Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 123 views

    Q11 People Vs Quidato

    Uploaded by

    Don Dela Chica
    Bernardo Quidato Jr. was accused of parricide for allegedly attacking and killing his father Bernardo Quidato Sr. with two co-conspirators. The prosecution relied on the extrajudicial confessions of the co-accused and testimony from Quidato Jr.'s wife. However, the court found that the extrajudicial confessions should not be given credence because the co-accused were not presented as witnesses, making their statements inadmissible hearsay. The court also ruled that the wife's testimony was disqualified. With the inadmissibility of this evidence, the court acquitted Quidato Jr. of the charges.

    Copyright:

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

    Q11 People Vs Quidato

    Uploaded by

    Don Dela Chica
    123 views1 page
    Bernardo Quidato Jr. was accused of parricide for allegedly attacking and killing his father Bernardo Quidato Sr. with two co-conspirators. The prosecution relied on the extrajudicial confessions of the co-accused and testimony from Quidato Jr.'s wife. However, the court found that the extrajudicial confessions should not be given credence because the co-accused were not presented as witnesses, making their statements inadmissible hearsay. The court also ruled that the wife's testimony was disqualified. With the inadmissibility of this evidence, the court acquitted Quidato Jr. of the charges.

    Original Description:

    f

    Original Title

    Q11 People vs Quidato

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Bernardo Quidato Jr. was accused of parricide for allegedly attacking and killing his father Bernardo Quidato Sr. with two co-conspirators. The prosecution relied on the extrajudicial confessions of the co-accused and testimony from Quidato Jr.'s wife. However, the court found that the extrajudicial confessions should not be given credence because the co-accused were not presented as witnesses, making their statements inadmissible hearsay. The court also ruled that the wife's testimony was disqualified. With the inadmissibility of this evidence, the court acquitted Quidato Jr. of the charges.

    Copyright:

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

    Q11 People Vs Quidato

    Uploaded by

    Don Dela Chica
    Bernardo Quidato Jr. was accused of parricide for allegedly attacking and killing his father Bernardo Quidato Sr. with two co-conspirators. The prosecution relied on the extrajudicial confessions of the co-accused and testimony from Quidato Jr.'s wife. However, the court found that the extrajudicial confessions should not be given credence because the co-accused were not presented as witnesses, making their statements inadmissible hearsay. The court also ruled that the wife's testimony was disqualified. With the inadmissibility of this evidence, the court acquitted Quidato Jr. of the charges.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERNARDO QUIDATO, JR.

    , accused-
    appellant.

    FACTS:

    Accused Bernardo Quidato Jr was accused of parricide. He and two co-conspirators allegedly attacked
    with a bolo and iron bars hack and stab the victim, Bernardo Quidato Sr., appellant’s father and
    namesake, which caused the victim’s untimely demise.

    Among those presented as witness were accused’s wife and brother. Also presented were the
    extrajudicial confessions of appellant’s two other co-accused. Appellant’s wife testified that while the
    accused were drinking tuba she overheard them saying that they were planning to go to the victim’s
    house on the night of the incident in order to “get money” and that she had no idea of what later
    transpired. Appellant objected to his wife’s testimony as it was prohibited by the rule on marital
    disqualification. Appellant likewise denies the allegations of his co-accused who in their extrajudicial
    confession pointed to the participation of appellant.

    ISSUES:

    1. Whether or not the extrajudicial confessions should be given credence as they were obtained in
    violation of the constitutional right of appellant to confront witnesses.

    2. Whether or not the testimony of appellant’s wife is disqualified.

    HELD:

    1. NO. They should not be given credence, and indeed, appellant should be acquitted. The prosecution
    relied heavily on appellant’s co-accused’s affidavits. However, the failure to present the affiants in the
    witness stand gives these affidavits the character of hearsay. It is hornbook doctrine that unless the
    affiants themselves take the witness stand to affirm the averments in their affidavits, the affidavits must
    be excluded from the judicial proceeding, being inadmissible hearsay. “The voluntary admissions of an
    accused made extrajudicially are not admissible in evidence against his co-accused when the latter had
    not been given an opportunity to hear him testify and cross-examine him.”

    Section 30, Rule 130 is not applicable in this case because it refers to confessions made during the
    existence of the conspiracy. In this case, the conspiracy had clearly ended by the time the confession
    was made.

    2. YES. The testimony of appellant’s wife must be disregarded. As correctly observed by the court a
    quo, the disqualification is between husband and wife, the law not precluding the wife from testifying
    when it involves other parties or accused, but not where the testimony will be used against the accused-
    husband directly or indirectly.

    DECISION:

    Given the inadmissibility of accused’s wife’s testimony and the extrajudicial confession of co-accused,
    the appellant is hereby ACQUITTED.

    You might also like