People vs.

Cusi
August 14, 1965
| Dizon, J. | Testimonial Knowledge; Hearsay Rule
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENT: Hon. Vicente Cusi, Presiding Judge of CFI Davao Brach I, Arcadio Puesca a.k.a Big Boy,
Walter Apa, Jose Gustillo a.k.a. Peping, Filomeno Macalinao, Jr. a.k.a. White, Ricardo Dairo a.k.a. Carding,
Magno Montano a.k.a. Edol
SUMMARY: The accused were charged with the crime of robbery in band with homicide. One of the
accused allegedly told Sgt. Bano who were involved in the conspiracy. During trial, the defendants
counsel objected to Banos testimony, identifying who are involved in the conspiracy on the ground that
it was hearsay.
DOCTRINE: Such testimony will not be considered hearsay evidence if the purpose is only to establish
the fact that the statement was made OR to prove the tenor of such statement.
FACTS:
1. Arcadio Puesca, Walter Apa, Jose Gustillo,
Filomeno Macalinao, Ricardo Dairo, and Mango
Montano were charged with robbery in band with
homicide, to which they pleaded not guilty.
2. During trial, and while Sgt. Lucio Bano was
testifying as prosecution witness regarding the
extrajudicial confession made to him by Arcadio
Puesca, one of the accused. Aside from admitting
participation in the offense, Puesca also
mentioned the names of everyone involved in
committing the crime to Bano.
3. The prosecuting officer asked the Bano to
mention in court the names of Puescas coconspirators. The counsel for Macalinao, Gustilo,
and Dairo objected to this on the ground that
whatever the witness would say would be
hearsay as far as the others are concerned.
4. Judge Cusi directed the witness to name his coconspirators, except those who raised the
objection.
5.
The
prosecuting
officers
reconsideration was denied.

motion

for

ISSUE: W/N the Puescas testimony is hearsay

evidence NO.

HELD: Petition for certiorari is granted; judge is

ordered to allow Bano to answer the question in
full.
RATIO:
1. If the purpose of placing the statement in the
record is merely to establish the fact that the
statement was made or the tenor of such
statement, the testimony of a witness regarding a
statement made by another person is NOT
considered hearsay evidence.
2. The purpose of the prosecuting officer in
asking Puesca to identify the co-conspirators in
this case is merely for the purpose of establishing
the fact that he mentioned to Sgt. Bano the
names of those who conspired with him to
commit the offense charged.