Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 639 views

    People v. Serrano G.R. No. L 7973

    Uploaded by

    Tootsie Guzma
    This case involved an appeal from Domingo Cadiang, Santiago Yumul, and Filemon Cenzon who were found guilty of murdering Pablo Navarro along with other co-defendants. The appellants argued that the sole testimony of their co-conspirator, Anastacio Reyes, was insufficient to establish conspiracy or convict them. However, the court ruled that while an extrajudicial statement of a conspirator can be used as evidence against co-conspirators, testimony given during a trial where the defendant has opportunity for cross-examination cannot. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the trial court did not err.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People v. Serrano G.R. No. L 7973

    Uploaded by

    Tootsie Guzma
    639 views2 pages
    This case involved an appeal from Domingo Cadiang, Santiago Yumul, and Filemon Cenzon who were found guilty of murdering Pablo Navarro along with other co-defendants. The appellants argued that the sole testimony of their co-conspirator, Anastacio Reyes, was insufficient to establish conspiracy or convict them. However, the court ruled that while an extrajudicial statement of a conspirator can be used as evidence against co-conspirators, testimony given during a trial where the defendant has opportunity for cross-examination cannot. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the trial court did not err.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    People-v.-Serrano-G.R.-No.-L-7973

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved an appeal from Domingo Cadiang, Santiago Yumul, and Filemon Cenzon who were found guilty of murdering Pablo Navarro along with other co-defendants. The appellants argued that the sole testimony of their co-conspirator, Anastacio Reyes, was insufficient to establish conspiracy or convict them. However, the court ruled that while an extrajudicial statement of a conspirator can be used as evidence against co-conspirators, testimony given during a trial where the defendant has opportunity for cross-examination cannot. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the trial court did not err.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    639 views2 pages

    People v. Serrano G.R. No. L 7973

    Uploaded by

    Tootsie Guzma
    This case involved an appeal from Domingo Cadiang, Santiago Yumul, and Filemon Cenzon who were found guilty of murdering Pablo Navarro along with other co-defendants. The appellants argued that the sole testimony of their co-conspirator, Anastacio Reyes, was insufficient to establish conspiracy or convict them. However, the court ruled that while an extrajudicial statement of a conspirator can be used as evidence against co-conspirators, testimony given during a trial where the defendant has opportunity for cross-examination cannot. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the trial court did not err.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    People vs.

    Serrano

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CENON SERRANO alias PIPING, ET AL., 
    DOMINGO CADIANG, SANTIAGO YUMUL and FILEMON CENZON

    G.R. No. L-7973             April 27, 1959

    Doctrine:

    The admission pertains to an extrajudicial declaration of a conspirator, and not his testimony
    given on the stand which is subject to cross-examination.

    Facts:

    Domingo Cadiang, Santiago Yumul and Filemon Cenzon appeal from a judgment of the Court of
    First Instance of Pampanga finding them and their co-defendants, who did not appeal, guilty of
    murder for the death of Pablo Navarro and sentencing them to suffer reclusion perpetua and to
    pay indemnity and the proportionate share in the costs.

    On 17 December 1951, Cenon Serrano alias Piping, Benjamin Tolentino, Melchor Esguerra,


    Domingo Cadiang, Santiago Yumul, Filemon Cenzon and Anastacio Reyes were charged with
    illegal detention with murder for the death of Pablo Navarro in an information filed by the
    provincial fiscal of Pampanga. On 12 February 1952, upon motion of the assistant provincial
    fiscal, the Court ordered the discharge of Anastacio Reyes from the information to testify as
    witness for the prosecution. The evidence for the prosecution heard against his co-defendants
    before his arrest and arraignment was again presented to afford him the opportunity to confront
    and cross-examine the witnesses.

    The appellants contend further that in order that the testimony of a conspirator may be
    admissible in evidence against his co-conspirator, it must appear and be shown by evidence other
    than the admission itself that the conspiracy actually existed and that the person who is to be
    bound by the admission was a privy to the conspiracy. And as there is nothing but the lone
    testimony of prosecution witness Anastacio Reyes, a co-conspirator, the trial court erred in
    finding that conspiracy has been established and in convicting the appellants based upon the lone
    testimony of their co-conspirator.

    Issue:

    Whether the act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence,
    may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence
    other than such act or declaration?

    Ruling:

    No. the rule that "The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its
    existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by
    evidence other than such act or declaration,"  applies only to extra-judicial acts or declaration, but
    not to testimony given on the stand at the trial, where the defendant has the opportunity to cross-
    examine the declarant. And while the testimony of accomplices or confederates in crime is
    always subject to grave suspicion, "coming as it does from a polluted source," and should be
    received with great caution and doubtingly examined, it is nevertheless admissible and
    competent.

    The trial court did not err in convicting the appellants. For lack of sufficient number of votes to
    impose the death penalty, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the proportionate costs
    against the appellants.

    You might also like