Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    People Vs Cusi Jr.

    Uploaded by

    Prudencio Ruiz Agacita
    The case involved defendants charged with robbery and homicide who pleaded not guilty. During a witness testimony, the witness was asked to name the co-conspirators mentioned by one of the defendants during an extrajudicial confession. Some defense counsel objected on hearsay grounds. The judge ruled the witness could name co-conspirators except for those who objected. The prosecution appealed. The court found the purpose was not to prove the truth of who conspired, but rather to establish the statement was made, so it was not hearsay. The witness should be allowed to fully answer to provide context for the police investigation, though the names could not be considered evidence of actual conspiracy.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Cusi Jr.

    Uploaded by

    Prudencio Ruiz Agacita
    29 views1 page
    The case involved defendants charged with robbery and homicide who pleaded not guilty. During a witness testimony, the witness was asked to name the co-conspirators mentioned by one of the defendants during an extrajudicial confession. Some defense counsel objected on hearsay grounds. The judge ruled the witness could name co-conspirators except for those who objected. The prosecution appealed. The court found the purpose was not to prove the truth of who conspired, but rather to establish the statement was made, so it was not hearsay. The witness should be allowed to fully answer to provide context for the police investigation, though the names could not be considered evidence of actual conspiracy.

    Original Title

    8. People vs 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?

    The case involved defendants charged with robbery and homicide who pleaded not guilty. During a witness testimony, the witness was asked to name the co-conspirators mentioned by one of the defendants during an extrajudicial confession. Some defense counsel objected on hearsay grounds. The judge ruled the witness could name co-conspirators except for those who objected. The prosecution appealed. The court found the purpose was not to prove the truth of who conspired, but rather to establish the statement was made, so it was not hearsay. The witness should be allowed to fully answer to provide context for the police investigation, though the names could not be considered evidence of actual conspiracy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views1 page

    People Vs Cusi Jr.

    Uploaded by

    Prudencio Ruiz Agacita
    The case involved defendants charged with robbery and homicide who pleaded not guilty. During a witness testimony, the witness was asked to name the co-conspirators mentioned by one of the defendants during an extrajudicial confession. Some defense counsel objected on hearsay grounds. The judge ruled the witness could name co-conspirators except for those who objected. The prosecution appealed. The court found the purpose was not to prove the truth of who conspired, but rather to establish the statement was made, so it was not hearsay. The witness should be allowed to fully answer to provide context for the police investigation, though the names could not be considered evidence of actual conspiracy.

    Copyright:

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

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. VICENTE N. CUSI JR.

    FACTS:

    In a Criminal Case Arcadio Puesca, Arcadio Puesca et al were charged with robbery in band with
    homicide, to which they pleaded not guilty.

    During the trial, and while Sgt. Lucio Bano was testifying as a prosecution witness regarding the
    extrajudicial confession made to him by the accused Puesca, he said that the latter, aside from admitting
    his participation in the commission of the offense charged, revealed that other persons conspired with him
    to commit the offense, mentioning the name of each and everyone of them.

    Thereafter, the prosecuting officer asked the witness to mention in court the names of Puesca's alleged co-
    conspirators. However, the Counsel for the other accused objected to this, on the ground that whatever the
    witness would say would be hearsay as far as his clients were concerned.

    The respondent judge resolved the objection directing the witness to answer the question but without
    mentioning or giving the names of the accused who had interposed the objection. In other words, the
    witness was allowed to answer the question and name his co-conspirators except those who had raised the
    objection.

    The prosecuting officer's motion for reconsideration of this ruling was denied. Hence the present petition.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the witness may answer the question regardless that it violates the hearsay rule.

    HELD:

    YES. There is no question that hearsay evidence, if timely objected to, may not be admitted. But while
    the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person, if intended to establish the truth
    of the facts asserted in the statement, is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise 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 the present case, the purpose of the prosecuting officer, as manifested by him, is nothing more than to
    establish the 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.

    Thus, for this limited purpose, the court believe that the question propounded to the witness was proper
    and the latter should have been allowed to answer it in full, with the understanding, however, that 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.

    On the other hand, the fact which the prosecuting officer intended to establish would seem to be relevant
    to explain why the police force of the place where the offense was committed subsequently questioned
    and investigated the persons allegedly named by Puesca.

    You might also like