3rd MCTC Kabasalan-Siay ZS

That one special person born in October.
She is now entering Chapter 29!

Thank you so much Dani girl for making our work life easier. We love you big time😘.Happy Birthday!

In the tapestry of our busy lives, there’s one thread that weaves us together with unbreakable bonds: family. And what’s a family without shared meals?

In line with the observance of the National Family Week under Proclamation No. 326 “Kainang Pamilya Mahalaga”, 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court Kabasalan fam celebrates. So, pull up a chair, set your table and prep to indulge in a warm get together. 😊😁🤗

Letecia Saagundo Voj Odeirrac Junave Aranzado Dalingay Danica Salinas Esperila Norberto Basilio

MABUHAY ANG HUDIKATURA!

3rd MCTC Kabasalan, Zambonga Sibugay joins in celebrating 🏳️‍🌈

Evidence: Sufficiency of evidence, admission vs confession, privilege communication & hearsay rule

Joel Sanvicente vs. People, G.R. No. 132081. November 26, 2002

To prove the guilt of the accused being the gunman of the victim, the prosecution’s evidence relied on the letter of the counsel of the accused sent to the police that gave a brief account to the incident that involved his client. The letter which was also signed by the accused aside from his counsel reads:

“This is in connection with the alleged death of one Dennis Wong that occurred, in Katipunan Ave., Q.C., in the afternoon of June 11, 1995.

According to my client, Joel Sanvicente, on said date, place and hour above he just withdrew from the Far East Bank and Trust Co., Katipunan branch a large amount of cash. On his way out of the bank, said victim immediately attacked him to grab the money he has just withdrew (sic). My said client pulled out his gun (duly licensed with Permit to Carry) and fired a warning shot upwards. Still the deceased continued his attack and grabbed his gun. After a brief struggle, my client was forced to shoot the deceased in the defense of his person and money. My client will submit a formal statement during the proper preliminary investigation, if needed.

On June 13, 1995, my client’s car (Mercedes Benz with plate no. TFU 736) was taken by your operatives led by Capt. Alejandro Casanova and [is] now in your custody.

In view of the untoward incident, my client suffered serious anxiety and depression and was advised to undergo medical treatment and confinement at the Delos Santos Hospital in Rodriguez Ave., Q. C. My client would have no objection if you assigned police escort/guard under your supervision pending his confinement.

For all intense (sic) & purposes, this letter shall serve as a voluntary surrender, without admission of guilt on the part of my client.”

The prosecution maintains that the letter, (Exhibit LL,) constituted a confession and argues thus: "What better evidence is there to positively identify the perpetrator of the crime than the confession of the petitioner himself, freely and voluntarily given, assisted by counsel?" According to the prosecution, this "extrajudicial confession constitutes the strongest evidence of guilt."

Does the letter constitute a confession sufficient to convict the accused of homicide, the crime charged against him?

Ans: No. The letter is an admission, not a confession, because of the unmistakable qualification in its last paragraph that —

“For all intense (sic) & purposes, this letter shall serve as a voluntary surrender, without admission of guilt on the part of my client. . . . (Emphasis and Italics supplied).”

Exhibit LL is merely an admission and not a confession. In fact, petitioner specifically denied criminal intent therein. By and of itself it is insufficient to support a conviction unless it is considered in connection with other proof to establish the ultimate fact of guilt.

An admission is defined under Rule 130, Section 26 of the Rules of Court as the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact. A confession, on the other hand, under Rule 130, Section 33 is the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged or any offense necessarily included therein.

More particularly, a confession "is a declaration made at any time by a person, voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement stating or acknowledging that he had committed or participated in the commission of a crime. The term admission, on the other hand, is usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do not directly involve an acknowledgment of the guilt of the accused or of criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is charged." (Francisco V.J., Revised Rules of Court, Vol. VII, Part I, 1997 ed., p. 303, citing U.S. v. Corrales, 23 Phil. 362, 365-366 [1912])

With the foregoing distinctions in mind, the trial court correctly rejected the prosecution’s motion to have Exhibit LL further identified "in the manner that it wanted," i.e., through the proposed testimony of petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Valmonte, who incidentally refused to testify. Aside from covering a subject which squarely falls within the scope of "privileged communication", it would, more importantly, be tantamount to converting the admission into a confession.

It can not be denied that the contents of Exhibit LL, particularly with regard to the details of the shooting communicated by petitioner to Atty. Valmonte, is privileged because it is connected with the business for which petitioner retained the services of the latter. More specifically, said communication was relayed by petitioner to Atty. Valmonte in order to seek his professional advice or assistance in relation to the subject matter of the employment, or to explain something in connection with it, so as to enable him to better advice his client or manage the litigation.

The letter is also hearsay. It was ruled:

“ # # # we agree with the trial court that the letter marked as Exhibit LL is hearsay inasmuch as its probative force depends in whole or in part on the competency and credibility of some person other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce it. (Francisco V.J., Revised Rules of Court, supra, p. 513, citing 31 C.J.S. 919) The term as used in the law of evidence "signifies all evidence which is not founded upon the personal knowledge of the witness from whom it is elicited, and which consequently does not depend wholly for its credibility and weight upon the confidence which the court may have in him. Its value, if any, is measured by the credit to be given to some third persons not sworn as witnesses to that fact and consequently not subject to cross-examination." ( Ibid., citing Underhill Evidence, p. 68) In short, it is "the evidence not of what the witness knows himself but of what he has heard from others." (Id., citing Woodroffe’s Law on Evidence, 9th ed. 512) Thus, in one case we stated that" [w]hen evidence is based on what was supposedly told the witness, the same is without any evidentiary weight being patently hearsay." ( People v. Villaran, 269 SCRA 630, 637 [1997], citing People v. Del Rosario, 234 SCRA 246 [1994]) In the case at bar, it is noteworthy that the statements in the letter were made by petitioner’s counsel, who even began his narration of the events with the phrase: "According to my client."

Happy Birthday and Happy Retirement po CJ Diosdado Peralta 🎂🎉🍷 Thank You and God bless po 😊

Happy Birthday JUN BASILIO from your MCTC Kabasalan Family! God bless you more🍾🎂🎉

3rd MCTC Kabasalan-Siay ZS updated their website address.