GR L 20986; (August, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20986 August 14, 1965
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. VICENTE N. CUSI JR., Presiding Judge, Branch I, Court of First Instance of Davao, ARCADIO PUESCA alias Big Boy, WALTER APA, JOSE GUSTILO alias Peping, FILOMENO MACALINAO, JR. alias White, RICARDO DAIRO alias Carding, and MAGNO MONTANO alias Edol, respondents.
FACTS
In Criminal Case No. 6813 for robbery in band with homicide, the accused pleaded not guilty. During trial, prosecution witness Sgt. Lucio Bano testified regarding the extrajudicial confession made by accused Arcadio Puesca. Sgt. Bano stated that Puesca admitted his participation and revealed the names of his co-conspirators. The prosecuting officer then asked the witness to mention these names in court. Counsel for accused Macalinao, Gustilo, and Dairo objected on the ground of hearsay. The respondent judge directed the witness to answer but without mentioning the names of the objecting accused. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari to have the ruling declared erroneous and to allow the witness to answer fully.
ISSUE
Whether the testimony of Sgt. Bano regarding the names of co-conspirators mentioned in Puesca’s extrajudicial confession is admissible, notwithstanding a hearsay objection, for the limited purpose of establishing that such a statement was made.
RULING
Yes. The writ is granted. While hearsay evidence, if objected to, is generally inadmissible to prove the truth of the facts asserted, it is admissible for the non-hearsay purpose of establishing that a statement was made or its tenor. The prosecution’s manifested purpose was merely to establish that Puesca named his co-conspirators to Sgt. Bano, not to prove the truth that those persons actually conspired. This fact was relevant to explain subsequent police investigation of the named individuals. The witness should have been allowed to answer fully, with the understanding that the answer is not competent evidence to prove the actual conspiracy. The preliminary injunction is set aside.