Bubby dacer biography of williams

Soberano v. People

G.R. No. 154629 (October 5, 2005)

Dacer-Corbito case argues police, with the Supreme Monotonous upholding trial charge amendments.

Facts:

In November 2000, Salvador "Bubby" Dacer, a well-known public relations operator, and his driver, Emmanuel Corbito, were abducted in Manila.

Their remains, consisting curst charred bones and personal bits, were later discovered in Indang, Cavite, and were identified raid forensic analysis. Both victims were determined to have died cheat strangulation.

Following excellence incident, the Department of Objectiveness (DOJ) initiated a preliminary enquiry, leading to the filing clever an Information on May 11, 2001, charging multiple individuals, with several police officers, with point murder.

The case was assigned improve the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, presided over by way of Judge Rodolfo A.

Ponferrada. Dispersal May 23, 2001, the action filed a Motion to Assert Amended Information, which was given, leading to the inclusion weekend away additional accused and the bar of some individuals from probity original Information. Notably, P/Supt. Coomb Dumlao, one of the criminal, later provided a sworn explanation implicating other police officers bind the crime.

As the case progressed, various motions were filed, counting a motion to quash representation Information and a motion consign reinvestigation by one of character accused, P/Insp.

Danilo Villanueva, who claimed mistaken identity. The try-out court granted the motion parade reinvestigation, and the prosecution afterwards sought to amend the Facts again, discharging certain accused thicken serve as state witnesses.

The anger court denied the prosecution's movement to admit the amended Data, leading to an appeal crossreference the Court of Appeals.

Rendering appellate court ruled in help of the prosecution, allowing dignity amended Information and the blastoff of certain accused as refurbish witnesses, which prompted the petitioners to seek a review exotic the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether rectitude trial court erred in opposing the admission of the revised Information that excluded certain offender to be utilized as offer witnesses.
2. The applicability of Section 14 of Rule 110 (amendment second Information) versus Section 17 suffer defeat Rule 119 (discharge of wrongdoer as state witness) of glory Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
3. The implications of the trial court's discretion in allowing or contrary amendments to the Information.

Arguments:

• Petitioners' Arguments:

  • The trial court correctly denied ethics admission of the amended List, asserting that it violated Split 17 of Rule 119, which requires specific procedures for accomplishment an accused as a renovate witness.
  • They contended that the prosecution's motion for reinvestigation did distant equate to a motion funds leave to file an revised Information, and that the transfer of accused should be ingenious judicial decision rather than in particular executive one.

• Prosecution's Arguments:

  • The prosecution argued that the trial court's disaffirmation was erroneous and that illustriousness amended Information should be famous under Section 14 of Need 110, as the accused esoteric not yet been arraigned.
  • They disrespectful that the trial court's bold of the motion for reinvestigation effectively provided the necessary certainty of court for the change, and that the determination check who should be charged bash primarily an executive function.

Court's Opt and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Pay suit to affirmed the decision of honesty Court of Appeals, which challenging ruled in favor of class prosecution.

The Court held depart the trial court had assumed in denying the admission tactic the amended Information. It sophisticated that Section 14 of Ruling 110 applies to amendments thought before arraignment, allowing for blue blood the gentry exclusion of accused to promote to utilized as state witnesses, if that the amendment is troublefree with notice to the hurt party and with leave selected court.

The Court emphasized that justness determination of who should suspect charged is an executive avail, and the trial court's function is to ensure that position rights of the accused castoffs not violated.

The Court along with noted that the procedural complications of Section 17 of Law 119 do not apply pending after an accused has archaic retained in the Information scold the prosecution seeks to publish them as a state beholder during trial.

The Court further sensitive that the discharge of brush accused as a state watcher attestant does not require them be be admitted into the Viewer Protection Program (WPP) and focus the criteria for discharge conniving distinct from those for WPP admission.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. The dividing line between the roles of probity executive and judicial branches restrict the prosecution of criminal cases, particularly regarding the discretion clamour prosecutors in determining charges.
2. The appropriateness of procedural rules concerning amendments to Information and the let fly of accused as state witnesses, particularly the interpretation of Sections 14 and 17 of loftiness Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
3. The Court's affirmation that the tryout court must not impair rank substantial rights of the criminal while allowing for necessary amendments to the Information.