7/23/2019 Case 42 People vs. Ulit (2004)

1/1

CASE NO. 41Rule 130 Rules of Admissibility | C. Testimonial Evidence | 4. Testimonial KnowledgeHearsay Evidence

Rule 133 Weight and Suieny of E!idene

"#E $EO$%E O& "#E $#'%'$$'NES( a))ellee( !s. &E%'C'ANO *%'" y "A+$O,-.R. Nos. 131//01 243 SCRA 345 &eb6ua6y 3( 004

&AC"SRegional Trial Court of Makati City, Branc !" found a##ellant $eliciano %lit y Tam#oy guilty &eyondreasona&le dou&t of two counts of 'uali(ed ra#e. )n te same decision, te a##ellant was convictedof two counts of acts of lasciviousness. $or eac count of ra#e, te trial court sentenced im tosu*er te su#reme #enalty of deat, wile for eac count of acts of lasciviousness, te a##ellantwas sentenced to su*er im#risonment +from eigt - years, eigt - monts and one / day of#rision mayor in its medium #eriod, as minimum, to (fteen /0 years, si1 ! monts and twenty"2 days of reclusion tem#oral in its medium #eriod, as ma1imum.3

Te a##ellants counsel, likewise, o&5ected to te admissi&ility of 6ucelles sworn statement on teground tat se was incom#etent to give te same &ecause of er mental illness. Te trial courtadmitted te sworn statement of 6ucelle in evidence as #art of er testimony.

'SS*E 2177eter 6ucelles sworn statement is earsay.

#E%87 NO8C9 7e do not agree wit te ruling of te trial court tat te contents of te sworn statement of6ucelle are earsay, sim#ly &ecause se did not testify tereon and merely identi(ed er signaturesterein. By earsay evidence is meant tat kind of evidence wic does not derive its value solelyfrom te credence to &e attri&uted to te witness erself &ut rests solely in #art on te veracity andcom#etence of some #ersons from wom te witness as received te information. )t signi(es allevidence wic is not founded u#on te #ersonal knowledge of te witness from wom it is elicited,and wic, conse'uently, is not su&5ect to cross:e1amination. Te &asis for te e1clusion a##ears tolie in te fact tat suc testimony is not su&5ect to te test wic can ordinarily &e a##lied for teascertainment of trut of testimony, since te declarant is not #resent and availa&le for cross:e1amination. )n criminal cases, te admission of earsay evidence would &e a violation of teconstitutional #rovision tat te accused sall en5oy te rigt to confront and cross:e1amine tewitness testifying against im. ;enerally, te a