Scribd
Upload
26 views1 page

Supreme Court Ruling on Alibi Evidence

The defendant claimed an alibi but the court found the testimony of two eyewitnesses who identified the defendant as the assailant to be more credible. While in the hospital after a serious assault, the victim signed a written statement in the presence of the defendant. This statement contradicted other testimony but the defendant did not object to its admission into evidence at trial. The court ruled that the defendant cannot object to the statement now on appeal, having failed to object when it was introduced at trial. The judgment against the defendant was confirmed.

Uploaded by

Alvin GULOY
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
26 views1 page

Supreme Court Ruling on Alibi Evidence

The defendant claimed an alibi but the court found the testimony of two eyewitnesses who identified the defendant as the assailant to be more credible. While in the hospital after a serious assault, the victim signed a written statement in the presence of the defendant. This statement contradicted other testimony but the defendant did not object to its admission into evidence at trial. The court ruled that the defendant cannot object to the statement now on appeal, having failed to object when it was introduced at trial. The judgment against the defendant was confirmed.

Uploaded by

Alvin GULOY
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-543             October 23, 1902

THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, 


vs.
JOSE MABANAG, defendant-appellant.

Lucio Villareal, for appellant.


Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta, for appellee.

WILLARD, J.:

The evidence produced by the defendant to prove an alibi is not sufficient to overcome the positive
testimony of two persons who identified him as the author of the assault in question. The judgment
can not, therefore, be reversed on that ground.

Gregorio de Leon, the person attacked, was so seriously injured that he was taken to a hospital.
While there, on the 24th day of August, eight days after the injury was inflicted, he signed, in the
presence of the defendant, apparently, a written statement as to the occurrence. He recovered from
his injuries, and at the time of the trial was in the provinces. 
[Link]

This statement was formally offered in evidence at the trial below. No objection was made thereto by
the defendant or his counsel, and it was admitted. In this court the lawyer for the appellant claims
that this statement should not have been received. This presents the only serious question in the
case. The written declaration was doubtless inadmissible, but the defendant did not object to its
reception. Why he did not the record does not show. In certain respects the statement contradicted
the testimony of the other eyewitness who had already given his evidence at the time this
declaration was offered. If Gregorio had been called to testify in court he might have explained these
contradictions and in other respects made the Government's case stronger than the statement made
it. The lawyer who represents the defendant here did so below. Considerations such as these may
have induced him to refrain from objecting. But whatever his reasons were, we can not hold that he
had a right to remain silent — submit the case on this short statement of the injured person; have the
chance of an acquittal by reason of its defects, and when the judgment went against him say in this
court, for the first time, that the statement should not have been received. When it was offered he
should have objected to it. From his failure to do so may be presumed his consent that it might be
received. It is now too late to withdraw that consent. The judgment is confirmed with costs of this
instance against the appellant.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, and Ladd, JJ., concur.


Smith and Mapa, JJ., did not sit in this case.

You might also like