7/30/2019 People v. Cusi

1/2

EVIDENCE | B2015CASE DIGESTS

People v. Cusi, Jr. August 14, 1965

Dizon, J. Javie

SUMMARY: Puesca, one of the 6 accused in a case of robbery in band with homicide, allegedly made anextrajudicial confession to Sgt. Bano. The latter wastestifying in trial as regards the confession where Puescaallegedly admitted participating in the crime and revealedthe name of his co-conspirators. The counsel for 3 of theaccused objected on the ground of hearsay. The judgesustained by allowing Sgt. Bano to mention names exceptthose of the ones who objected. The SC ruled that thewitness should have been allowed to mention all thenames.

DOCTRINE: Hearsay evidence, if timely objected to, maynot be admitted. But while the testimony of a witnessregarding a statement made by another person, if intendedto establish the truth of the facts asserted in thestatement, is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if thepurpose of placing the statement in the record is merely toestablish the fact that the statement was made or thetenor of such statement.

FACTS:- Puesca, Apa, Gustilo, Macalinao, Dairo, Montano (6 in all)were charged with robbery in band with homicide, to whichthey pleaded not guilt

- Sgt. Lucio Bano, testified as a prosecution witnessregarding the extrajudicial confession made to him by theaccused Arcadio Puesca.

- He said that Puesca, aside from admitting his

participation in the commission of the offensecharged, revealed that other persons conspired withhim to commit the offense, mentioning the name of each and everyone of them.

- Following up to the testimony, the prosecuting officerasked the witness to mention in court the names of Puesca'salleged co-conspirators.

- Counsel for the accused Macalinao, Gustilo and Dairoobjected to this, upon the ground that whatever the witnesswould say would be hearsay as far as his c lients wereconcerned

The judge resolved the objection directing the witness toanswer the question but without mentioning or giving thenames of the accused who had interposed the objection. Inother words, the witness was allowed to answer thequestion and name his co-conspirators except those whohad raised the objection.

The prosecution filed a certiorari to allow the witness toanswer in full.

ISSUES: WON Sgt. Bano should be allowed to mention allthe names of the alleged conspirators

RULING: Yes, he should be allowed.

RATIO:- Hearsay evidence, if timely objected to, may not beadmitted. But while the testimony of a witness regarding astatement made by another person, if intended to establishthe truth of the facts asserted in the statement, is clearlyhearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placingthe statement in the record is merely to establish the factthat the statement was made or the tenor of such

7/30/2019 People v. Cusi

2/2

EVIDENCE | B2015CASE DIGESTS

statement.

- In the case at bar, the purpose of the prosecution is toestablish the fact that Puesca had mentioned to Sgt. Banothe names of those who conspired with him without claimingthat Puescas statement to be given by Sgt. Bano would becompetent and admissible to show that the persons namedreally conspired with Puesca.

- Sgt. Bano should have been allowed to answer in full withthe understanding, however, that his answer shall not to betaken as competent evidence to show that the personsnamed really and actually conspired with Puesca and latertook part in the commission of the offense.

- On the other hand, the fact which the prosecuting officerintended to establish would seem to be relevant to explainwhy the police force of the place where the offense wascommitted subsequently questioned and investigated thepersons allegedly named by Puesca.

DISPOSITIVE: Petition granted.