Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
5) Ganoon din ang pag-amin ng isang akusado sa isang tao na hindi kagawad
ng pulisya ay maaaring tanggapin bilang ebidensya sapagkat ito ay hindi
sakop ng Section 12 (1) at (3), Article III ng ating Bagong Saligang Batas,
sapagkat ang pag-amin ay ibinigay samantalang siya ay wala naman sa ilalim
ng custodial investigation. (People vs Suela, G.R. No. 133570-71, 15 January
2002).
6) The claim that extra judicial confession was extracted through compulsion
and duress would be belied by the facial expression of the accused appearing
on the photograph of reenactment indicating they were acting voluntarily.
People vs Ty Sui Wong, m83 SCRA 125.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE:
Hearsay Evidence means all evidence which is not founded upon the personal
knowledge of the witness from whom it is elicited. In one case, the court ruled
that it is hearsay evidence if the testimony of a witness is predicted upon what
he has heard other persons say on the facts in dispute. People vs Sarmiento, 64
SCRA 351.
ADAMANT TO TESTIFY:
a) If a person who saw the commission of a crime and knew who is the
perpetrator, but kept silent and did not report it to the authorities is not liable
even as accessory. People vs Callapag 21 Phil. 262.
b) On the other hand, the court said, “If an informant went to the authorities
and volunteered false information which tended affirmatively to deceive the
prosecuting authorities and thus, to prevent the detection of the guilty parties
and to aid them in escaping discovery and arrest, he is liable as accessory.”
US vs Romulo 15 Phil 408.
b) Statement made through interpreter is not hearsay, where the interpreter has
been selected by common consent of the parties endeavoring to converse. It is
naturally held that the party against whom the statements were offered in
evidence had made the interpreter his agent, and therefore was found within
the ordinary rules of principal and agent. People vs Chin Sing, 242 N.Y. 419.
e) Delayed testimony of witness cannot erase the impression that his testimony
was fabricated and concocted to favor the prosecution. The court held, it
would be highly injudicious to rely on such testimony because blanket
acceptance thereof might result in the conviction of an innocent person.
People vs Moreno, 85 SCRA 651.
CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS:
The court held, “If evidence is to be believed, it must not only proceed from the
mouth of credible witness but it must be credible by itself, in conformity with the
common experience and observation of mankind. People vs Alvarez, 55 SCRA 82;
People vs Salazar, GR-114291, 14 May 1997.
WARRANT OF ARREST:
b) The City Fiscal has no authority to issue warrants of arrest, and is powerless
to validate an illegal detention by merely filing of information or by any order
of his own, either expressed or implied. Lino vs Fugaso, 77 Phil. 934.
c) Only a Judge may issue warrants of arrest and search warrants. (Guanzon vs
De Villa, 181 SCRA 623).
d) The Police Officer is not liable for arbitrary detention if the continued
detention of the arrested person is upon inducement ordered by the Fiscal to
hold and not to release the prisoner after the expiration of the period as
prescribed by law. Sayo vs Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 863.
e) Formal charges must be filed against the person arrested within the
prescribed period of twelve (12), eighteen (18) or thirty-six (36) hours,
depending upon the gravity of the offense committed. Failure to comply to this
mandate makes the detention arbitrary. (Executive Order Number 272).
g) The warrant for the apprehension of an unnamed party is void, except in case
where it contains a “descriptio personae” as will enable the offender to identify
the accused. The description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper
person upon whom the warrant is to be served. People vs Veloso, 48 Phil. 170.
h) If the person to be arrested procures the warrant from the person charged
with its execution upon the pretense of reading it and thereafter refuses to
return the same, such refusal upon demand is serious disobedience. US vs
Tabiana, 37 Phil 515.
SEARCH WARRANT:
c) An arresting officer may take from the person arrested any money or property
found upon his person which was used in the commission of the crime or was
the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner with a means for
committing violence or escaping or which may be used in evidence in the trail
of the case. (People vs Aballe, 183 SCRA 196).