Averred in the aforesaid information was that on or about the 14th day of November, 1962, in Quezon City, the accused conspired, with intent of gain, abuse of confidence and without the consent of the owner thereof, Dy Sun Hiok y Lim, in asporting the motor vehicle above-described. Upon arraignment, all the accused, except the three Does who have not been identified nor apprehended, pleaded not guilty. On July 23, 1963, trial commenced before the judge presiding Branch IX of the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Quezon City. The trial opened with the following dialogue, which for the great bearing it has on this case, is here reproduced: "COURT: The parties may proceed. FISCAL GRECIA: Our first witness is Roger Chavez [one of the accused]. ATTY. CARBON [Counsel for petitioner Chavez]: I am quite taken by surprise, as counsel for the accused Roger Chavez, with this move of the fiscal in presenting him as his witness. / object. COURT: On what ground, counsel? ATTY. CARBON: On the ground that I have to confer with my client. It is really surprising that at this stage, without my being notified by the Fiscal, my client is being presented as witness for the prosecution. I want to say in passing that it is only at this very moment that I come to know about this strategy of the prosecution. COURT (To the Fiscal): You are not withdrawing the information against the accused Roger Chavez by making [him a] state witness? FISCAL GRECIA: I am not making him as state witness, Your Honor.. 28 | L e x C i r c l e | C o n s ti t u ti o n a l L a w
WESTERN LEYTE COLLEGE School of Law | Political Law | Compilation of Cases I am only presenting him as an ordinary witness. ATTY. CARBON: As a matter of right, because it will incriminate my client, I object. COURT: The Court will give counsel for Roger Chavez fifteen minutes within which to confer and explain to his client about the giving of his testimony. COURT: [after the recess] Are the parties ready? FISCAL: We are ready to call on our first witness, Roger Chavez. ATTY. CARBON: As per understanding, the proceedings was suspended in order to enable me to confer with my client. I conferred with my client and he assured me that he will not testify for the prosecution this morning after 1 have explained to him the consequences of what will transpire. COURT: What he will testify to does not necessarily incriminate him, counsel. And there is the right of the prosecution to ask anybody to-act as witness on the witness-stand including the accused. If there should be any question that is incriminating then that is the time for counsel to interpose his objection and the court will sustain him if and when the court feels that the answer of this witness to the question would incriminate him. Counsel has all the assurance that the court will not require the witness to answer questions which would incriminate him.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 45 pages?
- Summer '16
- loven masias
- criminal law, Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Indictment