@bogadomo.com

With the recent reports coming out that Zaldy Ampatuan is volunteering to become a state witness, it is amusing to read in newspapers and hear on TV the opinions of so-called experts regarding this matter. Under Section 10 of Republic Act 6981 or the “Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act”, a person may become a state witness if the following circumstances are present:

(a) 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;

(b) there is absolute necessity for his testimony;

(c) there is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed:

(d) his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material points;

(e) he does not appear to be most guilty; and

(f) he has not at any time been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.

On the other hand, under Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, provides:

“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;

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

Save for letter (a) of Section 10 of RA 6981, the requisites under both laws are essentially the same. What is probably the most misunderstood requirement is “he does not appear to be most guilty”.  TV reporters and even lawyers have been equating his provision that the accused should be the least guilty in order to become a state witness. In fact, what the law only requires is that the accused whose exclusion is requested does not appear to be the most guilty, not necessarily that he is the least guilty. (See Pp. vs. De la Cruz and Martinez, G.R. No. 173308, June 25, 2008)

After marathon debates lasting until early morning and a vote of 212-46, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly impeached Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez paving the way for her trial at the Senate. The lower house, in effect, found probable cause against Gutierrez and approved the seven-page House Resolution No. 1089 containing the six articles of impeachment. Gutierrez is being charged with betrayal of public trust for her dismal conviction record and failing to promptly act and investigate the Euro Generals Scandal, the Fertilizer Fund  scam, the NBN-ZTE deal, the Mega Pacific deal and the murder of Navy Ensign Philip Pestaño. Focus now shifts to the Senate, which under the Constitution has the sole power of sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.

Related Links:

• The Impeachment Process
• Read House Resolution No. 1089

The results of the 2010 Bar Examinations were released today by the Supreme Court and a total of 982 out of 4,847 examinees successfully hurdled the exams. The passing percentage is 20.26% which is lower than last year’s 24.58%. It is also the second lowest passing percentage in the past decade. This year’s topnotcher was Cesareo Antonio Singzon Jr. of the Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU) who got the highest score of 89%.

The top 10 bar examinees are:

1. Cesareo Antonio S. Singzon, Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU), 89%

2. Filemon Ray L. Javier, ADMU, 86.85%

3. Paolo Carlo C. Tolentino, Arellano University, 86.80%

4. Janette R. Ancog, Ateneo de Davao University, 85.90%

5. Johanna Sunga, ADMU, 85.85%

6. Krizelle Marie F. Poblacion, University of the Philippines (UP), 85.65%

7. Maria Christina C. Ortua, UP, 85.50%
Krystal Lyn T. Uy, UP, 85.50%

8. Johanna Eileen M. Capones, UP, 84.80%

9. Wiliam Benson S. Gan, ADMU, 84.75%

10. Glenn C. Carampatana, University of San Carlos, 84.55%
Darren L. Salipsip, Arellano University, 84.55%

Congratulations to all new lawyers!

Click here for a complete list of Successful Bar Examinees.

In a vote of 7-5-2, the Supreme Court has allowed the impeachment proceedings against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez to proceed in the House of Representatives. The decision stemmed from the petition filed by Gutierrez last September to stop the House Committee on Justice from proceeding with her impeachment. Gutierrez claimed that there was a violation of the Constitution when the House committee heard two impeachment complaints against her which violated Article XI Section 3 (5) of the 1987 Constitution which provides that “no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”

In its Decsion, the Court reiterated its previous ruling that what the 1987 Constitution prohibited was not the initiation of more than one complaint in one year but the initiation of more than one proceeding. Thus, it held:

“The Court, of course, does not downplay the importance of an impeachment complaint, for it is the matchstick that kindles the candle of impeachment proceedings.  The filing of an impeachment complaint is like the lighting of a matchstick.  Lighting the matchstick alone, however, cannot light up the candle, unless the lighted matchstick reaches or torches the candle wick.  Referring the complaint to the proper committee ignites the impeachment proceeding. With a simultaneous referral of multiple complaints filed, more than one lighted matchsticks light the candle at the same time.  What is important is that there should only be ONE CANDLE that is kindled in a year, such that once the candle starts burning, subsequent matchsticks can no longer rekindle the candle.”

Those who voted  for the continuation of the impeachment proceedings were Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Jose Mendoza, Roberto Abad, Maria Lourdes Sereno, Antonio Eduardo Nachura, and Martin Villarama. Those who dissented were Chief Justice Renato Corona, and Associate Justices Arturo Brion, Lucas Bersamin, Teresita Leonardo De Castro, and Diosdado Peralta. Associate Justices Mariano Del Castillo and Jose Perez concurred in part while Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco inhibited himself since his son is presently a Congressman.

Read the Decision here.