Scribd
Upload
4 views

PATULA VS PEOPLE

Uploaded by

vincecanon1396
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4 views

PATULA VS PEOPLE

Uploaded by

vincecanon1396
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PATULA VS PEOPLE

Subject (PROVREM, EVID, etc.) –


CASE TITLE
## Syllabus topic; Rule
G.R. No. 16447 Date APRIL 2012 Ponente LAST NAME, Given Name
Petitioner/s: ANNA PATULA Respondent/s: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Summary:

That on or about and during the period from March 16 to 20, 1997 and for sometime prior thereto,
in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, being then a saleswoman of Footlucker’s Chain of Stores, Inc., Dumaguete City, having
collected and received the total sum of ₱131,286.97 from several customers of said company
under the express obligation to account for the proceeds of the sales and deliver the collection
to the said company, but far from complying with her obligation and after a reasonable period of
time despite repeated demands therefore, and with intent to defraud the said company, did, then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail to deliver the said collection to the said
company but instead, did, then and there willfully unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate,
misapply and convert the proceeds of the sale to her own use and benefit, to the damage and
prejudice of the said company in the aforesaid amount of ₱131,286.97.

Doctrine:
The rule against hearsay testimony rests mainly on the ground that there was no opportunity to
cross-examine the declarant. The testimony may have been given under oath and before a court
of justice, but if it is offered against a party who is afforded no opportunity to cross-examine the
witness, it is hearsay just the same.
Facts
That on or about and during the period from March 16 to 20, 1997 and for sometime prior thereto,
in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, being then a saleswoman of Footlucker’s Chain of Stores, Inc., Dumaguete City, having
collected and received the total sum of ₱131,286.97 from several customers of said company
under the express obligation to account for the proceeds of the sales and deliver the collection
to the said company, but far from complying with her obligation and after a reasonable period of
time despite repeated demands therefore, and with intent to defraud the said company, did, then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail to deliver the said collection to the said
company but instead, did, then and there willfully unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate,
misapply and convert the proceeds of the sale to her own use and benefit, to the damage and
prejudice of the said company in the aforesaid amount of ₱131,286.97.

Procedural History

1. The RTC convicted Anna Patula but filed certiorari directly to the SC
.

Issue/s: Ruling
1. Yes/No
Whether or not the testimony of a witness pertaining to entries in a 2. Yes/No
document made by another person constitutes hearsay.
Rationale
1. Short answer for issue no. 1

Yes. The testimony of one of the witnesses upon which the RTC based its decision was
indeed hearsay since she was not the person who prepared the ledgers. The said testimony

1 REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 2 | SECTION 34


being hearsay, should not have been admitted by the Trial Court.The rule against hearsay
testimony rests mainly on the ground that there was no opportunity to cross-examine the
declarant. The testimony may have been given under oath and before a court of justice, but
if it is offered against a party who is afforded no opportunity to cross-examine the witness,
it is hearsay just the same. The rule excluding hearsay as evidence is based upon serious
concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability of hearsay evidence due to its not being
given under oath or solemn affirmation and due to its not being subjected to cross-
examination by the opposing counsel to test the perception, memory, veracity and
articulateness of the out-ofcourt declarant or actor upon whose reliability the worth of the
out-of-court statement depends.”

Disposition

the SC reversed the ruling and acquits Anna Patula

2 REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 2 | SECTION 34

You might also like