1) Mendiola testified during a hearing on a motion to discharge him as a state witness in a case against respondents charged with carnapping with homicide. 2) The court granted the motion but Mendiola later died before testifying at trial. 3) The court ruled Mendiola's prior testimony could not be stricken and was admissible because details of the crime were necessary to determine if he was eligible as a state witness, and respondents did not object to the scope of questioning during the hearing.
1) Mendiola testified during a hearing on a motion to discharge him as a state witness in a case against respondents charged with carnapping with homicide. 2) The court granted the motion but Mendiola later died before testifying at trial. 3) The court ruled Mendiola's prior testimony could not be stricken and was admissible because details of the crime were necessary to determine if he was eligible as a state witness, and respondents did not object to the scope of questioning during the hearing.
1) Mendiola testified during a hearing on a motion to discharge him as a state witness in a case against respondents charged with carnapping with homicide. 2) The court granted the motion but Mendiola later died before testifying at trial. 3) The court ruled Mendiola's prior testimony could not be stricken and was admissible because details of the crime were necessary to determine if he was eligible as a state witness, and respondents did not object to the scope of questioning during the hearing.
1) Mendiola testified during a hearing on a motion to discharge him as a state witness in a case against respondents charged with carnapping with homicide. 2) The court granted the motion but Mendiola later died before testifying at trial. 3) The court ruled Mendiola's prior testimony could not be stricken and was admissible because details of the crime were necessary to determine if he was eligible as a state witness, and respondents did not object to the scope of questioning during the hearing.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
People of the Philippines v. Roger Dominguez, et al.
According to Rule 119, Section 17 of the Rules of Court, the
G.R. No. 189081 | August 10, 2016 | J. Jardeleza testimony of the witness during the discharge proceeding will only be inadmissible if the court denies the motion to discharge the accused as a state witness. However, the motion hearing in this case had FACTS: already concluded and the motion for discharge, approved. Thus, whatever transpired during the hearing was already automatically Respondents were charged with the crime of Carnapping with deemed part of the records of the criminal case and admissible in Homicide. evidence. During the course of the trial, the prosecution filed a motion to Respondents argued that Section 18, Rule 119 1 of the Rules of Court release Alfred Mendiola (Mendiola) as an accused to become a state makes it mandatory that the state witness be presented during trial witness. During the hearing of the said motion, Mendiola gave his proper and that, otherwise, his failure to do so would render his testimony and was cross-examined by the counsel for the defense. testimony inadmissible. Nevertheless, the defense manifested that the cross-examination o The Supreme Court did not agree. It held that while was limited only to the incident of discharge, and that their party Respondent was correct that the motion hearing is different reserved the right to a more lengthy cross examination during the from the presentation of evidence in chief, it is precisely prosecution's presentation of the evidence in chief. because of this distinction and separability that the validity of The RTC then issued an order granting the motion to discharge the discharge proceeding should remain untouched despite Mendiola as an accused to become a state witness. the non-presentation of Mendiola during trial on the merits. Thereafter, Mendiola died. Consequently, the RTC issued an order o True, the provision requires the accused to testify again directing that the testimony of Mendiola be stricken off the records of during trial proper after he qualifies as a state witness. the criminal case. However, noncompliance therewith would only prevent the o According to the RTC, Mendiola's testimony was offered only order of discharge from operating as an acquittal; it does not for the purpose of substantiating the motion for him to be speak of any penalty to the effect of rendering all the discharged as a state witness, and does not yet constitute testimonies of the state witness during the discharge evidence in chief. Thus, the defense counsel limited his proceeding inadmissible. questions during cross-examination to only those matters o On the contrary, the testimonies and admissions of a state relating to Mendiola's qualifications to become a state witness during the discharge proceedings may be admitted witness and expressly reserved the right to continue the as evidence to impute criminal liability against him should he cross-examination during trial proper. fail or refuse to testify in accordance with his sworn o The RTC likewise cited Section 18, Rule 119 of the Rules of statement constituting the basis for the discharge, militating Court, noting that there is a requirement that Mendiola must against the claim of inadmissibility. testify again as a regular witness during trial proper to secure his acquittal. Noncompliance with this requirement, according to the RTC, amounted to the deprivation of To qualify as a state witness, the accused to be discharged must testify respondents of their constitutional right to due process, and on the details of the commission of the crime of their right to confront the witnesses against them. That the testimony of Mendiola was offered for the limited purpose of qualifying him as a state witness does not automatically render his ISSUE: statements as to the specifics on the commission of the offense inadmissible. To recall, one of the requirements under Section 17, Should the testimony of Mendiola be stricken of the records of the Rule 119 is to establish that the erstwhile respondent does not criminal case? NO appear to be the most guilty among him and his cohorts. Thus, it is RATIO: 1 Section 18. Discharge of accused operates as acquittal. - The order indicated in the preceding section shall amount to an acquittal of the discharged accused and shall be The death of the state witness prior to trial proper will not automatically a bar to future prosecution for the same offense, unless the accused fails or render his testimony during the discharge proceeding inadmissible refuses to testify against his coaccused in accordance with his sworn statement constituting the basis for the discharge. quite understandable that, during the discharge proceeding, Mendiola narrated in graphic detail his entire knowledge of the crime and the extent of the participation of each of the accused. The Supreme Court stated that it cannot subscribe to Respondent’s postulation that Miranda’s narration was extraneous to the purpose of qualifying Mendiola as a state witness. On the contrary, they were essential in establishing that he was not the main perpetrator of the murder of the victim, rendering him eligible as a state witness. In any event, even assuming arguendo that the details narrated by Mendiola were not germane to the purpose for which his testimony was offered, it was nevertheless incumbent upon Respondents to have timely objected against the line of questioning for irrelevance. o Respondent never raised in his Comment that he and his co- respondents have timely raised an objection when Mendiola delved into the particulars of the crime in his testimony. They were, thus, precluded from belatedly questioning the relevance of the said details.
United States v. Anthony Dipasquale, in No. 83-1364, Appeal of James Dipasquale, in No. 83-1365. Appeal of August Redding, AKA "Porky", in No. 83-1367. Appeal of John Serubo, in No. 83-1368. Appeal of Peter Serubo, in No. 83-1369. Appeal of Victor Szwanki, in No. 83-1449, 740 F.2d 1282, 3rd Cir. (1984)