THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES SUR, BRANCH I. JOSE BADIABLE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Petition for certiorari and mandamus.

In an information dated 23 October 1956, subscribed by the Provincial
Fiscal and filed in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur on 8
November 1956, Jose Badiable alias Cabayo, Epifanio Cornelio,
Ernesto Ponciano Lee, Perfecta Ponciano Lee (Silvestre) and Jimmy
Ponciano Lee were charged with murder for the death of Jaime Salinel,
the first two as principals and the last three as accessories (Criminal
Case No. 4814; Annex A, petition). At the trial of the case on 27
August 1957, counsel for the defense asked the Court to order the
prosecution to furnish the defendants with a list of all the names of
the witnesses for the prosecution (p. 2, t.s.n., Annex 1, answer). The
private prosecutor answered that he had no objection to the motion and
asked that he be granted fifteen days within which to submit the names
of the witnesses (p. 2, t.s.n., Annex 1, answer). The Assistant
Provincial Fiscal also did not object to the motion (pp. 3-4, t.s.n.,
Annex 1, answer). On the same day, 27 August 1957, the Court entered an
order directing the prosecution to furnish the defense with a list of
all the names of its witnesses within ten days therefrom (pp. 7-8,
t.s.n., Annex 1, answer; Annex 2, answer).

On 11 September
1957 the defendants filed a motion inviting the attention of the Court
to the fact that the prosecution had not complied with its order to
furnish them with a list of all the names of the witnesses for the
prosecution and prayed that the prosecution be limited to the
presentation of witnesses whose names appear in the information (Annex
B, petition). After hearing, on 11 September 1957 the Court entered an
order granting the defendants’ motion (p. 2, t.s.n., Annex 3, answer;
Annex C, petition). The Court continued the trial of the case. At the
trial on 17 April 1958 the prosecution called Estelita Niebres, Soledad
Abano, Jose Seguerra (or Ceguera) and Jose Ibarando (or Juan Ibarondo),
whose names do not appear as witnesses in the information, to take the
witness stand and testify. Counsel for the defense objected to their
taking the witness stand to testify, citing the order of the Court of
14 September 1957. The Court disallowed them from taking the witness
stand and giving their testimony (pp. 16, 17, 27, 28, 29, t.s.n., 17
April 1958, Annex 1, answer). The Court continued the trial of the case
on 17 June 1958 (p. 37, t.s.n., 17 April 1958, Annex 1, answer).

On 16 June 1958 the prosecution filed this petition for certiorari and
mandamus in this Court praying for the annulment and setting aside of
the orders of the respondent Court dated 27 August 1957 (pp. 7-8,
t.s.n., Annex 1, answer; Annex 2, answer); 14 September 1957 (p. 2,
t.s.n., Annex 3, answer; Annex C, petition) ; and 17 April 1958 (pp.
27, 28, 29, t.s.n., 17 April 1958, Annex 1, answer).

At the
hearing held on 17 June 1958 the respondent Court continued the trial
of the case on 5 August 1958 (p. 9, t.s.n., Annex 3, answer; Annex A,
petition for injunction).

On 24 July 1958 the petitioner
filed in this Court a petition to restrain the respondent Court from
holding the resumption of the trial of the case set for 5 August 1958,
until this proceeding is finally decided by this Court. On 29 July 1958
this Court granted the writ of injunction prayed for and on 30 July
1958 issued the writ.

The petitioner did not seek from the
respondent Court a reconsideration of the orders complained of.
Following the established rule that before an aggrieved party could
file a petition for a writ of certiorari in any appellate tribunal
against an inferior court, he should first call the court’s attention
to its error and ask for the correction thereof, the instant petition
should be dismissed.^[1] It
appearing, however, that at the hearing of the case on 17 April 1958
the private prosecutor informed the respondent Court that a special
civil action would be brought to this Court to question and test the
legality of the orders complained of (pp. 34, 36, 37, t.s.n., Annex 1,
answer); that the respondent Court suggested to the prosecution to
bring a case for mandamus to establish a precedent (p. 34, t.s.n.,
Annex 1, answer); that at the hearing on 17 June 1958 the fiscal
informed the respondent Court that the petition for certiorari and
mandamus already had been filed in this Court (p. 3, t.s.n.,. Annex 3,
answer); and that the Judge presiding over the respondent Court made
the following remark : “I want that the Supreme Court pass upon my
order, but I don’t want to sacrifice the interest of the parties in the
question of expediency” (p. 8, t.s.n., Annex 3, answer), which
indicated and meant that the respondent Court would deny any motion for
reconsideration of his order, the filing of a motion for
reconsideration would have been useless.

Section 1, Rule 112, provides:

The defendant must be arraigned before the court in which the complaint
or information has been filed unless the cause shall have been
transferred elsewhere for trial. The arraignment must be made by
the court or clerk, and shall consist in reading the complaint or
information to the defendant and delivering to him a copy thereof,
including a list of witnesses, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty as charged. The
prosecution may, however, call at the trial witnesses other than those
named in the complaint or information. (Italics supplied.)

Arraignment consists of reading the complaint or information by the
Court or clerk to the defendant and delivering to him a copy thereof,
including a list of witnesses, and asking him whether he pleads guilty
or not guilty to the charge. The defendant is entitled as a matter of
right to be furnished by the prosecution with a list of the witnesses
to be presented against him during the trial. But the prosecution may
call at the trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or
information.^[2] Therefore,
the prosecution need not furnish the defendant with a list of all its
witnesses. That is the meaning of the last sentence of the above quoted
provision of the Rule. While the accused in a criminal prosecution is
entitled to know the nature and cause of the accusation against him,^[3]
yet it does not mean that he is entitled to know in advance the names
of all the witnesses for the prosecution. The success of the
prosecution might be endangered if such right be granted to an accused,
for the known witnesses might be subjected to pressure or coerced not
to testify. The time for the accused to know all the witnesses against
him is when they take the witness stand.

The fact that some
of the witnesses for the prosecution who are not listed in the
information were present in the courtroom and heard the testimony of
the other witnesses does not disqualify them from being witnesses.^[4]
Counsel for the defense should have asked for the exclusion of all
witnesses who have not testified under and pursuant to section 14, Rule
115.

The writ prayed for is granted; the orders complained
of are set aside; and the respondent Court is directed to allow the
witness or witnesses called by the prosecution, whose names do not
appear in the information as witnesses, to testify in criminal case No.
4814 of the respondent Court, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Paras, C.J., and Concepcion, J., reserve their votes.

---

^[1] Herrera vs. Barretto & Joaquin, 25 Phil., 245; Uy Chu vs. Imperial & Uy Du, 44 Phil., 27; Amante vs. Sison, 60 Phil., 949, 951-953; Dongon Vda. de Manzaneres vs. Court of First Instance of Batangas, 61 Phil., 850; Manila Post Publishing Co. vs. Judge Sanchez, 81 Phil., 614; 46 Off. Gaz. [Suppl. 1] 412; Alvarez vs. Ibañez, 83 Phil., 104; Nicolas vs. Castillo, 97 Phil., 336; Coll. of Internal Revenue vs. Reyes, 100 Phil., 822; Ricafort vs. Judge Fernan, 101 Phil., 575; 54 Off. Gaz. 2534.

^[2] Section 1, Rule 112; People vs. Santos, G. R. No. L-7315, 27 July 1955; People vs. Manabat, 100 Phil., 603, 53 Off. Gaz., 6090; People vs. Namoc, G. R. No. L-11877, 23 November 1959.

^[3] Section 1(17), article III of the Constitution; section 1(b), Rule 111.

^[4] Cf. People vs. Sandal, 54 Phil., 883.