Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 361 views

    People Vs Damaso

    Uploaded by

    Ria Kriselle Francia Pabale
    The court ruled that hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be used to convict a defendant. While lack of objection makes hearsay evidence admissible, it has no probative value. In this case, the key witnesses testified based on hearsay rather than personal knowledge. Additionally, law enforcement did not follow valid procedures for the search and seizure of evidence. Taken together, the evidence was too weak to justify convicting the defendant.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Damaso

    Uploaded by

    Ria Kriselle Francia Pabale
    361 views2 pages
    The court ruled that hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be used to convict a defendant. While lack of objection makes hearsay evidence admissible, it has no probative value. In this case, the key witnesses testified based on hearsay rather than personal knowledge. Additionally, law enforcement did not follow valid procedures for the search and seizure of evidence. Taken together, the evidence was too weak to justify convicting the defendant.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    People vs Damaso

    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 court ruled that hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be used to convict a defendant. While lack of objection makes hearsay evidence admissible, it has no probative value. In this case, the key witnesses testified based on hearsay rather than personal knowledge. Additionally, law enforcement did not follow valid procedures for the search and seizure of evidence. Taken together, the evidence was too weak to justify convicting the defendant.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Damaso

    Uploaded by

    Ria Kriselle Francia Pabale
    The court ruled that hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be used to convict a defendant. While lack of objection makes hearsay evidence admissible, it has no probative value. In this case, the key witnesses testified based on hearsay rather than personal knowledge. Additionally, law enforcement did not follow valid procedures for the search and seizure of evidence. Taken together, the evidence was too weak to justify convicting the defendant.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    93516 August 12, 1992


    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
    vs.
    BASILIO DAMASO @ Bernardo/BERNIE MENDOZA @ KA DADO, accused-
    appellant.
    Summary: Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be given credence.
    To give probative value to hearsay statements and convict the appellant on 
this
    basis alone would be to render his constitutional rights useless and without
    meaning. 


    FACTS: 
The accused-appellant, Basilio Damaso, was charged in an information


    filed 
before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City with violation of Presidential
    Decree No. 1866 in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of
    subversion, for allegedly being in possession, custody and control one m-14 rifle
    with live ammunition as well as other subversive items. Damaso pleaded not guilty.
    


    The prosecution rested its case and offered its exhibits for admission. The counsel
    for accused-appellant interposed his objections to the admissibility of the
    prosecution's evidence on grounds of its being hearsay, immaterial or irrelevant and
    illegal for lack of a search warrant. TC held him guilty of the crime. 


    ISSUE: Whether or not the evidence is admissible for conviction?


    RULING: In the case at bar, not only did We find that there are serious flaws in the
    method used by the law officers in obtaining evidence against the accused-appellant
    but also that the evidence as presented against him is weak to justify conviction. 


    The accused-appellant was singled out as the sole violator of P.D. No. 1866, in
    furtherance 
of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion. Yet,
    there is no substantial and credible evidence to establish the fact that the appellant
    is allegedly the same person as the lessee of the house where the M-14 rifle and
    other subversive items were found or the owner of the said items. 


    In this case, the testimonies of the witnesses are hearsay because the witnesses
    testified on matters not on their own personal knowledge. 
The Solicitor General,
    however, argues that while the testimonies may be hearsay, the same are admissible
    because of the failure of counsel for appellant to object thereto. 


    It is true that the lack of objection to a hearsay testimony results in its being
    admitted as evidence. But, one should not be misled into thinking that since these
    testimonies are admitted as evidence, they now have probative value. Hearsay
    evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be given credence. 


    In People vs. Valero, The failure of the defense counsel to object to the presentation
    of incompetent evidence, like hearsay evidence or evidence that violates the rule of
    res inter alios acta, or his failure to ask for the striking out of the same does not give
    such evidence any probative value. The lack of objection may make any incompetent
    evidence admissible. But admissibility of evidence should not be equated with
    weight of evidence. Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative
    value. 


    It is unfortunate that the prosecution failed to present as witnesses the persons who
    knew the appellant as the lessee and owner of the M-14 rifle. But even assuming for
    the sake of argument that the appellant is the lessee of the house, the case against
    him still will not prosper, the reason being that the law enforcers failed to comply
    with the requirements of a valid search and seizure proceedings.

    You might also like