People of the Philippines vs Abelardo Parungao
FACTS
The accused-appellant Parungao was arraigned and tried separately for the information filed against him and the other 15 jail-breakers of the the Provincial Jail of Pampanga of the crime of robbery with homicide upon which on the incident of the jailbreak 2 jail guards were killed on the discharge of their duties and of the missing 6 firearms and for serious physical injury caused to the other jail guard, he was convicted as a co-conspirator and principal by inducement. Unsatisfied with the lower court's ruling hence the case was elevated to the court of appeal upon which the accused- appellant contended that the testimonies of the 4 witnesses presented by the prosecution are merely hearsays of which the witnesses testified and conveyed matters to court that are not of their own personal knowledge and were merely narrated to them with the other detainees.
ISSUE
The admissibility of a hearsay evidence.
RULING
The court ruled in favor of the accused-appeallant, acquitting him of the crime charged against him, citing that Generally hearsay evidence are inadmissible however when not objected may result in its being admitted, but the same should not mislead into thinking that its admission is equated with weight evidence. That hearsay evidence whether objected to or not be given credence for it has no probative value.
The court also emphasizes that the trial court gravely erred in giving weight to the hearsay evidence that was presented since it it is violative of the hearsay rule and same was unconstitutional for said act-the accused was not given an opportunity to meet the witnesses face-to-face and to subject the source of the information to the rigid test of cross-examination.
Conspiracy against the accused-appellant has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused-appellant Parungao was arraigned and tried separately for the information filed against him and the other 15 jail-breakers of the the Provincial Jail of Pampanga of the crime of robbery with homicide upon which on the incident of the jailbreak 2 jail guards were killed on the discharge of their duties and of the missing 6 firearms and for serious physical injury caused to the other jail guard, he was convicted as a co-conspirator and principal by inducement. Unsatisfied with the lower court's ruling hence the case was elevated to the court of appeal upon which the accused- appellant contended that the testimonies of the 4 witnesses presented by the prosecution are merely hearsays of which the witnesses testified and conveyed matters to court that are not of their own personal knowledge and were merely narrated to them with the other detainees.
ISSUE
The admissibility of a hearsay evidence.
RULING
The court ruled in favor of the accused-appeallant, acquitting him of the crime charged against him, citing that Generally hearsay evidence are inadmissible however when not objected may result in its being admitted, but the same should not mislead into thinking that its admission is equated with weight evidence. That hearsay evidence whether objected to or not be given credence for it has no probative value.
The court also emphasizes that the trial court gravely erred in giving weight to the hearsay evidence that was presented since it it is violative of the hearsay rule and same was unconstitutional for said act-the accused was not given an opportunity to meet the witnesses face-to-face and to subject the source of the information to the rigid test of cross-examination.
Conspiracy against the accused-appellant has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
People of the Philippines vs Mayorga
FACTS
Jhonnettel Mayorga was convicted of the crime of a statutory rape of the 5-year old Leney Linayao under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of the Pinamalayan, Mindoro Oriental. Upon which the decision of the trial court was subjected for an automatic review, wherein the accused-appellant faulted the trial court for convicting him despite the failure to established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and even asserted that the testimony of the child-victim should not be given credence for she was being coached by her grandmother and that the testimony of Edwin his cousin, was given under compulsion.
ISSUE
The credibility of the witnesses presented
RULING
First, Leney's credibility is not lost due to the fact that she was coached by her grandmother since the victim, at the time the crime was committed against her was innocent and a guileless 5-year-old , is not expected to recall every single detail and aspect of the brutal experience that she went through plus she had stopped schooling at that time and did not have a gift of articulation.
And on the stand of the lower's court judgment on Edwin's testimony was held misplaced, it was not unconstitutional nor a hearsay, it was an extrajudicial admission by the accused, the accused had the opportunity to disprove the same but did otherwise.
Hence, the court affirmed the decision of the trial court that accused-appellant is guilty of rape with the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered civil indemnity and moral damages, including the costs.
FACTS
Jhonnettel Mayorga was convicted of the crime of a statutory rape of the 5-year old Leney Linayao under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of the Pinamalayan, Mindoro Oriental. Upon which the decision of the trial court was subjected for an automatic review, wherein the accused-appellant faulted the trial court for convicting him despite the failure to established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and even asserted that the testimony of the child-victim should not be given credence for she was being coached by her grandmother and that the testimony of Edwin his cousin, was given under compulsion.
ISSUE
The credibility of the witnesses presented
RULING
First, Leney's credibility is not lost due to the fact that she was coached by her grandmother since the victim, at the time the crime was committed against her was innocent and a guileless 5-year-old , is not expected to recall every single detail and aspect of the brutal experience that she went through plus she had stopped schooling at that time and did not have a gift of articulation.
And on the stand of the lower's court judgment on Edwin's testimony was held misplaced, it was not unconstitutional nor a hearsay, it was an extrajudicial admission by the accused, the accused had the opportunity to disprove the same but did otherwise.
Hence, the court affirmed the decision of the trial court that accused-appellant is guilty of rape with the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered civil indemnity and moral damages, including the costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment