This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-04-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Also, the facts in this case clearly show that appellant admitted the commission of the crime to the prosecution's witnesses. According to their testimonies, appellant admitted having raped and killed AAA. Their testimonies were not rebutted by the defense. Appellant's statements infront of the prosecution witnesses are admissible for being part of the res gestae. Under the Revised Rules on Evidence, [21] a declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. [22] All these requisites are present in this case. Appellant had just been through a startling and gruesome occurrence, AAA's death. His admission was made while he was still under the influence of said startling occurrence and before he had an opportunity to concoct or contrive a story. In addition, he was still under the influence of alcohol at that time, having engaged in a drinking spree from 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. that day. His confession concerned the rape and killing of AAA. Appellant's spontaneous statements made to private persons, not agents of the State or law enforcers, are not covered by the constitutional safeguards on custodial investigation and, as res gestae, admissible in evidence against him. | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The law, however, provides for specific exceptions to the hearsay rule. One is the doctrine of independently relevant statements, where only the fact that such statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial. The hearsay rule does not apply; hence, the statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact.[22] The witness who testifies thereto is competent because he heard the same, as this is a matter of fact derived from his own perception, and the purpose is to prove either that the statement was made or the tenor thereof.[23] | |||||
|
2008-11-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| We do not, however, agree that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength had been sufficiently proved. To appreciate the attendant circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what should be considered is whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense.[13] Mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior strength.[14] There must be clear proof that the assailants purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the defense available to the person attacked.[15] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The facts in this case clearly show that appellant admitted the commission of the crime not just to the police but also to private individuals. According to the testimony of the security guard, Romualdo Campos, on the very day of the killing the appellant called him to say that he had killed his employer and needed assistance to dispose of the cadaver. Campos' testimony was not rebutted by the defense. As the Solicitor General points out, appellant's statements to Campos are admissible for being part of the res gestae. Under the Rules of Court,[48] a declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (1) the principal act, the res gestae is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.[49] All these requisites are present in the instant case. Appellant had just been through a startling and gruesome occurrence, the death of his employer. His admission to Campos was made while he was still under the influence of said startling occurrence and before he had an opportunity to concoct or contrive a story. His declaration to Campos concerned the circumstances surrounding the killing of Keyser. Appellant's spontaneous statements made to a private security guard, not an agent of the State or a law enforcer, are not covered by the Miranda principles and, as res gestate, admissible in evidence against him. | |||||