Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    Bayani V. People

    Uploaded by

    Gabe Bedana
    1) Bayani was convicted of issuing a bounced check. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove he issued the check and that testimony stating what Rubia told someone was inadmissible hearsay. 2) The court found that while the testimony was hearsay, official records like certifications are admissible as prima facie evidence even if the officer is not present. A certification that the accused did not pass the engineering exam was properly admitted. 3) Dying declarations identifying the defendant as the shooter are admissible. Eyewitness testimony and the victim's statements to family and police on his way to the hospital regarding who shot him were sufficient to convict despite his death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bayani V. People

    Uploaded by

    Gabe Bedana
    46 views2 pages
    1) Bayani was convicted of issuing a bounced check. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove he issued the check and that testimony stating what Rubia told someone was inadmissible hearsay. 2) The court found that while the testimony was hearsay, official records like certifications are admissible as prima facie evidence even if the officer is not present. A certification that the accused did not pass the engineering exam was properly admitted. 3) Dying declarations identifying the defendant as the shooter are admissible. Eyewitness testimony and the victim's statements to family and police on his way to the hospital regarding who shot him were sufficient to convict despite his death.

    Original Description:

    mghjghjb

    Original Title

    evid9-5

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Bayani was convicted of issuing a bounced check. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove he issued the check and that testimony stating what Rubia told someone was inadmissible hearsay. 2) The court found that while the testimony was hearsay, official records like certifications are admissible as prima facie evidence even if the officer is not present. A certification that the accused did not pass the engineering exam was properly admitted. 3) Dying declarations identifying the defendant as the shooter are admissible. Eyewitness testimony and the victim's statements to family and police on his way to the hospital regarding who shot him were sufficient to convict despite his death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    46 views2 pages

    Bayani V. People

    Uploaded by

    Gabe Bedana
    1) Bayani was convicted of issuing a bounced check. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove he issued the check and that testimony stating what Rubia told someone was inadmissible hearsay. 2) The court found that while the testimony was hearsay, official records like certifications are admissible as prima facie evidence even if the officer is not present. A certification that the accused did not pass the engineering exam was properly admitted. 3) Dying declarations identifying the defendant as the shooter are admissible. Eyewitness testimony and the victim's statements to family and police on his way to the hospital regarding who shot him were sufficient to convict despite his death.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    BAYANI v.

    PEOPLE because the prosecution failed to present Rubia as a witness, thus,


    depriving the petitioner of his right of cross-examination.
    Leodegario Bayani was convicted of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
    According to the prosecution, Alicia Rubia asked Dolores Evangelista However, the evidence belies his assertion that the prosecution
    to rediscount a PSBank Check drawn by Bayani. After Rubia failed to adduce evidence that he issued the subject check.
    endorsed the check, Evangelista gave her P55,000.00. However, Evangelista testified that when she talked to the petitioner upon
    when Evangelista deposited the check, it was dishonored by the Rubias suggestion, Bayani latter borrowed the check from him.
    drawee bank for the reason that on September 1, 1992, Bayani
    closed his account with the PSBank. Evangelista then informed ERNESTO FULLERO v. PEOPLE
    Rubia of the dishonor of the check and demanded the return of her G.R. NO. 170583 September 12, 2007
    P55,000.00. Rubia replied that she was only requested by Bayani to
    have the check rediscounted. Petitioner was convicted of falsification of a public document when
    he, as the Acting Chief Operator of Iriga City Telecommunications
    Bayani now contends amongst others that the prosecution failed to Office, falsified a genuine public document, apparently made it
    adduce evidence that he issued the subject check and Evangelista’s appear in his Personal Data Sheet that he passed the Civil
    testimony, that Rubia told her that it was Bayani who asked her to Engineering Board Examinations. He now contends amongst others
    have the check rediscounted, is hearsay and, as such, even if he did that the prosecution’s documentary evidence, consisting inter alia
    not object thereto is inadmissible in evidence against him. He avers of Exhibit A is inadmissible in evidence. According to him, Exhibit A,
    that the prosecution failed to present Rubia as a witness, depriving which is the Certification of the PRC confirming that petitioners
    him of his right to cross-examine her. name does not appear in the registry books of licensed civil
    ISSUE: WON Bayani’s contentions are meritorious enough to engineers, was not properly identified during the trial. The proper
    warrant his acquittal. person to identify the certification should have been the signatory
    therein in his absence, a person who actually witnessed the
    HELD: NO. execution of the certification. Prosecution witness presented to
    identify the certification during the trial was not present when the
    The Court agrees with the submission of Bayani that Evangelist’as certification was executed. Thus, the contents of the certification
    testimony, that Rubia told her that the petitioner requested that
    are mere hearsay.
    the subject check be rediscounted, is hearsay. Evangelista had no
    personal knowledge of such request of the petitioner to Rubia. ISSUE: WON petitioner’s contention is meritorious.
    Neither is the information relayed by Rubia to Evangelista as to the
    petitioners request admissible in evidence against the latter, HELD: NO.
    The law provides for specific exceptions to the hearsay rule. One of who shot him. SPO3 Frederick Dequito helped carry Alexander to an
    which is the entries in official records made in the performance of ambulance. SPO3 Dequito asked Alexander who shot him to which
    duty by a public officer. Official entries are admissible in evidence he answered Pato—an alias by which appellant is known.
    regardless of whether the officer or person who made them was Alexanders wife, Susan, who rushed to the hospital was also told by
    presented and testified in court, since these entries are considered Alexander that it was appellant who shot him. Alexander died the
    prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. following day.

    Exhibit A, or the Certification of the PRC dated 17 January 1998, was ISSUE: WON Accused should be convicted.
    signed by Arriola, Director II of the PRC, Manila. Although Arriola
    was not presented in court or did not testify during the trial to verify HELD: YES.
    the said certification, such certification is considered as prima facie Appellant’s authorship of the crime was proven by the positive
    evidence of the facts stated therein and is therefore presumed to be identification of an eyewitness (Michelle) and the victim’s dying
    truthful, because petitioner did not present any plausible proof to declaration. The statements of the prosecution’s witnesses comply
    rebut its truthfulness. Exhibit A is therefore admissible in evidence. with all the requisites of a dying declaration. First, Alexander’s
    declaration pertains to the identity of the person who shot him.
    DYING DECLARATION
    Second, the fatal quality and extent of the injuries he suffered
    G.R. No. 177147 November 28, 2007 underscore the imminence of his death as his condition was so
    serious that his demise occurred the following morning after a
    PEOPLE v. JOEMARIE CERILLA thirteen (13)-hour operation. Third, he would have been competent
    Appellant was, charged with the crime of murder for the death of to testify had he survived. Fourth, his dying declaration is offered in
    Alexander Parreo. According to the prosecution, Alexander, his a criminal prosecution for murder where he was the victim.
    daughter Michelle, and neighbor Phoebe Sendin, went to the house
    of appellant. On their way home, Michelle was walking ahead of
    Alexander. Suddenly, Michelle heard an explosion. Michelle
    immediately turned her back and saw appellant pointing a gun at
    Alexander who, at that moment, was staggering towards her.
    Michelle was cuddling Alexander beside the road when the latter
    repeatedly told her that it was appellant who shot him. Twenty
    minutes later, Alexander’s other daughter, Novie Mae, arrived; she
    was also told by Alexander at that moment that it was appellant

    You might also like