On September 3, 2024, dismissed Bamban, Tarlac Mayor Alice Guo, who was charged with human trafficking and money laundering, was apprehended by Indonesian authorities in Tangerang City, Jakarta, Indonesia, after being at large for several months. Following her arrest and after being deported back to the Philippines, talks about Alice Guo being considered as a state witness in order to identify and pinpoint government officials and higher figures involved in the illegal Philippine offshore gaming operator activities (POGO) emerges.
In an interview, DOJ Assistant Secretary and Spokesperson Mico Clavano told the media that Mayor Alice’s participation and culpability may change as the investigation progresses. This is not the first time a person accused of a crime of such infamy and prominence was considered to be a “state witness”. During the peak of the pork barrel scam involving several senators and solons, there was a time that Janet Lim Napoles was contemplated to become a state witness. However, this move was vehemently objected to by then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.
But what is a state witness in the first place? What are the qualifications for a person accused of a crime to be considered as a state witness? In this week’s edition, we will try to provide answers to those questions.
As a rule, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known perception to others may be an ordinary witness. However, for a person to become a state witness, he or she should first be one of the persons charged of the crime/offense in question. Simply put, it is imperative that he or she should have participation or involvement in the crime complained of.
Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure lengthily discussed the requisite in order for an accused to be discharged as a state witness. Section 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 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 discharged is requested; (b) There is no 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.
The most important qualification is that the accused being contemplated to become a state witness should not appear to be the most guilty. Thus, in the crime charged, the extent of his or her participation should only be that of an accomplice or accessory and not that of a principal. Another noteworthy qualification is that such accused has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. Moral turpitude has been defined as everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen or to society in general.[1]
As can be gleaned from Section 17 of Rule 119, the discharge of an accused to be a state witness is initiated by a motion of the prosecution and after due hearing. The consent of the person proposed to be a state witness is also necessary. All the pieces of 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, the latter’s sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence. If the court, however, orders that an accused shall be discharged as a state witness, the same 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 this sworn statement constituting the basis for the discharge. The court shall order the discharge and exclusion of the said accused from the Information.
Once qualified as a state witness, he or she may also apply and be admitted to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefits Programs. An accused discharged from an information or complaint by the Court in order that he may be a State Witness pursuant to Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court may, upon Petition be admitted to the Program if he complies with the requirements of Republic Act No. 6981.
The requirements enumerated under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6981 are the same as those enshrined under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, with the former just having one additional requirement – that the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the Revised Penal Code or its equivalent under special laws.
¹G.R. No. 180363, April 28, 2009
[1] G.R. No. 180363, April 28, 2009