Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evidence Final-Exam Tangi
Evidence Final-Exam Tangi
King
2017839751
A. DEFINITIONS
1. People v. Palanas
GR 214453 June 17, 2015
(20 points)
Facts
Witness Zapanta heard 4 successive gunshots and saw 2 men armed with
.38 caliber revolvers standing a meter away from the victim Borre. He saw
the suspect Palanas but could not identify the other shooter.
Zapanta and Borre’s stepson Ranol brought Borre to the Pasig City
General Hospital.
On the way, Borre told Ranola and Zapanta that it was “Abe/Aspog/Abe
Palanas” who shot him. This was repeated to his wife Resurreccion.
Borred died in the hospital due to the gunshot wounds.
During the trial, Planas used the defense of alibi.
RTC declared Planas guity relying on Borre’s statement as res gestae and
due to positive identification by Zapanta.
Issue
W/N Borre’s statement is a dying declaration and res gestae [Yes]
Decision
For a dying declaration to constitute an exception to the hearsay evidence
rule, four (4) conditions must concur:
Also, Borre’s statements refer to a startling occurrence, i.e., him being shot
by Palanas and his companion. While on his way to the hospital, Borre had
no time to contrive the identification of his assailants. Hence, his utterance
was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to the startling occurrence.
Definitely, such statement is relevant because it identified Palanas as one
of the authors of the crime.
Facts
After the adjournment of the day's session in Congress, a bomb exploded
near the entrance of the South Wing lobby of the House of
Representatives. The blast led to the death of Representative Wahab
Akbar and others.
Acting on a confidential information, the police raided an alleged ASG
safehouse located in Payatas, Quezon City, leading to the arrest of
several persons, one of which was Ikram Indama, who was the driver of
petitioner Gerry Salapuddin.
In one of the affidavits executed by Ikram, he said that he heard
Salapuddin ordering Redwan to kill Rep. Akbar of Basilan.
The CA decided that the totality of the evidence "sufficiently indicates the
probability that Salapuddin lent moral and material support or assistance
to the perpetrators in the commission of the crime.”
Issue
W/N evidence was sufficient to implicate Salapuddin [No]
Decision
The only direct material evidence against Salapuddin, is the confession made
by Ikram. While the confession is arguably relevant, this is not the evidence
competent to establish the probability that Salapuddin participated in the
commission of the crime on account of the principle of res inter alios acta
alteri nocere non debet expressed in Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court:
Issue
W/N the testimonies presented be considered as hearsay evidence [Yes]
Decision
The testimonies must be dismissed as hearsay, since AAA’s statements were not
subjected to cross-examination consistent with the constitutional right of the
accused-appellant to confront evidence against him.
Also, excluding hearsay aims to preserve the right of the opposing party to cross-
examine the original declarant claiming to have direct knowledge of the transaction
or occurrence. If hearsay is allowed, the right stands to be denied because the
declarant is not in court. It is then to be stressed that the right to cross-examine the
adverse party’s witness, being the only means of testing the credibility of witnesses
and their testimonies, is essential to the administration of justice.
C. ANSWER BRIEFLY.
1. What requirement was deleted in Section 45 , Rule 130 of the NEW Rules
of Evidence? (5 points)
2. Cite and explain the rationale on Residual Exception in the NEW Rules of
Evidence.(5 points)