University of the Philippines College of Law

3D

Topic Hearsay Rule; Testimonial Knowledge

Case Name People v Cusi, Jr
Ponente Dizon, j.

RELEVANT FACTS
Case: Robbery in band with homicide
Defendants: 6 people namely Puesca, Apa, Gustilo, Macalinao, Dairo and Montano

During the trial, prosecution witness Sgt. Lurio Bano of the Police Force of Davao testified regarding the
extrajudicial confession made to him by one of the accused Puesca. In the said extrajudicial confession, Puesca
admitted his participation in the crime, revealed that other persons conspired with him, and mentioned the
name of each and every one of them.

The prosecuting officer asked Sgt Bano to mention in the court the names of Puesca’s alleged conspirators.

Counsel for the 3 accused (Macalinao, Gustilo and Dairo) objected on the ground that the testimony of the
witness would be hearsay as far as the 3 accused are concerned.

CFI Judge Cusi directed the witness to answer the question and to name the alleged co-conspirators but without
mentioning or giving the names of the accused who had raised the objection.

EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN TRIAL

PROSECUTION DEFENSE
Testimonial witness of Sgt. Bano regarding the
extrajudicial confession of accused Puesca naming his
co-conspirators

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N the witness must be YES
allowed to answer the
question in full Hearsay evidence, if timely objected to, may not be admitted.

The Court citing People v Lew Yon discussed how to determine whether the
testimony is hearsay or not:
HEARSAY if = the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by
another person is intended to establish the truth of the facts asserted in the
statement
NOT HEARSAY 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.

In this case: the purpose of the prosecuting officer, is only to establish the
 University of the Philippines College of Law
3D

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.

For this limited purpose, the question propounded to the witness was proper
and the witness should have been allowed to answer it in full.

However, 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.

RULING

WHEREFORE, …

SEPARATE OPINIONS

NOTES