This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-09-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Before us, appellant now posits that the instant case falls within the established exceptions[83] finding refuge in our ruling in People v. Guittap.[84] Thus: While it is our policy to accord proper deference to the factual findings of the trial court, owing to their unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination, where there exist facts or circumstances of weight and influence which have been ignored or misconstrued, or where the trial court acted arbitrarily in its appreciation of facts, we may disregard its findings.[85] | |||||
|
2010-01-19 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. The rule on res inter alios acta provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.[32] Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-accused[33] and is considered as hearsay against them.[34] The reason for this rule is that: on a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man's own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him.[35] | |||||
|
2006-02-13 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The testimony of her husband, Judge Arellano, is bereft of evidentiary value being mere hearsay.[53] His knowledge of the incident came from his alleged conversations with Atty. Maningas, Orfila and his wife. At best, his testimony may be admitted only as proof that there was such a conversation but without reference to the truth or falsity of the words uttered. | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| A. No, sir. Q. What do you mean by no? A. To my knowledge and information, Sixto Calicdan bought the property from his cousin, I think Flaviano or Felomino Bautista. Q. So, in other words, you have no personal knowledge about how Sixto Calicdan acquired this property? A. I think it was by purchase. Q. According to information, so you have no actual personal knowledge how Sixto Calicadan acquired this property? A. Yes, because when the property was bought by my uncle, I was not yet born, so information only. Q. So when you were born, you came to know already that Sixto Calicdan is the owner of this property? A. Yes, thru the son of Felomino Bautista who is now, I think, in Baguio. Q. You have not seen any document to show that Sixto Calicdan purchased the property from one Felomino Bautista? A. None, sir.[11] In People v. Guittap,[12] we held that:Under Rule 130, Section 36 of the Rules of Court, a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his own personal knowledge, i.e., which are derived from his own perception; otherwise, such testimony would be hearsay. Hearsay evidence is defined as "evidence not of what the witness knows himself but of what he has heard from others." The hearsay rule bars the testimony of a witness who merely recites what someone else has told him, whether orally or in writing. In Sanvicente v. People, we held that when evidence is based on what was supposedly told the witness, the same is without any evidentiary weight for being patently hearsay. Familiar and fundamental is the rule that hearsay testimony is inadmissible as evidence. The Court of Appeals thus erred in ruling based on respondent's bare hearsay testimony as evidence of the donation made by Fermina. | |||||
|
2003-09-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The Information charged the appellants with conspiracy in killing the victim. Conspiracy must be proved as convincingly as the criminal act itself. Like any element of the offense charged, conspiracy must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[12] Conspiracy may be shown through circumstantial evidence; deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated; or inferred from the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose and design, a concerted action, and a community of interest.[13] | |||||