People Vs Reyes Case Digest

Admissions and Confessions People vs Reyes Principle:  The evidence applicable applicable in this case is about Admissions Admissions and Confessions of a party. Sec. 26 of Rule 1! of the Rules of court provides: "The act# declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be $iven a$ainst him.% As to the Rulin$ Rulin$ in this case# the Court held "&nou$h# ho'ever# may be $athered from his testimony in open court to identify (atchalian as one of  the the assa assail ilan ants ts## the the conv conver ersa sati tion on he over overhe hear ard d in the the rice rice )e )eld ld bein bein$ $ admissible as an admission and as part of the res $est*.% +acts:  This is case of murder and physical in,ury. in,ury. The victims in this case 'ho 'ere murdered 'ere members of -ilitary Police# namely# en,amin /ery and Alfredo 0a$uitan. 0a$uitan. The victim for the physical in,ury is +rancisco +rancisco rsino# also a member of -ilitary Police -Ps3.  The accused are: are: 1. &use &usebi bio o Pere4 ere4 'hi 'hich ch case case 'as 'as dism dismis isse sed d due due to insu5 insu5ci cien ency cy of  evidence a$ainst him3 2. Pedro edro Reyes eyes 'ho 'ho later later on 'as dischar dischar$e $ed d becau because se he 'as 'as used used as prosecution 'itness3 . (ervasio ue alias alias liveros liveros remained remained at lar$e3 lar$e3 7. -arcelo -arcelo ue alias Pipit Pipit remained remained at lar$e3 lar$e3 8. 9icente (atchalian (atchalian alias alias -a$allanes -a$allanes herein herein appellant3 appellant3 6. -aimino Austria Austria alias alias Severino Austria alias alias i$ oy herein herein appellant3 appellant3  The transcript of the testimony ta;en ta;en before before the Pampan$a ,ud$e and the documentary evidence evidence in connection connection there'ith are all before us# and the Court# after eaminin$ the same# has voted to a5rm the verdict of $uilt of  appella appellants nts Austria Austria and (atchali (atchalian# an# because because from from the evidence evidence it appears appears beyond reasonable doubt that: pabasa> 'as bein$ performed readin$ and sin$in$ of the story of  the Cruci)ion3 the herein appellants assisted by -arcelo ue alias Pipit# (erv (ervas asio io ue ue alia alias s liv liver ero os and and one one Pepin epin$# $# all all arme armed d 'ith 'ith pist pistol ols# s# approached three members of the military police# Philippine Army# i. e. privated en,amin /ery# Alfredo 0a$uitan and +rancisco rsino ? hereafter to be desi$nated [email protected] for short ? 'ho 'ere peacebly seated# entirely unarmed# in a store 'atchin$ the aair. At the point of their $uns they drove the latter to the road leadin$ to -a$alan and at a short distance about ten meters from the >pabasa> or >cenaculo>3 shot them from the bac; and left them lyin$ on the $round.  The attac;ers 'ere Bu;s# and the motive of the ;illin$ 'as obviously the enmity eistin$ bet'een the outla' or$ani4ation and the forces of peace and order. /ery and 0a$uitan died as a result of the shootin$. Private rsino suered serious in,uries. Bis le$# shot and fractured# need about si months to heal. Pedro Reyes turned state evidence# but he did not con)rm every statement he had previously made at the )[email protected] investi$ation. Be testi)ed# ho'ever# that at about seven [email protected]; that ni$ht he sa'# amon$ the people $athered at the >pabasa#> >Pipit> -arcelo ue3 Pipin$# (ervasio ue alias liveros# 9icente (atchalian and -aimino Austria alias i$ oy that Pipit and Pipin$ +elipe Sese3 called him and told him that liveros 'anted to tal; 'ith him that tal;in$ 'ith liveros he 'as invited by the latter to spea; to the [email protected] the members of the military police# /ery# 0a$uitan and rsino3 that he refused that thereafter he heard several detonations that he ran to the rice )eld and there he met liveros (ervasio ue3 and (atchalian tal;in$# the former declarin$ he 'as sure the -P he had shot 'ill die and (atchalian ma;in$ the same assurance as to the -P he (atchalian3 had shot in turn. Reyes had previously told the authorities in his a5davit &hibit A# in addition to 'hat he related in court# that liveros# -a$allanes and i$ oy had approached the three [email protected] and lined them up on the road# after 'hich shots 'ere heard. Enough, however, may be gathered from his testimony in open court to identify Gatchalian as one of the assailants, the conversation he overheard in the rice eld being admissibile as an admission and as part of the res gestæ . D. S. vs. Remi$io# E Phil.# 8== People vs. /a;pil# 82 Phil.# =F8 People vs. urante# 8 Phil.# 6.3 In relation to the evidence presented in this case, among the evidence presented were the alleged admissions or confessions of  Gatchalian and Austria . Thus: 0ieutenant +idel -artine4 and Secundino Guintas declared under oath that 9icente (atchalian admitted before the latter# 'hile under investi$ation# that he had shot one of the -Ps 'ho died later. (atchalian even sho'ed ho' he had )red at the -P from the bac;# posin$ for a picture &hibit B3. 0ieutenant Guintans li;e'ise asserted that Severino Austria had voluntarily si$ned the confession &hibit & 'herein said Austria made the follo'in$ statements: >G. Hhat did you do on that same ni$htI A. Hhile 'e 'ere at the bac; of the [email protected]# 0
View more...
   EMBED

Share

Preview only show first 6 pages with water mark for full document please download

Transcript

Admissions and Confessions

People vs Reyes

Principle:

The evidence applicable in this case is about Admissions and
Confessions of a party. Sec. 26 of Rule 130 of the Rules of court provides:

“The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may
be given against him.”

As to the Ruling in this case, the Court held “Enough, however, may be
gathered from his testimony in open court to identify Gatchalian as one of
the assailants, the conversation he overheard in the rice field being
admissible as an admission and as part of the res gestæ.”

Facts:

This is case of murder and physical injury. The victims in this case who
were murdered were members of Military Police, namely, Benjamin Nery and
Alfredo Laguitan. The victim for the physical injury is Francisco Orsino, also a
member of Military Police (MPs).

The accused are:

1. Eusebio Perez (which case was dismissed due to insufficiency of
evidence against him)
2. Pedro Reyes (who later on was discharged because he was used as
prosecution witness)
3. Gervasio Due alias Oliveros (remained at large)
4. Marcelo Due alias Pipit (remained at large)
5. Vicente Gatchalian alias Magallanes (herein appellant)
6. Maximino Austria alias Severino Austria alias Big Boy (herein appellant)

The transcript of the testimony taken before the Pampanga judge and
the documentary evidence in connection therewith are all before us, and the
Court, after examining the same, has voted to affirm the verdict of guilt of
appellants Austria and Gatchalian, because from the evidence it appears
beyond reasonable doubt that:
In the night of Good Friday of 1946 (April 19) while religious
celebrations were in full swing in the barrio of Cacutud, Arayat, Pampanga
and the "pabasa" was being performed (reading and singing of the story of
the Crucifixion) the herein appellants assisted by Marcelo Due alias Pipit,
Gervasio Due alias Oliveros and one Peping, all armed with pistols,

among the people gathered at the "pabasa. that he ran to the rice field and there he met Oliveros (Gervasio Due) and Gatchalian talking. among the evidence presented were the alleged admissions or confessions of Gatchalian and Austria. People vs. Nery. 985. posing for a picture (Exhibit H). that Oliveros. The attackers were Huks.) In relation to the evidence presented in this case. Magallanes and Big Boy had approached the three MP's and lined them up on the road. Laguitan and Orsino). that talking with Oliveros he was invited by the latter to speak to the MP's (the members of the military police. Gatchalian even showed how he had fired at the MP from the back. 599. Remigio. entirely unarmed. vs. He testified. . e. His leg." "Pipit" (Marcelo Due) Piping. that he had shot one of the MPs who died later. Reyes had previously told the authorities in his affidavit Exhibit A. while under investigation. and the motive of the killing was obviously the enmity existing between the outlaw organization and the forces of peace and order. but he did not confirm every statement he had previously made at the fiscal's investigation.. that Pipit and Piping (Felipe Sese) called him and told him that Oliveros wanted to talk with him. however. i. Enough. Pedro Reyes turned state evidence. 53 Phil. Vicente Gatchalian and Maximino Austria alias Big Boy. At the point of their guns they drove the latter to the road leading to Magalan and at a short distance (about ten meters from the "pabasa" or "cenaculo") shot them from the back and left them lying on the ground. need about six months to heal.. after which shots were heard. Nakpil. Philippine Army. People vs. that he refused. 363. S. however. 52 Phil. the former declaring he was sure the MP he had shot will die and Gatchalian making the same assurance as to the MP he (Gatchalian) had shot in turn. in addition to what he related in court. shot and fractured.. in a store watching the affair. the conversation he overheard in the rice field being admissibile as an admission and as part of the res gestæ. Thus: Lieutenant Fidel Martinez and Secundino Quintas declared under oath that Vicente Gatchalian admitted before the latter. Alfredo Laguitan and Francisco Orsino — hereafter to be designated MP's for short — who were peacebly seated.approached three members of the military police. Durante. 37 Phil. that thereafter he heard several detonations. Private Orsino suffered serious injuries. (U. that at about seven o'clock that night he saw. may be gathered from his testimony in open court to identify Gatchalian as one of the assailants. privated Benjamin Nery. Gervasio Due alias Oliveros. Nery and Laguitan died as a result of the shooting.

The evidence offered was not objected to. What happened when you took the soldiers? A. OLIVEROS held one of the soldiers. What did you do when you were informed thus? A. Issue: Whether or not the evidence presented (the admission and confession made by Gatchalian and Autria) are admissible. "Q. the soldier who was with me tried to grab the pistol that I was holding with my right hand.Lieutenant Quintans likewise asserted that Severino Austria had voluntarily signed the confession Exhibit E wherein said Austria made the following statements: "Q. What did you do on that same night? A. BASIBAS. While we were at the back of the `Cenaculo'. PEPIT and FELIPE SESE did as ordered and came with the information that there are three MP soldiers in one of the stores near the `Cenaculo'. Magallanes held the other and forced them to come with us. MAGALLANES. so I also fired at the soldier who was with me. The Solicitor General's brief substantially proves conspiracy between them and their other co. To talk with them in front of the house of SEGUNDO GUEVARRA. OLIVEROS.accused who are still at large. OLIVEROS ordered PEPIT and FELIPE SESE to see if there are any MP soldiers in the vicinity of the `Cenaculo'. so I drew my pistol and forced him to come with me. BATUIN." The picture of Austria reenacting the crime in Exhibit G. and I went to the place where the MP soldiers were and I myself talked with one of the said soldiers. and I asked him to stand and come with me where we could talk together. While we were walking about 10 meters from the `Cenaculo'. There are . Ruling: Yes. Why and where were you taking the MP soldiers? A. "Q. Suddenly I heard about 4 shots from behind. Their defense of alibi is weak and untenable. We are thus satisfied from the foregoing of the guilty participation of the appellants in this gruesome business. "Q. but he refused.

Sgt. Macasaquet to the witness stand to deny the declarations of the two appellants. Neither Martinez nor Quintans ever dared to testify again to rebut the declarations. Quintans as to the supposed oral admission of Vicente Gatchalian and the written statement Exhibit E signed by Severino Austria. . Macasaquet was singled out by appellants as one of those who inflicted the maltreatments and torture. with costs. are completely valueless because of the uncontradicted testimonies of the two appellants to the effect that they were maltreated. three shovels were supplied at hand for the digging of the graves intended for the appellants. of Gatchalian and Austria as to the intimidation and third degree to which they had been subjected and in relation with which they had shown visible and tangible marks on their bodies. and yet the prosecution dared not to call Sgt. such as the black spots and scars which they exhibited at the trial. Wherefore.three offenses: two murders and one serious physical injuries. it is hereby affirmed. the penalty imposed on the appellants being in accordance with law. for which all the accused must do penance irrespective of the actual deed of each. BUT it is the Dissenting opinion of Justice Perfecto provides: The testimonies of Fidel Martinez and Segundino S. tortured and threatened to be killed. To make the intimidation more effective.