Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 93 views

    PP v. YATCO

    Uploaded by

    Sarah Tarala Moscosa
    This document summarizes a court case regarding the murder of Jose Ramos. Three individuals, including Juan Consunji and Alfonso Panganiban, were charged with conspiring to commit the murder. During the trial, the defense objected to the prosecution introducing Consunji's extrajudicial confession as evidence against Panganiban, arguing it was hearsay. The lower court agreed and excluded the confession. However, the Supreme Court found that the lower court abused its discretion by completely excluding the confession at that stage of trial. While the confession may not be admissible against Panganiban as hearsay, it is admissible as evidence of Consunji's own guilt. The Supreme Court ruled that evidence should not be excluded

    Copyright:

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

    PP v. YATCO

    Uploaded by

    Sarah Tarala Moscosa
    93 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case regarding the murder of Jose Ramos. Three individuals, including Juan Consunji and Alfonso Panganiban, were charged with conspiring to commit the murder. During the trial, the defense objected to the prosecution introducing Consunji's extrajudicial confession as evidence against Panganiban, arguing it was hearsay. The lower court agreed and excluded the confession. However, the Supreme Court found that the lower court abused its discretion by completely excluding the confession at that stage of trial. While the confession may not be admissible against Panganiban as hearsay, it is admissible as evidence of Consunji's own guilt. The Supreme Court ruled that evidence should not be excluded

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    pp v. YATCO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case regarding the murder of Jose Ramos. Three individuals, including Juan Consunji and Alfonso Panganiban, were charged with conspiring to commit the murder. During the trial, the defense objected to the prosecution introducing Consunji's extrajudicial confession as evidence against Panganiban, arguing it was hearsay. The lower court agreed and excluded the confession. However, the Supreme Court found that the lower court abused its discretion by completely excluding the confession at that stage of trial. While the confession may not be admissible against Panganiban as hearsay, it is admissible as evidence of Consunji's own guilt. The Supreme Court ruled that evidence should not be excluded

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    93 views2 pages

    PP v. YATCO

    Uploaded by

    Sarah Tarala Moscosa
    This document summarizes a court case regarding the murder of Jose Ramos. Three individuals, including Juan Consunji and Alfonso Panganiban, were charged with conspiring to commit the murder. During the trial, the defense objected to the prosecution introducing Consunji's extrajudicial confession as evidence against Panganiban, arguing it was hearsay. The lower court agreed and excluded the confession. However, the Supreme Court found that the lower court abused its discretion by completely excluding the confession at that stage of trial. While the confession may not be admissible against Panganiban as hearsay, it is admissible as evidence of Consunji's own guilt. The Supreme Court ruled that evidence should not be excluded

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE VS.

    YATCO
    Facts: 1. Juan Consunji, Alfonso Panganiban, and another whose identity is still
    unknown, were charged with having conspired together in the murder of one Jose
    Ramos. 2. During the progress of the trial, counsel for the defendant Panganiban
    interposed a general objection to any evidence on such confession made by
    defendant consunji on the ground that it was hearsay and therefore incompetent
    as against the other accused Panganiban. 3. The lower court ordered the exclusion
    of the objected evidence but on a different ground which is the prosecution could
    not be permitted to introduce the confessions of defendants Juan Consunji and
    Alfonso Panganiban to prove conspiracy between them, without prior proof of such
    conspiracy by a number of definite acts, conditions, and circumstances. 4. OSG
    filed a petition for cetiorari before the SC for the review and annulment of the lower
    Court's order completely excluding any evidence on the extrajudicial confessions of
    the accused Juan Consunji and Alfonso Panganiban without prior proof of
    conspiracy.
    Issue #1: WON the lower court is correct in excluding the prosecutionss evidence
    (extra-judicial confession by Consunji)? No.
    We believe that the lower Court committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering
    the complete exclusion of the prosecution's evidence on the alleged confessions of
    the accused Juan Consunji at the stage of the trial when the ruling was made.
    Section 14, Rule 123, Rules of Court, is specific as to the admissibility of the
    extrajudicial confession of an accused, freely and voluntarily made, as evidence
    against him. SEC. 14. Confession. The declaration of an accused expressly
    acknowledging the truth of his guilt as to the offense charged, may be given in
    evidence against him. Under the rule of multiple admissibility of evidence, even if
    Consunji's confession may not be competent as against his co-accused Panganiban,
    being hearsay as to the latter, or to prove conspiracy between them without the
    conspiracy being established by other evidence, the confession of Consunji was,
    nevertheless, admissible as evidence of the declarant's own guilt and should be
    admitted. Rule on admissibility The practice of excluding evidence on doubtful
    objections to its materiality or technical objections to the form of the questions
    should be avoided. In a case of any intricacy it is impossible for a judge of first
    instance, in the early stages of the development of the proof, to know with any
    certainty whether testimony is relevant or not; and where there is no indication of
    bad faith on the part of the Attorney offering the evidence, the court may as a rule
    safely accept the testimony upon the statement of the attorney that the proof
    offered will be connected later. At any rate, in the final determination and
    consideration of the case, the trial Court should be able to distinguish the

    admissible from the inadmissible, and reject what, under the rules of evidence,
    should be excluded. There is greater reason to adhere to such policy in criminal
    cases where questions arise as to admissibility of evidence for the prosecution, for
    the unjustified exclusion of evidence may lead to the erroneous acquittal of the
    accused or the dismissal of the charges, from which the People can no longer
    appeal.

    You might also like