Scribd
Upload
62 views2 pages

People v. Estibal y Calungsag, G.R. No. 208749, November 26, 2014 Facts

The Supreme Court acquitted a man accused of raping his 13-year old daughter due to the lack of direct testimony from the victim. The only evidence presented was hearsay testimony from police officers regarding statements made by the daughter during the initial investigation. However, the daughter did not appear in court and was not subjected to cross-examination by the defense. The Court ruled that admitting hearsay testimony would violate the defendant's constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. To ensure a fair trial, all witnesses must be available for cross-examination. As the daughter's statements were not made under oath and she did not testify, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant was acquitted.

Uploaded by

BerliBeb
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
62 views2 pages

People v. Estibal y Calungsag, G.R. No. 208749, November 26, 2014 Facts

The Supreme Court acquitted a man accused of raping his 13-year old daughter due to the lack of direct testimony from the victim. The only evidence presented was hearsay testimony from police officers regarding statements made by the daughter during the initial investigation. However, the daughter did not appear in court and was not subjected to cross-examination by the defense. The Court ruled that admitting hearsay testimony would violate the defendant's constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. To ensure a fair trial, all witnesses must be available for cross-examination. As the daughter's statements were not made under oath and she did not testify, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant was acquitted.

Uploaded by

BerliBeb
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2

1. People v. Estibal y Calungsag, G.R. No.

208749, November 26, 2014

FACTS:

This is a rape case on automatic review to the Supreme Court committed by the accused against
his 13 year old daughter, AAA. According to the information, the accused raped his daughter on
February 5, 2009. Apparently, BBB, the wife of the accused and mother of AAA, together with
the latter, complained to Police Officer 3 Fretzie Cobardo, the officer assigned at the Philippine
National Police Women and Children Protection Center of Taguig City. It was she who
investigated the whole incident and took the sworn statement of AAA late in the evening of
February 5, 2009. Members of the Barangay Security Force Michael Estudillo and Ronilla Perlas
arrested the accused. She testified in court. However, AAA, did not appear in court despite
several subpoenas. Later on, BBB and AAA, manifested their desistance stating that AAA has
already forgiven her father.

As a result, the incriminatory statements, which were allegedly made by AAA, were conveyed to
the court by PO3 Cobardo, BSF Estudillo and BSF Perlas. In particular, PO Cobardo made a
summation of what she claims was AAA’s narration of her ordeal, along with her observations of
her demeanor during the investigation.

The trial court convicted the accused, ruling that the testimony of PO3 Cobardo was part of the
res gestae.

On appeal to the CA, the accused-appellant maintained that due to the absence of AAA’s
testimony, the prosecution failed to establish the circumstances proving beyond reasonable doubt
that he raped his daughter; that the testimonies of the prosecuting witness PO3 Cobardo and
other, not being themselves victims or witnesses to the “startling occurrence” of rape cannot
create the hearsay exception of res gestae.

The CA convicted the accused.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the testimonies presented be considered as hearsay evidence due to the fact that
there was no cross-examination made by the adverse party, against the original declarant (AAA).

RULING:

The testimonies must be dismissed as hearsay, since AAA’s statements were not subjected to
cross-examination consistent with the constitutional right of the accused-appellant to confront
evidence against him.

All witnesses must be subjected to the cross-examination by the adverse party as further
elaborated in Section 6, Rule 142 of the rules of Court, “Upon the termination of the direct
examination, the witnesses may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any matters stated
in the direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his
accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse and to elicit all
important facts bearing upon the issue.” This equally applies to non-criminal proceedings.

The rule excluding hearsay as evidence is based upon serious concerns about the trustworthiness
and reliability of the hearsay evidence due to its not being given under oath or solemn
affirmation and due to its not being subjected to cross-examination by the opposing counsel to
test the perception, memory, veracity and articulateness of the out-of-court declarant or actor
upon whose reliability the worth of the out-of-court statement depends.

Also, excluding hearsay aims to preserve the right of the opposing party to cross-examine the
original declarant claiming to have direct knowledge of the transaction or occurrence. If hearsay
is allowed, the right stands to be denied because the declarant is not in court. It is then to be
stressed that the right to cross-examine the adverse party’s witness, being the only means of
testing the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, is essential to the administration of
justice.
Therefore, the accused is acquitted.

You might also like