Jimenez vs People [G.R. No. 209195] Case Digest

 

Jimenez vs People

G.R. No. 209195

 

Facts:

Montero executed sworn statements confessing his participation in the killing of Ruby Rose Barrameda, and naming petitioner Jimenez,  Lope Jimenez, Descalso, and others as his co-conspirators.

People, through the state prosecutors, filed an Information before the RTC, charging Jimenez, Lope, Lennard, Robert, Eric and Montero of murder for the killing of Ruby Rose.

Montero thereafter filed a motion for his discharge entitled "Motion for the Discharge of the Witness as Accused Pursuant to the Witness Protection Program" pursuant to Republic Act No. 6981. The People also filed a motion to discharge Montero as a state witness for the prosecution. Jimenez opposed both motions.

RTC judge Almeyda denied the motion to discharge Montero as a state witness. Montero and the People filed separate motions for reconsideration. Judge Docena, the newly-appointed regular judge, reconsidered and reversed Judge Almeyda’s order and ruled that the prosecution had presented clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence showing compliance with the requisites of Section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.  CA grant the petition of Jimenez. However, on motion for reconsideration filed by the People, the CA reversed its earlier ruling.

 

Issue:

Whether or not Montero appears to be the most guilty because he was one of the principal by direct participation of the said killing.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

By jurisprudence, "most guilty" refers to the highest degree of culpability in terms of participation in the commission of the offense and does not necessarily mean the severity of the penalty imposed. While all the accused may be given the same penalty by reason of conspiracy, yet one may be considered to have lesser or the least guilt taking into account his degree of participation in the commission of the offense.

Thus, as a rule, for purposes of resolving a motion to discharge an accused as a state witness, what are controlling are the specific acts of the accused in relation to the crime committed.

SC cannot also agree with Jimenez’ argument that a principal by direct participation is more guilty than the principal by inducement as the Revised Penal Code penalizes the principal by inducement only when the principal by direct participation has executed the crime.

The procedural remedy of the discharge of an accused is based on other considerations, such as the need for giving immunity to one of several accused in order that not all shall escape, and the judicial experience that the candid admission of an accused regarding his participation is a guaranty that he will testify truthfully.