People of the Philippines v. Roger Dominguez y Santos, et al.
February 19, 2018 | Velazco, JR, J. |
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENTS: Roger Dominguez y. Santos, et. al RATIO:
1. According to Section 17 of Rule 119, Rules of Court, The rule is explicit
that the testimony of the witness during the discharge proceeding will
only be inadmissible if the court denies the motion to discharge the
FACTS: accused as a state witness. However, the motion hearing in this case had
1. On January 13, 2011, Venson Evangelista, a car salesman, was abducted already concluded and the motion for discharge, approved. Thus,
in Cubao, Quezon City by a group of men later pinpointed as the whatever transpired during the hearing is already automatically deemed part
respondents herein. of the records of Criminal Case No. Q-11-168431 and admissible in
2. Evangelista's charred remains were discovered the following day in evidence pursuant to the rule.
Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija.
3. Mendiola and Parulan voluntarily surrendered themselves to PNP 2. The argument of incompleteness even contradicts respondent Miranda's
confessing the Roger and Raymond Dominguez (Domiguez Brothers) as the own position since he does not contest here the RTC' s Order granting
masterminds behind the killing. Mendiola' s motion to be a state witness, only the admissibility of his
4. On April 11, 2011, Dominguez Brothers and Miranda were apprehended testimony following his demise.
and three (3) other arrested respondents pleaded not guilty to the offense
5. June 27, 2011, Mendiola became a state witness. 3. True, the provision requires the accused to testify again during trial proper
6. RTC Branch 215 Ruling, September 29, 2011 (Q—11-168431) Court after he qualifies as a state witness. However, noncompliance therewith
granted he motion to discharge Alfred Mendiola to become state would only prevent the order of discharge from operating as an
witness. acquittal; IT DOES NOT SPEAK OF ANY PENALTY to the effect of
7. Mendiola testified on June 27, July 8, and July 11 court hearing rendering all the testimonies of the state witness during the discharge
8. May 6, 2012, Mendiol was found dead. proceeding inadmissible.
9. The respondents filed a position paper that the testimony of Mr. Mendiola 4. Thus, where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine an opposing
be sticken off the records because it is mandatory that state witness be witness but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to
present during trial proper, failure to do so would render his testimony cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness
inadmissible. will be received or allowed to remain in the record.
10. RTC Branch 215 Ruling, January 10, 2014 (Q—11-168431) Court
issued assailed Order directing that the testimony of Mendiola be 5. Respondents' reservation for trial proper of the right to further
sticken off the records Criminal Case crossexamine. Mendiola did not diminish the sufficiency of the opportunity
11. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration — CA Ruling, that they were given to confront the adverse witnesses. Notwithstanding the
May 27, 2016, CA found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the said reservation, Mendiola' s testimonies and admissions as regards the
trial court, therefore the decision is hereby AFFIRMED
particulars of the crime already formed part of the records of the case when
12. Miranda, one of the respondents, added that at the time mendiola testified,
his two (2) co-respondents were not yet arrested thus, allowing testimony of the R TC granted his motion to be declared a state witness. Respondents'
mendiola may be a denial for their right to cross-examint witness against constitutional rights were not violated since the fair hearing envisaged by
them. criminal due process had been complied with when the counsels for the
respondents conducted a rigorous and exhaustive cross-examination of the
deceased witness during the discharge hearing.
ISSUE/s:
1. WoN the testimony of Mendiola should be stricken off the records – NO
RULING: SC reversed and set aside the lower courts decision.
