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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    People Vs Aleman GR No. 181539 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Jessette Amihope CASTOR
    1) Edwin Aleman was charged with robbery with homicide for conspiring with another person to rob and kill Ramon Jaime Birosel while he was in his car. 2) The sole eyewitness to the crime was 14-year-old deaf-mute Mark Aldovar, who testified in court using a sign language interpreter. 3) The Supreme Court upheld Aleman's conviction, finding that Mark was a competent witness despite being deaf-mute, and that his failure to identify Aleman in a police lineup did not prejudice the case given his positive identification in court.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Aleman GR No. 181539 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Jessette Amihope CASTOR
    48 views1 page
    1) Edwin Aleman was charged with robbery with homicide for conspiring with another person to rob and kill Ramon Jaime Birosel while he was in his car. 2) The sole eyewitness to the crime was 14-year-old deaf-mute Mark Aldovar, who testified in court using a sign language interpreter. 3) The Supreme Court upheld Aleman's conviction, finding that Mark was a competent witness despite being deaf-mute, and that his failure to identify Aleman in a police lineup did not prejudice the case given his positive identification in court.

    Original Title

    3. People vs Aleman

    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) Edwin Aleman was charged with robbery with homicide for conspiring with another person to rob and kill Ramon Jaime Birosel while he was in his car. 2) The sole eyewitness to the crime was 14-year-old deaf-mute Mark Aldovar, who testified in court using a sign language interpreter. 3) The Supreme Court upheld Aleman's conviction, finding that Mark was a competent witness despite being deaf-mute, and that his failure to identify Aleman in a police lineup did not prejudice the case given his positive identification in court.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Aleman GR No. 181539 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Jessette Amihope CASTOR
    1) Edwin Aleman was charged with robbery with homicide for conspiring with another person to rob and kill Ramon Jaime Birosel while he was in his car. 2) The sole eyewitness to the crime was 14-year-old deaf-mute Mark Aldovar, who testified in court using a sign language interpreter. 3) The Supreme Court upheld Aleman's conviction, finding that Mark was a competent witness despite being deaf-mute, and that his failure to identify Aleman in a police lineup did not prejudice the case given his positive identification in court.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs Aleman

    GR No. 181539

    Facts:
    Edwin Aleman was charged with the special complex crime crime of robbery
    with homicide. The accused conspired and mutually helped with another unidentified
    person, robbed and killed Mr. Ramon Jaime Birosel while the victim was inside his car
    talking over his cellphone. The prosecution established the cause of death of the victim
    shown in the medico-legal report. The case relied on sole-eyewitness’ account of Mark
    Aldovar, a 14-yr old deaf mute. During trial, a licensed sign language interpreter
    assisted him in his testimony. He communicated- the situation of the victim who had
    just boarded his car; the respective positions of accused and his still unidentified cohort
    vis-à-vis the victim; accused knock on the window of the victim’s car and the sudden
    series of stabs accused inflicted upon the victim; the taking of the victim’s various
    personal properties; accused walk away from the crime scene; and, the revelation of
    accused identity when he finally removed the bonnet that covered his face. However,
    accused interposed denial and alibi. He was twice made to join a police line-up and
    thereafter was given a spot report as the alleged suspect and turned over to police
    custody. He stated that witness failed to identify him during police line-up. RTC
    rejected the defenses of the accused but viewed the prosecution's evidence favorably,
    particularly the eyewitness testimony as simple and credible and his positive
    identification. On appeal, accused aimed at discrediting the witness. He questioned the
    qualification of Mark as witness being deafmute and failure to identify him as
    perpetrator during the line-up. CA denied the appeal and affirmed with RTC that
    prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of robbery
    with homicide.

    Issues:
    1. W/N Mark, a deaf-mute, can be a competent witness?
    2. W/N the non-identification of accused in police line-up would prejudice the
    case?

    Held:

    1. Yes. The mere fact that Mark is a deaf-mute does not render him unqualified to be a
    witness. The rule is that “all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make
    known their perception to others, may be witnesses.” In this case, he was able to
    communicate through drawing and sketches in open court to show the relative position
    of things and persons as he perceived like a normal person. Thus, a deaf-mute is
    competent to be a witness so long as he has the faculty to make observations and he can
    make those observations known to others. RTC and CA saw no improper motive, which
    would impel Mark to testify falsely against the accused.

    2. No. There is no law stating that a police line-up is essential to proper identification.
    What matters is that the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the
    crime be made by the witness in open court. But the records show that Mark identified
    accused-appellant as the robber-killer of the victim in a police line-up and, more
    importantly, in open court in the course of Mark’s testimony. Moreover, the settled rule
    is that the positive and credible testimony of a single witness is sufficient to secure the
    conviction of an accused. The Supreme Court denied the appeal of accused-appellant.

    You might also like