Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    People V Ortiz V Ortiz 279SCRA145

    Uploaded by

    Andrea Geronga
    This case involved a defendant, Miyako Ortiz, who was convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale. Only one of her three victims testified in court. However, the trial court also adopted facts from a decision in another case convicting Ortiz of estafa, which involved the same parties. The Supreme Court held that this was improper and violated the defendant's right to confrontation. While a previous testimony or decision can be admitted, it cannot be used in lieu of evidence required to prove the crime charged in a subsequent case. To base a conviction entirely on facts from a previous decision violates the accused's right to confront witnesses against them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    People V Ortiz V Ortiz 279SCRA145

    Uploaded by

    Andrea Geronga
    12 views1 page
    This case involved a defendant, Miyako Ortiz, who was convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale. Only one of her three victims testified in court. However, the trial court also adopted facts from a decision in another case convicting Ortiz of estafa, which involved the same parties. The Supreme Court held that this was improper and violated the defendant's right to confrontation. While a previous testimony or decision can be admitted, it cannot be used in lieu of evidence required to prove the crime charged in a subsequent case. To base a conviction entirely on facts from a previous decision violates the accused's right to confront witnesses against them.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    People v Ortiz v Ortiz 279SCRA145

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involved a defendant, Miyako Ortiz, who was convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale. Only one of her three victims testified in court. However, the trial court also adopted facts from a decision in another case convicting Ortiz of estafa, which involved the same parties. The Supreme Court held that this was improper and violated the defendant's right to confrontation. While a previous testimony or decision can be admitted, it cannot be used in lieu of evidence required to prove the crime charged in a subsequent case. To base a conviction entirely on facts from a previous decision violates the accused's right to confront witnesses against them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    12 views1 page

    People V Ortiz V Ortiz 279SCRA145

    Uploaded by

    Andrea Geronga
    This case involved a defendant, Miyako Ortiz, who was convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale. Only one of her three victims testified in court. However, the trial court also adopted facts from a decision in another case convicting Ortiz of estafa, which involved the same parties. The Supreme Court held that this was improper and violated the defendant's right to confrontation. While a previous testimony or decision can be admitted, it cannot be used in lieu of evidence required to prove the crime charged in a subsequent case. To base a conviction entirely on facts from a previous decision violates the accused's right to confront witnesses against them.

    Copyright:

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

    People v Ortiz v Ortiz 279SCRA145

    People vs Ortiz-Miyako

    GR 115338-39, September 16, 1997

    Facts: Accused-appellant was convicted by the trial court of illegal


    recruitment in large scale. Only 1 of her 3 victims appeared to testify.
    However, the trial court adopted the decision of another court convicting
    the appellant of estafa, which also involved the same parties. The trial court
    alleged that both cases were one and the same.

    Issue: Was the adoption of the trial court of the facts from another case
    proper?

    Held:

    No.

    The accused in a criminal case is guaranteed the right of confrontation. Such


    right has two purposes: first, to secure the opportunity of cross-
    examination; and, second, to allow the judge to observe the deportment
    and appearance of the witness while testifying. This right, however, is not
    absolute as it is recognized that it is sometimes impossible to recall or
    produce a witness who has already testified in a previous proceeding, in
    which event his previous testimony is made admissible as a distinct piece of
    evidence, by way of exception to the hearsay rule. The previous testimony
    is made admissible because it makes the administration of justice orderly
    and expeditious. Under these rules, the adoption by the Makati trial court
    of the facts stated in the decision of the Parañaque trial court does not fall
    under the exception to the right of confrontation as the exception
    contemplated by law covers only the utilization of testimonies of absent
    witnesses made in previous proceedings, and does not include utilization of
    previous decisions or judgments. A previous decision or judgment, while
    admissible in evidence, may only prove that an accused was previously
    convicted of a crime. It may not be used to prove that the accused is guilty
    of a crime charged in a subsequent case, in lieu of the requisite evidence
    proving the commission of the crime, as said previous decision is hearsay.
    To sanction its being used as a basis for conviction in a subsequent case
    would constitute a violation of the right of the accused to confront the
    witnesses against him

    You might also like