This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2003-05-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Under Rule 130, Section 36 of the Rules of Court, a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his own personal knowledge, i.e., which are derived from his own perception; otherwise, such testimony would be hearsay. Hearsay evidence is defined as "evidence not of what the witness knows himself but of what he has heard from others."[10] The hearsay rule bars the testimony of a witness who merely recites what someone else has told him, whether orally or in writing.[11] In Sanvicente v. People,[12] we held that when evidence is based on what was supposedly told the witness, the same is without any evidentiary weight for being patently hearsay. Familiar and fundamental is the rule that hearsay testimony is inadmissible as evidence.[13] | |||||
|
2001-03-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The task of the prosecution is two-fold: first, to prove that a crime has been committed, and second, that the accused is the person responsible therefor. Thus, the prosecution must be able to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence with evidence beyond reasonable doubt to justify the conviction of the accused.[32] | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellants Wilfredo and Jaime were implicated in the crime on the basis of the testimony of SPO4 Abarra who, in turn, got his information as to their participation from accused Ernesto. Senior Police Officer Abarra's testimony is clearly hearsay evidence, as he had no personal knowledge of how Glorito's killing took place. The hearsay rule bars the testimony of a witness who merely recites what someone else had told him, whether orally or in writing.[16] | |||||