Lacbay and Paragsa v. Samoy

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

LACBAYAN VS.

SAMOY o To be admissible, an admission must:


(a) involve matters of fact, and not of law;
FACTS: (b) be categorical and definite;
 Betty (petitioner) and Bayani (respondent) met through (c) be knowingly and voluntarily made; and
common friend in 1978 -> ilicit relationship despite Bayani (d) be adverse to the admitter’s interests, otherwise
being married. They formed (with 3 more incorporators) it would be self-serving and inadmissible.
manpower services company.  Partition Agreement indicates that the document involves
 5 parcels of land acquired and registered under Betty and matters which necessitate prior settlement of questions
Bayani’s names as “husband and wife”. of law, basic of which is a determination as to whether the
o Betty lived with parents initially then moved to parties have the right to freely divide among themselves
property in Malvar St. in QC. the subject properties.
 Relationship turned sour in 1991.  Moreover, to follow petitioner’s argument would be to allow
 In 1998, respondent Bayani agreed to petitioner Betty’s respondent not only to admit against his own interest but that
proposal in dividing properties and terminating partnership by of his legal spouse as well, who may also be lawfully entitled
executing a Partition Agreement: co-ownership over the said properties.
o Properties in Malvar St. and Don Enrique Heights o Respondent: not allowed by law to waive whatever
be assigned to the Betty, share his lawful spouse may have on the disputed
o Ownership over the three other properties will go to properties. Rights may be waived unless waiver is
Bayani contrary to law, etc.
o BUT: when Betty wanted additional demands,  Curiously, petitioner herself admitted that she did not assent
Bayani refused. to the Partition Agreement after seeing the need to amend the
 Betty filed a complaint for judicial partition of said properties in same to include other matters. Petitioner does not have any
RTC QC right to insist on the contents of an agreement she
o 1979 – start of relationship living as husband and intentionally refused to sign.
wife without benefit of marriage and worked
together to acquire real properties (P15M) ALL PROP to BAYANI, without prejudice to claim of legal wife.
 Bayani’s Answer:
o Prop acquired in his own funds without Betty’s J. Brion (separate): Betty failed to discharge by clear preponderant
contribution. He denied cohabitation. evidence her co-ownership of the subject properties to warrant their
o Also testified: prop registered in his name and Betty judicial partition.
because legal wife was a heavy gambler
o He purchased prop to sell them Properties are considered common: 1) there must be evidence showing
 Betty admitted Bayani would go home to his wife. the prop were acquired by the parties during their cohabitation; 2) there
o She also claimed they acquired real prop from must be evidence that the prop were acquired through parties’ actual
income of company. joint contribution of money, property, or industry.
 TC: rendered decision -> dismissed complaint for lack of merit
o Gave considerable weight on admission of Betty Petitioner presented contradictory evidence when she admitted the
that the properties were acquired not from her funds to purchase the subject property came from the income of the
own personal funds but from the income of the manpower business where she only owned 3.33% shares.
manpower services company over which she  Income from a business: not automatically considered
owns a measly 3.33% share. personal earnings, especially in this case where the income
 Elevated by Betty to CA: asserts she is the pro indiviso owner the petitioner referred to is corporate income. The rule
of ½ of the properties in dispute regarding corporation’s distinct legal personality applies.
o Certificates of title not subject to collateral attack
o Improper to thresh out issue of ownership in an The rebuttable presumption is that the properties belong to the
action for partition respondent or to the conjugal partnership of the respondent. J. Brion
 CA: Ownership of the subject realties was a necessary disagreed to declare respondent sole owner of all properties.
adjunct to the claim of co-ownership which was used as
anchor for the partition
o Indefeasibility of Torrens title applies only to original PEOPLE VS. PARAGSA
not subsequent registration
 BETTY: The partition agreement duly signed by FACTS:
respondent contains an admission against respondent’s  Mirasol, 12 ½ years old, was alone in the ground floor of their
interest as to the existence of co-ownership between the house cooking hog feed (skipped school for this). Her parents
parties. were away at the time while the rest were with her
o Other arguments: Ownership can’t be passed upon grandmother.
in a partition case. Torrens titles are indefeasibile.  The accused, Bienvenido Paragsa, armed with a hunting
The properties involved were acquired by both knife, entered the house and closed the door after him.
parties through actual joint contribution (question of o Approaching from behind, he placed his left arm
fact). around Mirasol's neck, encircled her abdomen with
his right arm, at the same time pointing the hunting
RULING: knife with right hand at her breast, and threatened
 Municipality of Binan vs. Garcia: 1st phase of partition: her not to shout otherwise she would be killed.
determination of W/N a co-ownership in fact exists and a o He pushed her to a bamboo bed. Accused rolled up
partition is proper the dress and removed panties (not torn), put
o 2nd phase: If unable to agree, partition shall be done hunting knife on bed, then raped Mirasol.
by more than 3 commissioners.  Accused ran to the storeroom when he heard Mirasol’s aunt
 Torrens title: what cannot be collaterally attacked is the Lita (wife of younger brother of Mirasol’s father), calling from
certificate of title and not the title itself. outside the gate of the house to open up.
 Admission of Bayani which is, assent to initial partition o Mirasol did no answer because she was putting on
agreement, is not admissible. her panties. Afterwards, she opened the gate and
o An admission is any statement of fact made by a saw her aunt Lita, who asked her what the accused
party against his interest or unfavorable to the did to her, but she did not answer because she was
conclusion for which he contends or is inconsistent afraid as the accused was still inside the house.
with the facts alleged by him. Admission against o She also did not tell her aunt Lita that the accused
interest is governed by Section 26 of Rule 130 of had sexual intercourse with her under threats and
the Rules of Court. against her will. Her aunt Lita then walked away.
 The accused reappeared in the room and told Mirasol that if
tell aunt Lita what he did, he would kill her.
 She did not reveal to any of her family what transpired. She
did not reveal the incident to her father because she was
afraid her father might punish her.
 It was her aunt Lita who revealed the matter to Mirasol’s
mother who confronted her daughter.
 Mrs. Lita testified that she saw through gate, the accused
running away when she shouted to Mirasol.
o Mirasol opened the gate, and when Lita asked what
the accused did to her, Mirasol did not answer.
o She hid, and from her hiding place, she saw the
accused run away.
 ACCUSED: claims that he and Mirasol are sweethearts.
o On the day of incident, it was Mirasol who invited
him to the latter's house where they had sexual
intercourse after kissing each other; and that the
intercourse they had that afternoon was, as a
matter of fact, their third sexual intercourse.
o This was corroborated by two witnesses.

RULING:

Certain circumstances negate the commission by the appellant of the


crime charged and point to the conclusion that the sexual intercourse
between the appellant and the complaining witness was voluntary.

1. Force and intimidation were not proven. Mirasol did not offer any
resistance or vocal protestation against the alleged sexual assault.

2. Another circumstance is that Mirasol did not reveal immediately


to her parents that she was raped.
- It was only after her mother arrived from Sagay, Negros
Occidental, three (3) days after the incident, and confronted her
about the rape incident that her mother learned through her aunt
Lita that she eventually revealed to her mother what the accused
did to her in the afternoon of July 13, 1971.

3. Still another circumstance is the fact that Mirasol did not bother
at all to rebut the testimony of the appellant and his witnesses to
the effect that the accused and Mirasol were actually sweethearts;

- They had had two previous sexual communications before July


13, 1971, one of which happened on June 29, 1971 in the house of
the accused, where Mirasol and the accused slept together in the
evening of the same day after the mother of the accused and
Mirasol had returned from the town fiesta of Bantayan, Cebu.

4. She did not feel any pain. She did not bleed (so she wasn’t
virgin); 4 ejaculations -> easy time doing it

5. Hunting knife not mentioned in the affidavit by Mrs. Parochel


(aunt) which she executed 5 months before testifying in court.

6. Mirasol was able to put on her panties -> not in shock


- Aunt Lita would have confronted the accused or sought
assistance of neighbors.

The rule allowing silence of a person to be taken as an implied admission


of the truth of the statements uttered in his presence is applicable in
criminal cases. But before the silence of a party can be taken as an
admission of what is said, it must appear:

(1) that he heard and understood the statement;


(2) that he was at liberty to interpose a denial;
(3) that the statement was in respect to some matter affecting his rights
or in which he was then interested, and calling, naturally, for an answer;
(4) that the facts were within his knowledge; and
(5) that the fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence
would be material to the issue

These requisites are all present in this case. Hence, the silence of
Mirasol may be safely construed as an admission of such assertion.

ACQUITTED.
PEOPLE VS. LARRANAGA o It takes only 1 hour to travel by plane from Manila
to Cebu and there are 4 airline companies plying
FACTS: the route.
 4 motions of reconsideration (SC decision) filed separately by o 4 witnesses identified Larranaga as one of the two
appellants: men talking to Marijoy and Jacqueline.
o Francisco Juan Larranaga o Shiela Singson saw Larranaga approach the sisters
o Josman Aznar at the West Entry of Ayala Center. The incident
o Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Cano, and Ariel Balansag reminded her of Jacqueline’s prior story that he was
o James Anthony Uy and James Andrew Uy Marijoy’s admirer.
 They assailed the Feb. 3, 2004 resolution convicting them of o The security guard corroborated this testimony.
the crimes (a) special complex crime of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention, and (b) simple kidnapping and Re: Prior Charge Against Larranaga
serious illegal detention.  The Court also mentioned that this was not the first time
 Larranaga’s defenses: Larranaga was charged with or complained of assaulting
o Court erred in barring Larranaga and NBI Regional young female students in Cebu.
Director Florencio Villarin from testifying  Months before the abduction of Marijoy and Jackie, the
o Police planted evidence parents of a certain Rochelle Virtucio, complained about
o Sufficiently proved alibi Larrañaga’s attempt to snatch their young daughter and drag
o Prevented the introduction of key defense evidence her in a black, stylish Honda Civic.
o Corpse found was not Marijoy (ravine of Tan-awan  It happened just near the gate of Rochelle’s school, thus,
Carcar) showing his impudence.
o Rusia was a coached witness  The parents sent a letter addressed to Student Affairs Office
 Aznar: TC violated rights of the accused and due process of University of Sancarlos:
o Court erred in discharging David Rusia as State o Monday, 5PM: Rochelle with other classmates,
Witness and convicting them mainly on the basis of while on their way to get a ride home near the
Rusia’s testimony school campus, a black Honda Civic with five
 Adlawan, et. Al: Rusia is not qualified to be a state witness young male teenagers including the driver,
o Rusia’s testimony is inconsistent suddenly stopped beside them, and
 James Andrew and James Anthony Uy: minors at the time simultaneously one of them, Larranaga,
 Larranaga submitted separate study of Dr. Rosario-Fortun to grabbed Rochelle by her hand to try to get
show that the examination conducted by prosecution expert Rochelle to their vehicle.
witnesses on the body found is inadequeate. o Rochelle resisted and got away. Sensing people
 Aznar submitted an affidavit: 1) police investigation was were watching, they hurriedly sped away.
flawed; 2) he was involved because of possession of a pack  The presence of such complaint does not enhance
of shabu and firearms; 3) Rusia is not a credible witness Larranaga’s chance of securing an acquittal.
o OSG filed comment: no new argument raised.
o Aznar’s reply: OSG read out of context certain Re: Other Defense Witnesses
portions which exposes flawed investigation  Prof. Bailen – properly excluded; not a fingerprint expert but
 In summary, issues raised is the Court erred: an archaeologist; and report consists merely of results of
o in according credence to Rusia’s testimony visual inspection of exhibits several months old.
o In rejecting appellant’s alibi;  Atty. Villarin: failure to testify; Affidavit is neither helpful nor
o In holding that the trial court did not violate their encouraging Aznar’s cause
right to due process when it excluded the testimony o He just wanted to impress that he deserved the
of other defense witnesses promotion. (Police officers, prosecutors promoted)
o In holding that the body found in Tan-awan, Carcar  Separate study of Dr. Fortun- not newly-discovered evid
was not that of Marijoy
Re: Body found
RULING:  Fingerprint expert Lenizo testified fingerprints matched
 Points raised are mere rehash of arguments set forth in their Marijoy’s
respective briefs.  Packaging tape and handcuff -same items placed on Marijoy
and Jacqueline when detained
Re: Rusia’s testimony  Same clothes
 Rusia’s testimony was not viewed in isolation. The trial court  Members of Chiong family identified
took into consideration the physical evidence and
corroborative testimonies of other witnesses. Re: Uy brothers
 The presence of Marijoy’s ravished body with tape on her  Secure from NSO a clear and legible copy of birth certificates
mouth and handcuffs on her wrists bolstered Rusia’s
testimony. MR DENIED.
o Davillo and Minoza witnessed Jacqueline’s 2 failed
attempts to escape from appellants near Ayala
Center
o Molina and Vergara recognized Rowen who
inquired for vechicle for hire on the evening.
o Duarte saw Rowen when he bought barbeque and
heard voices of quarreling male and female
emanating from van.
o Manuel Camingao and Rosendo Rio testified on
presence of Larranaga and Josman.

Re: Alibi
 Appellants failed to meet the requirements of alibi. They failed
to establish it was physically impossible for them to be at the
Ayala Center, Cebu City when the Chiong sisters were
abducted.
 Appellants were within the vicinity of Cebu City.
 Not even Larranaga who claimed to be in QC satisfied the
required proof of physical impossibility.

You might also like