Soberano vs. People

An amendment to an information before plea that excludes an accused for utilization as a state witness is governed by Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, requiring only motion by the prosecutor, notice to the offended party, and leave of court, without need to comply with the requirements of Section 17, Rule 119.

Salvador "Bubby" Dacer and his driver Emmanuel Corbito were abducted in Manila and killed by strangulation in November 2000; their charred remains were later found in Indang, Cavite. An Information for double murder was filed against several PNP officers and civilians assigned to the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF). After a reinvestigation prompted by new sworn statements implicating other officers, the prosecution sought to file an Amended Information substituting some accused and excluding others to be used as state witnesses.

• The Abduction and Killing: Salvador "Bubby" Dacer and Emmanuel Corbito were abducted along Zobel Roxas Street, Manila, and later killed by strangulation in Indang, Cavite. Their charred remains were found and positively identified.
• Initial Charges: An Information for double murder was filed on May 11, 2001, charging numerous individuals, including petitioners Soberano, Torres, and Escalante, who were PNP officers assigned to the PAOCTF.
• Reinvestigation: Accused P/Supt. Glen Dumlao was arrested and executed a sworn statement implicating other PAOCTF officers. The prosecution moved for reinvestigation, which the trial court granted.
• Amended Information: Following the reinvestigation, the prosecution filed a Manifestation and Motion to Admit Amended Information. The amendment sought to substitute SPO3 Allan Villanueva for P/Insp. Danilo Villanueva, add P/Supt. Michael Ray Aquino, P/Supt. Cezar Mancao II, and P/Sr. Supt. Teofilo Viña, and exclude Jimmy Lopez, William Lopez, Alex Diloy, and Glen Dumlao to be used as state witnesses.
• RTC Denial: The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that admitting the Amended Information outright would violate Section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which governs the discharge of an accused as a state witness. The trial court failed to state other reasons for its denial beyond this legal conclusion.

• Governing Provision: Petitioners argued that Section 17, Rule 119, not Section 14, Rule 110, should govern the exclusion of accused to be used as state witnesses.
• Leave of Court: Petitioners maintained that even under Section 14, Rule 110, prior leave of court was not obtained, as the prosecution simply filed the Amended Information without securing such leave; the prior grant of a motion for reinvestigation is not equivalent to leave of court to amend.
• Judicial Prerogative: Petitioners averred that while determining whom to charge is an executive function, the discharge of an accused after an information has been filed lies with the court.

• Governing Provision: Respondent countered that Section 14, Rule 110 applies because the accused had not yet been arraigned.
• Leave of Court: Respondent argued that the trial court's grant of the motion for reinvestigation effectively constituted leave of court to amend the information.
• WPP Disqualification: Respondent insisted that disqualification from the Witness Protection Program does not prohibit the discharge of an accused from the information.

• Governing Provision: Whether Section 14, Rule 110 or Section 17, Rule 119 governs the exclusion of accused from an information before plea to be used as state witnesses.
• Leave of Court: Whether the trial court's grant of a motion for reinvestigation constitutes leave of court to amend the information under Section 14, Rule 110.
• WPP Disqualification: Whether an accused disqualified from the Witness Protection Program under RA 6981 may still be discharged from the information.

• Governing Provision: Section 14, Rule 110 governs the exclusion of an accused before plea, regardless of the ground for exclusion. Section 17, Rule 119 applies only when an accused is retained in the information and discharge is sought during trial; at the pre-plea amendment stage, the determination of whom to charge remains primarily an executive function.
• Leave of Court: The trial court's grant of a motion for reinvestigation operates as leave of court, signifying deference to the prosecution's authority to determine the proper disposition of the case, provided no substantial rights of the accused are impaired.
• WPP Disqualification: Disqualification from the Witness Protection Program does not bar discharge from the information, as admission to the WPP and discharge as an accused are distinct concepts.

• Prosecutorial Discretion in Charging — The determination of whom to criminally charge is essentially an executive function. Once a trial court grants a motion for reinvestigation, it defers to the authority of the prosecution to determine whether the information should stand, and the prosecution's final disposition serves as the sole valid basis for the court's action on the reinvestigation.
• Amendment Before Plea vs. Discharge as State Witness — When an amendment before plea excludes an accused, Section 14, Rule 110 applies. Section 17, Rule 119 applies only when the accused remains in the information and discharge is sought during trial before the prosecution rests its case.

• "Section 14, Rule 110 does not qualify the grounds for the exclusion of the accused. Thus, said provision applies in equal force when the exclusion is sought on the usual ground of lack of probable cause, or when it is for utilization of the accused as state witness, as in this case, or on some other ground."
• "Admission to the WPP and being discharged as an accused are two different things. Dumlao’s being a law enforcement officer and, thus, disqualified to be under the WPP, do not in any way prohibit him to be discharged from the information."

• Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. No. L-53373, 30 June 1987 — Followed. Held that while the fiscal has quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether to file a case, once filed, the fiscal's disposition after reinvestigation should be submitted to the court, provided it does not impair the substantial rights of the accused.
• Guingona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125532, 10 July 1998 — Followed. Clarified that the decision on whom to indict is executive, and Section 17, Rule 119 comes into play only when an information charging two or more persons has been filed and the discharge of an accused included therein is sought.
• People v. Montesa, Jr., G.R. No. 114302, 29 September 1995 — Followed. Held that a judge granting a motion for reinvestigation is deemed to have deferred to the authority of the prosecution arm of the Government.

• Section 14, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Governs amendment or substitution of complaints/informations. Applied as the proper mechanism for excluding accused before plea, requiring only motion by the prosecutor, notice to the offended party, and leave of court.
• Section 17, Rule 119, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Governs discharge of an accused to be a state witness. Held inapplicable to the exclusion of accused via amendment before plea; applies only when the accused is retained in the information and discharge is sought during trial.
• Section 3, Republic Act No. 6981 — Enumerates requirements for admission into the Witness Protection Program (WPP), including the disqualification of law enforcement officers. Held not to prohibit the discharge of a law enforcement officer from the information, as WPP admission and discharge from an information are distinct.

Reynato S. Puno, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., Dante O. Tinga