Beheading

One of the suspects in the beheading offered to be a state witness

(“Disparate Furioso” (“Furious Folly”) by Francisco de Goya from www.artregister.com)

contending that he did not decapitate anyone, he just fired his gun. The ARMM police chief superintendent said that if the suspect was on the arrest warrant he could not be a state witness.

Can he be a state witness? It depends on the testimony he is offering. Like… is he telling the truth. Duh. How do you know? Since I don’t have mental telepathy, it’s probably useful to find out: 1.who he is. 2. where did he come from? 3.he claimed to have been a military asset. What was his mission? You need to verify; if not true, if he is lying, what would make you think he is not lying now. 4.some assets have been known to go to the other side and reach a point of no return when they participate directly in the crimes; so you need to see his files; 5.and his file on the contract assassination of which he was accused; 6. on the beheading: if the details of his testimony can be independently corroborated, i.e., there are other pieces of evidence other than his word, that buttresses what he says. For example, the hours, the particular area, the weapons used, the cuts, the wounds inflicted; sights and sounds; names, etc. If the testimony is general, forget it. The witness needs to supply details that only a person who was present while the crime was on-going or being planned, could supply. Otherwise, forget it.

In any case, the Rules of Court set forth the following requirements of when an accused may be discharged as state witness: 1.the prosecution absolutely needs the testimony of the accused and does not have any other evidence or even enough evidence to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt; 2.the testimony can be verified or corroborated in its material points; 3.he is not the most guilty (note that the rule does not say he/ she should be the least guilty; it just says “not the most guilty”). In other words, he/ she should not be the mastermind (I’d probably prefer too that the state witness was not a principal by inducement or the person who forced or induced his/her co-accused to commit the crime). 3.he/ she has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude; examples are estafa, qualified theft, falsification, etc.

Here’s the verbatim rule on the matter:

“RULE 119. 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.

“ Sec. 18. Discharge of accused operates as acquittal. – The order indicated in the preceding section shall amount to an acquittal of the discharged accused and shall be a bar to future prosecution for the same offense, unless the accused fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement constituting the basis for his discharge.”