FULE v CA
1
FULE v. COURT OF APPEALS C.R. No. L-79094, 22 June 1988, 162 SCRA 446 Facts: Petitioner was convicted of a violation of B.P. 22, the Bouncing Checks Law, on the basis of an unsigned stipulation of facts entered into between the prosecution and the defense during pre-trial. On appeal the respondent appellate court upheld the stipulation of facts and affirmed the judgment of conviction. Issue: Whether the conviction, based solely on a stipulation of facts which was not signed by either the petitioner or his counsel, was proper. Held: The omission of the signature of the accused and his counsel, as mandatorily required by -the Rules, renders the stipulation of facts inadmissible in evidence. The fact that the lawyer of the accused, in his memorandum, confirmed the stipulation of facts does not cure the defect because Rule 118 requires the signature of both the accused and his counsel
-
Upload
kat-jolejole -
Category
Documents
-
view
13 -
download
0
description
FULE v CA162 SCRA 446
Transcript of FULE v CA
FULE v. COURT OF APPEALSC.R. No. L-79094, 22 June 1988, 162 SCRA 446Facts: Petitioner was convicted of a violation of B.P. 22, the Bouncing Checks Law, on the basis of an unsigned stipulation of facts entered into between the prosecution and the defense during pre-trial. On appeal the respondent appellate court upheld the stipulation of facts and affirmed the judgment of conviction.Issue: Whether the conviction, based solely on a stipulation of facts which was not signed by either the petitioner or his counsel, was proper.Held: The omission of the signature of the accused and his counsel, as mandatorily required by -the Rules, renders the stipulation of facts inadmissible in evidence. The fact that the lawyer of the accused, in his memorandum, confirmed the stipulation of facts does not cure the defect because Rule 118 requires the signature of both the accused and his counsel
