e.
Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense
5 SALVANERA v. PEOPLE
GR No. 143093 | May 21, 2007 | Rule 119 | Jess
Petitioner: Rimberto Salvanera
Respondents: People of the Philippines, Lucita Parane
Recit-Ready:
In 1995, Ruben Parane was murdered. Of the accused, Salvanera was allegedly the
mastermind. Prosecution filed a motion to discharge two other accused – Abutin
and Tampelix – to become state witnesses. Salvanera opposed the motion stating
that the testimonies of his co-accused are not enough to discharge them and
instead should be substantially corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. The
issue in this case is WON the CA was proper in discharging Abutin & Tampelix?
Yes. The corroborative evidence required by the Rules does not have to consist of
the very same evidence as will be testified on by the proposed state witnesses.
And to require other prosecution witnesses to corroborate would be
counterintuitive of the requisite that the testimony of one to be discharged as state
witness to be absolutely necessary and no other evidence available apart from the
testimony of the accused. Moreover, it is important to note that in conspiracy, the
conspirators would be the ones able to provide testimony to the conspiracy and
the offense.
Doctrine: The corroborative evidence required by the Rules does not have to
consist of the very same evidence as will be testified on by the proposed state
witnesses.
Requisites for discharge of an accused in order that he may be a state witness:
1. Two or more accused are jointly charged with the commission of an offense;
2. The motion for discharge is filed by the prosecution before it rests its case;
3. The prosecution is required to present evidence and the sworn statement of
each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge;
4. The accused gives his consent to be a state witness; and
5. The trial 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; and,
involving moral turpitude.
A conspiracy is more readily proved by the acts of a fellow criminal than by any
other method. If it is shown that the statements of the conspirator are
corroborated by other evidence, then we have convincing proof of veracity.
FACTS:
1. On October 23, 1995, Ruben Parane was murdered in General Trias,
Cavite.
2. Rimberto Salvanera (alleged mastermind), Feliciano Abutin (driver of
motorcycle), Edgardo Lungcay (hired hitman), and Domingo Tampelix
(delivered the blood money) were the accused. Of the four accused, only
Lungcay remained at large.
3. On January 22, 1997, Salvanera applied for bail.
4. On March 4, 1997, prosecution moved for the discharge of Abutin &
Tampelix to serve as state witnesses.
5. RTC granted Salvanera’s application for bail & denied prosecution’s
motion for discharge.
6. Prosecution appealed to CA raising:
a. Trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied the
motion to discharge Abutin & Tampelix to become state witnesses
b. Testimonies of Abutin & Tampelix are absolutely necessary to
establish Salvanera as mastermind of the murder
c. It was premature & baseless for trial court to grant bail because
prosecution has not yet rested its case in the hearing for the
discharge of Abutin & Tampelix
d. It is a notorious fact in human nature that a culprit, confessing a
crime, is likely to put the blame on others, if by doing so, he will be
freed from any criminal responsibility. That both Abutin and
Tampelix will naturally seize the opportunity to be absolved of any
liability by putting the blame on one of their co-accused
e. prosecution witnesses Parane and Salazar, who are not accused,
do not have personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding
the alleged conspiracy. Thus, they could not testify to corroborate
the statement of Abutin and Tampelix that petitioner is the
mastermind or the principal by induction.
7. CA granted prosecution’s motion to discharge Abutin & Tampelix and
cancelled the bail bond of Salvanera.
8. Salvanera argues:
 a. The “substantial corroboration” requirement under Rule 119 must
be satisfied through testimony of other prosecution witnesses not
accused sought to be discharged to become state witness
b. Sworn statement of an accused cannot be used as evidence for
purpose other than his own discharge prior to the issuance by a
competent court
c. Testimonies of Abutin & Tampelix cannot be substantially
corroborated in its material points by the other prosecution
witnesses
d. Testimony given by an accused cannot be used to corroborate
testimony given by another accused.

ISSUES:
WON discharge of Abutin & Tampelix as state witness was proper? (Yes)

RATIO:
To require the two witnesses Parane and Salazar to corroborate the testimony
of Abutin and Tampelix on the exact same points is to render nugatory the other
requisite that "there must be no other direct evidence available for the proper
prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of the state
witness." The corroborative evidence required by the Rules does not have to
consist of the very same evidence as will be testified on by the proposed state
witnesses.

A conspiracy is more readily proved by the acts of a fellow criminal than by any
other method. If it is shown that the statements of the conspirator are
corroborated by other evidence, then we have convincing proof of veracity. Even
if the confirmatory testimony only applies to some particulars, we can properly
infer that the witness has told the truth in other respects."

In this case, the testimonies of Abutin and Tampelix are corroborated on

important points by each other's testimonies and the circumstances disclosed
through the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses. As part of the
conspiracy, Abutin and Tampelix can testify on the criminal plan of the
conspirators. The testimonies of the accused and proposed state witnesses
Abutin and Tampelix can directly link Salvanera to the commission of the crime.

The grant of Salvanera's application for bail is premature. It has to await the
testimony of state witnesses Abutin and Tampelix. Their testimonies must be
given their proper weight in determining whether the petitioner is entitled to
bail.