PEOPLE vs PUESCA (EVIDENCE)

  

G.R. No. L-20986, August 14, 1965 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.HON. VICENTE N. CUSIJR., Presiding Judge, Branch I, Court of First Instance of Davao, ARCADIOPUESCA

alias

Big Boy, WALTER APA, JOSE GUSTILO

alias

Peping,FILOMENO MACALINAO, JR.

alias

White, RICARDO DAIRO alias Carding,and MAGNO MONTANO

alias

Edol, respondents.

DIZON,

J.:

FACTS:

Puesca, Apa, Gustilo, Macalinao, Dairo, and Montano were charged with robbery in band with homicide, to which they pleaded not guilty.

While Sgt. Bano was testifying as prosecution witness regarding the extrajudicial confession made to him by Puesca, he said that the latter, aside from admitting his participation in the commission of the offense charged, revealed that other persons conspired with him to commit the offense, mentioning the name of each and everyone of them.

The prosecuting officer asked the witness to mention in court the names of Puesca's alleged co-conspirators.

Counsel for the accused Macalinao, Gustilo and Dairo objected to this,upon the ground that whatever the witness would say would be hearsay as far as his clients were concerned.

ISSUE: Should Sgt. Bano have been allowed to answer the question in full?

RULING:

YES, Hearsay evidence, if timely objected to, may not be admitted.

But while the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person, if intended to establish the truth of facts asserted in the statement, is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise 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 (People vs. Lew Yon).

In the present case, the purpose of the prosecuting officer is nothing more than to establish the fact that the accused Puesca had mentioned to Sgt. Bano the names of those who conspired with him to commit the offense charged, without claiming that Puesca's statement or the answer to be given by Sgt. Bano would be competent and admissible evidence to show that the persons so named really conspired with Puesca.

The question propounded to the witness was proper and the latter should have been allowed to answer it in full, with the understanding, however, that his answer shall not to be taken as competent evidence to show that the persons named really and actually conspired with Puesca and later took part in the commission of the offense.