Mallari v People of the Philippines

TOPIC: TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

DOCTRINE

1. The Rule of Court provides (S36 R130)that witnesses can testify only with
regard to facts of which they have personal knowledge; otherwise their
testimonies would be inadmissible for being hearsay. Jurisprudence provides
that testimonial or documentary evidence are hearsay if it is not based on
personal knowledge of the witness, but on the knowledge of some other person
not on the witness stand. Consequently, hearsay evidence whether objected or
not has no probative value unless the proponent can show that the evidence fall
within any of the exceptions of the hearsay rule.
2. An unverified and unidentified private document cannot be accorded probative
value. It is precluded because the party against whom it is presented is
deprived of the right to cross-examine the person to whom the statements or
writings are attributed. Its executor or author should be presented as witness
to provide the other party to litigation the opportunity to question its
contents.
3. Failure to present the author of the letter renders its contents suspect and no
probative value. For it being an hearsay evidence.

FACTS:

This case is a petition for review seeking reversal of the decision of the CA.

Boyose was a teacher at Bustamante HS. At the start, she had good relationship
with the Principal Mallari but later on their relationship turned sour due to an
alleged unaccounted school funds made by Boyose.

On June 29, 1989 in the morning Boyose was at the guidance office and a man
approached her and asked if he can still enrol his nephew, Boyose advised the man to
return in the afrernoon. In the afternoon, while riding a jeepney to Sasa, Davao City,
Boyose noticed the man talking to her early in the morning rode the same jeepney, and
she asked if the man was able to talk to Mallari but the latter was ignored.

While they were near to Panacan, Davao City, the man drew a gun and pointed it
at Boyose but it did not fire immediately. She managed to get out of the jeepney and
ran away but the man followed her and shot her repeatedly which resulted to numerous
injuries.

During investigation, they were able to get a lead when a certain Andy
Magdadaro went to the police and told that he knew something about the shooting
incident. He told the police that he was asked by Edwin Amparado to kill Boyose but
the plan was not carried out. He pointed out Zaldy Bonita as the man who hired
Amparado to look for a triggerman.

Amparado was then picked by the police for investigation. He alleged that he
went to the house of Mallari and the latter asked him to kill Boyose. He then offered
the job to Magdadaro and they talked about the plan to kill Bayose and Magdadaro was
waiting for the go signal. He then executed an affidavit regarding the offer of
Mallari to kill Boyose
 On August 1 1989 police men arrested Bonita. Bonita admitted participation in
the incident and implicated his brother Leonardo as the gunman. The police then
arrested Leonardo Bonita.

L.Bonita ws brought to the police station, a police line-up was conducted and
Boyose identified L.Bonita as the gunman. She likewise identified Z.Bonita to be a
constant companion of Mallari.

During custodial investigation L.Bonita admitted to be the gunman. He pointed

out Mallari as the one who hired him to kill Boyose. Z.Bonita admitted to have been
hired by Mallari to look for a gunman.

Mallari was charged by a crime of frustrated murder and pleaded not guilty.

In his separate trial he did not present any evidence establish his innocence
or to refute the prosecution’s evidence. A demurrer to evidence was filed but was
denied.

RTC: Found Mallari guilty frustrated murder

CA: Modified it to attempted murder

ISSUE/S:

1. W-O-N there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond

reasonable doubt.

RULING:

NO.

The Rule of Court provides (S36 R130)that witnesses can testify only with
regard to facts of which they have personal knowledge; otherwise their testimonies
would be inadmissible for being hearsay. Jurisprudence provides that testimonial or
documentary evidence are hearsay if it is not based on personal knowledge of the
witness, but on the knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand.
Consequently, hearsay evidence whether objected or not has no probative value unless
the proponent can show that the evidence fall within any of the exceptions of the
hearsay rule.

Here, neither of the witnesses (Police Investigators) had personal knowledge of

the circumstances considered by the CA or of the rest of the statements made by the
declarants (Petitioner’s co-accused) in their respective written statements. The
witnesses merely attested to the voluntariness and due execution of the Bonitas
respective extrajudicial confessions. Thus, insofar as the substances are concerned,
the testimonies of the police are merely hearsay. Moreover, exceptions to the hearsay
rule do not apply to this case. Thus, an unverified and unidentified private document
cannot be accorded probative value. It is precluded because the party against whom it
is presented is deprived of the right to cross-examine the person to whom the
statements or writings are attributed. Its executor or author should be presented as
witness to provide the other party to litigation the opportunity to question its
contents. Being mere hearsay evidence, failure to present the author of the letter
renders its contents suspect and no probative value.