State witness

1. Louise is being charged with the frustrated murder of Roy. The prosecution’s lone witness, Mariter,
testified to having seen Louise prepare the poison which sought the disqualification of Mariter as witness on account
of her previous conviction for perjury.
a) Can Mariter be utilized as state witness if she a co-accused in the criminal case? (1994, #10)

Answer:
Mariter, however, cannot be utilized as a state witness if she is a co-accused in a criminal case
because an accused can be discharged as a state witness if, among five requirements, the accused has not
at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.

2. Leo Cruz, Domingo Pablo and Manuel Gamino are all charged with the crime of murder for the killing
of Bernardo Samis. The prosecutor moved for the discharge of Leo Cruz so that he may be utilized as a state witness.
The court denied the motion to discharge because while it found that there was compliance with the requirements
under subparagraphs a, b, c, and d, Section 9 Rule 119, the court found non-compliance with subparagraph e, it
appearing that Cruz was convicted of theft three (3) months earlier by the Municipal Court in Biñan, Laguna,
which is an offense involving moral turpitude. The conviction is on appeal before the Regional Trial Court in
Calamba, Laguna.
Is the trial court correct in denying the motion to discharge on this ground? Decide with reasons. (1990,
#15)

Answer:
No, because the conviction of Cruz is still pending appeal before the RTC of Laguna. Hence, he is
not disqualified from being discharged in order to be a state witness.

When may one of several defendants be discharged to be a witness for the

prosecution? (1975, #11)
Answer:
Section 9 of Rule 119 provides that when two or more persons are charged with the
commission of a certain offense, the competent court, at any time before they have entered
upon their defense, may direct one or more of them to be discharged with the latter’s
consent that he or they may be witnesses for the government when in the judgment of the
court:
a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the defendant 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 defendant
c) The testimony of said defendant can be substantially corroborated in its material
points
d) Said defendant does not appear to be the most guilty
e) Said defendant has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral
turpitude.