Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 99 views

    People vs. Cheng - People vs. Pajenado

    Uploaded by

    Anne Laraga Luansing
    The document summarizes three court cases related to character as evidence: 1) People vs. Cheng establishes that a witness' loose morals alone does not discredit them, and that even a prostitute can be a competent witness. 2) Civil Service Commission vs. Belagan finds that character or reputation must be considered at the time of trial, not decades prior, as people are capable of reform. 3) People vs. Pajenado holds that in criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proof for all elements of the offense charged, including proving a negative fact such as lack of a license for illegal firearm possession.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Cheng - People vs. Pajenado

    Uploaded by

    Anne Laraga Luansing
    99 views3 pages
    The document summarizes three court cases related to character as evidence: 1) People vs. Cheng establishes that a witness' loose morals alone does not discredit them, and that even a prostitute can be a competent witness. 2) Civil Service Commission vs. Belagan finds that character or reputation must be considered at the time of trial, not decades prior, as people are capable of reform. 3) People vs. Pajenado holds that in criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proof for all elements of the offense charged, including proving a negative fact such as lack of a license for illegal firearm possession.

    Original Title

    (32) People vs. Cheng - People vs. Pajenado (1).docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes three court cases related to character as evidence: 1) People vs. Cheng establishes that a witness' loose morals alone does not discredit them, and that even a prostitute can be a competent witness. 2) Civil Service Commission vs. Belagan finds that character or reputation must be considered at the time of trial, not decades prior, as people are capable of reform. 3) People vs. Pajenado holds that in criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proof for all elements of the offense charged, including proving a negative fact such as lack of a license for illegal firearm possession.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    99 views3 pages

    People vs. Cheng - People vs. Pajenado

    Uploaded by

    Anne Laraga Luansing
    The document summarizes three court cases related to character as evidence: 1) People vs. Cheng establishes that a witness' loose morals alone does not discredit them, and that even a prostitute can be a competent witness. 2) Civil Service Commission vs. Belagan finds that character or reputation must be considered at the time of trial, not decades prior, as people are capable of reform. 3) People vs. Pajenado holds that in criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proof for all elements of the offense charged, including proving a negative fact such as lack of a license for illegal firearm possession.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    TITLE: People vs.

    Cheng
    CITATION: 279 SCRA 129, G.R. Nos. 120158-59 September 15, 1997
    TOPIC: Character as Evidence

    FACTS:
    X was charged with murder. Y, who is allegedly a prostitute, rendered an eyewitness account of the
    killing. X assails the credibility of Y saying that she is of loose morals. Is Y a competent witness?

    ANSWER:
    Yes.

    Section 14, Rule 132 provides that evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until
    such character has been impeached. Case law also provides that loose morals per se is not a ground to
    discredit a witness. There must be clear indications militating against her credibility other than her being a
    person of ill repute.

    In the case at bar, even if Y is a prostitute, she may be a competent witness to the extent that even with
    her sole testimony an accused may be duly convicted, provided that she is not coached and her
    testimony is not rehearsed and on all other counts worthy of credence beyond reasonable doubt.
    TITLE: Civil Service Commission vs. Belagan
    CITATION: 440 SCRA 578, G.R. No. 132164 October 19, 2004
    TOPIC: Character as Evidence

    FACTS:
    In 1994, M filed a case for sexual harassment and against B. In his defense, B contended that he has
    never been charged of any offense. By contrast, M was charged with several offenses before the MTC
    from 1980-86. B claimed that the numerous cases filed against M cast doubt on her character, integrity,
    and credibility. Is M, the complaining witness, credible?

    ANSWER:
    Yes.

    Evidence of one’s character or reputation must be confined to a time not too remote from the time in
    question. In other words, what is to be determined is the character or reputation of the person at the time
    of the trial and prior thereto, but not at a period remote from the commencement of the suit.

    In this case, to say that M’s credibility is diminished by proofs of tarnished reputation existing almost a
    decade ago is unreasonable. It is unfair to presume that a person who has wandered from the path of
    moral righteousness can never retrace his steps again. Certainly, every person is capable to change or
    reform. (char!)
    TITLE: People vs. Pajenado
    CITATION: 31 SCRA 812, Nos. L-27680-81 February 27, 1970
    TOPIC: Burden of Proof

    FACTS:
    X was charged with murder and illegal possession of firearms. The information specifically alleged that X
    had no “license or permit to possess” the .45 caliber pistol. The prosecution alleged that since the
    absence of a license is a negative fact, the burden of proof is with the defendant to prove that he has the
    license. Is the prosecution correct?

    ANSWER:
    No.

    Section 2, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that in criminal cases, the burden of proof as to the
    offense charged lies on the prosecution and that a negative fact alleged by the prosecution must be
    proven if “it is an essential ingredient of the offense charged”.

    In this case, the burden of proof is with the prosecution to prove that the firearm used by accused in
    committing the offense charged was not properly licensed. Lack or absence of a license is an essential
    ingredient of the offense of illegal possession of a firearm. It is not merely the prosecution’s duty to allege
    that negative fact but to prove it.

    You might also like