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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 84 views

    People Vs Totentino

    Uploaded by

    Rafael Soro
    1) On November 8, 1983, four men entered a home and demanded money from the children inside, stabbing them when one revealed where money was hidden. 2) When one victim recovered, she identified three of the attackers. At trial, the court admitted statements from one child naming the attackers under the excited utterance exception. 3) The court found the evidence sufficient to convict all defendants of robbery resulting in homicide, except it could not use one defendant's confession against another. The judgment was affirmed with increased indemnity.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Totentino

    Uploaded by

    Rafael Soro
    84 views1 page
    1) On November 8, 1983, four men entered a home and demanded money from the children inside, stabbing them when one revealed where money was hidden. 2) When one victim recovered, she identified three of the attackers. At trial, the court admitted statements from one child naming the attackers under the excited utterance exception. 3) The court found the evidence sufficient to convict all defendants of robbery resulting in homicide, except it could not use one defendant's confession against another. The judgment was affirmed with increased indemnity.

    Original Description:

    REM

    Original Title

    People vs Totentino

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) On November 8, 1983, four men entered a home and demanded money from the children inside, stabbing them when one revealed where money was hidden. 2) When one victim recovered, she identified three of the attackers. At trial, the court admitted statements from one child naming the attackers under the excited utterance exception. 3) The court found the evidence sufficient to convict all defendants of robbery resulting in homicide, except it could not use one defendant's confession against another. The judgment was affirmed with increased indemnity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    84 views1 page

    People Vs Totentino

    Uploaded by

    Rafael Soro
    1) On November 8, 1983, four men entered a home and demanded money from the children inside, stabbing them when one revealed where money was hidden. 2) When one victim recovered, she identified three of the attackers. At trial, the court admitted statements from one child naming the attackers under the excited utterance exception. 3) The court found the evidence sufficient to convict all defendants of robbery resulting in homicide, except it could not use one defendant's confession against another. The judgment was affirmed with increased indemnity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

    MANOLITO TOLENTINO @ "BONG", CARLITO TALA @ "BOY", RODOLFO


    MATAWARAN and @ JOHN DOE, accused-appellants.
    G.R. No. 87085; February 2, 1993
    NOCON
    DOCTRINE: For the res gestae rule to apply, the following must be present: That the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence;;
    that the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise;; and that the statements made must concern the
    occurrence in question and their immediately attending circumstances.
    FACTS:
    1.

    This is an appeal from the decision of the RTC convicting all the accused of robbery with multiple homicide and serious physical
    injuries.

    2.

    On November 8, 1983, all the accused entered into the house of a certain Adelaida Ligad, who was at that time not home, by
    forcibly breaking a wooden window grill of the comfort room and then demanded from her children the whereabouts of Adelaida's
    money.

    3.

    At that time, the children were accompanied by their cousin, Grace Paule, who was able to recognize all the accused except for
    whose face was covered because Tolentino is both her uncle and barriomate.

    4.

    Tala is a relative of her mother and Matawaran as a barkada of Tala.

    5.

    When John Doe threatened to stab the children, one of the latter named Geraldine, got so frightened that she revealed where her
    mother hid the money.

    6.

    After Tolentino took the money, he then stabbed Grace Paule and then stabbed the three other children. When Grace recovered,
    she cried for help and was then heard by her mother and grandmother.

    7.

    Adelaida was then informed of such incident and thus rushed to her house.

    8.

    She asked Geraldine who were responsible for such crime and the latter answered that it was "Bong-Bong" and also mentioned Tala
    and Matawaran.

    9.

    All the children died and Grace was the only survivor who positively identified later on the three accused.

    10. Tala now argues that no probative value should be given to the extrajudicial statement of Grace taken by the fiscal while she was
    staying in the hospital, since his name and that of Matawaran were not mentioned. Also, the accused assailed the admissibility of
    the statement of Geraldine as part of the res gestae.
    ISSUE: Whether the trial court erred in admitting the statement of Geraldine? NO.
    RULING: The trial court had correctly applied the principle of res gestae, namely: (1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling
    occurrence; (2) that the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) that the statements made must
    concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances 11 which are all present in the case at bar as Geraldine had
    named accused-appellant as one of the perpetrators in the commission of the crime immediately after the occurrence of the stabbing incident.
    Accused-appellant Carlito Tala also contends that the trial court erred in considering the extrajudicial confession of accused Manolito Tolentino
    implicating him in the crime charged in the face of the subsequent admission by Manolito Tolentino that he was alone when he committed said
    crime.
    We agree with the appellant on this point. The extrajudicial confession of Tolentino cannot be used against appellant under the principle of res
    inter alios acta unless accused is discharge from the information and made a state witness.
    At any rate, the evidence on record, by itself is sufficient in proving accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
    DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with the sole modification that the indemnity to be
    paid by the accused-appellant Carlito Tala to the heirs of each victim is increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with the recent jurisprudence of
    this Court.

    You might also like