The petitioner's conviction was upheld solely based on a Stipulation of Facts that was not signed by the petitioner or his counsel, as required. The court held that the unsigned stipulation was inadmissible as evidence and that the prosecution should have submitted independent evidence to prove the elements of the crime, rather than relying solely on the supposed admission in the stipulation. The case was reopened for further evidence.
The petitioner's conviction was upheld solely based on a Stipulation of Facts that was not signed by the petitioner or his counsel, as required. The court held that the unsigned stipulation was inadmissible as evidence and that the prosecution should have submitted independent evidence to prove the elements of the crime, rather than relying solely on the supposed admission in the stipulation. The case was reopened for further evidence.
The petitioner's conviction was upheld solely based on a Stipulation of Facts that was not signed by the petitioner or his counsel, as required. The court held that the unsigned stipulation was inadmissible as evidence and that the prosecution should have submitted independent evidence to prove the elements of the crime, rather than relying solely on the supposed admission in the stipulation. The case was reopened for further evidence.
The petitioner's conviction was upheld solely based on a Stipulation of Facts that was not signed by the petitioner or his counsel, as required. The court held that the unsigned stipulation was inadmissible as evidence and that the prosecution should have submitted independent evidence to prove the elements of the crime, rather than relying solely on the supposed admission in the stipulation. The case was reopened for further evidence.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
Fule v.
CA 277 SCRA 633
Facts Petitioners conviction was upheld by respondent court solely on the basis of Stipulation of Facts. The Stipulation of Facts however, was signed neither by petitioner nor his counsel.
Issue Is the conviction of petitioner proper?
Held No. The omission of the signature of the accused and his counsel, as mandatorily required by the Rules, renders the Stipulation of Facts inadmissible in evidence. What the prosecution should have done, upon discovering that the accused did not sign the Stipulation of Facts, as required by Rule 118, was to submit evidence to establish the elements of the crime, instead of relying solely on the supposed admission of the accused in the Stipulation of Facts. Without said evidence independent of the admission, the guilt of the accused cannot be deemed established beyond reasonable doubt. Case was reopened for further reception of evidence.
