Discharge of accused operates as acquittal; Effects

Category: Criminal Procedure

Sec.  18.  Discharge  of  accused  operates  as  acquittal.  –  The  order indicated  in  the  preceding  section  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  his  sworn  statement constituting the basis for his discharge.
 

WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE DISCHARGE?

1.    Evidence in support of the discharge forms part of the trial.  But if the  court  denies  the  motion  to  discharge,  his  sworn  statement shall be inadmissible as evidence

2.    Discharge  of  the  accused  operates  as  an  ACQUITTAL  and  bar  to further  prosecution  for  the  same  offense,  except  if  he  fails  or refuses  to  testify  against  his  co-accused  in  accordance  with  his
sworn statement constituting the basis of the discharge.    In this case, he can be prosecuted again and his admission can be used against him.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN HE FAILS OR REFUSES TO TESTIFY IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS SWORN STATEMENT?

     It  means  that  the  accused  makes  substantial  changes  in  his testimony  that  would  naturally  affect  the  proceedings  and  would be prejudicial to the prosecution of the offense charged
 

WHAT  IF IN  THE  SWORN  STATEMENT OF X, HE MENTIONED  ONLY THAT  3  OF  HIS  COMPANIONS  WERE  IN  CONSPIRACY  WITH  EACH OTHER.   DURING HIS  TESTIMONY, HE TESTIFIED  THAT ALL  10  OF HIS COMPANIONS WERE IN CONSPIRACY.  IS THIS PROPER?

     Yes

     This  doesn’t  fall  within  the  ambits  of  “refusing  to  testify  in accordance with his sworn statement”

     It will be proper as long as it will help further the prosecution in prosecuting the offense charged against the accused
 

WHAT  HAPPENS  IF  THE  COURT  IMPROPERLY  OR  ERRONEOUSLY DISCHARGES  AN  ACCUSED  AS  STATE  WITNESS,  AS  WHEN  FOR EXAMPLE,  THE  ACCUSED  HAS  BEEN  CONVICTED  OF  A  CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE?

     The improper discharge will not render inadmissible his testimony nor detract from his competency as a witness

     Neither  will  it  invalidate  his  acquittal  because  the  acquittal becomes ineffective only if he fails or refuses to testify
 

WHAT IF AFTER AN ACCUSED HAS BEEN DISCHARGED TO BECOME A STATE  WITNESS, IT  WAS FOUND OUT  DURING THE TRIAL  THAT THE FACTS HE ATTESTED TO IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT WERE ALL LIES?  DOES  THE  COURT  HAVE  ANY  RECOURSE  IF  THERE  WAS  A WRONGFUL DISCHARGE?

     The discharge of the accused wouldn’t be affected.  His discharge would  still  amount  to  an  acquittal  and  is  a  bar  for  further prosecution for the same offense.  First, the grounds mentioned in
the  rule  as  exceptions  to  the  general  rule  are  exclusive  in character.  The discharge will not be a bar to further prosecution and not amount to acquittal is when the accused refuses or fails to testify in accordance with his sworn statement.  Second, what the rules   require   is   ABSOLUTE   NECESSITY   and   not   ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.  Third, what transpired was an error of judgment on the part of the court.  

     If the court has a recourse, it would be to detain the discharged accused, following Section 19 of this Rule, and file a case against him but not for the same offense but for perjury
 

WHAT   HAPPENS   WHEN   THE   ORIGINAL   INFORMATION   UNDER WHICH AN ACCUSED WAS DISCHARGED IS LATER AMENDED?

     A discharge under the original information is just as binding upon the   subsequent   amended   information,   since   the   amended information is just a continuation of the original
 

MUST  THE  ACCUSED  TO  BE  DISCHARGED  FIRST  BE  CHARGED  IN THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION?

     No.
     Note: the filing of the motion in court gives the court jurisdiction over the persons
 

CAN  THE  OTHER  CONSPIRATORS  BE  SOLELY  CONVICTED  ON  THE BASIS OF THE DISCHARGED STATE WITNESS?

     No, there must be other evidence to support his testimony

     The  testimony  of  a  state  witness  comes  from  a  polluted  source and must be received with caution

     It should be substantially corroborated in its material points

     As an exception however, the testimony of a co-conspirator, even if  uncorroborated,  will  be  considered  sufficient  if  given  in  a straightforward manner and it contains details which couldn’t have
been a result of deliberate afterthought.