You are on page 1of 1

G.R. No. 174056. February 27, 2007.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ROGELIO GUMIMBA y MORADANTE alias ROWING and RONTE ABABO
(acquitted), appellants.

FACTS: Appellants in this case were charged of rape with homicide of an 8 y.o child. Magallano and Arañas testified that
appellant Rogelio Gumimba went to Magallano’s home and confessed to him that he alone raped and killed his niece, AAA.
Subsequently, Magallano accompanied appellant to the residence of Arañas where he reiterated his confession. That same
night, Magallano, Arañas, appellant and family members of the witnesses proceeded to the home of Barangay Captain Acapulco,
where appellant repeated his confession to the barangay captain. Then appellant was turned over to the police station. During
the arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense. However, appellant manifested though counsel (before the court)
at the following hearing on that he would like to change his earlier plea of not guilty to a plea of guilty. The RTC ordered
appellant’s re-arraignment and the latter accordingly entered a plea of guilty.

The prosecution thereafter presented appellant as witness against his co-accused Abapo. Appellant testified that he and Abapo
raped and killed the victim. He likewise explained that he had previously confessed to Magallano, Arañas and Acapulco that he
alone committed the crime in the hope that the parents of the victim, who were relatives of his, might take pity on him. Abapo
denied the allegation of his co-accused and presented an alibi corroborated by his mother and siblings. Appellant got convicted,
while Abapo was acquitted.

ISSUES: WON the witnesses testimony against the accused were hearsay thus not admissible in evidence.

RULING: No. While testimonies of the witnesses, cannot serve as a proof of extrajudicial confession for an extrajudicial
confession has to be in writing, among others, to be admissible in evidence. However, they can be used as corroborative
evidence in the case, which cannot be defeated by the hearsay rule. The testimonies covered are independently relevant
statements which are not barred by the hearsay rule.

Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, only the fact that such statements were made is relevant,
and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial. The hearsay rule does not apply. The statements are admissible as evidence.
Evidence as to the making of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue
or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact. In the case at bar, there is no evidence to show any dubious
reason or improper motive for a prosecution witness to bear false testimony against the accused or falsely implicate him in a
crime, his or her testimony should be given full faith and credit.

You might also like