Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 172 views

    Patula Vs PP

    Uploaded by

    d.mari
    Anna Lerima Patula was charged with estafa for allegedly collecting over P131,000 from customers at her job but failing to remit the funds to her employer, FootLocker. At trial, the prosecution relied on the testimony of Karen Guivencan, an auditor who investigated the matter, and documents showing customer balances. However, Guivencan conceded she had no personal knowledge of the customer transactions or amounts remitted by Patula. The court found Guivencan's testimony and the documents to be inadmissible hearsay, as Guivencan relied on information from others who were not presented in court and could not be cross-examined. Without direct evidence of misappropriation,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Patula Vs PP

    Uploaded by

    d.mari
    172 views2 pages
    Anna Lerima Patula was charged with estafa for allegedly collecting over P131,000 from customers at her job but failing to remit the funds to her employer, FootLocker. At trial, the prosecution relied on the testimony of Karen Guivencan, an auditor who investigated the matter, and documents showing customer balances. However, Guivencan conceded she had no personal knowledge of the customer transactions or amounts remitted by Patula. The court found Guivencan's testimony and the documents to be inadmissible hearsay, as Guivencan relied on information from others who were not presented in court and could not be cross-examined. Without direct evidence of misappropriation,

    Original Description:

    EVIDENCE

    Original Title

    Patula vs Pp

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Anna Lerima Patula was charged with estafa for allegedly collecting over P131,000 from customers at her job but failing to remit the funds to her employer, FootLocker. At trial, the prosecution relied on the testimony of Karen Guivencan, an auditor who investigated the matter, and documents showing customer balances. However, Guivencan conceded she had no personal knowledge of the customer transactions or amounts remitted by Patula. The court found Guivencan's testimony and the documents to be inadmissible hearsay, as Guivencan relied on information from others who were not presented in court and could not be cross-examined. Without direct evidence of misappropriation,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    172 views2 pages

    Patula Vs PP

    Uploaded by

    d.mari
    Anna Lerima Patula was charged with estafa for allegedly collecting over P131,000 from customers at her job but failing to remit the funds to her employer, FootLocker. At trial, the prosecution relied on the testimony of Karen Guivencan, an auditor who investigated the matter, and documents showing customer balances. However, Guivencan conceded she had no personal knowledge of the customer transactions or amounts remitted by Patula. The court found Guivencan's testimony and the documents to be inadmissible hearsay, as Guivencan relied on information from others who were not presented in court and could not be cross-examined. Without direct evidence of misappropriation,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    164457 April 11, 2012


    ANNA LERIMA PATULA, Petitioner,
    vs.
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
    FACTS:
    The crime of estafa was filed against Anna Lerima Patula, the saleswoman of FootLuckers
    Chain of Stores Inc. located in Dumaguete City. The information charged her that she have
    collected and received the total sum of P131,286,97 from several customers but she failed to
    deliver the said collection to the company but instead wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
    misappropriated, misapplied and converted the proceeds of the sale to her own use and benefit.
    On arraignment, she plead not guilty. So trial on the merits ensued.
    The Prosecution presented 2 witnesses Lamberto Go who was the branch manager of
    FootLuckers and Karen Guivencan the auditor who was tasked by Lamberto Go to invesitigate
    on the matter. The prosecution presented Exhibits B to YY which represents private documents
    (ledgers and their derivatives) that contains the balances of the customers.
    The counsel for the defense interposed a continuing objection that Exhibits B to YY and their
    derivatives are hearsay because the person who made the entries were not themselves
    presented in court.
    RTC rendered its decision finding her guilty of estafa. RTC denied petitioners MR.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the testimony of Guivencan is hearsay and therefore, inadmissible?

    RULING:

    The testimony of Guivencan is inadmissible for being hearsay.
    Guivencan conceded having no personal knowledge of the amounts actually received by
    petitioner from the customers or remitted by petitioner to Footluckers. This means that persons
    other than Guivencan prepared Exhibits B to YY and their derivatives, inclusive and that
    Guivencan based her testimony on the entries found in the receipts supposedly issued by
    petitioner and in the ledgers held by Footluckers corresponding to each customer, as well as on
    the unsworn statements of some of the customers. Accordingly, her being the only witness who
    testified on the entries effectively deprived the RTC of the reasonable opportunity to validate
    and test the veracity and reliability of the entries as evidence of petitioners misappropriation or
    conversion through cross-examination by petitioner. The denial of that opportunity rendered the
    entire proof of misappropriation or conversion hearsay, and thus unreliable and untrustworthy
    for purposes of determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.
    To elucidate why the Prosecutions hearsay evidence was unreliable and untrustworthy, and
    thus devoid of probative value, reference is made to Section 36 of Rule 130, Rules of Court, a
    rule that states that a witness can testify only to those facts that she knows of her personal
    knowledge; that is, which are derived from her own perception, except as otherwise provided in
    the Rules of Court. The personal knowledge of a witness is a substantive prerequisite for
    accepting testimonial evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact. A witness bereft of
    personal knowledge of the disputed fact cannot be called upon for that purpose because her
    testimony derives its value not from the credit accorded to her as a witness presently testifying
    but from the veracity and competency of the extrajudicial source of her information.
    The information cannot be tested because the declarant is not standing in court as a witness
    andcannot, therefore, be cross-examined.

    You might also like