Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    Espineli Vs PPL

    Uploaded by

    Jessette Amihope CASTOR
    The petitioner was charged with murder for the killing of Alberto Berbon y Downie. A witness, Romeo Reyes, who was in custody for illegal possession of a deadly weapon, gave a sworn statement to police implicating the petitioner in the murder. The petitioner argued the statement was inadmissible hearsay. The court ruled the statement was not hearsay because the police officer testified to taking the statement from the witness, making it a primary piece of evidence rather than secondary hearsay evidence. While the truth of the statement cannot be relied upon, the fact it was made is relevant and not barred by the hearsay rule. The petitioner's conviction was upheld.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Espineli Vs PPL

    Uploaded by

    Jessette Amihope CASTOR
    32 views1 page
    The petitioner was charged with murder for the killing of Alberto Berbon y Downie. A witness, Romeo Reyes, who was in custody for illegal possession of a deadly weapon, gave a sworn statement to police implicating the petitioner in the murder. The petitioner argued the statement was inadmissible hearsay. The court ruled the statement was not hearsay because the police officer testified to taking the statement from the witness, making it a primary piece of evidence rather than secondary hearsay evidence. While the truth of the statement cannot be relied upon, the fact it was made is relevant and not barred by the hearsay rule. The petitioner's conviction was upheld.

    Original Title

    2. Espineli vs Ppl

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner was charged with murder for the killing of Alberto Berbon y Downie. A witness, Romeo Reyes, who was in custody for illegal possession of a deadly weapon, gave a sworn statement to police implicating the petitioner in the murder. The petitioner argued the statement was inadmissible hearsay. The court ruled the statement was not hearsay because the police officer testified to taking the statement from the witness, making it a primary piece of evidence rather than secondary hearsay evidence. While the truth of the statement cannot be relied upon, the fact it was made is relevant and not barred by the hearsay rule. The petitioner's conviction was upheld.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    32 views1 page

    Espineli Vs PPL

    Uploaded by

    Jessette Amihope CASTOR
    The petitioner was charged with murder for the killing of Alberto Berbon y Downie. A witness, Romeo Reyes, who was in custody for illegal possession of a deadly weapon, gave a sworn statement to police implicating the petitioner in the murder. The petitioner argued the statement was inadmissible hearsay. The court ruled the statement was not hearsay because the police officer testified to taking the statement from the witness, making it a primary piece of evidence rather than secondary hearsay evidence. While the truth of the statement cannot be relied upon, the fact it was made is relevant and not barred by the hearsay rule. The petitioner's conviction was upheld.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    JOSE ESPINELI a.k.a.

    DANILO ESPINELI, Petitioner,


    vs.
    PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Respondent.
    G.R. No.179535 June 9, 2014

    Facts:
    Petitioner was charged with the crime of murder was filed before the RTC, lberto
    Berbon y Downie (Alberto), a 49-year old Senior Desk Coordinator of the radio station
    DZMM, was shot in the head and different parts of the body in front of his house in
    Imus, Cavite by unidentified malefactors who immediately fled the crime scene on
    board a waiting car. NBI arrested and took into custody one Romeo Reyes (Reyes) for
    the crime of Illegal Possession of Deadly Weapon. Reyes confided to the group of Atty.
    Dizon that he was willing to give vital information regarding the Berbon case. Reyes
    claimed that on December 15, 1996, he saw petitioner and Sotero Paredes (Paredes)
    board a red car while armed with a .45 caliber firearm and armalite, respectively; and
    that petitioner told Paredes that "ayaw ko nang abutin pa ng bukas yang si Berbon.

    Petitioner anchors his quest for the reversal of his conviction on the alleged
    erroneous admission in evidence of the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Reyes for being
    hearsay and inadmissible. He avers that the said sworn statement should not have been
    given probative value because its contents were neither confirmed nor authenticated by
    the affiant. Thus, all circumstances emanating from or included in the sworn statement
    must be totally brushed aside as lacking any evidentiary and probative value. Petitioner
    emphasizes that as found by the courts below, there was no direct evidence linking him
    to the crime; therefore, he wants this Court to review the sufficiency of the
    circumstantial evidence upon which his conviction was based as he believes that the
    same failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    Issue:
                Whether or not the testimony of Reyes is hearsay.
    Ruling:

    NBI Agent Segunial testified that he had investigated Reyes and reduced the
    latter’s statement into writing. The hearsay evidence rule as provided under Section 36,
    Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states:
    Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded.
    – A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal
    knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as
    otherwise provided in these rules.

    Evidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on the
    competency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is
    sought to produce. However, while the testimony of a witness regarding a statement
    made by another person given for the purpose of establishing the truth of the fact
    asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of
    placing the statement on the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement, or
    the tenor of such statement, was made. Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement,
    when what is relevant is the fact that such statement has been made, the hearsay rule
    does not apply and the statement may be shown. As a matter of fact, evidence as to the
    making of the statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may
    constitute a fact in issue or is circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a
    fact. This is known as the doctrine of independently relevant statements.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy