Bangkok Legal Service

In this case, Mr. Lueang, the victim of a robbery, reported the incident to Police Sergeant Daeng, identifying Mr. Dam as the perpetrator. Subsequently, Police Officer Khiao apprehended Mr. Dam, who admitted to Khiao that he had indeed committed the robbery.

1. Mr. Lueang (Victim)
Mr. Lueang qualifies as a primary witness (eyewitness), having directly perceived the commission of the offense. His testimony constitutes direct evidence and is fully admissible to establish the guilt of the accused.

2. Police Sergeant Daeng
Police Sergeant Daeng is a hearsay witness, as his knowledge derives solely from Mr. Lueang’s account rather than personal observation. Under Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code (by analogy in evidentiary principles), such testimony is generally inadmissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted. However, it may be admitted for limited purposes, particularly to corroborate the consistency and credibility of Mr. Lueang’s account.

3. Police Officer Khiao
Police Officer Khiao’s testimony contains two elements:

• As to the accused’s statement, it is technically hearsay.
• Nevertheless, it falls within a recognized exception, namely an admission against interest, as Mr. Dam voluntarily confessed to the commission of the offense.

Accordingly, Khiao’s testimony is admissible and may be relied upon to prove the accused’s guilt, provided that the confession was made voluntarily, without coercion, threat, or inducement.

Conclusion
The prosecution’s case is principally supported by the direct testimony of Mr. Lueang, reinforced by the admissible admission testified to by Officer Khiao, while the evidence of Sergeant Daeng serves a corroborative function. Collectively, such evidence may sufficiently establish the guilt of Mr. Dam beyond reasonable doubt.