Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People v. Yambot, GR 120350, October 13, 2000

    Uploaded by

    ashyy
    27 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in denying Freddie Yambot and Francis Versoza their constitutional right to compulsory process. Yambot and Versoza were charged with kidnapping for ransom but were not allowed to present witnesses and evidence in their defense on the scheduled dates. Specifically, subpoenas issued for Marie Maniego and Joe Villena were not properly served, violating their right to compulsory process guaranteed under the Constitution. As such, the Supreme Court found that Yambot and Versoza were denied due process and their convictions were overturned.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    649. People v. Yambot, GR 120350, October 13, 2000

    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
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in denying Freddie Yambot and Francis Versoza their constitutional right to compulsory process. Yambot and Versoza were charged with kidnapping for ransom but were not allowed to present witnesses and evidence in their defense on the scheduled dates. Specifically, subpoenas issued for Marie Maniego and Joe Villena were not properly served, violating their right to compulsory process guaranteed under the Constitution. As such, the Supreme Court found that Yambot and Versoza were denied due process and their convictions were overturned.

    Copyright:

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

    People v. Yambot, GR 120350, October 13, 2000

    Uploaded by

    ashyy
    The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in denying Freddie Yambot and Francis Versoza their constitutional right to compulsory process. Yambot and Versoza were charged with kidnapping for ransom but were not allowed to present witnesses and evidence in their defense on the scheduled dates. Specifically, subpoenas issued for Marie Maniego and Joe Villena were not properly served, violating their right to compulsory process guaranteed under the Constitution. As such, the Supreme Court found that Yambot and Versoza were denied due process and their convictions were overturned.

    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

    Case Title: People v.

    Yambot, GR 120350, October 13, 2000 of Sapang Jaen, Nueva Ecija and police officer Joe Villena of
    Topic: Compulsory Process Gapan Police Station, Gapan, Nueva Ecija. Said subpoena,
    however, was not served on Marie Maniego, who was
    Facts: Freddie Yambot and Others were charged guilty beyond unknown at the given address, while in the case of Joe Villena,
    reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping for ransom for he received the subpoena only on December 9, 1994.
    wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap Francisco J. At the hearing on April 19, 1995, the trial court, on motion of
    Bernabe for the purpose of extorting ransom, as in fact demand Atty. Prado, reset the presentation of evidence for appellants
    therefor in the amount of P20,000,000. The appellants however Yambot and Versoza to May 15, 22, and 26, 1995; and issued
    argued that they were not afforded their constitutional right of the corresponding subpoena for witnesses Marie Maniego and
    due process and to adduce evidence on their behalf. Joe Villena, even as it reiterated its warning to declare a waiver
    of appellants’ right to adduce evidence.

    Issue: Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in not


    affording accused-appellants Freddie yambot and francis
    versoza of their statutory and constitutional rights, hence, they
    should be acquitted.

    Held:

    Yes. Compulsory Process to Compel Production of Witnesses;


    Enshrined in the constitution is the paramount right of the
    accused to have a compulsory process to secure the attendance
    of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.—But
    as regards appellants Freddie Yambot and Francis Versoza, it
    appears that they were denied due process of law. Enshrined in
    the constitution is the paramount right of the accused to “x x x
    have a compulsory process to secure the attendance of
    witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. 

    In the case under consideration, appellants Yambot and


    Versoza were scheduled to present evidence on December 12,
    14, 16, 19, 21 and 23, 1994. Thus, on December 7, 1994,
    subpoena was issued to appellants’ witnesses Marie Maniego

    You might also like