Sec 3, Rule 128; Admissibility

PEOPLE vs. YATCO

Conditional Admissibility

It happens frequently that the relevance of a piece of evidence is not apparent at the time it
is offered, but the relevance of which will readily be seen when connected to the other
pieces of evidence not yet offered. the proponent of the evidence may ask the court that the
evidence be conditionally admitted in the meantime, subject to the condition that he is
going to establish its relevancy and competency at a later time.

If the connection is not shown as promised, the court may, upon motion of the adverse
party, strike out from the record the evidence that was previously conditionally admitted.
(Riano, 2016)

FACTS:

Juan Consungi, Algonso Panganiban and another whose identity is still unknown were
charged with having conspired together in the murder of one Jose Ramos.

During the progress of one of their trial, while the prosecution was questioning one of its
witnesses, in connection with the making of a certain extrajudicial confession (allegedly
made before him) by defendant Juan Consunji to the witness, counsel for the other
defendants Alfonso Pamganiban interposed a general objection to any evidence on such
confession on the ground that it was hearsay and therefore incompetent as against the
other accused Panganiban. The court ( CFI QC) ordered the exclusion of the evidence
objected to BUT on an altogether different ground. that the prosecution could not be
permitted to introduce the confessions of the defendants Consunji and Panganiban to prove
conspiracy between them without prior proof of such conspiracy by a number of definite
acts, conditions, and circumstances.

The prosecution moved for a reconsideration but was denied.

Wherefore, this petition for certiorari was bought by the Solicitor General for the review and
annulment of the lower court’s order completely excluding any evidence on the extrajudicial
confessions of the accused without prior proof of conspiracy.

ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court erred in excluding the of the prosecutor’s evidence
on the alleged confessions.

RULIN:. Yes, the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion in its order.

This court held in the case of Prats&Co vs Phoenix Insurance Co that “the practice of
excluding evidence on doubtful objections to its materiality or technical objections to the
form of the questions should be avoided. In a case od any intricacy, it is impossible for a
judge of first instance, in the early stages of the development of the proof, to know with any
certainty whether testimony is relevant or not and where there is no indication of bad faith
on the part of the attorney offerening the evidence, the court may as a rule safely accept
the testimony upon the statement of the attorney that the proof offered will be connected
later.

In this case, the prosecution had not yet offered the confession to prove the alleged
conspiracy. The alleged confessions had not yet even been identified, much less offered in
evidence. It was premature for the respondent court to exclude them completely on the
ground that there was no prior proof of conspiracy.

Therefore, the order excluding the confessions of the accused is annulled and set aside.

Page 1 of 1