Evidence Powerpoint

DAVID TAN
Vs.
People of the Philippines
And CAROLYN ZARAGOZA
Facts:
• David Tan, (petitioner) entered into a
loan transaction with Carolyn Zaragoza
(respondent) in the amount of P1Million
which was issued by the latter, and in
return, the former issued six (6) checks as
payment.
• However, when all the checks were
deposited, they all bounced/
dishonored for reason of Account
Closed.
• Formal demand letter for payment
was sent by the lawyer of
complainant to the accused through
registered mail but the accused
refused to pay.
• During the trial, prosecution presented
witnesses such as the bank officer to identify
the dishonored checks and the records of the
bank that the account was closed.
• Also presented to testify was the complainant
on the effect that after the checks bounced,
she tried to call up the petitioner but the
latter refused to talked to her. However, the
demand letter for payment was not presented
for proper identification.
• All the subsequent hearing never pushed
through for failure of the defense to appear.
The complainant was never crossed examined
• On formal offer of evidence by the
prosecution, the formal demand letter was
offered.
• . This prompted the MTC to deemed the case
submitted for decision without evidence for
the defense and subsequently decided the
case convicting the petitioner for violation of
BP 22.
• Accused-Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration with the MTC wherein he
denied receipt of demand letter and alleged
that the said evidence was not included in the
formal offer of evidence.
• MTC, RTC and CA decided against the
petitioner.
Issue
• Whether or not, an evidence can be
formally offered even if it is not
presented during the trial?
Held:
• As a rule, objection to the admissibility of
evidence, if not made at the time such
evidence is offered, shall be deemed
waived. However, in all cases where the
said rule had been applied, the assailed
testimonial or object evidence had been
duly presented during the course of the
trial.
Effects of exclusion of the
demand letter from the
body of evidence presented
by the prosecution
• The remaining evidence to prove
petitioners guilt beyond reasonable
doubt is insufficient
Elements of BP22
1. Making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply on the
account or for value;
2. Knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer
that the time of issue he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of the check in full upon
its presentment; AND
3. Subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
the insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered
the bank to stop payment.
• Since the prosecution failed to present evidence during trial
that a written demand had been sent to and received by the
petitioner, the second element , that the accused had
knowledge of the insufficiency of funds, had not been
established.
• The petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime of Violation of BP
22. However, petitioner is ORDERED to pay private
complainant of the amount of P600,000.00 representing the
total amount of the subject checks plus 12% interest.
• Ongson v. People
The SC held that knowledge involves state of mind which
is difficult to establish, thus the statute itself creates a prima
facie presumption that the drawer had knowledge of
insufficiency of his funds with the bank.
For this presumption to arise, the prosecution must prove the
following:
1. The check is presented within 90 days from the date of
check;
2. The drawer or the maker of the check receives notice that
such check has not been paid by the drawee; AND
3. The drawer or maker of the check fails to pay the holder of
the check the amount due thereon, or make arrangements
for payment in full within 5 banking days after receiving
notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.
People of the Philippines
Vs
Hon. Nicasio Yatco, Judge of the CFI Rizal,
Quezon City and JUAN CONSUNJI and ALFONZO
PANGANIBAN
Facts:
• Consunji and Panganiban was charge with
murder for the death of Jose Ramos. During
the progress of the trial, while the prosecution
was presenting its witness, Atty Xavier of the
NBI, in connection to the extra-judicial
confession of Consunji (allegedly made before
him), the counsel for the other defendant
interposed a general objection on the basis of
being hearsay.
• Instead of ruling on the objection, put up
its own objection to the confessions –
that it could not be admitted to prove
conspiracy between Panganiban and
Consunji without prior evidence of such
conspiracy by a number of indefinite
acts, conditions, circumstances and etc.
Issue:
• Whether or not, such order of the court
making its own objection without acting
on the objection of the defense counsel
valid?
Held
• The court ruled that the lower Court committed grave
abuse of discretion when the judge ordered complete
exclusion of prosecution evidence at the stage of trial
when the ruling was made.
• Under the rule of multiple admissibility of evidence, even
if Consunji’s confession may not be competent as against
his co-accused Panganiban, being hearsay to the latter, or
to prove conspiracy between them being established by
other evidence, the Confession of Consunji was,
nevertheless, admissible as evidence of the declarant’s
own guilt.
Prats & Co. vs. Phoenix Insurance Co.
• In a case of 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 indication of bad faith on the
part of the Attorney offering 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.

Evidence Powerpoint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence Powerpoint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DAVID TAN

You might also like