People v.
San Gabriel Held:
G.R. No. 107735
February 1, 1996
Facts:
The evidence shows that at around seven
oclock in the evening of 26 November
1989, within the vicinity of Pier 14 at
North Harbor along Marcos Road, Manila,
a fistfight ensued between Jaime Tonog
on one hand and the accused Ricardo San
Gabriel together with Ramon Doe on the
other. The fight was eventually broken up
when onlookers pacified the protagonists.
Ricardo and Ramon then hastened
towards Marcos Road but in no time were
back with
bladed weapons.They approached Tonog
surreptitiously, surrounded him and
simultaneously stabbed him in the
stomach and at the back, after which the
assailants ran towards the highway
leaving Tonog behind on the ground. He
was then brought to Mary Johnston
Hospital where he was pronounced dead
on arrival.
The accused was found guilty of murder.
The prosecution witness positively
identified the suspect thus the conviction.
On appeal the accused contends that the
entries in the Advance Information Sheet
prepared by police officer Pat. Steve
Casimiro, did not mention him at all and
named Ramon Doe as the principal
suspect. Such sheet however contains
information acquired by said police officer
only after his interview of Camba, an
alleged witness.
Issue:
Whether or not the advance information
sheet is admissible as an exception to the
hearsay rule.
No. The accused leans heavily on the
Advance Information Sheet prepared by
Pat. Steve Casimiro which did not mention
him at all and named only Ramon Doe as
the principal suspect. Unfortunately this
cannot defeat the positive and candid
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
Entries in official records, as in the case of
a police blotter, are only prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated. They
are not conclusive. The entry in the police
blotter is not necessarily entitled to full
credit for it could be incomplete and
inaccurate, sometimes from either partial
suggestions or for want of suggestions or
inquiries, without the aid of which the
witness may be unable to recall the
connected collateral circumstances
necessary for the correction of the first
suggestion of his memory and for his
accurate recollection of all that pertain to
the subject. It is understandable that the
testimony during the trial would be more
lengthy and detailed than the matters
stated in the police blotter. Significantly,
the Advance Information Sheet was never
formally offered by the defense during the
proceedings in the court below. Hence
any reliance by the accused on the
document must fail since the court cannot
consider any evidence which has not been
formally offered.
Parenthetically, the Advance Information
Sheet was prepared by the police officer
only after interviewing Camba, an alleged
eyewitness. The accused then could have
compelled the attendance of Camba as a
witness. The failure to exert the slightest
effort to present Camba on the part of the
accused should militate against his cause.
Entries in official records made in the
performance of his duty by a public officer
or by a person in the performance of a
duty specially enjoined by law are prima
facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
But to be admissible in evidence three (3)
requisites must concur: (a) The entry was
made by a police officer or by another
person specially enjoined by law to do so;
(b) It was made by the public officer in the
performance of his duties or by such other
person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law; and, (c) The
public officer or other person had
sufficient knowledge of the facts by him
stated, which must have been acquired by
him personally or through official
information.

The Advance Information Sheet does not

constitute an exception to the hearsay
rule, hence, inadmissible. The public
officer who prepared the document had
no sufficient and personal knowledge of
the stabbing incident. Any information
possessed by him was acquired from
Camba which therefore could not be
categorized as official information
because in order to be classified as such
the persons who made the statements not
only must have personal knowledge of the
facts stated but must have the duty to
give such statements for the record. In the
case of Camba, he was not legally so
obliged to give such statements.