PEOPLE VS.
REALON o Stated otherwise, the unproffered evidence which appellants urge to
Guerrero [August 29, 1980]
FACTS:
 On April 13, 1969, at about 3 PM at the grandstand in the Athletic Bowl at the
Burnham Park in Baguio City, more than 40 public school teachers were
rehearsing a song for the inaugural ceremonies of the Bureau of Public
Schools at La Trinidad, Benguet.
 The teachers in the grandstand were singing the song "Come Where the Lilies
Bloom" when accused Simplicio Realon pulled out of the formation and shortly
thereafter, a loud explosion was heard. Immediately, panic ensued. Realon
and Soliven left the grandstand in haste, one following the other.
 Vicente Ramos, one of the teachers, fell from where he was standing in the
grandstand. It turned out that he was shot at the upper portion of the nape.
Ricardo Birog, an 18-year old houseboy who reached Grade VI, testified as
the lone eyewitness to the actual shooting.
 The lower court convicted accused-appellants Simplicio Realon and Eutropio
Soliven of the crime of Murder qualified by treachery and attended by the
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.
 In their Brief, the accused-appellants argue that due significance should be
given to the suppression by the prosecution of the testimony of the
National Bureau of Investigation officer who fingerprinted and paraffin-
tested the accused.
o They contended that the failure of the prosecution to present the NBI
officers who fingerprinted and paraffin-tested the accused-appellants
gives rise to the application of the rule that evidence willfully
suppressed shall be disputably presumed to be adverse if produced,
under Rule 131, Sec. 5(e) of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE/S AND RATIO:
W/N the rule on suppression of evidence should be applied in this case – NO
 The rule on suppression of evidence finds no applicability in cases where
the evidence allegedly suppressed is merely corroborative or cumulative.
o "No inference arises against a party failing to call a witness where
the only object of calling such witness would be to produce
corroborative or cumulative evidence.”
 In the instant case, the testimony of the NBI officers would indeed merely
be corroborative in view of the overwhelming evidence on the positive
identification of both accused.
 The presumption of suppression of evidence is inapplicable to a case where
the evidence was at the disposal of both the defense and the prosecution
and would have the same weight against one party as against the other.
presume as unfavorable to the prosecution was equally available or
accessible to the defense.
o The Government, represented by the Fiscal, does not have the
exclusive prerogative or privilege to avail of the services of the NBI
or to have the officers of said office summoned in court in connection
with a criminal case.
o The defense itself, during the trial, could have presented the NBI
officers and/or the results of the fingerprint and paraffin tests
allegedly conducted if the evidence so presented was favorable
to the accused, but the defense did not avail of said privilege.
o It is rather late in the day to complain that the NBI officers were
not called to testify.
 The contention of the appellants that “the prosecution, without explanation,
failed to call several witnesses, three mentioned in the Information and two
others mentioned by its lone witness gives to the presumption that their
testimony would not be favorable to the prosecution’s cause” is misleading.
 A verification of the original records in the trial court reveals that of the seven
witnesses named in the Information, it was only Mrs. Lena Domingo who did
not testify during the trial. And the prosecution presented not one but twelve
witnesses.
 Nevertheless, the records show that a subpoena was issued to Mrs. Domingo
but the same could not be served on her because she was "out of town.” No
adverse inference will be drawn against a party by reason of the absence of
a witness who has been subpoenaed and against whom an attachment has
been issued to compel his attendance.
W/N the testimony of Ricardo Birog should be given credence – YES
 Accused-appellants argue that Birog was a last minute witness whose name
was not included in the Information.
 The Court held that although the defendant in a criminal case is entitled as a
matter of right to be furnished by the prosecution with a list of witnesses to be
presented against him during the trial, the last sentence of Section 1, Rule
116 of the Rules of Court allows the prosecution to call at the trial witnesses
other than those named in the complaint or information. The prosecution is
not precluded from calling as a witness a person who was not listed as a
witness in the information.
Judgment AFFIRMED.