RULE 119

TRIAL

Q: After the pre-trial conference, when should the case be scheduled for trial?

A: It should be scheduled after arraignment within thirty (30) days from the date the court
acquired jurisdiction over the case

Q: And must be terminated within how many days?

A: Section 2 and Section 6 (Rule 119 Trial)

Ideally 180 days for the first month, (J: you based this on the law on the speedy trial which I
have told you to get one.)

*THE LAW ON SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

JS: Will you agree with me the first few sections in the book of Pamaran actually centers more
on the provisions and sections of the law on speedy trial, particularly as to when arraignment to
be scheduled, when pre-trial to be scheduled and when trial to be scheduled and when should
be determining trial, which under the rule which is 180 days although subject to the allowable
deductions as mandated by the law on speedy trial reiterated di ba in the 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure. There are allowable deductions although ideally this is impossible to be met
by judges considering the numbers of cases of course are loaded but here we were just talking
about idealism here because were talking about the law itself and when should trial di ba be
fixed. Tapos contunous no, continuous definitely there, it’s mentioned continuous trial until after,
my dear students, the case is finished.

Q: Can you just mentioned the three (3) allowable deductions from the 180 days as mandated
by the law on speedy trial upon which we have to terminate the trial of the case?

A: Section 3 Exclusions (Rule119 Trial)

1. There is a question, there is a prejudicial question

2. The accused is suffer from mental incompetence or physical inability

3.

Just allowable deductions, actually it’s just a photocopy and reiteration of what were
enumerated, I repeat, in the law on a speedy trial act RA 8493 there are several allowable
deductions which can be deducted from the 180 days where the law requires, my dear students,
that the case should be finished there, just three miss student and last for you tonight.

JS: Allowable deductions, but you know what this 180 day notice shorten depending na on the
___ of the implementation but it starts off with 180, I think the next is 120 and so on and so
forth, there’s a four transitions but it starts with 180 like what the law says, my dear students,
there are allowable deductions which can be deducted, my dear students, I repeat, to the 180
days because as I was telling you if the accused would raise that there was a violation of his
right to speedy trial the court in resolving that motion has to rely on the application of the law on
speedy trial, in granting the motion whether to dismiss or not to dismiss the criminal case
because the accused filed on the ground that there was violation of his right to speedy trial, and
I was telling you once the court grants the motion and dismissed the case on the ground on the
violation on the right speedy trial, I told you that it is equivalent to acquittal, and if that is
equivalent to acquittal it cannot be refile because that would place the accused in double
jeopardy.
This is not the same as the concept of provisional dismissal, where the case is dismissed with
the express consent of the accused where you can refile within one or two years respectively
depending on whether the penalty is more than six years or not more than six years.

JS: You have also to take into account the Supreme Court Circular which I have assigned to you
because that brought me my attention because you talk about essential witness, di ba you have
a copy of the Supreme Court Administrative Circular, is it always with you every day? There’s
always a definition of an essential witness, who is an essential witness?

REMEMBER if the essential witness will not appear two times, because in spite diligence he
could not be found, correct? The court is allowed to provisionally dismiss the case with the
consent and conformity of the accused.

Q: In matters of postponement how will the court read motions for postponement? (Section 2
(Rule 119 Trial) )

Motion for postponement.

Here is an accused through his counsel filing a motion for postponements will the court grant it
immunity? How should motions for postponements filed by either party be he the prosecutor or
the counsel of the accused? How is this stated? In your readings, is it a right or a privilege?

A: It’s a privilege. It is discretionary on the part of the court to grant your motion for
postponement. So when you file a motion for postponement you are not supposedly presumed
that the court will grant it because in certain instances Supreme Court in several cases as ruled
that postponements are not rights on the part of other party but it is only a privilege subject to
the discretion of the court. That’s why if you file a motion for postponements then don’t
presumed that the motion for postponement will be granted by the court. In fact if you going to
file a motion for postponement on the ground of the illness of the party you have to show proof
that indeed that person is sick and that his presence is indispensible in the hearing of that
particular case. And that is how the court interprets motion for postponement filed by either party
in any case be it criminal or be it a civil case.

JS: There are allowable deductions in the book you just take note of those, my dear students.

JS: I go back lang to pre-trial

Q: Is the presence of the accused of a private complainant mandatory during pre-trial?

A: No, but in certain cases mandatory siya. But in criminal cases, I repeat, not mandatory.
Meaning even in the absence of the accused or in the absence of the private complainant we
can proceed with the pre-trial.

Q: What is the effect, however, if the counsel of the accused or the prosecutor failed to appear
during the pre-trial?

A: Section 3 (Rule 118 Pre-trial)

If the counsel of the accused or the prosecutor failed to appear during pre-trial he may be
sanction by the court.

JS: So if it is sanctions like fine, declared in contempt, so that’s what the law is all about. There
is no sanction, I repeat, for failure of either party to appear the law simply put the sanction in
case of the absence only of the counsel of the accused or the prosecutor. So that makes us with
the conclusion that the presence of the accused or private complainant is not mandatory during
pre-trial we can proceed with the conduct that the pre-trial conference even with the absence of
the accused or the private complainant provided the counsel of the accused as well as the
prosecutor would appear, otherwise we will not, the law is very clear, the court can impose
sanctions on them which include among others payment of fine, my dear students, or they can
be declared in contempt.
Q: In terms of presentation of evidence, who will present first?

A: Section 11 (Rule 119 Trial)

The prosecution

Q: then after the prosecution rests its case?

A: the accused

Q: The accused the defense presents, after the defense rests its case?

A: The prosecution may present a rebuttal witness, then after the prosecution has presented a
rebuttal witnesses, the accused may present sur rebuttal witnesses.

Q: What is needed, in your reading, to present a rebuttal witness usually this will happens in
what instances?

A: If any case during the presentation of evidence there are new matters were taken of which
are raised by the defense.

JS: New matters which are raised by the defense in the course of the presentation of the
defense evidence see to it that that should be rebutted by the prosecution because if you will
not rebutted that it will blundered to you because the testimonial of that witness remains a
rebuttal. Better if no new evidences, no new issues presented because there’s no need for you
to present a rebuttal witness. But if there are new testimonies, new issues which are raised by
any of the testimonies of the defense witnesses it is mandatory for you to present a rebuttal
witness to rebut the testimony of that particular witness because that will be a blunder. And of
course if during the rebuttal, the rebuttal likewise presents new issues and new arguments on
the part of the defense and the defense likewise has to present its sur rebuttal witness, then
after which the case is deemed submitted for decision unless..

Q: Unless?

A: Unless the court directs them to oral arguments or required them to submit a written
memorandum.

JS: I repeat, after the presentation of the rebuttal of sur rebuttal witnesses the case is deemed
submitted for decision unless the court is schedules the case for oral arguments, which is
usually rarely happening in reality but what usually happening is we sometimes order the parties
to submit their respective memorandum simultaneously. Because a memorandum, remember,
will also tell in a way the court when the court is actually thought to render its decisions.

Q: Can this one be subjected to inverted trial?

A: Yes.

Q: And that what’s I’m telling you this will happen when?

A: When the accused admits the acts serves in the information but interposes a justifying or
exempting circumstance within the accused, if he wishes to, may be allowed to present
evidence ahead of the prosecution and once this is done, that is not violative of the accused’s
right to due process.

JS: But like what I said, even if in inverted trial is allowed by the rules in cases when the
accused invokes a lawful defense. The court cannot compel him to do so it is on the choice of
the accused whether he wants to present his evidences ahead of the prosecution. In fact, this is
one of the matters which is pleaded during the pre-trial conference. It’s not that the court will say
“since your defense is self-defense you should present...” no. If the accused to his counsel
wishes to present his evidence that should be followed but if the accused does not like to then
we follow the rule, the usual procedure where the prosecution will present its evidence ahead of
the defense.

But likewise what I said, if the accused wishes to he has all the rights to present evidence ahead
of the prosecution that is allowed by the rules like what I said earlier, my dear students, it is not
however mandatory. In fact like what I have said, it’s one of the issues which should be tackled
during the pre-trial conference.

Okay, this one is the first important discussion for tonight. Remember we were talking about
motion to quash, if I’m not mistaken, we had the opportunity to talk about one mode of discovery
and this is the motion for the production and inspection of documents where the accused may
avail of this mode of discovery that is he may be allowed to see, inspect, and photocopy all
evidences of the prosecution and that is his right because that is allowed by the rules to prevent
surprises.

Q: Aside from this are there other modes of discoveries which you have notice in this rule on
trial? Are there modes of discoveries which can be resorted to by the defense and likewise by
the prosecution which can be an added mode of discovery under the rules in criminal procedure
aside, I repeat, from the motion for the production and inspection of documents?

A: Conditional examination of witnesses.

Q: This one is synonymous to what particular case? What kind of discovery would that be?

JS: Motion for the conditional examination of defense witnesses and conditional examination of
prosecution’s witnesses. There are two sections, remember, one refers to the accused and the
other one refers to the prosecution all in all in the rules in criminal procedure we have three
modes of discovery; one motion for the production and inspection of documents; two conditional
examination of defense witnesses; and third conditional examination of prosecution’s witnesses.
These two can be synonymous to what kinds in the law?

A: Deposition. This can be synonymous in what we call in civil cases, deposition.

Q: How is this done? How is this motion for conditional examination of witnesses done and
when can this be available?

A: Section 12 and Section 15 (Rule 119 Trial)

On the part of the prosecution when the accused is held to answer for defense he may file a
motion to have the witnesses conditionally examined. The motion shall state the name and the
residence of the witness, the substance of the testimonies as well as, if the witness is too sick or
infirm, if he resides 100 kilometers away from the place of the trial, when the witness leaves
without a specific date of returning.

JS: You memorize the grounds. Those are the grounds if you want to avail of this mode of
discovery, my dear students, although there is a little qualification. The Supreme Court in one
case has already settled that the requirement that the witness may not be compel to testify if he
resides more than 100 kilometers away from the place where the witness has to testify, actually
it’s only applicable to civil cases but not to criminal cases, but anyway that may be a good
ground for a conditional, I repeat, examination of that particular witness because that is anyway
mentioned as one of the grounds set forth in one of this case of this particular rule.

So this is a deposition were instead of a witness testifying in court he can just testify before any
person appointed by the court to receive the evidence, so the entire testimony as if she testified
actually in court.
Q: So sick or infirm, he resides more than 100 kilometers in the place were supposed to testify,
he’s about to leave abroad and there’s no definite date of returning. Is there another one pa that
can be told of which of all the three there?

A: Other similar causes.

JS: Other similar causes, I repeat, which may allow the court to grant the motion for the
conditional examination of that particular witness. But in the end of the day it’s always the court
which has the discretion whether to grant or deny a motion. Talagang it’s the same as deposition
in a civil case, so take note of that.

Q: What about the one for the prosecution, there’s also an examination of prosecution’s
witnesses, tama ako there is. How is this avail?

A: Section 13 (Rule 119 Trial)

When the court is satisfy that the examination is necessary for the witness of the accused, the
court shall make an order directing that witness to be examined on a specific date, time and
place and the copies of which will be served to the prosecutor three (3) days prior to the
scheduled examination. This shall be done before the judge or if not practical any member of
the Bar in good standing which is designed by the judge or if the order was given by superior
jurisdiction of any court in an inferior jurisdiction that was assigned. The examination shall
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the prosecutor as long as he was notified. And the
testimony shall be written.

JS: So we have, I repeat, conditional examination of witnesses, I repeat, of the defense and
likewise of the prosecution. So far we have three modes of discoveries and please take note
and likewise put emphasis to this in preparation for your midterm examinations.

Q: You are the prosecutor and there are three accused. You feel that you cannot prove your
case against the three accused beyond reasonable doubt, what is it the test that you will do?

You have a problem with the prosecution witnesses and you feel that you cannot move the guilt
of the three accused beyond reasonable doubt under the circumstances if you are the
prosecutor what should be the best remedy that you will undertake to protect the interest of the
prosecution?

A: Section 17 (Rule 119 Trial)

File a motion to discharge one of the accused as a state witness, very important rule.

Q: What will you do?

A: The remedy is you are allow to file a motion to the court to discharged one of the accused or
even two of them because the law does not say that only one can be, there is no limit insofar as
the number is concern as long as you can prove the requisites before you can discharge any
one of them.

JS: So I repeat, the rule is very clear that discharge doesn’t mean that only be discharge one of
the accused, you can discharge as many accused as there are as long as of course you comply
with the provisions of the rules and of course the accused whom you would like to be discharge,
my dear students, possesses all the qualifications to become one.

Q: How do you do it? How do you do it to discharge the accused as a state witness?

JS: This is different from being a witness under the witness protection program which is also
another way of protecting the interest of the accused by the witness protection program may be
applied for even if the case is not yet filed. That is very clear, di ba you always listen on radio
and look at the television if there is really a very big cases like national interest and there are
witnesses who are deemed really an essential witnesses they are always placed under the
witness protection program of the Department of Justice. But that is different from, I repeat,
concept of discharging the accused as a state witness.

A: You file a motion.

Q: In the motion what will you do? What is required which will accompany the motion?

A: You file a motion of course before the court to discharge one of the accused or two of the
accused as a state witness.

Q: In your motion what should be attached to your motion? Because it is not only a motion there
has to be a document which should accompany your motion, and what should that be? Because
that is the basis of the court to determine whether or not the court will grant your motion or not
or whether or not the accused whom you prayed for will be discharge of the court as a state
witness. Remember that is favorable to the accused, because at the end of the day if he is
discharge as a state witness that will be included to be acquittal already. But of course he
should testify first before he will be discharge and be acquitted of crime charge against him
(Section 18 (Rule 119 Trial)). But like what I said in your motion what should be attached?

A: You must support that with affidavits of the accused, whom you would like to be discharge as
a state witness because that is the basis for the court to determine.

JS: And that is not an affidavit of the witnesses of the prosecution. That is the affidavit of the
accused for the accused whom you would like to be discharge as a state witness. That should
accompany the motion because from that affidavit the court may rule either to grant or deny it.

Q: Be that as it may, discharge as a state witness must comply the following the qualifications.

Memorize them, I always ask that in the midterm examinations.

A: The qualifications to become a state witness: Section 17 (Rule 119 Trial)

*Q: Is it correct he should be the LEAST guilty?

*A: No.

*Q: What did the law say?

*A: He should not be the MOST guilty.

There is a difference in the sentence that he should not be the LEAST guilty, that is not the rule.
What is important is that he should not be the MOST guilty.

Q: Question, this was asked in the bar. What about if conspiracy is alleged in the information
and usually there are more than one accused, would that be automatically meant that there is
knowing of either one of the accused to be discharge as a state witness?

I repeat, di ba you said that one of the qualifications to become a state witness is the accused
should not be the most guilty. But here is a case the information alleged that three accused
conspire to kill Juan, remember there’s a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Would it
mean to say that because there is an allegation of conspiracy among the accused in the
information that there can be no way for one or two of them to be discharge as a state witness?
What is your answer to that beautiful question? In your own opinion?

So conspiracy, so there is no chance na for one of them to be discharge as a state witness

because if it is conspiracy, the same level of participation the act of one is the act of all. What is
your comment to that question? You can still or you cannot?

A: You can still. You look at the participation the extent of their participation, imposible din yan
because we only talk of about the discharge of accused as a state witness if there are more
than two accused, more than one na lang. Even if there is conspiracy you can still can, but you
look at the degree of participation in the provisions of the crime like for example; his hand or his
role was only to hold the hands of the victim but he was not the one who stab the victim. If you
look at that he is not the most guilty.

So even if there is an allegation, I repeat, that there is conspiracy it does not necessarily follow
that nobody na can be discharge as a state witness. You still can be discharge one or two of
them but you have to look at the degree of participation for you to determine whether he is not
the most guilty or he is the most guilty as one of the qualifications to become a state witness.

Q: Three more, if I am not mistaken, qualifications tama ba ako? Give me the three more.

*But the more popular one is that one, is not the most guilty.

A: Section 17 (Rule 119 Trial)

1. There is an absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is
requested.

2. That his testimony can be substantially corroborated in its material points.

3. He must not be convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

RECAP: If I am not mistaken we end with the concept of discharging one of the accused as a
state witness.

JS: The prosecution before rests its case is allowed to file a motion to discharge one of the
accused as a state witness. And I was telling you, in the motion you should attach the affidavit of
the accused whom you want to be discharge. And the motion is set for hearing and if the
intended discharge accused complied with the rules for most of which is that he should not be
the most guilty then that will be the court the motion.

Again, we re-enumerated last meeting the requisites when will the accused to be discharge as a
state witness. I think that was the last that we lectured.

Q: Let’s presumed that the motion filed by the prosecution was not granted by the court,
meaning it was denied by the court, what will happen to the affidavit executed by the accused in
support of the motion?

Di ba, if you remember, when the prosecution file a motion to discharge one of the accused as a
state witness the rule requires that it must convey the affidavit of that accused whom the
prosecution would like to be discharge as a state witness. Now here is a situation, where the
motion unfortunately was denied by the court what will happen to the affidavit which was
executed by the accused in support of motion?

A: The affidavit will be considered inadmissible as evidence against the said accused. It’s very
fair, so that will be the effect.

Q: Now presuming the motion was granted what is the effect of the discharge of the accused as
a state witness, which I told you it cannot be limited to one it could be more than one depending
on the need of the prosecution. What is the effect of that if the motion was granted? What is the
effect of that to the accused that was discharge as a state witness?

A: Section 18 (Rule 119 Trial)

The accused will be acquitted.

Q: Provided of course?

A: Section 18 (Rule 119 Trial)

He must testify of course in favor of the prosecution and the effect is he will be acquitted.

JS: Like what I said, discharge of the accused as a state witness is just one of the kinds upon
which the prosecution might be able to make use of testimonies of witnesses, one of which
would be the, what is that law there which allow to become, state witness under the state
witness protection program. And there are several differences there you notice it is all in the
book of Pamaran. But one of the most important of that, while it may be true that if you are
discharge as a state witness parang there is no benefits compare to one who is enroll in the
witness protection program where witness is given benefits, however daw, a state witness
discharge may apply other state witness protection program so that he can also avail of the
appropriate benefits which were provided for by that particular case.

Q: Here is a case where the information was theft however during presentation of the evidence
of the prosecution what were proven was estafa, what should be done under the
circumstances?

I repeat, the information against the accused was for theft but unfortunately during the
presentation of evidence of the prosecution what was proven was not theft but what was proven
actually was estafa, what should be done under the circumstances?

A: Section 19 (Rule 119 Trial)

When there is a mistake in charging the proper offense in the information then it will be
dismissed and the new information will be filed charging now the accused of the proper offense.

Q: If that is done, do you think that it will not place the accused in double jeopardy? Is there no
problem in double jeopardy here because remember there was already arraignment and one of
the requisites for double jeopardy is that the accused must be arraigned. Here is a case, in fact
there is already trial presupposing that there was already arraignment on the part of the
accused but yet here we are dismissing the wrong information and instead new information
which corresponds to the roots is now filed against the accused, would it not placed the accused
in double jeopardy?

A: No.

Q: Why did you say that it will not place the accused in double jeopardy aside of course from the
facts that it is one of the sections of this particular rule?

A: It will not constitute a double jeopardy because at the first place the offense charged in the
information was a mistake so the accused was deprived of his right to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him.

Q: But is there a limit there?

A: Yes. As long as the offense charge even if it was a mistake did not necessarily include that
information because if that is the case then that cannot be done basically like in the example of
Pamaran from homicide to murder. Homicide is necessarily included in murder so there, you
cannot just dismiss the complaint although it might not have been the correct offense because
at the end of the day homicide is necessarily included in murder. And dismissing the original
information for homicide and charging the accused for murder would now constitute as double
jeopardy. So that is the context of that particular rule.

Q: A file a case for robbery with homicide against B. The prosecution presented four witnesses
then formally offered his exhibits which exhibits were admitted by the court and after admission
the prosecution rested its case. The accused feels that the evidences presented by the
prosecution were insufficient for his conviction. You are the counsel of the accused what will you
do to protect his interest?

A: Section 23 (Rule 119 Trial)

In this case, I am the counsel of the accused a motion to demurrer of evidence.

Q: Okay, and when should that motion should be file?

A: In-extendible period of five days

Q: When will you count in-extendible period of five days?

A: From the time the prosecution rests its case.

Q: Then the prosecution has, how many days also to file its comments?

A: The prosecution has also five days of non-extendable period from receipt of that motion to
also file prosecution’s comments under the position of the said motion.

Q: If the motion for leave is granted, how many days is the accused given to file the demurrer to
evidence itself?

A: Within ten days

Q: Can it be probable that the accused instead of filing a motion for leave will just immediately
file a demurrer to evidence itself without the motion? Because earlier you said that if the
accused files that the evidences presented by the prosecution, after the prosecution has rested
its case are insufficient for conviction. The law allows him within a non-extendable period of five
days to file a motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, the prosecution is also given a non-
extendable period of five days to file its comments. Once the motion is granted, now the
defense is given ten days already to file the demurrer to evidence itself, then prosecution is also
given ten days to submits its comments an opposition to the demurrer to evidence itself. But can
there be an instance where you need to file a motion but you will just immediately file the
demurrer to evidence? Is it allowable by the concept of this rule?

A: Yes. Ten days lang, after the prosecution rested its case immediately he did not file a motion
what he did is just to file immediately demurrer to evidence that is also allowed by the rules.

Q: But where lies the difference between the filing immediately demurrer to evidence to that of
filing first in motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence? Is there a difference in terms of the
effect of these two?

A: Yes.

Q: Where lies the difference?

A: The difference is that if the accused files motion with leave of court to file a demurrer to
evidence and the demurrer to evidence is denied the prosecution for the defense can still
present evidence but if he did not file a motion for leave first but immediately file a demurrer to
evidence and unfortunately the demurrer is denied by the court then he is consider to have
waive his right to present evidence. So that is the major difference.

JS: So ako, I would always advise lawyers, not unless they are really very sure that the
demurrer will be granted by the court, you always have to file first a leave of motion because
whenever what happen to demurrer the defense is not deprive of his right to present evidence.
The law is very clear that once the demurrer to evidence was file without a prior motion for leave
and if it was denied by the court you no longer present evidence.

Q: Did you come across a concept of reopening? What is this all about?

A: Section 24 (Rule 119 Trial)

The court motu proprio can file a motion of either party may reopen the case.
Q: When can be opening be made?

A: Motu proprio by the court or on motion of either the defense of the prosecution, it’s very clear,
because this remedy can be avail of by both of the accused and the prosecution, unlike later
mga motions for reconsiderations, motion for new trial these are only available remedies on the
part of the accused. But here very clear no. The reopening of a case, like what I said, can be
through a motion of either of the accused or the prosecution or it can even be done motu proprio
by the court.

Q: But is there take time to limit insofar as reopening of criminal cases are concern?

A: Yes.

Q: When should that be?

A: Before the finality of judgment.

JS: Even if the judgment was already issue but before finality thereof the court motu proprio or
on motion of added the defense for the prosecution may reopen the case…

Q: And what is the major ground which will allow to reopening of a case?

A: To prevent manifest injustice.

Q: What will you do? There is a material witness who apparently is not cooperative by the
prosecution. What should be done there under the circumstances?

A: Section 14 (Rule 119 Trial)

Post bail.

In case the witness will not appear in court and he is notified it’s easy for the court to cancel the
bond and then issue a warrant for the arrest of the said witness.

JS: So this is definitely allow in certain instances we may compel witnesses be here for the
prosecution, be here for the defense to post bail in cases when the court feels that the witness
is not cooperative. And the only way for him to cooperate with the court is for him to post a bail
because if in case he posts a bail then he was notified to testify, he did not appear. The
recourse would be to cancel his bail and then issue a warrant for the arrest of that particular
witness.

Take not of the conditional examinations of defense witnesses, the conditional examinations of
the prosecution’s witnesses and you see where lies the difference between the two. In terms of
procedure, there is a difference there because in defense witnesses it can be done before a
judge, it can be done before a member of the bar in good standing or if this is from the superior
court to an inferior court but in conditional examination of prosecution’s witnesses, the law is
very clear, that while it granted the testimony can only be made for the judge, there is no can be
made before a member of the bar in good standing. Very specific in the sense that it is only
limited to a judge. Furthermore while in conditional examination of defense witnesses it provides
several grounds like witnesses are sick or infirm, that he resides 100 kilometers away from the
place, witness has intention of leaving abroad but with no date of returning. In conditional
examination of prosecutor’s witnesses it only mention one, the witness is so sick or infirm.

The three modes of discovery in criminal procedure: motion for the production and inspection of
documents; conditional examinations of the defense witnesses; conditional examinations of the
prosecutor’s witness

The differences between that of discharging of an accused as a state witness to that of apply
under the coverage of witness protection program.