Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
RULE 128
Section 1. Evidence defined. Evidence is the
means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a
judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of
fact. (1)
Section 2. Scope. The rules of evidence shall be
the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings,
except as otherwise provided by law or these rules.
(2a)
PEOPLE VS
QUIDATOOO
PEOPLE
v.
QUIDATO,
JR.
ROMERO (October 1, 1998) The
settled rule is that an uncounseled
extrajudicial confession without a valid
waiver of the right to counsel that
is, in writing and in the presence of
counsel is inadmissible in evidence.
FACTS:
1. Bernardo Quidato, Sr., father
of
accused-appellant
Bernardo
Quidato, Jr. and Leo Quidato, a
widower, lived alone in his house at
Sitio Libod, Brgy. Tagbaobo, Kaputian,
Davao. He owned sixteen hectares of
coconut land in the area.
2.
September
16,
1988,
Bernardo, accompanied by his son,
and two hired hands, Reynaldo Malita
and Eddie Malita, went to Davao City
to sell 41 sacks of copra. After selling
the copra, Bernardo paid the Malita
brothers for their labor, who thereafter
left.
8.
In
indicting
accusedappellant, the prosecution relied
heavily on the affidavits executed by
Reynaldo and Eddie. The two brothers
were, however, not presented on the
witness stand to testify on their extrajudicial confessions.
ISSUE:
1. WON there was a valid waiver
of right to counsel by the Malita
brothers when they made uncounseled
extrtajudicial confession? NO
2.
WON
the
extrajudicial
confessions of the Malita brothers are
admissible as evidence against the
accused-appellant? NO
RATIO:
1. The failure to present the
Malita brothers on trial gives these
affidavits the character of hearsay. It is
hornbook doctrine that unless the
affiants themselves take the witness
stand to affirm the averments in their
affidavits, the affidavits must be
excluded from the judicial proceeding,
being
inadmissible
hearsay.
The
voluntary admissions of an accused
made
extrajudicially
are
not
admissible in evidence against his coaccused when the latter had not been
given an opportunity to hear him
testify and crossexamine him. The
Solicitor General, in advocating the
admissibility of the sworn statements
of the Malita brothers, cites Section
30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
which provides that "[t]he act or
declaration of a conspirator relating to
the
conspiracy
and
during
its
existence, may be given in evidence
against the coconspirator after the
conspiracy is shown by evidence other
than such act or declaration." The
inapplicability of this provision is
clearly apparent. The confessions were
made after the conspiracy had ended
and after the consummation of the
crime. Hence, it cannot be said that
PEOPLE v. TURCO
G.R. No. 137757 August 14, 2000
Doctrine: Since admissibility of evidence is
determined by its relevance and competence,
admissibility is, therefore, an affair of logic and
law. On the other hand, the weight to be given
to such evidence, once admitted, depends on
judicial evaluation within the guidelines
provided in Rule 133 and jurisprudence laid
down by the Court. Thus, while evidence may
be admissible, it may be entitled to little or no
weight at all.