People of The Philippines VS Gelacio

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS GELACIO
FACTS:
 Gelacio, the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of

the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) was
charged of violating Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Sec. 7(d) of R.A. No.
6713 for allegedly soliciting and
accepting, on separate occasions, the aggregate amount of Pl20,000.00 and
a whole tuna fish in consideration for his issuance of a temporary restraining
order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) relative to a case pending
before him.
 The prosecution presented four witnesses: (1) Lorna Nietes Garte the
Supervising Agrarian Reform Program Officer, who proved the existence of
the Complaint in the DARAB case and the issuance of the TRO and WPI in
the said case; (2) Atty. Landero, who positively testified on the delivery of the
Tuna fish that was requested by the accused-appellant; (3) Herminigilda
Garbo,
the wife of private complainant and a co-complainant in the DARAB case, who
directly saw the giving of money of the private complainant to the accused-
appellent in his office;
and (4) Dominador Egagamao, a co-complainant in the DARAB case, who
testified that he contributed his money to come up with the amounts
demanded by accused-appellant in exchange for the issuance ofthe TRO and
WPI in the DARAB case.
 Accused-appellant denied all the charges against him, stating that
private complainant had filed a disbarment case against him before this
Court, which was dismissed for being inconclusive and unreliable. Bebiano
also testified that it was true that their group held meetings and contributed
money, but he claimed that it was given to Atty. Landero, their lawyer in the
DARAB case. Lastly, Atty. Lechonsito testified that he assisted private
complainant in drafting an affidavit of retraction of his accusations against
accused-appellant, which he filed with the Office of the Ombudsman
(Ombudsman).
 The Sandiganbayan found
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.
ISSUES:
I. WHETHER OR Not HEARSAY EVIDENCE
Is admissible in court and whether or not the evidence presented by the
prosecution was hearsay evidence
II. WHETHER OR Not THE
PROSECUTION HAD COME TO COURT WITH
UNCLEAN HANDS, HAVING PROSECUTED
ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO THE EXCLUSION OF
PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AND HIS WITNESSES
RULING:
I. NO
It is a basic rule
in evidence that a witness can testify only on the facts that are of his own
personal knowledge, i.e., those which are derived from his own perception.
Hence, a witness may not testify on what he merely learned, read or heard
from others because such testimony is considered hearsay and may not be
received as proof of the truth of what he has learned, read or heard. Thus,
the general rule is that hearsay evidence is not admissible.
In the present case, the Sandiganbayan, in its decision, outlined the

testimonies which it did not consider being hearsay evidence. Nevertheless,
even if these hearsay testimonies were set aside, the remaining pieces of
evidence would still be sufficient to establish the guilt of accused-appellant
for the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt. Notably, most of the
testimonies of Atty. Landero and Herminigilda
were all drawn from their own personal knowledge. Atty. Landero was the
one who called accused-appellant directly and delivered the fish to him
personally.
Meanwhile, Herminigilda had accompanied her husband to see
accused-appellant and was the one who carried the money for safekeeping
before handing it over to accused-appellant's assistant. She also witnessed
private complainant handing another sum of money to accused-appellant.60
These testimonies were all taken from their own perception, the parties
II. NO
It is understood that
the legal doctrine is a maxim of equity upon which: (1) he who seeks 6quity
must do equity, and (2) he who comes into equity must come with clean
hands. The general principle is that he who comes into equity must come
with clean hands applies only to plaintiff's conduct in relation to the very
matter in litigation. The judicial process is sacred and is meant to ptotect
only those who are innocent. It would certainly be unwarranted to allow
accused-appellant, who solicited money for the release of the provisional
reliefs, to escape criminal liability simply because of this legal mhxim.
Equity does not apply to a situation when fraud and dilatory schemes exist.

People of The Philippines VS Gelacio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines VS Gelacio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines VS Gelacio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS GELACIO

 Gelacio, the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of

In the present case, the Sandiganbayan, in its decision, outlined the

You might also like