Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    University of The Philippines College of Law: People V Cusi, JR

    Uploaded by

    celestialfish
    1) Sgt. Bano testified about an extrajudicial confession by accused Puesca where Puesca admitted participating in a robbery and homicide and named his co-conspirators. 2) Three accused objected to Sgt. Bano testifying about the names of the alleged co-conspirators on the grounds that it would be hearsay. 3) The Court ruled that while hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible if objected to, Sgt. Bano could testify about Puesca naming co-conspirators to establish the fact that the statement was made, but not as evidence that those named actually conspired. Sgt. Bano's testimony was admissible for

    Copyright:

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

    University of The Philippines College of Law: People V Cusi, JR

    Uploaded by

    celestialfish
    39 views2 pages
    1) Sgt. Bano testified about an extrajudicial confession by accused Puesca where Puesca admitted participating in a robbery and homicide and named his co-conspirators. 2) Three accused objected to Sgt. Bano testifying about the names of the alleged co-conspirators on the grounds that it would be hearsay. 3) The Court ruled that while hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible if objected to, Sgt. Bano could testify about Puesca naming co-conspirators to establish the fact that the statement was made, but not as evidence that those named actually conspired. Sgt. Bano's testimony was admissible for

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    268. People v Cusi, Jr

    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) Sgt. Bano testified about an extrajudicial confession by accused Puesca where Puesca admitted participating in a robbery and homicide and named his co-conspirators. 2) Three accused objected to Sgt. Bano testifying about the names of the alleged co-conspirators on the grounds that it would be hearsay. 3) The Court ruled that while hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible if objected to, Sgt. Bano could testify about Puesca naming co-conspirators to establish the fact that the statement was made, but not as evidence that those named actually conspired. Sgt. Bano's testimony was admissible for

    Copyright:

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

    University of The Philippines College of Law: People V Cusi, JR

    Uploaded by

    celestialfish
    1) Sgt. Bano testified about an extrajudicial confession by accused Puesca where Puesca admitted participating in a robbery and homicide and named his co-conspirators. 2) Three accused objected to Sgt. Bano testifying about the names of the alleged co-conspirators on the grounds that it would be hearsay. 3) The Court ruled that while hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible if objected to, Sgt. Bano could testify about Puesca naming co-conspirators to establish the fact that the statement was made, but not as evidence that those named actually conspired. Sgt. Bano's testimony was admissible for

    Copyright:

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

    University of the Philippines College of Law

    3D

    Topic Hearsay Rule; Testimonial Knowledge


    Case Name People v Cusi, Jr
    Ponente Dizon, j.

    RELEVANT FACTS
    Case: Robbery in band with homicide
    Defendants: 6 people namely Puesca, Apa, Gustilo, Macalinao, Dairo and Montano

    During the trial, prosecution witness Sgt. Lurio Bano of the Police Force of Davao testified regarding the
    extrajudicial confession made to him by one of the accused Puesca. In the said extrajudicial confession, Puesca
    admitted his participation in the crime, revealed that other persons conspired with him, and mentioned the
    name of each and every one of them.

    The prosecuting officer asked Sgt Bano to mention in the court the names of Puesca’s alleged conspirators.

    Counsel for the 3 accused (Macalinao, Gustilo and Dairo) objected on the ground that the testimony of the
    witness would be hearsay as far as the 3 accused are concerned.

    CFI Judge Cusi directed the witness to answer the question and to name the alleged co-conspirators but without
    mentioning or giving the names of the accused who had raised the objection.

    EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN TRIAL


    PROSECUTION DEFENSE
    Testimonial witness of Sgt. Bano regarding the
    extrajudicial confession of accused Puesca naming his
    co-conspirators

    ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

    Issue Ratio
    W/N the witness must be YES
    allowed to answer the
    question in full Hearsay evidence, if timely objected to, may not be admitted.

    The Court citing People v Lew Yon discussed how to determine whether the
    testimony is hearsay or not:
    HEARSAY if = the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by
    another person is intended to establish the truth of the facts asserted in the
    statement
    NOT HEARSAY if = the purpose of placing the statement in the record is
    merely to establish the fact that the statement was made or the tenor of such
    statement.

    In this case: the purpose of the prosecuting officer, is only to establish the
    University of the Philippines College of Law
    3D

    fact that the accused Puesca had mentioned to Sgt. Bano the names of those
    who conspired with him to commit the offense charged, without claiming
    that Puesca's statement or the answer to be given by Sgt. Bano would be
    competent and admissible evidence to show that the persons so named really
    conspired with Puesca.

    For this limited purpose, the question propounded to the witness was proper
    and the witness should have been allowed to answer it in full.

    However, his answer shall not to be taken as competent evidence to show


    that the persons named really and actually conspired with Puesca and later
    took part in the commission of the offense.

    RULING

    WHEREFORE, …

    SEPARATE OPINIONS

    NOTES

    You might also like