SECOND
DIVISION
FELIPE
NAVARRO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS:
Two local media men, Stanley Jalbuena, Enrique Lingan, in Lucena City went to the police station to report alledged indecent show in one of the night establishment shows in the City. At the station, a heated confrontation followed between victim Lingan and accused policeman Navarro who was then having drinks outside the headquarters, lead to a fisticuffs. The victim was hit with the handle of the accused's gun below the left eyebrow, followed by a fist blow, resulted the victim to fell and died under treatment. The exchange of words was recorded on tape, specifically the frantic exclamations made by Navarro after the altercation that it was the victim who provoked the fight. During the trial, Jalbuena, the other media man , testified. Presented in evidence to confirm his testimony was a voice recording he had made of the heated discussion at the police station between the accused police officer Navarro and the deceased, Lingan, which was taken without the knowledge of the two.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the voice recording is admissible in evidence in view of RA 4200, which prohibits wire tapping.
2. Whether the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong may be appreciated in favor of the accused.
HELD:
1. The answer is affirmative, the tape is admissible in view of RA 4200, which prohibits wire tapping. Jalbuena's testimony is confirmed by the voice recording he had made.
The law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private communications (Ramirez v Court of Appeals, 248 SCRA 590 [1995]). Since the exchange between petitioner Navarro and Lingan was not private, its tape recording is not prohibited.
2. The remarks of Lingan, which immediately preceded the acts of the accused, constituted sufficient provocation. Provocation is said to be any unjust or improper conduct of the offended party capable of exciting, annoying or irritating someone. The provocation must be sufficient and must immediately precede the act; and in order to be sufficient, it must be adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong, which must be accordingly proportionate in gravity. The mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong must also be considered. The exclamations made by Navarro after the scuffle that it was Lingan who provoked him showed that he had no intent to kill the latter.
Two local media men, Stanley Jalbuena, Enrique Lingan, in Lucena City went to the police station to report alledged indecent show in one of the night establishment shows in the City. At the station, a heated confrontation followed between victim Lingan and accused policeman Navarro who was then having drinks outside the headquarters, lead to a fisticuffs. The victim was hit with the handle of the accused's gun below the left eyebrow, followed by a fist blow, resulted the victim to fell and died under treatment. The exchange of words was recorded on tape, specifically the frantic exclamations made by Navarro after the altercation that it was the victim who provoked the fight. During the trial, Jalbuena, the other media man , testified. Presented in evidence to confirm his testimony was a voice recording he had made of the heated discussion at the police station between the accused police officer Navarro and the deceased, Lingan, which was taken without the knowledge of the two.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the voice recording is admissible in evidence in view of RA 4200, which prohibits wire tapping.
2. Whether the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong may be appreciated in favor of the accused.
HELD:
1. The answer is affirmative, the tape is admissible in view of RA 4200, which prohibits wire tapping. Jalbuena's testimony is confirmed by the voice recording he had made.
The law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private communications (Ramirez v Court of Appeals, 248 SCRA 590 [1995]). Since the exchange between petitioner Navarro and Lingan was not private, its tape recording is not prohibited.
2. The remarks of Lingan, which immediately preceded the acts of the accused, constituted sufficient provocation. Provocation is said to be any unjust or improper conduct of the offended party capable of exciting, annoying or irritating someone. The provocation must be sufficient and must immediately precede the act; and in order to be sufficient, it must be adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong, which must be accordingly proportionate in gravity. The mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong must also be considered. The exclamations made by Navarro after the scuffle that it was Lingan who provoked him showed that he had no intent to kill the latter.
G.R. No.
126285 September 29, 1998
PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RODEL FUERTES y OCAMPO, accused-appellant.
vs.
RODEL FUERTES y OCAMPO, accused-appellant.
Facts:
Accused-appellant Rodel Fuertes was
charged with the crime of rape against Jacklyn Lee Anas a minor. On the night
of July 10, 1994 Jacklyn woke up when she became aware by the presence of
someone. Thereafter, the trespasser forcefully molested her. On the following
day Marites arrived and found what happened to her daughter. Marites
immediately went on their Brgy. Captain and to Olongapo City General Hospital .
From the hospital they went to the police headquarters to file a complaint
against the appellant.
Though appellant denied the omission
of the crime, his action cannot prevail over positive testimony of prosecution
witnesses and the clear identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the
crime.
Issue:
WON a self-serving declaration is admissible to
the court.
Held:
The
defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution
witnesses and their clear identification of the accused as the perpetrator of
the crime. The judgement of the lower
court convicting accused appellant of the crime is hereby AFFIRMED.
G.R. No.
92740 March 23, 1992
PHILIPPINE
AIRLINES, INC., petitioner,
vs.
JAIME M. RAMOS, NILDA RAMOS, ERLINDA ILANO, MILAGROS ILANO, DANIEL ILANO AND FELIPA JAVALERA, respondents.
vs.
JAIME M. RAMOS, NILDA RAMOS, ERLINDA ILANO, MILAGROS ILANO, DANIEL ILANO AND FELIPA JAVALERA, respondents.
Facts:
Wherein the
plaintiffs complained because they were not allowed to board since the PAL
testified with a documents showing that they were late from their flight. They however alleged that that when they
arrived there was no one in the counter and the clerk arrived 30 minutes before
the departure.
Issue:
Which should
prevail, the oral testimony of the plaintiffs or the documentary evidence
presented by PAL?
Held:
The documentary evidence presented by PAL to corroborate the
testimonies of its witnesses are entries made in the regular course of business
which plaintiffs failed to overcome with substantial and convincing evidence
other than their testimonies. Consequently they carry more weight and credit. A
writing or document made contemporaneously with transactions which are evidence
of facts pertinent to an issue, when admitted as proof of those facts, is
ordinarily regarded as more reliable proof and of greater probative force than
the oral testimony of a witness as to such fact based upon memory and
recollection. Spoken words could be notoriously unreliable as against a written
document that speaks a uniform language.
No comments:
Post a Comment