People vs.

Yparraguirre, 1997 (Relevo)

Principle: An offer to compromise does not require that a criminal complaint be first filed before the offer
can be received in evidence against the offeror. What is required is that after committing the crime, the
accused or his representative makes an offer to compromise and such offer is proved.

Facts:

Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape. The victim, Rosita, is his housemaid. He
gave fifteen (15) tablets to his housemaid for the treatment of her rashes which she allegedly contracted
from one of his children. As instructed by appellant, Rosita took all the tablets. A few minutes later, she
felt weak and fell down, then appellant raped her. Thereafter, appellant threatened to kill her should she
report the incident to her parents.

She continued serving his family for one month before leaving them to return to her mother's
house. Her mother found Rosita in a state of shock. She could not eat nor talk, neither could she perform
ordinary daily functions such as dressing herself. She was brought to the Municipal Health Officer by her
mother for examination, and after a week of treatment, Rosita began to talk and revealed that she was
raped by appellant

After Rosita revealed the rape to her mother, appellant's wife offered the victim's mother, fifteen
thousand pesos (P15,000.00) to dissuade her from filing the complaint. When the mother refused, she
increased the offer to twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00). Still the mother refused to accept it.

RTC found him guilty.

Issue:

(1) Whether the must first be a complaint filed before there is an offer to compromise for there to be an
implied admission of guilt

Ruling:

(1) No.

An offer to compromise does not require that a criminal complaint be first filed before the offer can be
received in evidence against the offeror. What is required is that after committing the crime, the accused
or his representative makes an offer to compromise and such offer is proved.
 People vs. San Gabriel, 1996 (Relevo)

Principle:

Entries in official records, as in the case of a police blotter, are only prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated. They are not conclusive. The entry in the police blotter is not necessarily entitled to full
credit for it could be incomplete and inaccurate, sometimes from either partial suggestions or for want of
suggestions or inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall the connected
collateral circumstances necessary for the correction of the first suggestion of his memory and for his
accurate recollection of all that pertain to the subject. It is understandable that the testimony during the
trial would be more lengthy and detailed than the matters stated in the police blotter.

Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer or by a person in the
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. But
to be admissible in evidence three (3) requisites must concur: (a) The entry was made by a police officer
or by another person specially enjoined by law to do so; (b) It was made by the public officer in the
performance of his duties or by such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law;
and, (c) The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must
have been acquired by him personally or through official information.

Facts:

Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of murder in conspiracy with “Ramon Doe.” The
victim is Jamie A. Tonog. The victim had a fistfight with the two accused. After they were pacified by the
onlookers, they intercepted the victim by the road and stabbed him in the stomach and at the back, which
caused his death.

The accused-appellant’s version is that it was a certain “Mando” and “Ramon Doe” who stabbed
the victim. That the victim was drunk and attempted to box him but he parried his blow. Among his
arguments was that the testimony of the witness, Brenda Gonzales imputing him on the crime is
inconsistent with the Advance Information Sheet prepared by the patrolman based on an information
acquired from a certain Camba which did not mention him at all and named only "Ramon Doe" as the
principal suspect.

RTC found him guilty.

Issue:

(1) Whether the Advance Information Sheet conclusive

Ruling:

(1) No.

Entries in official records, as in the case of a police blotter, are only prima facie evidence of the facts
therein stated. They are not conclusive. The entry in the police blotter is not necessarily entitled to full
credit for it could be incomplete and inaccurate, sometimes from either partial suggestions or for want of
suggestions or inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall the connected
collateral circumstances necessary for the correction of the first suggestion of his memory and for his
accurate recollection of all that pertain to the subject. It is understandable that the testimony during the
trial would be more lengthy and detailed than the matters stated in the police blotter.

Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer or by a person in the
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. But
to be admissible in evidence three (3) requisites must concur: (a) The entry was made by a police officer
or by another person specially enjoined by law to do so; (b) It was made by the public officer in the
performance of his duties or by such other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law;
and, (c) The public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of the facts by him stated, which must
have been acquired by him personally or through official information.