IV. Judicial Notice and Judicial Admissions Evidence Cases
IV. Judicial Notice and Judicial Admissions Evidence Cases
IV. Judicial Notice and Judicial Admissions Evidence Cases
L-12449 May 30, 1961 accompanied at the time of the shooting by two persons time she was under the influence of fear of Inocencio Hervas.
whom she could not recognize. This statement (Exhibit "1" Explaining this, she declared that the morning after the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
Alido, 2 Hervas), of Concepcion Laserna was made on June shooting she sent her daughter Ofelia to the house of
ESPIRIDION ALIDO, ET AL., defendants.
13, 1955. A similar statement was made by her daughter, Inocencio Hervas to tell him that she should bury her
INOCENCIO HERVAS and MARCELO HERVAS, defendants-
Ofelia Hervas, and to the same effect. husband; that Inocencio Hervas threatened to kill her if she
appellants.
should disclose or point to him as the author of the death;
The municipal police of Maasin could not effect the arrest of
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. that he just suggested to her that she should explain that the
Alido, but before July 13, 1955, he surrendered to the
Felipe R. Hipolito for defendants-appellants. cause of her husband's death was his having bolo wounds,
Philippine Constabulary at Sta. Barbara, Iloilo. He surrendered
instead of gunshot wounds. Upon being asked the probable
LABRADOR, J.: to Sgt. Silverio Balmaceda at the barracks. Balmaceda
reason why her husband was killed by the accused, she
referred him to Cpl. Delfin de la Torre, who was then
Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, investigator of the company. Alido's statement was taken declared that it was because the accused had taken away
Hon. F. Imperial Reyes, presiding, finding accused-appellants down in writing and was presented in court during the trial as bamboos from the land which the deceased was taking care
Inocencio Hervas and Marcelo Hervas guilty of the murder of Exhibit "C". According to this statement, Inocencio Hervas of, and her husband had denounced them to the owner of the
their cousin, Francisco Hervas, and sentencing each of them invited him on May 29, 1955 to the house of one Carlos land, namely, Eugenio Maquiling.
to reclusion perpetua and to pay 1/3 of the indemnity of Camral, on the occasion of the killing of a pig that in the The Constabulary investigator, Sgt. Pelagio Agraviador, who
P6,000. Espiridion Alido was also sentenced to suffer the afternoon of that day, Inocencio, he and Marcelo proceeded to had seen the exhumation, corroborates this alleged fear of
indeterminate penalty of from 10 years and 1 day the house of Francisco Hervas, armed as follows: Inocencio, Inocencio Hervas of Concepcion Laserna. He testified that at
of prision mayor to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day with a shot gun (paltik), Marcelo with a rifle, and he with a the time he was investigating Concepcion Laserna, Inocencio
of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased bolo; that once near the house of Francisco Hervas, he heard Hervas was present, and that every time Concepcion was
Francisco Hervas 1/3 of the sum of P6,000, and to pay a one shot and upon hearing it he ran away, returning to the asked a question she would first look at Inocencio before
proportionate share of the costs, but he did not appeal. house of Carlos Camral that about 9:00 that evening, answering the question. Further elaborating on the matter,
On or before May 29, 1955, Francisco Hervas, his wife and Inocencio Hervas came back to the house of Camral with a this witness declared that when the investigation was being
their children were living in their house on a land situated in shotgun, boasting that they could now live in peace because made in the building of the puericulture center, the persons
the barrio of Dagami, Municipality of Maasin, Province of Iloilo. the arrogant man is already dead (referring to the deceased who were present were Concepcion Laserna, her daughter
At about 6:00 in the evening of that day, Francisco Hervas Francisco Hervas.) . Ofelia Hervas, Inocencio Hervas, a policeman and himself,
seemed to have heard some noise coming from his cornfield As a result of this affidavit of Alido further investigation and that he observed that every time a question was directed
near their house, so he went to the batalan adjacent to their petitions were made. Concepcion Laserna was again to Concepcion Laserna, she would look at Inocencio who, in
house to find out what was the noise about, but suddenly a examined this time before the Justice of the Peace of Maasin, turn would look at her with sharp eyes; that he noticed such
shotgun exploded from the neighboring field, and the shot and she then, declared in her affidavit (Exhibit I, Alido, 3 interest on the part of Inocencio that in the middle part of the
from it hit Francisco on the chest and he fell down dead. The Hervas) dated July 20, 1955 that it was Inocencio Hervas who questioning of Concepcion, he had to ask Inocencio to go out.
following morning, the widow, Concepcion Laserna sent her fired the shot that killed her husband, and that Marcelo He also declared that when Ofelia Hervas was investigated,
eldest child, Ofelia Hervas, to the house of Inocencio Hervas, Hervas and Espiridion Alido were with Inocencio at the time of Inocencio Hervas again went inside the room where the
one of the accused, which was nearest their house, and to the the shooting. On July 20, 1955, the information was filed in investigation was being conducted and again he had to ask
house of the brother of the deceased, Proceso Hervas, farther the Justice of the Peace Court of Maasin, charging the three him to go out of the room, because he wanted to have
away, to inform them of the incident. The brother of the accused with the murder of the deceased. The information secrecy in the investigation.
deceased happened to be away from home and as Ofelia charges the accused with having committed the crime with All of the three accused denied having participated in the
returned, she passed by the house of Inocencio Hervas, treachery and evident premeditation. commission of the crime, including Espiridion Alido, who did
informing him that the brother of the deceased could not not appeal from the decision. Inocencio Hervas declared that
come, so Inocencio went to the house of the victim, Concepcion Laserna testified at the trial that three persons he was always in good terms with Francisco Hervas and his
accompanied by three individuals who helped him dig the had approached their house on the afternoon of May 29, wife; that he was living at a distance of one-half kilometer
grave some distance away from the house and there interred 1955, namely, Inocencio Hervas, Marcelo Hervas and from the house of Francisco Hervas, and that the one carrying
him. Espiridion Alido that Inocencio was provided with a paltik,
the work of the family was the wife, Concepcion Laserna,
Espiridion had a rifle and Marcelo had a bolo; that she actually
No steps were taken by the family or by relatives of the saw that it was Inocencio who fired the shot that killed her because one of the hands of Francisco Hervas had been cut in
deceased to Investigate who the author of the crime was. But husband; and that as soon as her husband had fallen down a fight during the Japanese regime; that about 4:00 o'clock in
news of the killing came to the ears of the Philippine after the shot, the three persons ran away. She further the afternoon of the day of the shooting, he had to go to the
Constabulary. So one day the Philippine Constabulary had the declared that she saw the assailant because she was at the house of one Carlos to help in the slaughter of a pig, and did
remains of the deceased exhumed. Those present at the time of the shooting at the window of their house. Demetrio not know of the death of Francisco Hervas until the following
exhumation were the investigator of the Constabulary, Sgt. Hervas, a son of the deceased, also testified and declared morning when the daughter of the deceased, Ofelia, informed
Pelagio Agraviador the Chief of Police, the sanitary inspector that when his father went to the batalan attracted by a noise him thereof; that when she went to the house of Francisco
and the municipal mayor. They proceeded to the barrio of in the cornfield, he (witness) was at the door of the house; there was no one there except the wife and the children, and
Dagami, passing first by the house of Inocencio Hervas, and that when he heard the shot which felled his father, he when he asked her if she recognized the persons who killed
with the latter they went to the place where the body of the immediately directed his eyes towards the place where the her husband, she answered she did not because it was very
deceased had been interred. The grave was dug and the dead explosion had come and saw the aggressor, Inocencio Hervas, dark; that thereafter she left the house and went home, with
body was brought out. They found out that there were nine and his companions, Marcelo Hervas and Espiridion Alido. the instruction that when the brother of the deceased would
pellet holes. arrive he (the accused) would be called. Further testifying, he
Upon being asked why in her statement made before the declared that he returned at about 4:00 in the afternoon, and
Thereafter, the Constabulary began questioning the widow, Municipal Mayor on June 13, 1955 (Exhibit "2" Hervas; that since the younger brother of the deceased, Proceso
Concepcion Laserna. Her statement was taken at the Exhibit "1" Alido), she declared that she saw Espiridion Hervas, did not come, they buried the deceased with the help
municipal building and she declared that she was able to Alido fired the shot that killed her husband and that she did of his children, namely, Carlos, Martin and Juan. Testifying on
recognize Espiridion Alido as the one who shot her husband, not recognize Alido's companions, she explained that at that the exhumation, he declared that the mayor, the Chief of
We note that Mandarin Villa Seafood Village is affiliated with b.2. If in CB as Lost, do procedures 2a to 2e., WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
BANKARD. In fact, an "Agreement" 6 entered into by petitioner b.3. If in CB as Suspended/Cancelled, do not honor card. SO ORDERED.
and BANKARD dated June 23, 1989, provides inter alia:
12
c. If expired, do not honor card.
The MERCHANT shall honor validly issued PCCCI credit
cards presented by their corresponding holders in the A cursory reading of said rule reveals that whenever the G.R. Nos. 137278-79 February 17, 2003
purchase of goods and/or services supplied by it words CARD EXPIRED flashes on the screen of the verification PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
provided that the card expiration date has not elapsed machine, petitioner should check the credit card's expiry date FRIVALDO BESMONTE y LORENO and SONNY APUYAN y
and the card number does not appear on the latest embossed on the card itself. If unexpired, petitioner should MORIN, accused-appellants.
cancellation bulletin of lost, suspended and canceled honor the card provided it is not invalid, cancelled or
PCCCI credit cards and, no signs of tampering, otherwise suspended. But if expired, petitioner should not D E C I S I ON
alterations or irregularities appear on the face of the honor the card. In this case, private respondent's BANKARD
QUISUMBING, J.:
credit card. 7 credit card has an embossed expiry date of September
1990. 13 Clearly, it has not yet expired on October 19, 1989, On appeal is the consolidated judgment 1 of the Regional Trial
While private respondent, may not be a party to the said when the same was wrongfully dishonored by the petitioner. Court of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, Branch 52, dated September 7,
agreement, the above-quoted stipulation conferred a favor Hence, petitioner did not use the reasonable care and caution 1998, in Criminal Cases Nos. 95-3918-19, finding herein
upon the private respondent, a holder of credit card validly which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the appellants Frivaldo Besmonte y Loreno and Sonny Apuyan y
issued by BANKARD. This stipulation is a stipulation pour same situation and as such petitioner is guilty of negligence.
Q: How about Mrs. Flora Dequio? Where was she? the subsequent one should be carefully compared and A: Because they did not let me go.
juxtaposed, the circumstances under which each was
A: I don't know, sir. made, carefully and keenly scrutinized, and the reasons (tsn, December 3, 1996, pp. 7-9)
or motives for the charge, discriminatingly analyzed. We have reason to believe that Marilyn Deguio executed her
Q: How about her husband?
(at p. 159) affidavit of November 13, 1995 for fear of being left by
A: I don't know, sir. accused-appellant. She executed the same as a wife afraid of
When Marilyn Deguio was asked on the stand why she being abandoned. However, when she took the stand on
Q: You mean to say that Susan Dequio Pelaez and
retracted her previous testimony attesting to accused- December 3, 1996, she did so as a mother, with her maternal
Romeo Dequio were alone?
appellant's innocence, she said: instincts prevailing over her dependence both financially and
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You mentioned in the direct that you made an emotionally, on a man.
Q: After you were able to get the coconut grater, what affidavit, you said it was not true. I am showing you Lastly, we pass upon the procedural issue raised by accused-
did you do? again the affidavit you identified yesterday. appellant, that is, the complaint having been filed by Susan's
A: I went home and reported what I saw, what Romeo A: Yes, sir. grandmother contrary to Section 5, Paragraph 3, Rule 110 of
Dequio did to Susan Pelaez, to live-in partner. the Rules of Court.
Q: When you executed this affidavit you were at the
Q: What did Marilyn do after you reported the incident to Prosecutor's Office at Ragay, Camarines Sur with Edwina The above-cited provision reads:
her? Romanes? Sec. 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. . . .
A: She cried and while she was crying, she was saying A: Yes, sir. xxx xxx xxx
why Romeo Dequio did it to her daughter.
Q: You were there because a notice was sent to you on The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of
Q: What other actions did you do? November 13, 1995? lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a
A: I was not able to do other things because Romeo A: Yes, sir. complaint filed by the offended party or her parents,
Dequio's knife was poked at Susan Pelaez. grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the
Q: Who were with you when you made the affidavit on offender has been expressly pardoned by the above-
(tsn, May 19, 1997, pp. 7-8) November 13, 1995? named persons, as the case may be. In case the
A: I was accompanied by Romeo Tipay and his parents. offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before she
could file the complaint and has no known parents,
It also bears stressing that the testimony of Eula on direct q You testified awhile ago that your mother looked for xxx xxx xxx
examination did not consist alone of her affirmation of the the whereabouts of your father at Baybreeze, do you
q You said that you also reported the incident to your
contents of her sworn statement. She also made direct and know why your mother is looking for your father?
Lola, is that correct?
straightforward declarations that she was raped by her father, a Yes sir.
thus: a Yes ma'm.
q Can you inform this court about that?
xxx xxx xxx
them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and present any eyewitness. Finally, they maintained that they According to Eduardo Diaz, he knew MARIO and RICARDO.
sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, were deprived of their right to submit their counter-affidavits. MARIO is a close friend and relative. He, MARIO and RICARDO
and to pay the complainant Anacurita Anib (hereafter
4. The amount P200,000 for and as attorneys fees; and 2) In the event the manual delivery of the above-described Petitioners maintained that the Court of Appeals erred in
motor vehicle is not feasible, to pay the plaintiff appellant the holding that they entered into a transaction with respondent
5. The Costs. amount of P508,248.00 plus interest and penalty charges at based on the promissory note and chattel mortgage despite
the legal rate per annum until fully paid, in line with the petitioner Rolando Saguids explanation of the circumstances
In reaching its verdict, the RTC ruled that the promissory note
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Medel vs. Court surrounding his signing thereof, and in not holding that these
and the deed of mortgage were not valid contracts and were
of Appeals, 299 SCRA 481; and documents are not valid and binding on them.
not binding on petitioners. It explained that respondent failed
to show with convincing evidence that it loaned to petitioners 3) To pay the costs of suit.23 To ascertain whether or not petitioners are bound by the
the money used in the purchase of the subject motor vehicle. promissory note and chattel mortgage, it must be established
On the contrary, it found that there was preponderance of Hence, the instant petition, contending that:
that all the elements of a contract of loan are present. Like
evidence showing that the motor vehicle was purchased in I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE any other contract, a contract of loan is governed by the rules
cash by petitioners from Toyota Balintawak, Inc. REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS ENTERED as to the requisites and validity of contracts in general. It is
Respondent appealed the decision to the Court of INTO A TRANSACTION WITH RESPONDENT CONCERNING THE basic and elementary in this jurisdiction that what determines
Appeals via a Notice of Appeal.19 SUBJECT MOTOR VEHICLE BASED ON THE PROMISSORY NOTE the validity of a contract, in general, is the presence of the
AND CHATTEL MORTGAGE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT elements constituting the same, namely: (1) consent of the
PETITIONER ROLANDO SAGUIDS ADMISSION OF HAVING
As to the alleged signature of petitioner Nora Saguid in the petitioners failed to do. Instead, they relied on mere On February 11, 1991, Edgar H. Canlas (Edgar) filed a
promissory note, evidence points that she could not have allegations that do not prove anything. complaint for judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage
signed the document she being in Australia when she Petitioners are entitled to moral damages having suffered against Milagros Simon (Milagros) and her husband, Liborio
allegedly executed said document on 23 April 1996 as undue embarrassment when the subject vehicle was seized Balatico (petitioners). In the complaint, Edgar alleges that: on
established by a certification42 from the Bureau of from their home. There is no hard-and-fast rule in the September 10, 1987, Milagros obtained a loan from him in the
Immigration that she left for Sydney, Australia, on 30 determination of what would be a fair amount of moral amount of P220,000.00 secured by a real estate
September 1995 and returned to the country on 15 June damages since each case must be governed by its own mortgage2 over her paraphernal property, a 748-square meter
1996. parcel of land located at San Nicolas, Victoria, Tarlac, covered
peculiar facts. The yardstick should be that it is not palpably by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 139884; the loan was
50
From the foregoing, the Court is convinced that petitioners and scandalously excessive. We find the amount payable within a period of three years or until September 18,
allegation of absence of consideration has been substantiated of P500,000.00 awarded by the lower court to be excessive. 1990; Milagros defaulted in the payment of the loan and
and the presumption of consideration disproved and In our view, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is repeated demands for payment went unheeded, prompting
overcome. We are of the mind that petitioners bought the car reasonable under the facts obtaining in this case. the filing of a case in court.3
with their own money. There being no cause or consideration Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of On March 25, 1991, petitioners filed their Answer with
in the contract of loan allegedly entered into by the parties, example or correction for the public good, in addition to the Counterclaim, alleging that Milagros never transacted any
the promissory note is not binding on the petitioners. moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory business with Edgar and she did not receive the consideration
As regards the chattel mortgage, it is settled that a mortgage damages.51 When moral damages are awarded, exemplary of the alleged mortgage.4
is a mere accessory contract and its validity would depend on damages may also be granted. 52 We, however, find
the validity of the loan secured by it. 43 The chattel mortgage the P1,000,000.00 awarded by the lower court to be On March 26, 1991, Edgar filed his Reply and Answer to
constituted over the subject vehicle is an accessory contract excessive and should accordingly be reduced to P50,000.00. Counterclaim, reiterating validity and due execution of the
to the loan obligation as embodied in the promissory note. It real estate mortgage.5
Moreover, attorneys fees may be awarded when a party is
cannot exist as an independent contract since its 6
compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect his interest On November 12, 1991, with leave of court, petitioners filed
consideration is the same as that of the principal contract. A by reason of an unjustified act of the other party. 53 Petitioners a Third-Party Complaint against Virginia Canlas (Virginia) and
principal obligation is an indispensable condition for the are entitled thereto because they were compelled to litigate Aurelia Delos Reyes (Aurelia), claiming that they duped
existence of an accessory contract. 44 Since it has been in order to protect their interest. Moreover, there being an Milagros to part with her title and sign the mortgage
sufficiently established that there was no cause or award for exemplary damages,54it follows that there should be documents without giving her the consideration and refusing
consideration for the promissory note, it follows that the an award thereof. An award of P20,000.00 will be sufficient as to return her title when demanded.
7
chattel mortgage has no leg to stand on. Hence, it must be the award of P200,000.00 by the RTC is too much.
extinguished and cannot have any legal effect on petitioners. On November 18, 1991, Virginia and Aurelia filed their Answer
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Court with Counterclaim to Third-Party Complaint, alleging that the
Having ruled that both promissory note and chattel mortgage of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 68129 is REVERSED and SET complaint states no cause of action against them since they
are not binding on petitioners, the return of the subject ASIDE. Respondent Security Finance, Inc. is ordered to deliver are not privies to the real estate mortgage and Aurelia is only
vehicle to petitioners is in order. In case the vehicle can no a witness to the mortgage document.8