PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NERIO GADDI y CATUA!, "efen"ant-appellant. G.R. N#. $%&'() Fe*+a+y $, /0/ CORTES
DOCTRINE1 This DOCTRINE1 This Tribunal bad previously declared that a confession constitutes evidence of high order since it is supported by the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and his conscience [People v. Salvador, G.R. o. !"##$%&, 'uly (%, )$** citing People v. +astaneda G.R. o. !"-(%(, /ugust -), )$#$, $- S+R/ $.0 Proof that a person confessed to the commission of a crime can be presented in evidence without violating the hearsay rule [Section -1, Rule )-1 of the Revised Rules of +ourt0 which only prohibits a witness from testifying as to those facts which he merely learned from other persons but not as to those facts which he "knows of his own knowledge: that is, which are derived from his own perception."2ence, perception." 2ence, while the testimony of a witness regarding the statement made by another person, if intended to establish the truth of the fact asserted in the statement, is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement in the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made or the tenor of such statement [People v. +usi 'r., G.R. o. !"(1$*%, /ugust )&, )$%, )& S+R/ $&&.02ere, when Gu3man testified that the appellant, who probably was bothered by his conscience, admitted the killing to him, there was no violation of the hearsay rule as Gu3man was testifying to a fact which he knows of his own personal knowledge that is, be was testifying to the f act that the appellant told him that he stabbed /ugusta 4sguerra and not to the truth of the appellant5s statement.
FACTS1 erio Gaddi y +atubay was charged with murder for the death /ugusto 4sguerra y avarro6 7nformation reads as follow6
8n or about 9ec. )), )$*), in :ue3on +ity, +ity, ;etro ;anila, Philippines Philippines erio Gaddi with intent to kill, without any sic?, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of /@[email protected] [email protected]/ y /A/RR8, by then and there stabbing him several times with a knife, hitting hitting him on the different parts of his body, body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and preSec. ($ Rule )-1, Rules of +ourt?. Hhat Felicito told 8galesco may in a sense be also regarded as part of the res gestae.
The Rule is that Iany person, otherwise competent as a witness, who heard the confession, is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood all of it. /n oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, but in such case it must be given in its substance.I >(- +.'.S. )$%.?
Proof of the contents of an oral eBtra)$1?0 and always receive it with caution [People v. +inco, %# Phil. )$% >)$-$? People v. de Gu3man, #1 Phil. (- >)$&1?0 not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because of its easy fabrication [People v. Rafallo, *% Phil. (( >)$1?.0 To overcome the evidence of the prosecution, an alibi must satisfy the test of Ifull, clear and satisfactory evidenceI [@.S. v. Pascua, ) Phil. %-) >)$1-? @.S. v. 8Biles, ($ Phil, *# >)$)? @.S. v. 8lais, -% Phil *(* >)$)#?.0 This test re=uires not only proof that the accused was somewhere else other than the scene of the crime but clear and convincing proof of physical impossibility for the accused to have been at the place of the commission of the crime [People v. Pacis, G.R. os. !"-($#" *, 'uly (, )$*&. )-1 S+R/ &1 People v. +oronado, G.R. o. %*$-(, 8ctober (*, )$*%, )& S+R/ (1 People v. Ferrera, G.R. o. %%$%, 'une )*, )$*#, )) S+R/ ))-.0
The testimony of the accused himself believes any claim of physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime since according to him, the store where he allegedly bought another bottle of gin was only (11 meters away. 2e was able to return to Gu3man5s house only after half an hour since he still had a chat with an ac=uaintance at the store. 4ven granting the truth of appellant5s story that he was ordered by Gu3man to buy a bottle of gin at about 611 o5clock in the afternoon and that he was back after thirty minutes, it was not impossible for him to have committed the crime since Gu3man and his wife left appellant alone with the victim at around %611 o5clock in the evening to attend the mananita at the house of 'unior 7sla. Thus, his statements on the witness stand, far from demonstrating physical impossibility of being at the scene of the crime, cast serious doubt on the veracity of his alibi.
DISPOSITI2E PORTION1 H24R4F8R4, the appealed decision is ;897F749 and the accused"appellant is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of 28;7+794, sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight >*? years and one >)? day of prision mayor as minimum, to seventeen >)#? years and four >&? months of reclusion temporal as maBimum, and to indemnify the heirs of /ugusto 4sguerra in the amount of P -1,111.11. S8 8R94R49.