Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    People v. Esparas

    Uploaded by

    Gabrielle Dayao
    The document discusses a request to discharge an accused person as a state witness against another individual. It denies the request for four reasons: 1) The accused's testimony is not necessary as there is other direct evidence of her guilt; 2) Her testimony cannot be corroborated; 3) She appears to be most guilty based on the evidence; and 4) The individual she seeks to testify against is not a co-accused in the case. The request is denied as the discharge is meant for testifying against a co-accused, and the named individual has not been implicated in the offense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People v. Esparas

    Uploaded by

    Gabrielle Dayao
    36 views1 page
    The document discusses a request to discharge an accused person as a state witness against another individual. It denies the request for four reasons: 1) The accused's testimony is not necessary as there is other direct evidence of her guilt; 2) Her testimony cannot be corroborated; 3) She appears to be most guilty based on the evidence; and 4) The individual she seeks to testify against is not a co-accused in the case. The request is denied as the discharge is meant for testifying against a co-accused, and the named individual has not been implicated in the offense.

    Original Description:

    Criminal Procedure

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a request to discharge an accused person as a state witness against another individual. It denies the request for four reasons: 1) The accused's testimony is not necessary as there is other direct evidence of her guilt; 2) Her testimony cannot be corroborated; 3) She appears to be most guilty based on the evidence; and 4) The individual she seeks to testify against is not a co-accused in the case. The request is denied as the discharge is meant for testifying against a co-accused, and the named individual has not been implicated in the offense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    36 views1 page

    People v. Esparas

    Uploaded by

    Gabrielle Dayao
    The document discusses a request to discharge an accused person as a state witness against another individual. It denies the request for four reasons: 1) The accused's testimony is not necessary as there is other direct evidence of her guilt; 2) Her testimony cannot be corroborated; 3) She appears to be most guilty based on the evidence; and 4) The individual she seeks to testify against is not a co-accused in the case. The request is denied as the discharge is meant for testifying against a co-accused, and the named individual has not been implicated in the offense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Section 9, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, viz.

    : Second, the testimony of appellant is not needed since there are other
    Sec. 9. Discharge of accused. - When two or more accused are jointly charged with direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed.
    the commission of an offense, upon motion of the prosecution before resting Among the evidence available are: (a) the testimonies of the prosecution
    its case, the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with witnesses which clearly show that the two (2) traveling bags which appellant
    their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state after requiring the brought in as her personal belongings each contained 9.97276 kilos and 9.97479
    prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state kilograms of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu; (2) the two packs of
    witness at a hearing in support of the discharge, the court is satisfied that: shabu seized from appellant; and (3) the two (2) traveling bags from which the
    (a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose shabu was found.
    discharge is requested; 
 Third, the testimony being offered by appellant cannot be substantially
    corroborated in its material points. If appellant will be allowed to testify against
    (b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper
    Robert Yu, no one and nothing will corroborate her testimony.
    prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said
    Fourth, appellant appears to be the most guilty.
    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. 


    Said Robert Yu is neither a co-accused nor a co-conspirator. His name was


    merely mentioned by appellant so that she would have somebody to pass the
    blame to, and there is no evidence linking said Robert Yu to the present case.
    The fact that said Robert Yu had a string of drug cases is of no moment. It does
    not in any way prove that he is in conspiracy with appellant in the present case.
    Considering that appellant’s co-accused is Rodrigo Libed and not Robert Yu,
    appellant cannot claim to be worthy of being discharged as State witness against
    Robert Yu, since Robert Yu is neither impleaded as an accused nor is there the
    slightest showing of his participation in the offense.
    There must be at least two or more persons jointly charged with an offense and
    that upon motion of the prosecution, one or more of said accused may be
    discharged as State witness against a co-accused.
    The discharge of an accused is for the purpose of testifying against a co-accused
    in the same case and not against anyone else who has not participated in
    committing the offense charged. Therefore, appellant cannot be discharged as
    State witness since Robert Yu is not her co-accused in this case.
    First, there is no necessity for appellant’s testimony for the prosecution
    to prove its case, since the testimony she is offering to give would only shift
    blame to Robert Yu, a person who is not even impleaded in the case.

    You might also like