Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VIRGILIO BON v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 188487 2011-02-14	VAN D. LUSPO v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
At any rate, even if we were to hold that the investigation conducted by the PNP was custodial in nature, the improprieties that Tugaoen bewail would not prevail against strong and overwhelming evidence showing her and her co-conspirators' guilt. Allegations of impropriety committed during custodial investigation are material only when an extrajudicial admission or confession is the basis of conviction.[78] In the present case, the conviction of Montano, Duran, and Tugaoen was not deduced solely from Tugaoen's admission, but from the confluence of evidence showing their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
	GR NO. 155619 2007-08-14	LEODEGARIO BAYANI v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Under the above rule, any evidence " whether oral or documentary " is hearsay if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness, but on that of some other person who is not on the witness stand. Hence, information that is relayed to the former by the latter before it reaches the court is considered hearsay.[10]
	GR NO. 146853 2006-02-13	SALVADOR COMILANG v. FRANCISCO BURCENA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
[15] Bon v. People, G.R. No. 152160, January 13, 2004, 419 SCRA 101, 110.
	GR NO. 154087 2005-10-25	MILAGROS ILAO-QUIANAY v. RODOLFO MAPILE TINGA, J.
The same cannot be said, however, of the testimony of respondent relevant to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the deed of sale between Ilao and Ibarra. It should be noted that what was sought to be admitted in evidence, and what was actually admitted in evidence, was the fact that the statements were made by Ibarra, not necessarily that the matters stated were true. The utterances are in the nature of independently relevant statements which may be admitted in evidence as such, but not necessarily to prove the truth thereof.[12]
	GR No. 151963 2004-09-09	AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION SERVICES PHILS. PANGANIBAN, J.
Sixth, the Memorandum and the Billings have probative value. While it is true that Nazareno[96] did not have any personal knowledge of the contents thereof, nevertheless, these two documents were validated by the Receipt/Agreement. Petitioner's Memorandum contained a recommendation to pay respondent the amount of US$27,730.60 and to require additional documentation in support of the balance. In compliance, a Summary of Statement of Account dated January 6, 1998[97] was sent to and received by petitioner, substantiating it to the extent of US$37,400.95. Not only did these amounts sum up to a total of US$65,131.55, the unsettled account indicated in the Billings, but these are also unrefuted by petitioner. In fact, the Receipt/Agreement executed two months later did not contest this balance, although unvalued therein. When a party fails to object to hearsay evidence,[98] such party is deemed to have waived its right to do so; thus, "the evidence offered may be admitted,"[99] though its weight must still be measured by the court.