
picture that emerges on an earlier guilty plea can be taken into
account.
2. Prosecuting a crime with the aid of an accused may lead to
miscarriage of justice.

No state can exist without justice and justice is the way things
ought to be. The Philippine Government have organized and
established institutions which serves to maintain peace and order.
These institutions are responsible for preventing crimes, enforcement
of laws, and apprehension and prosecution of those who violate the
law. If the courts of law find them guilty of committing a crime, they
shall be confined in order for those people to be rehabilitated and to
be reintegrated into the community as law abiding citizens.

In relation to this and to the timely disposal of Philippines

cases, Section 17 and 18, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court provides for
the discharge of the accused as the state witness of the crime
charged subject to the requisites imposed and the acceptance by the
court. But the question is, how credible will be the testimony of the
would be state witness? And the harder question is, can the
testimony of the would be state witness bring justice to the
aggrieved?

To shed light to the Philippine Justice System, the answer is not

at all times. Maybe to some cases but definitely not always. To lay
down the reason for my conviction, when an accused stands as the
state witness, his/her credibility is always questionable. Is he telling
the truth? Or is this one of his/her many lies? State witnesses may
make innocent individuals be charged of the crime instead as the
probability of name dropping and dragging is high. Why give full
credence to the testimony of someone who has committed a crime
charged and penalized higher than Perjury? Can we trust someone
who can even kill and what more can he do than lie to the
prosecution. We do not want to let an innocent individual suffer the
consequences of a crime he know nothing about which then would
lead to miscarriage of justice. Many criminal defendants may
significantly have less time behind bars in the event the state witness
drops and drags an innocent individual into the crime. A witness can
identify the wrong person and the circumstances can lead the
prosecution to think that an innocent person committed a crime and
an innocent person can even be formally charged with a crime he did
not commit and what’s even worse is that the state witness is subject
to acquittal as if he came in clean. There are worst scenario when
innocent lives were taken and became sacrificial lambs.

In some cases, if witnesses are deposing under fear or

intimidation or for favour or allurement, the foundation of
administration of justice not only get weakened, but it may even get
obliterated. In most cases involving influential people, it has been a
regular practice for witnesses to retract from their original statements
to go into hiding because of intimidation and threat to life and
destruction of property.

The Philippine Legal System is a miserable failure not to

mention that the Philippines has the slowest judicial system according
to Guiness World Records. With that said, who would be afraid by the
law when they know that even if they are caught, they can stay out of
prison for decades during which time they can continue doing what
they have been doing and prospering from them? Crime can never be
eliminated, or even slowed down, unless there is rightful justice.

We cannot agree to have the case be over in the event the

state witness falsely testifies. The probability of injustice corroborated
by the state witness places a lot at stake. Filipinos may be losing its
identity and our leaders are becoming unjust, but we shouldn’t give
up on them. We deserve a nation that is lawful and morally-upright
citizens and a government that will protect and win his people not
only today but for a lifetime. Because again, I say, with a heavy heart,
that the legal system of the Philippines is a massive failure.

3. Established circumstantial evidence and testimonies of

ordinary witnesses, star witness and eye witness are sufficient
enough to prosecute a crime.

This house shall prosecute crimes without the aid of an

accused as state witness, for crimes can be considerably be decided
with the aid of circumstantial evidence and other direct evidence
established in the information and in the proceedings rather than
relying on one of the accused’ s testimonies whose credibility is
highly questionable.

Turning an accused into a state witness is not a magic formula

that treats all the deficiencies in the prosecution evidence. As
asserted by the first two arguments, trusting on to accused’s
testimonies might mislead the case when witness falsely testifies as it
is inherent for a perpetrator and a known fact in human nature that
culprit confessing a crime is likely to put the blame on others rather
than himself.

Principally, Rule 119 Section 17 of the Rules of Court pertains

to conspiracy crimes where two or more accused are jointly charged.
For instance, by its very nature, conspiracy is planned with supreme
secrecy and it can rarely be proved by direct evidence. In
insufficiency of direct evidences to prove the guilt of an accused, the
prosecution may resort to circumstantial evidence to discharge the
burdens. It is a well-settled rule that circumstantial evidence is
sufficient to support a conviction, and that direct evidence is not
always necessary2. It is inherent especially that in order to conceal a
crime, it is not always possible to obtain a direct evidence. If direct
evidence is averred under all circumstances, the prosecution of
vicious criminals who committed heinous crimes in secret would be
difficult, if not highly impossible to prove. Why use as a direct
evidence the testimonies by an accused when using other reliable
direct evidence and competent and convincing circumstantial
evidence will suffice the establishment of guilt of the conspirators in a
crime? Yes, they have knowledge of the crime but their testimonies
are possibly subject to undue influence which alter evidences. Giving

2
Bacolod vs. People, GR No. 206236, July 15, 2013
an accused a leeway to discharge to be discharge in crime by the
privilege of becoming a state witness is quite alluring thereby it is
prone to abuse.

There will always be evidences, direct and circumstantial, it’s

just a matter of giving due credit and weight by the prosecution.

III. Summary and Conclusion:

This house firmly believes that crime should be prosecuted

without the aid of an accused as state witness because of three major
reasons as stated on our previous arguments, to wit:

1. Prosecuting a crime with the aid of an accused may give rise

to issues on credibility of testimonies and evidence.
2. Prosecuting a crime with the aid of an accused may lead to
miscarriage of justice.
3. Established circumstantial evidence and testimonies of
ordinary witnesses, star witness and eye witness and are
sufficient enough to prosecute a crime.

According to Judge Stephen S. Trott, a senior circuit judge of

the US court of Appeals, “criminals are likely to say and do anything
to get what they want especially when what they want is to get out of
trouble with the law. Many are outright conscienceless sociopath to
whom ‘truth’ is a wholly meaningless concept. To some ‘conning’
people is a way of life, others are just basically unstable people. 3
These are just few of the reasons why too many times justice fails to
prevail. Justice is sort of like “fairness” — it’s a powerfully compelling
concept, probably an evolved adaptation to some extent hard-wired
into our emotions, which we can’t seem to define properly and which,
when we try to apply it by legislative fiat and violent coercion,
generally just ends up hurting people. We all want it, but we all have
different ideas of what it entails.

In closing, the character and credibility of witnesses at trial is

critical to a proper prosecution. The use of accused as state’s
witnesses is a dangerous maneuver that is done only to get
someone, rather than to the truth.

Prepared By:

Cerro, Princess T.
Saporas, Marilou A.
Sarzona, Cristine R.

3
The use of the criminal as a witness: As a special problem