Saturday, May 28, 2016
FEDERALISM IS A FAIR WAY TO SOLVE THE BANGSAMORO “PROBLEM”
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
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.
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
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.
Sunday, May 22, 2016
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:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)