GR 1302; (August, 1903) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1302 : August 21, 1903
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. NARCISO CALIGAGAN, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
The defendant, Narciso Caligagan, was convicted in the Court of First Instance. On appeal, it was claimed that the trial court improperly considered statements made during the preliminary investigation before the justice of the peace. Specifically, the record showed that the Government proved at trial that the defendant himself made certain statements during that preliminary investigation. Furthermore, a witness named Pangan testified before the justice of the peace that the deceased, Capulong, made a dying declaration implicating the defendant. However, at the trial in the Court of First Instance, the same witness Pangan testified that the deceased said nothing to him.
ISSUE:
What is the proper evidentiary value of testimony given during a preliminary investigation when considered in the trial before the Court of First Instance?
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled on the admissibility and weight of preliminary investigation testimony:
1. Testimony of the Accused: If the defendant made statements during the preliminary investigation, proof of those statements at trial has, at minimum, the effect of an extrajudicial confession. It is admissible evidence against him, even if he retracts it during trial.
2. Testimony of Other Witnesses: The testimony of a witness (other than the accused) given during the preliminary investigation cannot be used as substantive evidence to convict the defendant. If such a witness contradicts their prior testimony, the prior statement cannot be used by the Government to prove guilt. However, the defendant may use the prior inconsistent statement to impeach the witness’s credibility.
Applying these principles:
The trial court correctly considered the defendant’s own statements made before the justice of the peace, as they were properly proved at trial.
The witness Pangan’s prior statement before the justice of the peace (regarding the dying declaration) could not be used as evidence against the defendant, given his contrary trial testimony.
Upon reviewing all admissible evidence, the Supreme Court found the defendant’s guilt proven but held he was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness. The judgment of conviction was AFFIRMED.