2014 Remedial Law, Q3

While passing by a dark uninhabited part of their barangay, PO2 Asintado observed shadows and heard screams from a distance. PO2 Asintado hid himself behind the bushes and saw a man beating a woman whom he recognized as his neighbor, Kulasa. When Kulasa was already in agony, the man stabbed her and she fell on the ground. The man hurriedly left thereafter.
PO2 Asintado immediately went to Kulasa’s rescue. Kulasa, who was then in a state of hysteria, kept mentioning to PO2 Asintado “Si Rene, gusto akong patayin! Sinaksak niya ako!” When PO2 Asintado was about to carry her, Kulasa refused and said “Kaya ko. Mababaw lang to. Habulin mo si Rene.”
The following day, Rene learned of Kulasa’s death and, bothered by his conscience, surrendered to the authorities with his counsel. As his surrender was broadcasted all over media, Rene opted to release his statement to the press which goes:
“I believe that I am entitled to the presumption of innocence until my guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Although I admit that I performed acts that may take one’s life away, I hope and pray that justice will be served the right way. God bless us all. (Sgd.) Rene”
The trial court convicted Rene of homicide on the basis of PO2 Asintado’s testimony, Kulasa’s statements, and Rene’s statement to the press. On appeal, Rene raises the following errors:
1. The trial court erred in giving weight to PO2 Asintado’s testimony, as the latter did not have any personal knowledge of the facts in issue, and violated Rene’s right to due process when it considered Kulasa’s statements despite lack of opportunity for her cross-examination.
2. The trial court erred in holding that Rene’s statement to the press was a confession which, standing alone, would be sufficient to warrant conviction. Resolve. (4%)

Quick check

Why is the victim's statement identifying her assailant immediately after being stabbed admissible despite the lack of cross-examination?

What requirement must be satisfied for an extrajudicial admission made to news reporters to support a criminal conviction?

Under Rule 130, Section 22, when does a witness possess personal knowledge sufficient to testify in court?

How are voluntary statements made by an accused to media broadcast journalists treated under the Rules of Evidence?

What is the effect of an eyewitness hiding in bushes while observing a violent crime taking place?

Learn more about these topics

1. Res Gestae Exception
Under Rule 130, Section 44 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. The victim's spontaneous utterance right after being stabbed, identifying her assailant while still under the influence of a startling occurrence, is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Such declarations carry high trustworthiness due to their spontaneity and lack of opportunity for fabrication.

2. Extrajudicial Press Admissions
Voluntary statements made by an accused to news reporters or the press during a media broadcast are admissible in evidence as extrajudicial admissions under Rule 130, Section 27. An extrajudicial admission is not governed by the constitutional custodial investigation rules if made spontaneously to news journalists rather than law enforcement officers. While an uncorroborated extrajudicial admission may be insufficient to convict standing alone, it provides strong corroborative evidence of guilt when coupled with independent proof of corpus delicti and credible eyewitness testimony.

3. Personal Knowledge Rule
Under Rule 130, Section 22 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge, derived from his own perception. An eyewitness who personally observes an assailant beating and stabbing a victim from a nearby vantage point possesses direct personal knowledge of the assault. The credibility and weight of such eyewitness testimony remain intact even if the witness hid during the attack, provided his sensory perceptions of the event were clear and uninhibited.

About these questions and answers
The questions reproduced here are the official texts of the Philippine Bar Examinations, published by the Supreme Court. They are reproduced for study purposes.The suggested answers are the author’s own.

They are not official answers, have no connection with the Supreme Court, the Office of the Bar Confidant, or any bar review institution, and are not endorsed by any of them. Official answer keys, where released, should be preferred over anything here.Nothing on this page is legal advice, and reading it creates no lawyer-client relationship. Do not rely on any suggested answer in an actual legal matter. Consult counsel on your own facts.Suggested answers reflect the law and jurisprudence the author considers applicable as of the date shown.

Where a question comes from an earlier examination, the suggested answer applies the law as it now stands, which may differ from the law in force when the question was given, and may therefore differ from what would have been the correct answer at that time. Where the difference is material, the answer notes it.The practice scoring feature measures wording overlap with the suggested answer. It is not a grade, carries no official weight, and says nothing about whether your reasoning is sound.Errors are possible. If you find one, please tell me and I will correct it.Last reviewed: October 2026