This document summarizes several court cases:
1) People v. Tena held that an extra-judicial confession implicating another person is not admissible without independent evidence of conspiracy.
2) People v. Alegre and People v. Raquel also found that extra-judicial confessions cannot be used against co-accused without being repeated in court.
3) People vs. Valero involved two children who died of poisoning after eating bread. Witnesses claimed the deaf-mute brother was given the bread by the accused, but their testimonies were hearsay without presenting the brother as a witness. The court found the hearsay evidence had no probative value.
This document summarizes several court cases:
1) People v. Tena held that an extra-judicial confession implicating another person is not admissible without independent evidence of conspiracy.
2) People v. Alegre and People v. Raquel also found that extra-judicial confessions cannot be used against co-accused without being repeated in court.
3) People vs. Valero involved two children who died of poisoning after eating bread. Witnesses claimed the deaf-mute brother was given the bread by the accused, but their testimonies were hearsay without presenting the brother as a witness. The court found the hearsay evidence had no probative value.
This document summarizes several court cases:
1) People v. Tena held that an extra-judicial confession implicating another person is not admissible without independent evidence of conspiracy.
2) People v. Alegre and People v. Raquel also found that extra-judicial confessions cannot be used against co-accused without being repeated in court.
3) People vs. Valero involved two children who died of poisoning after eating bread. Witnesses claimed the deaf-mute brother was given the bread by the accused, but their testimonies were hearsay without presenting the brother as a witness. The court found the hearsay evidence had no probative value.
Facts: Accused was convicted of robbery with homicide on the basis of an extra-judicial confession of another admitting his participation in the offense. Held: This is not a co-conspirator’s statement because there was no evidence of conspiracy independent of the extra-judicial confession. Furthermore, the confession was executed long after the supposed conspiracy had ended. Escolin: Had the co-conspirator taken the witness stand and pointed to his co-accused, the testimony would have been admissible. In this case, what was presented was a merely his affidavit. People v. Alegre, 94 SCRA 109 (1979) – absent independent evidence of conspiracy, extra-judicial confession of the accused is not admissible against others People v. Raquel, 265 SCRA 248 (1996) – extra-judicial confession of accused cannot be used to implicate co-accused unless repeated in open court. People vs. Valero (1982) Facts: Michael and Annabel, children of Ceferino Velasco, died of poisoning after eating bread containing endrin, a commercial insecticide. Their sister Imelda would have also died if not for the timely medical assistance given to her. At about the same time, 3 puppies of Velasco under the balcony where the children ate the bread also died of poisoning. Earlier that morning, Velasco was seen throwing poisoned rats in the river near his house. The evidence of the prosecution shows that the poisoned bread was given to the children by Alfonso Valero alias Pipe, deaf-mute brother of accused Lucila Valero, and that it was Lucila who gave Alfonso the bread to be delivered to the children. Lucila denies the allegation. The evidence of the defense tends to show that the children might have eaten one of the sliced poisoned bread used by their father in poisoning the rats.
witnesses for the prosecution:
1. Rodolfo Quilang – testified that he saw Lucila deliver something wrapped in a piece of paper to Alfonso and instructed him by sign language to deliver the same to the Velasco children. He never saw what was inside the piece of paper. His testimony as to WON he saw the parcel delivered to the children was a series of contradictions. He is what the defense counsel calls and “eleventh-hour witness 2. Federico Jaime and Ceferino Velasco – did not see Lucila deliver to Alfonso the alleged parcel, as well as the alleged instruction. Both claimed that they learned the information from Pipe after interviewing him by means of sign language. Testimony of Jaime was confusing. There is nothing in the testimony of Velasco indicating that Alfonso pointed to Lucila as the source of the poisoned bread. Issue: WON the testimonies of Jaime and Velasco may be admitted Held: No. The evidence is pure hearsay. It violates the principle of res inter alios acta. Alfonso, who was the source of the information, was never presented as a witness either for the defense or the prosecution. Testimony of Velasco cannot be considered as part of res gestae because when the information was allegedly obtained by Velasco from Alfonso, nobody was poisoned yet. With regard to the testimony of Jaime, there is no showing that the revelation was made by Alfonso under the influence of a startling occurrence. The failure of the defense counsel to object to the presentation of incompetent evidence does not give such evidence 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.
United States of America Ex Rel. Charles Joseph v. J. Edwin Lavallee, Warden of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York, Respondent-Appellant, 415 F.2d 150, 2d Cir. (1969)