ISSUES

People v Ola
1. W/N the accused-appellant’s guilt has been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt (NO) (Main point in #3)

DOCTRINE/LESSON OF THE CASE

RULING
●
1. The SC held that Bustamante’s testimony lacks the
credibility and details necessary to establish the guilt of
FACTS
beyond reasonable doubt of appellant. The SC found
● Ola is charged with the crime of Attemtped Robbery
the testimony to be vague and unsettling. While he was
with homicide and unintentional abortion. He had two
able to state the fact that Ola had climbed the wall, he
accomplices who stood watch while Ola climed up and
did not say specifically how.
entered the house of one Lolita Muhi with the intention
According to the testimony of Bustamante, Ola climed
of robbing her. He was unable to perform the robbery
up a wall and through a hole unassisted but could not
but because Muhi woke up and attempted to ask for
describe exactly how he did it because he was looking
help, Ola assaulted and stabbed her with a bladed
elsewhere. The Court found this unbelievable. First, as
weapon casuing her death and the abortion of the fetus
lookout, it was his job to be looking. Second, the hole is
in her womb.
not even big enough for a person to enter through and
● Ola pleaded not guilty and was convicted as the
not made of very durable material.
principal in the crime and sentenced to death, hence
The SC concluded by saying that, “Stripped down to its
the current case which is the automatic review imposed
bare essentials, it cannot prop up the prosecution’s
by the constitution on all death penatly cases.
theory on the manner of the commission of the crime,
● The accused-appelant assails the conviction’s reliance
much less the identity of the offender”.
on the testimony of one of his accomplices, Jose
2. The SC also declared the extrajudicial statements of
Bustamante. He also contends that Matimtim, the other
Matitim to be inadmissible against Ola on the grounds
accomplice, repudiated his extrajudicial confession and
of hearsay.
declared that he was forced to sign the same. Lastly, he
The trial court erred in admitting Matimtim’s testimony
argues that the only person identifying him as the
due to its inability to follow the settled rule that
author of the crime is Bustamante. There is no other
extrajudicial statements of an accused implicating a co-
evidence linking him to the crime.
 accused may not be utilized against the latter unless assailant nor the actual participation of the appellant
repeated in open court. Ola.
In this case, the defense was never given an In disregarding the dying gesture, the court pointed out
opportunity to cross-examine Matimtim. Not only that, that the same is not like an oral or written statement. It
they were repudiated by Matimtim later during his is open to several interpretations. The evidence
testimony where he claimed that he was preaviled upon therefore comes t court couched with second hand
by Bustamante to implicate Ola. Given that there was perceptions, imbued personal meanings and biases. This
no opportunity to cross-examine, the same is is exactly what the hearsay rule seeks to avoid.
inadmissible on the grounds that the same are hearsay. In this case, the witness Muhi testified that he asked
The same was rejected by appellant’s counsel on formal the dying victim for the identity of the assailant and
offer and even repudiated by the witness. The same that in response she pointed to the direction which the
cannot be used then as evidence of appellant’s guilt. witness refered to as Ilaya. The Court pointed out
There are however instances when the extrajudciial though that that is just one of many possible
statements of a co-accused might be taken into interpretations. She could have been pointing to her
consideration in judging the credibility of the testimony next door neighbor or the next barrio. And even if it
of an accomplice where certain conditions concuer were accepted, the admission would not incriimnate
sucha s: (a) statements are made by several accused; (b) Ola alone and all residents of Ilaya would be suspects.
the same are in all material respects identical; and (c) While dying declarations are an exception to the
there could have been no collusion among the co- hearsay rule, the same must still actually be admitted as
accused in making said statements. The current case a dying declaration. The same was never done in the
does not fall under this exception. lower court. The court found that the act of pointing
3. In convicting Oda, there was a footprint found near the with the hand does not corroborate Bustamante’s
stove in the kitchen of the victim’s house, a hole in the testimony on the identity of Ola as the assailant. It
wall of said kitchen, linear cuts or incisions found on doesn’t say anything about the crime in fact.
Ola’s index finger and mandible, and what the lower
considered as the “dying gesture” of the victim which DISPOSITIVE PORTION
allegedly pointed in the general direct of “Ilaya” where WHEREFORE, instant petition is granted
both Bustamante and Ola resided.
The Court cannot, by any stretch of imagination, infer NOTES (quotable quotes):
from such evidence, the identity of the victim’s