[2]: JIMENEZ JR. VS.

PEOPLE
| G.R. No. 209195 | September 17, 2014 |
Ponente: Brion, J.

FACTS:
Manuel Montero confessed his participation in the killing of Ruby Rose Barrameda
naming Manuel Jimenez and several others as co-conspirators. His statements detailed
where the alleged steel casing containing the body of Ruby Rose was dumped, led to
the recovery of a cadaver near the place which he pointed. Montero filed a motion for
discharge as a state witness for the prosecution, to which Jimenez opposed. The
motion to discharge was granted by Judge Zaldy Docena stating that the prosecution
had presented clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence showing compliance with the
requisites of granting the said motion.

Jimenez opposed Judge Docena’s ruling that the Judge committed grave abuse of
discretion in granting the motion to discharge because: (1) the requirements for granting
a motion were not properly complied; (2) there is no absolute necessity of the testimony
of Montero; (3) Montero’s testimony do not corroborate with the prosecution’s evidence;
(4) and /Montero is favored as a state witness though he appears to be the most guilty.

ISSUE:
Did Judge Docena gravely abuse his discretion when he granted the motion to
discharge Montero as a state witness?

RULING:
No. Jurisprudence has defined “grave of use of discretion” as the capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic matter. To resolve a motion to discharge under section 17, rule 119 of the
revised rules of criminal procedure, it only requires that the testimony of the accused
sought to be discharged be substantially corroborated in its material points, not on all
points. A trial judge cannot be expected or required, at the start of the trials, to inform
himself with absolute certainty of everything that may develop in the course of the trials
with respect to the guilty participation of the accused. It is still the trial court that
determines whether the prosecution's preliminary assessment of the accused-witness’
qualifications to be a state witness satisfies the procedural norms. This relationship is in
reality a symbiotic one as the trial court, by the very nature of its role in the
administration of justice, largely exercises its prerogative based on the prosecutor’s
findings and evaluation.