Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 140 views

    US vs. Que Ping

    Uploaded by

    DannaIngaran
    Que Ping was convicted of homicide and filed an appeal pending which he was released on bail. His sureties later sought to be relieved of their obligation, claiming Que Ping had died. They presented two documents purportedly showing his death. The court found the documents were admissible as prima facie evidence but did not conclusively prove death. The documents lacked probative value as those who prepared them did not see the body and hearsay evidence conflicted with a porter's testimony that no burial occurred on the claimed date. The sureties failed to satisfactorily prove Que Ping's death to be relieved of their obligation.

    Copyright:

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

    US vs. Que Ping

    Uploaded by

    DannaIngaran
    140 views1 page
    Que Ping was convicted of homicide and filed an appeal pending which he was released on bail. His sureties later sought to be relieved of their obligation, claiming Que Ping had died. They presented two documents purportedly showing his death. The court found the documents were admissible as prima facie evidence but did not conclusively prove death. The documents lacked probative value as those who prepared them did not see the body and hearsay evidence conflicted with a porter's testimony that no burial occurred on the claimed date. The sureties failed to satisfactorily prove Que Ping's death to be relieved of their obligation.

    Original Description:

    US v Que Ping

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Que Ping was convicted of homicide and filed an appeal pending which he was released on bail. His sureties later sought to be relieved of their obligation, claiming Que Ping had died. They presented two documents purportedly showing his death. The court found the documents were admissible as prima facie evidence but did not conclusively prove death. The documents lacked probative value as those who prepared them did not see the body and hearsay evidence conflicted with a porter's testimony that no burial occurred on the claimed date. The sureties failed to satisfactorily prove Que Ping's death to be relieved of their obligation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    140 views1 page

    US vs. Que Ping

    Uploaded by

    DannaIngaran
    Que Ping was convicted of homicide and filed an appeal pending which he was released on bail. His sureties later sought to be relieved of their obligation, claiming Que Ping had died. They presented two documents purportedly showing his death. The court found the documents were admissible as prima facie evidence but did not conclusively prove death. The documents lacked probative value as those who prepared them did not see the body and hearsay evidence conflicted with a porter's testimony that no burial occurred on the claimed date. The sureties failed to satisfactorily prove Que Ping's death to be relieved of their obligation.

    Copyright:

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

    US vs.

    Que Ping
    August 25, 1919 | Malcolm, J. | Official Records
    Plaintiff-appellee: United States
    Appellants: BERNARDO MARQUEZ and BERNARDO DAGALA (sureties)
    SUMMARY: Que Ping was convicted of homicide. Pending his appeal to the SC, he filed a bail bond to secure his release. SC
    affirmed the ruling of the lower court. SC ordered the sureties to produce the body of the accused so that the judgment can be read
    to him. Accused did not appear on the date fixed. The sureties filed a motion to be relieved from obligation because Que Ping has
    died. To prove Que Pings death, the sureties presented two exhibits, which the lower court did not admit. SC held that documents
    are admissible but documents are not conclusive evidence. Their probative value may either be substantiated or nullified by other
    competent evidence.
    DOCTRINE: The exhibits being in the nature of entries in public records, made in the performance of their duty by public officers
    of the Philippine Islands, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
    FACTS
    Que Ping was convicted of homicide. He filed an appeal with
    the SC and filed a bail bond to secure his release during the
    pendency of such. The bail bond was in the amount of 10k
    with Bernado Marquez and Bernardo Dagala as sureties. SC
    affirmed judgment.
    As ordered by SC, CFI ordered the sureties to produce the
    body of Que Ping to read the decision to him, with an
    admonition that if they failed to do so the bail would be
    forfeited. Accused did not appear on the date fixed.
    The sureties later file a motion to be relieved from obligation
    to produce the body of Que Ping on the ground that the latter
    had already died. City fiscal objected and trial was held. The
    court held that the death of Que Ping has not been
    satisfactorily proved, causing the forfeiture of the bail bond.
    Appellants Marquez and Dagala faulted the court for not
    admitting two documents they presented to prove the death of
    Que Ping:
    Exhibit A: certificate by the municipal secretary of San Pablo,
    Laguna from "Registry of Births, Marriages and Deaths,"
    containing an inscription that the Que Ping, 41 years of age,
    had died of gastritis
    Exhibit B: copy certificate of death, given by the president of
    the municipal board of health of San Pablo
    ISSUE/S
    WON the documents presented are admissible YES
    WON the documents have probative value ie they should be
    taken as indisputable proof of the death of the accused NO

    RATIO
    1.

    The two exhibits being in the nature of entries in public


    records, made in the performance of their duty by public
    officers of the Philippine Islands, are prima facie evidence of
    the facts therein stated.

    2.

    Evidence of no probative value. Exhibit A was signed by the


    municipal secretary, but he admitted that he did not see the
    body of the deeased. He issued the certificate of death at the
    instance of a Chinaman named Que Siong, who was unknown
    to him personally, and that he did so upon the presentation of
    the cedula of Que Ping, but without seeing the corpse of the
    alleged deceased.
    As to Exhibit B, the persons who prepared the certificate of
    death were the president of the municipal board of health and
    a sanitary inspector, but who, likewise, admitted that it was
    done without seeing the corpse of the deceased.
    In addition, there is certain hearsay evidence of little or no
    value. In direct opposition of this evidence is that of the porter
    of the cemetery who swore that on April 8, 1917, the alleged
    date of the burial of Que Ping, there was no burial in the
    cemetery. It is also noteworthy that the Chinaman Que Siong
    who secured the burial certificate was not introduced as a
    witness.

    You might also like