FEDERALISM IS A FAIR WAY TO SOLVE THE BANGSAMORO “PROBLEM”

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

PEOPLE v. QUIDATO

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERNARDO QUIDATO, JR., accused-appellant.

Topic:  Disqualifications as a witness; when it applies.

FACTS:

Accused Bernardo Quidato Jr was accused of parricide.  He and two co-conspirators allegedly attacked with a bolo and iron bars hack and stab the victim, Bernardo Quidato Sr., appellant’s father and namesake, which caused the victim’s untimely demise. 

Among those presented as witness were accused’s wife and brother.  Also presented were the extrajudicial confessions of appellant’s two other co-accused.  Appellant’s wife testified that while the accused were drinking tuba she overheard them saying that they were planning to go to the victim’s house on the night of the incident in order to “get money” and that she had no idea of what later transpired. Appellant objected to his wife’s testimony as it was prohibited by the rule on marital disqualification.  Appellant likewise denies the allegations of his co-accused who in their extrajudicial confession pointed to the participation of appellant.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the extrajudicial confessions should be given credence as they were obtained in violation of the constitutional right of appellant to confront witnesses.

2. Whether or not the testimony of appellant’s wife is disqualified.

HELD:

1. NO. They should not be given credence, and indeed, appellant should be acquitted.  The prosecution relied heavily on appellant’s co-accused’s affidavits.  However, the failure to present the affiants in the witness stand gives these affidavits the character of hearsay.  It is hornbook doctrine that unless the affiants themselves take the witness stand to affirm the averments in their affidavits, the affidavits must be excluded from the judicial proceeding, being inadmissible hearsay. “The voluntary admissions of an accused made extrajudicially are not admissible in evidence against his co-accused when the latter had not been given an opportunity to hear him testify and cross-examine him.”

Section 30, Rule 130 is not applicable in this case because it refers to confessions made during the existence of the conspiracy.  In this case, the conspiracy had clearly ended by the time the confession was made.

2. YES.  The testimony of appellant’s wife must be disregarded.  As correctly observed by the court a quo, the disqualification is between husband and wife, the law not precluding the wife from testifying when it involves other parties or accused, but not where the testimony will be used against the accused-husband directly or indirectly.

DECISION: 

Given the inadmissibility of accused’s wife’s testimony and the extrajudicial confession of co-accused, the appellant is hereby ACQUITTED.

PEOPLE vs. ACUÑA

ACUÑA, JESUS RAMOS and ANTONIO (TONY) DIONISIO, defendants.

Topic:  Qualification of adult witnesses.

FACTS: 

Defendants were charged with murder.  The complaint stated that they conspired together and assaulted the victim, Tranquilino Mariano, and while two of the accused were holding him, one was hitting him by a 2x2 piece of wood.  Then they stabbed him to death.  There were a number of witnesses who saw the beating and another who saw the accused dragging a dead body.

The RTC convicted the accused and hence this appeal.  The main issue in this appeal is the credibility of the witnesses.  Accused claim that they should have noticed the witnesses if they claim to have been there when the crime was happening, the fact that accused “did not notice the witnesses’ presence” makes their testimony incredible. The witnesses were also first cousins of the victims and they failed to report the incident immediately.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the witnesses’ testimony is incredible.

HELD:

NO.  First, where the issue is the credibility of the witness, the Supreme Court, as a general rule will not disturb the findings of the lower courts as regards to their findings of the witnesses’ credibility. 

As to the fact that accused “did not notice” the presence of the witnesses, it was correctly pointed out by the prosecution that the accused were probably too engrossed with their assault to have noticed the witnesses.  Besides, the area where the incident occurred was partly concealed by gumamela plants hence it was possible for the witnesses to see the incident without being seen.

It is also true that the witnesses were first cousins but “there is nothing in our laws that disqualifies relatives of a victim from testifying in a criminal case … so long as said relatives who were actually present at the scene of the crime, witnessed its execution.”  Furthermore, there was no showing of ill-motive.

The fact that they failed to report the incident immediately is also understandable. The accused were locally known troublemakers who would intimidate people once they fell under the influence of liquor.  The court also takes judicial notice that the witnesses were town mates and must have feared reprisals.  Such reticence has been declared as not affecting credibility.

The witness who saw the accused dragging the cadaver, likewise reported the incident 6 months after the incident.  The court held that this does not affect the credibility of the as it relates to a matter that occurred after the crime was committed and merely corroborates the testimony of two other credible witnesses (the cousins) who actually witnessed the incident.

DECISION: Guilty.

MAHINDRA TRUCKS: THE PNP APPEARS SATISFIED

I have blogged before about how I felt that Indian cars would produce great customer satisfaction for a Filipino motorist.  I wrote that:

“Their cars are rugged and durable. Mahindras, Hindustan Motors, Tata and Maruti/Suzuki have built a reputation for simplicity and quality.

x x x

“Indians are also technically proficient. A quick look at their internet forae and the number of car programs as seen on youtube shows that the Indian is a discerning motorist. I also suspect that the road conditions in India are so much worse than in the Philippines that a car built for India would have no trouble negotiating the potholes and floods of Manila and the dirt and mud of the Provinces.”

Thus, when word came out that the Philippine National Police was going to acquire Mahindra Enforcers (known in India as the Bolero), I was thrilled.  I knew that my hypothesis was going to be proved correct, so much so that when the Senate questioned the acquisition, I wrote in favor of it.

Mahindra Enforcer PNP Patrol Car

More than a year later, is my hypothesis correct?  It seems so.  In the May 20, 2016 edition of the Philippine Star* explains that the PNP is very satisfied with the Enforcer’s performance.  Antonio Mallari, Jr., the after sales director stated that only 61 of the the 1,470 Enforcers or only 4% have been brought to Mahindra’s service depots for minor repairs and preventive maintenance.

Keep in mind that these vehicles have been in use for over one year and under “rigorous usage” as patrol cars.

So there you have it folks, Indian cars can cope well in Philippine conditions.  They are rugged and reliable.  Sure, they don’t look “pogi”, but for some, that isn’t important.

Will the government consider getting more Indian vehicles?  Will you consider getting one? I for one, consider them great value for money, an Enforce costs between P750,000 for the lowest spec, single cab model to P995,000 for the top of the line double cab, 4x4 version.

The Sad Fate of Grace Poe and Alan Purisima

The award of the contract to Mahindra will be the only project I will commend the now-discredited and shamed Gen. Alan Purisima for.  To be fair, he deserves to be thrown in jail for graft and corruption if not for his flat out incompetence.  But this acquisition shall be his enduring legacy.

Alan Purisima

On the other hand, when Senator Grace Poe openly questioned the acquisition of Mahindra trucks to be used by the PNP, I criticized her.  The neophyte senator displayed her ignorance of the motoring world.  I could never trust her to make our laws and I could not trust her with the top post in government.

Grace Poe

---

*I could not find this article online, however, I was lucky enough to have snapped a picture of the article as it appears on print.  Here it is below.

Related Posts:

PNP questioned over award for patrol jeeps to Mahindra

Mahindra coming to the Philippines: its the invasion from the subcontinent

Tata motors coming to the Philippines:  but not the nano