Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2. TOLENTINO vs MENDOZA
3. PEOPLE vs CARANGUIAN
6. DE JESUS vs SANCHEZ-MALIT
7. PEOPLE vs SAMONTAEZ
8. NAVARRO vs CA
2. TOLENTINO vs MENDOZA
- The exclusionary rule which bars admission of illegally obtained evidence applies more
appropriately to evidence obtained as a result of illegal searches and seizures.
- The evidence presented by complainants reach that quantum of evidence required in administrative
proceedings which is only substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conviction.
- Rule 24, AO No. 1 series of 1993 and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the
exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates in question, said public documents are, therefore,
admissible and should be properly taken into consideration in the resolution of this administrative
case against respondent.
3. PEOPLE vs CARANGUIAN
- The quantum of evidence required in criminal cases is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Sec.2 of
Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that “proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such
degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty is only
required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.”
- The task of the prosecution is two-fold: first, to prove that a crime was committed, and second, that
accused is the person responsible. Thus, the prosecution must be able to overcome the constitutional
presumption of innocence beyond reasonable doubt to justify conviction of the accused.
- The hearsay rule bars the testimony of a witness who merely recites what someone else has told
him, whether orally or in writing.
- Sec 36 of Rule 130 provides that a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his
personal knowledge; that is, that a witness can testify only to perception, except as otherwise
provided in the rules.
- While it is accepted that the testimony of a sole witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to
sustain a judgment of conviction, it bears stressing that such testimony must be clear, positive, and
7. PEOPLE vs SAMONTAEZ
- In the absence of a valid waiver, any confession obtained from the appellant during the police
custodial investigation relative to the crime, including other evidence secured by virtue of the said
confession is inadmissible in evidence even if the same was not objected to during the trial by the
counsel of the appellant.
- Fruit of the poisonous tree: once the primary source is shown to have been unlawfully obtained,
any secondary or derivative evidence derived from it is also inadmissible.
8. NAVARRO vs CA
- RA 4200 prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private communications. Since the
exchange between petitioner Navarro and Lingan was not private, the tape recording is not
prohibited.