Cases (conduct And Character) Flashcards
FACTS:
Santos was charged and convicted of murder and frustrated murder. On appeal, accused makes the following assignment of errors: (1) his identification in the police line-up by the two witnesses is inadmissible as he was not afforded his right to counsel; (2) he questions the trial court for admitting a sworn statement by one Ronaldo Guerrero, a witness in another criminal case accused was also charged with the murder which had taken place in the very same site where Bautista and Cupcupin were ambushed as such accused contends that the affidavit of Ronaldo Guerrero was hearsay evidence, considering that the prosecution did not present Ronaldo Guerrero as a witness during the trial.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not identification in the police line-up is not admissible on the ground that the accused was not provided with a counsel.
(2) Whether the trial court may not admit a sworn statement of a witness taken from another criminal case wherein the accused for both cases are one and the same.
(1) There is “no real need to afford a suspect the service of counsel at police line- up. The customary practice is, of course, that it is the witness who is investigated or interrogated in the course of a police line-up and who gives a statement to the police, rather than the accused who is not questioned at all at that stage. In the instant case, there is nothing in the record of this case which shows that in the course of the line-up, the police investigators sought to extract any admission or confession from appellant Santos.
(2)”Section 34, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that “Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage and the like.” Trial court did not commit reversible error in admitting the Guerrero affidavit for the limited purpose for proving knowledge or plan or scheme, and more specifically, that appellant knew that the particular corner of two (2) particular streets in Malabon was a good place to ambush a vehicle and its passengers. As in fact, both in the instant case, as well as the case where Guerrero’s testimony was originally presented, the scene of the crime is one and the same
FACTS: Respondent Felipe Alejaga, Sr. filed Free Patent Application. In relation to the said application, Recio, Land Inspector, submitted a report of his investigation to the Bureau of Lands. Less than 3 months after the application, free patent was issued. Sometime in April 1979, the heirs of Ignacio Arrobang requested for an investigation for irregularities in the issuance of the title of a foreshore land in favor of respondent. Isagani Cartagena, Supervising Special Investigator, submitted his Report. In that report, Recio supposedly admitted that he had not actually conducted an investigation and ocular inspection of the parcel of land. Thereafter, government instituted an action for Annulment/Cancellation of Patent and Title and Reversion against respondent. Trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner. In reversing the RTC, CA brushed aside as hearsay Isagani Cartagena’s testimony that Land Inspector Efren L. Recio had not conducted an investigation on the free patent application of Felipe Alejaga Sr.
ISSUE: Whether or not testimony based on a report which relates an admission of a third person who was not presented as witness is inadmissible in evidence for being a hearsay.
HELD: No, it may be admitted as an independently relevant statement. A witness may testify as to the state of mind of another person — the latter’s knowledge, belief, or good or bad faith — and the former’s statements may then be regarded as independently relevant without violating the hearsay rule. Recio’s alleged admission may be considered as “independently relevant.” Thus, because Cartagena took the witness stand and opened himself to cross- examination, the Investigation Report he had submitted to the director of the Bureau of Lands constitutes part of his testimony. Those portions of the report that consisted of his personal knowledge, perceptions and conclusions are not hearsay. On the other hand, the part referring to the statement made by Recio may be considered as independently relevant. The doctrine on independently relevant statements holds that conversations communicated to a witness by a third person may be admitted as proof that, regardless of their truth or falsity, they were actually made. Evidence as to the making of such statements is not secondary but primary, for in itself it (a) constitutes a fact in issue or (b) is circumstantially relevant to the existence of such fact. Since Cartagena’s testimony was based on the report of the investigation he had conducted, his testimony was not hearsay and was, hence, properly admitted by the trial court.
