DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED TO BE STATE WITNESS:

Turning an accused into a state witness is not a magic formula that cures all the deficiencies in the prosecution’s evidence.  The state witness cannot simply allege everything left unproved and automatically produce a conviction of the crime charged against the remaining accused.  Corroboration of the account of the state witness is key.  It is in fact a requirement for the discharge of an accused to be a state witness under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court that the testimony to be given can be substantially corroborated in its material points.

           

“Sec. 17.  Discharge of accused to be state witness. — When two or more persons are jointly charged with the commission of any offense, upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state when, after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge, the 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

          (e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.

            Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence” (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

 

          The Court is not unaware that as an exception to the general rule requiring corroboration, the uncorroborated testimony of a state witness may be sufficient when it is shown to be sincere in itself because it is given unhesitatingly and in a straightforward manner and full of details which, by their nature, could not have been the result of deliberate afterthought (People v. Sunga, G.R. No. 126029, March 27, 2003, 399 SCRA 624, 647-648). This exception, however, applies only if the state witness is an eyewitness since the testimony would then be direct evidence.  The above-quoted Section 17 of Rule 119 actually assumes that the testimony of the accused sought to be discharged as a state witness would constitute direct evidence (i.e., that he or she is an eyewitness) in that it requires that there is no other direct evidence, except the testimony of the said accused. 

         

Where, as here, the state witness is not an eyewitness, the testimony partakes of the nature of circumstantial evidence.  The rule on circumstantial evidence thus applies.  If the testimony is uncorroborated, it does not suffice.  It cannot merit full credence.  Again, the rule on circumstantial evidence requires that, among other things, there is more than one circumstance and the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.  The circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an accused of the crime charged only if the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. The uncorroborated testimony of Felicita does not suffice to establish that appellant committed violence on Uy.  Neither does appellant’s flight.  The fact remains that the three persons present at around the time the crime was committed all fled thereafter.  Appellant’s involvement in every element of the crime charged must still be proved beyond reasonable doubt. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FELICIANO  ANABE y CAPILLAN, G.R. No.  179033,September 6, 2010,CARPIO MORALES, J.)