1977.

It was alleged that petitioner failed to present his 1953

1. Ong Chia vs. Republic of the Philippines (G.R. No. 127240. March, marriage contract, if there be any. The State also annexed a copy of
27, 2000) petitioner's 1977 marriage contract and a Joint-Affidavit executed by
petitioner and his wife. These documents show that when petitioner
DOCTRINE: married Ramona Villaruel on February 23, 1977, no marriage license
had been required in accordance with Art.76 of the Civil Code because
Facts: petitioner and Ramona Villaruel had been living together as husband
Ong Chia was born on January 1, 1923 in Amoy, China. In 1932, as a and wife since 1953 without the benefit of marriage. This, according
nine-year old boy, he arrived at the port of Manila on board the vessel to the State, belies his claim that when he started living with his wife
"Angking." Since then, he has stayed in the Philippines where he in 1953, they had already been married.
found employment and eventually started his own business, married a The State also argued that, as shown by petitioner's Immigrant
Filipina, with whom he had four children. On July 4, 1989, at the age Certificate of Residence, petitioner resided at "J.M. Basa Street, Iloilo,"
of 66, he filed a verified petition to be admitted as a Filipino citizen but he did not include said address in his petition.
under C.A. No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization On November 15, 1996, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision
Law, as amended. which, as already noted, reversed the trial court and denied
On August 25, 1999, the trial court granted the petition and admitted petitioner's application for naturalization. It ruled that due to the
Ong Chia to Philippine citizenship. The State, however, through the importance of naturalization cases, the State is not precluded from
Office of the Solicitor General, appealed contending that petitioner: raising questions not presented in the lower court and brought up for
(1) failed to state all the names by which he is or had been known; the first time on appeal.
(2) failed to state all his former places of residence in violation of C.A. Ong Chia's principal contention is that the appellate court erred in
No. 473, §7; (3) failed to conduct himself in a proper and considering the documents which had merely been annexed by the
irreproachable manner during his entire stay in the Philippines, in State to its appellant's brief and, on the basis of which, justified the
violation of §2; (4) has no known lucrative trade or occupation and his reversal of the trial court's decision. Not having been presented and
previous incomes have been insufficient or misdeclared, also in formally offered as evidence, they are mere "scrap(s) of paper devoid
contravention of §2; and (5) failed to support his petition with the of any evidentiary value," so it was argued, because under Rule 132,
appropriate documentary evidence. §34 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, the court shall consider no
Annexed to the State's appellant's brief was a copy of a 1977 petition evidence which has not been formally offered.
for naturalization filed by petitioner with the Special Committee on Ong Chia admits that he failed to mention said address in his petition,
Naturalization in SCN Case No. 031767, in which petitioner stated that but argues that since the Immigrant Certificate of Residence
in addition to his name of "Ong Chia," he had likewise been known containing it had been fully published, with the petition and the other
since childhood as "Loreto Chia Ong." As petitioner, however, failed to annexes, such publication constitutes substantial compliance with §7.
state this other name in his 1989 petition for naturalization, it was
contended that his petition must fail. The state also annexed income ISSUE:
tax returns allegedly filed by petitioner from 1973 to 1977 to show Whether the documents annexed by the State to its appelant’s brief
that his net income could hardly support himself and his family. To without having been presented and formally offered as evidence
prove that petitioner failed to conduct himself in a proper and under Rule 132, Section 34 of the Revised Rules on Evidence justified
irreproachable manner during his stay in the Philippines, the State the reversal of of the Trial Court’s decision
contended that, although petitioner claimed that he and Ramona
Villaruel had been married twice, once before a judge in 1953, and HELD:
then again in church in 1977, petitioner actually lived with his wife YES. Decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed. Petition was
without the benefit of marriage from 1953 until they were married in denied.
Petitioner failed to note Rule 143 of the Rules of Court which provides
that -
These rules shall not apply to land registration, cadastral and election 2. Cecilia Zulueta vs. CA
cases, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not
herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character DOCTRINE:
and whenever practicable and convenient. (Emphasis added)
Facts:
Prescinding from the above, the rule on formal offer of evidence (Rule Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo
132, §34) now being invoked by petitioner is clearly not applicable to Martin. On March 26, 1982, petitioner entered the clinic of her
the present case involving a petition for naturalization. The only husband, a doctor of medicine, and forcibly opened the drawers and
instance when said rules may be applied by analogy or suppletorily in cabinet in her husband’s clinic and took certain possessions and
such cases is when it is "practicable and convenient." That is not the documents belonging to Dr. Martin. It was to be used as evidence for
case here, since reliance upon the documents presented by the State the suit Cecilia filed against her husband. Dr. Martin filed an action
for the first time on appeal, in fact, appears to be the more practical before the RTC of Manila which rendered a decision declaring him as
and convenient course of action considering that decision in “the capital/exclusive owner of the properties described in paragraph
naturalization proceedings are not covered by the rule on res judicata. 3 of plaintiff’s Complaint or those further described in the Motion to
Consequently, a final favorable judgment does not preclude the State Return and Suppress.”The writ of preliminary injunction earlier issued
from later on moving for a revocation of the grant of naturalization on was made final and petitioner Cecilia Zulueta and her attorneys and
the basis of the same documents. representatives were enjoined from “using or submitting/admitting as
evidence” the documents and papers in question. On appeal, the
It is settled that naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court.
strictly construed in favor of the government and against the Hence this petition.
applicant. [T]he rule of strict application of the law in naturalization Petitioner contends that a previous ruling of a different nature
cases defeat petitioner’s argument of “substantial compliance” with involving the same documents were admissible as evidence.
the requirement under the Revised Naturalization Law. Issue:
[T]he reason for the rule prohibiting the admission of evidence which Whether or not the documents and papers unwillingly seized by
has not been formally offered is to afford the opposite party the petitioner be admissible as evidence.
chance to object to their admissibility. Ong Chia cannot claim that he Held:
was deprived of the right to object to the authenticity of the The documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence.
documents submitted to the appellate court by the State. He could The constitutional injunction declaring “the privacy of communication
have included his objections, as he, in fact, did, in the brief he filed and correspondence [to be] inviolable” is no less applicable simply
with the Court of Appeals, thus: because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband’s
The authenticity of the alleged petition for naturalization (SCN Case infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is
No. 031767) which was supposedly filed by Ong Chia under LOI 270 to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the
has not been established. In fact, the case number of the alleged Constitution is if there is a “lawful order [from a] court or when public
petition for naturalization… is 031767 while the case number of the safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.” Any violation
petition actually filed by the appellee is 031776. Thus, said document of this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible “for any
is totally unreliable and should not be considered by the Honorable purpose in the proceeding.”
Court in resolving the instant appeal.
3. People v Yatar
May 19, 2004| PER CURIAM | Paternity and Filiation
  10:00AM—Anita Wania, Kathylyn’s aunt, saw Yatar behind the
SUMMARY: [Nothing mentioned about paternity or filiation in this house. Anita asked him what he was doing there, and he replied
case] Yatar was convicted of the rape with homicide of 17 year-old that he was getting lumber to bring to the house of his mother.
Kathylyn Uba, the niece of his wife. Yatar argued that the RTC erred  12:30PM— while Judilyn was on her way home from Nagbitayan,
in giving probative weight to the DNA evidence presented, that the she saw Yatar descend the ladder from the second floor of the
use of DNA tests amounted to an ex post facto law, and that they house of Isabel Dawang and run towards the back of the house.
were tantamount to a violation of his right to remain silent and his She later noticed Yatar, who was wearing a white shirt with collar
right from self-incrimination. Subsequent testing showed that the and black pants, pacing back and forth at the back of the house.
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of the sperm specimen from the vagina She did not find this unusual as Yatar and his wife used to live in
of the victim was identical the semen to be that of appellant’s gene the house where Kathylyn lived.
type. But even without DNA evidence, the Court held that the rule on  1:30PM— Judilyn again saw Yatar when he called her near her
circumstantial evidence applies, and that the same convinced the house. This time, he was wearing a black shirt without collar and
Court that Yatar is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. blue pants. Yatartold her that he would not be getting the lumber
he had stacked, and that Isabel could use it. She noticed that
The blood sample taken from the appellant showed that he was of the appellant’s eyes were "reddish and sharp." Appellant asked her
following gene types: vWA 15/19, TH01 7/8, DHFRP2 9/10 and where her husband was as he had something important to tell
CSF1PO 10/11, which are identical with semen taken from the victim’s him. Judilyn’s husband then arrived and appellant immediately left
vaginal canal. Thus, a DNA match exists between the semen found in and went towards the back of the house of Isabel.
the victim and the blood sample given by the appellant in open court
during the course of the trial.  Later that night, Isabel discovered Kathylyn’s lifeless body
sprawled on the floor, her intestines protruding out of her
DOCTRINE: stomach.
No ex-post facto law is involved in the case at bar. The science of DNA  The police discovered the victim’s panties, brassiere, denim pants,
typing involves the admissibility, relevance and reliability of the bag and sandals beside her naked cadaver at the scene of the
evidence obtained under the Rules of Court. Whereas an ex-post facto crime, and they found a dirty white shirt splattered with blood
law refers primarily to a question of law, DNA profiling requires a within 50 meters from the house of Isabel.
factual determination of the probative weight of the evidence  Yatar was caught, and charged and convicted of the complex
presented. crime of Rape with Homicide. He was sentenced to death, hence
the automatic review pursuant to Art. 47 of the RPC.
The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but against  Yatar argued that the RTC erred in giving much probative weight
testimonial compulsion. The right against self- incrimination is simply to the evidence presented by the prosecution, and that the
against the legal process of extracting from the lips of the accused an prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
admission of guilt. It does not apply where the evidence sought to be
excluded is not an incrimination but as part of object evidence. RULING: in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the RTC of
Bulanao, Tabuk, Kalinga, Branch 25 in Criminal Case No. 35-98,
FACTS: sentencing appellant Joel Yatar alias "Kawit" to Death for the special
 8.30AM—Kathylyn handed a letter to Yatar. The letter came from complex crime of Rape with Homicide is AFFIRMED with the
Yatar’s wife. MODIFICATION that he be ORDERED to pay the family of the victim
 9:00AM—Judilyn, who was Kathylyn’s first cousin, left the latter Kathylyn Uba civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P100,000.00,
alone in the house owned by Isabel, their grandmother.
P93,190.00 in actual damages and P75,000.00 in moral damages. The  Independently of the physical evidence of appellant’s semen found
award of exemplary damages is DELETED. in the victim’s vaginal canal, the trial court appreciated the
following circumstantial evidence as being sufficient to sustain a
Whether the Court wrongly gave probative value to the DNA conviction beyond reasonable doubt:
evidence presented.—No. Significantly, subsequent testing 1. Appellant and his wife were living in the house of Isabel
showed that the Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of the sperm Dawang together with the victim, Kathylyn Uba;
specimen from the vagina of the victim was identical the 2. In June 1998, appellant’s wife left the house because of
semen to be that of appellant’s gene type. their frequent quarrels;
 In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should 3. Appellant received from the victim, Kathylyn Uba, a letter
consider, inter alia, the following factors: how the samples were from his estranged wife in the early morning on June 30,
collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination 1998;
of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, 4. Appellant was seen by Apolonia Wania and Beverly
whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in Denneng at 1:00 p.m. of June 30, 1998 near the kitchen of
conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who the house of Isabel Dawang, acting strangely and wearing
conducted the tests. a dirty white shirt with collar;
 In the case at bar, Dr. Maria Corazon Abogado de Ungria was duly 5. Judilyn Pas-a saw appellant going down the ladder of the
qualified by the prosecution as an expert witness on DNA print or house of Isabel at 12:30 p.m., wearing a dirty white shirt,
identification techniques. Based on Dr. de Ungria’s testimony, and again at 1:30 p.m., this time wearing a black shirt;
it was determined that the gene type and DNA profile of 6. Appellant hurriedly left when the husband of Judilyn Pas-a
appellant are identical to that of the extracts subject of was approaching;
examination. The blood sample taken from the appellant 7. Salmalina Tandagan saw appellant in a dirty white shirt
showed that he was of the following gene types: vWA coming down the ladder of the house of Isabel on the day
15/19, TH01 7/8, DHFRP2 9/10 and CSF1PO 10/11, which Kathylyn Uba was found dead;
are identical with semen taken from the victim’s vaginal 8. The door leading to the second floor of the house of Isabel
canal. Verily, a DNA match exists between the semen Dawang was tied by a rope;
found in the victim and the blood sample given by the 9. The victim, Kathylyn Uba, lay naked in a pool of blood with
appellant in open court during the course of the trial. her intestines protruding from her body on the second floor
 In Daubert v. Merrell Dow, it was ruled that pertinent evidence of the house of Isabel Dawang, with her stained pants, bra,
based on scientifically valid principles could be used as long as it underwear and shoes scattered along the periphery;
was relevant and reliable. Judges, under Daubert, were allowed 10. Laboratory examination revealed sperm in the victim’s
greater discretion over which testimony they would allow at trial, vagina (Exhibit "H" and "J");
including the introduction of new kinds of scientific techniques. 11. The stained or dirty white shirt found in the crime scene
DNA typing is one such novel procedure. was found to be positive with blood;
 Under Philippine law, evidence is relevant when it relates directly 12. DNA of slide, Exhibit "J" and "H", compared with the DNA
to a fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non- profile of the appellant are identical;
existence.34 Applying the Daubert test to the case at bar, the DNA 13. Appellant escaped two days after he was detained but was
evidence obtained through PCR testing and utilizing STR analysis, subsequently apprehended, such flight being indicative of
and which was appreciated by the court a quo is relevant and guilt.
reliable since it is reasonably based on scientifically valid principles  Circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient to warrant a conviction,
of human genetics and molecular biology. must form an unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable
 conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of others, is the  This argument is specious. No ex-post facto law is involved in the
perpetrator of the crime. To determine whether there is sufficient case at bar. The science of DNA typing involves the admissibility,
circumstantial evidence, three requisites must concur: (1) there is relevance and reliability of the evidence obtained under the Rules
more than one circumstance; (2) facts on which the inferences are of Court.
derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the  Whereas an ex-post facto law refers primarily to a question of law,
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond DNA profiling requires a factual determination of the probative
reasonable doubt. weight of the evidence presented.

Whether the blood sample taken from Yatar as well as the

DNA tests were conducted in violation of his right to remain Whether Appellant’s twin defense of denial and alibi can be
silent as well as his right against self-incrimination under sustained.—Yes.
Secs. 12 and 17 of Art. III of the Constitution.—No.  The forensic DNA evidence and bloodied shirt, notwithstanding the
 This contention is untenable. The kernel of the right is not against eyewitness accounts of his presence at Isabel Dawang’s house
all compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion. The right during the time when the crime was committed, undeniably link
against self- incrimination is simply against the legal process of him to the June 30, 1998 incident.
extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It  Appellant did not demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence
does not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an impossibility to be in two places at the same time, especially in
an incrimination but as part of object evidence. this case where the two places are located in the same
 We ruled in People v. Rondero that although accused-appellant barangay.40 He lives within a one hundred (100) meter radius
insisted that hair samples were forcibly taken from him and from the scene of the crime, and requires a mere five minute walk
submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for forensic to reach one house from the other. This fact severely weakens his
examination, the hair samples may be admitted in evidence alibi.
against him, for what is proscribed is the use of testimonial
compulsion or any evidence communicative in nature acquired Whether Yatar is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.—Yes.
from the accused under duress.  Accordingly, we are convinced that the appellant is guilty beyond
 Hence, a person may be compelled to submit to fingerprinting, reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of rape with
photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA, as there is no testimonial homicide. Appellant sexually assaulted Kathylyn Uba, and by
compulsion involved. Under People v. Gallarde, where immediately reason or on the occasion thereof, in order to conceal his lustful
after the incident, the police authorities took pictures of the deed, permanently sealed the victim’s lips by stabbing her
accused without the presence of counsel, we ruled that there was repeatedly, thereby causing her untimely demise.
no violation of the right against self-incrimination. The accused  The following are the elements constitutive of rape with homicide:
may be compelled to submit to a physical examination to (1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal
determine his involvement in an offense of which he is accused. knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or
 It must also be noted that appellant in this case submitted himself intimidation; and (3) by reason or on the occasion of such carnal
for blood sampling which was conducted in open court on March knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, appellant
30, 2000, in the presence of counsel. killed the woman. However, in rape committed by close kin, such
as the victim’s father, step-father, uncle, or the common-law
spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or
Whether the DNA tests conducted by the prosecution against intimidation be employed. Moral influence or ascendancy takes the
him are unconstitutional on the ground that resort thereto is place of violence and intimidation. The fact that the victim’s
tantamount to the application of an ex-post facto law.—No.
 hymen is intact does not negate a finding that rape was Daniela died, leaving her children as heirs. In a letter, Carlos, one of
committed as mere entry by the penis into the lips of the female Daniela’s heirs, informed Nena that when Daniela died they discovered
genital organ, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, the sworn statement she executed and as a consequence, they are
suffices for conviction of rape. The strength and dilatability of the demanding from Nena the return of their rightful shares over the land
hymen are invariable; it may be so elastic as to stretch without as heirs of Daniela. Nena did not reply and subsequent efforts proved
laceration during intercourse. Absence of hymenal lacerations does futile, which prompted Carlos to file a complaint against Nena. In her
not disprove sexual abuse especially when the victim is of tender answer, Nena denied that any fraud or misrepresentation attended the
age. execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale and prayed for dismissal.
 In the case at bar, appellant is the husband of the victim’s aunt.
He is seven years older than the victim Kathylyn Uba. Before he The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Daniela’s heirs and declared
and his wife separated, appellant lived in the house of his mother- the sale null and void. The appeal and MR having both denied, hence
in-law, together with the victim and his wife. After the separation, this petition.
appellant moved to the house of his parents, approximately one
hundred (100) meters from his mother-in-law’s house. Being a Issue: Whether or not the RTC and CA erred in nullifying the
relative by affinity within the third civil degree, he is deemed in sale by relying solely on the sworn statement as its sole and
legal contemplation to have moral ascendancy over the victim. main evidence.

Ruling: No. There is no issue in the admissibility of the subject sworn

statement. However, the admissibility of evidence should not be
4. Tating vs. Marcella equated with weight of evidence. The admissibility of evidence
519 SCRA 79 depends on its relevance and competence while the weight of
March 27, 2007 evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to
convince and persuade.
Facts: Daniela Tating sold a parcel of land to her granddaughter,
herein petitioner Nena Tating. The contract of sale was embodied in a It is settled that affidavits are classified as hearsay evidence since
duly notarized Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Daniela in favor of they are not generally prepared by the affiant but by another who
Nena. Subsequently, title over the land was transferred in the name of uses his own language in writing the affiant’s statements, which may
Nena, who, in turn, declared the property in her name for tax thus be either omitted or misunderstood by the one writing them.
purposes and paid the real estate taxes due thereon for several years. Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross-
The land, however, remained in the possession of Daniela. examine the affiant. For this reason, affidavits are generally rejected
for being hearsay, unless the affiants themselves are placed on the
Eight years later, Daniela executed a sworn statement claiming that witness stand to testify thereon. The Court finds that both the trial
she had actually no intention of selling the property to Nena and that court and the CA committed error in giving the sworn statement
the true agreement between them was simply to transfer title over the probative weight. Since Daniela is no longer available to take the
land in favor of Nena to enable her to obtain a loan by mortgaging the witness stand as she is already dead, the RTC and the CA should not
land to help her defray her business expenses. She, however, later have given probative value on Daniela’s sworn statement for purposes
discovered that Nena did not secure any loan nor mortgaged the of proving that the contract of
property so she wants the title in the name of Nena cancelled and the sale between her and petitioner was simulated.
property to be reconveyed to her.
5. People v. Salafranca
666 SCRA 501
February 22, 2012 contrive his identification of Salafranca as the assailant. His utterance
about Salafranca having stabbed him was made in spontaneity and
Doctrine: An ante-mortem declaration of a victim of murder, only in reaction to the startling occurrence. The statement was
homicide, or parricide that meets the conditions of admissibility under relevant because it identified Salafranca as the perpetrator.
the Rules of Court and pertinent jurisprudence is admissible either as  
a dying declaration or as a part of the res gestae, or both. The term res gestae has been defined as those circumstances which
are the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act and which are
Facts: A certain Johnny Bolanon was stabbed. The assailant ran away admissible when illustrative of such act. In a general way, res gestae
but Bolanon was still able to walk to the house of his uncle, Rodolfo refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of
Estao, in order to seek help. On the way to the hospital, Bolanon told the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so
his uncle that it was Rodrigo Salafranca who stabbed him. Bolanon spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude
was pronounced dead upon arrival at the hospital. Salafranca was the idea of deliberation and fabrication. The rule on res gestae
charged, tried, and held guilty of murder. His conviction was affirmed encompasses the exclamations and statements made by either the
by the Court of Appeals and now comes to the Court for a reversal of participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before,
the assailed judgment. during, or immediately after the commission of the crime when the
circumstances are such that the statements were made as a
Issue: Whether or not Salafranca’s conviction was correct. spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the
occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate
Held: Yes. A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as and to fabricate a false statement. The test of admissibility of
evidence due to its hearsay character, may nonetheless be admitted evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act,
when the following requisites concur, namely: ( a) that the declaration declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected
must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded
declarants death; (b) that at the time the declaration is made, the as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives
declarant is under a consciousness of an impending death; ( c) that the any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.
declarant is competent as a witness; and ( d) that the declaration is
offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which 6. SCC Chemicals Corp. v. CA
the declarant is a victim. All the requisites were met herein. 353 SCRA 70
February 28, 2001
A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the res gestae and
thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when Facts: SCC Chemicals Corp. through its chairman, private respondent
the following requisites concur, to wit: ( a) the principal act, the res Danilo Arrieta and vice president Pablito Bermundo, obtained a loan
gestae, is a startling occurrence; ( b) the statements are made before from State Investment House, Inc. (SIHI). To secure the payment
the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and ( c) the statements thereof, Danilo and Halili executed a Comprehensive Surety
must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately Agreement binding themselves jointly and severally to pay the
attending circumstances. obligation on the maturity date. SCC failed to pay the loan when it
  matured. SIHI then sent demand letters to SCC, Arrieta and Halili but
The requisites for admissibility of a declaration as part of the res notwithstanding payment thereof, no payment was made. SIHI filed a
gestae concur herein. Surely, when he gave the identity of the civil case for a sum of money with a prayer for preliminary attachment
assailant to Estao, Bolanon was referring to a startling occurrence, against SCC, Arrieta and Halili. Due to several defaults by SCC, the
i.e., his stabbing by Salafranca. Bolanon was then on board the court rendered judgment in favor of SIHI.
taxicab that would bring him to the hospital, and thus had no time to
On appeal, SCC contended that SIHI had failed to show, by a the requirements of Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court as to
preponderance of evidence, that the latter had a case against it. SCC the admissibility of his testimony were satisfied.
argued that the lone witness presented by SIHI to prove its claim was
insufficient as the competency of the witness was not established and
there was no showing that he had personal knowledge of the
transaction. SCC further maintained that no proof was shown of the
genuineness of the signatures in the documentary exhibits presented 7. LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
as evidence and that these signatures were neither marked nor SPOUSES VICENTE BANAL and LEONIDAS ARENAS-BANAL,
offered in evidence by SIHI. Finally, SCC pointed out that the original respondents.
copies of the documents were not presented in court.
FACTS: Spouses Vicente and Leonidas Banal, respondents, are the
The CA affirmed the RTC’s judgment in toto. registered owners of agricultural land situated in San Felipe, Basud,
Camarines Norte. A portion of the land was compulsorily acquired by
Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals made an error of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) pursuant to Republic Act
law when it failed to disallow the admission in evidence of the (R.A.) No. 6657, as amended, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
testimony pursuant to the hearsay rule contained in Section Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which provides that “A
witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his Respondents rejected the valuation of petitioner hence a summary
personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own administrative proceeding was conducted before the Provincial
perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.” Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) to determine the valuation of
the land. Eventually, the PARAD rendered its Decision affirming the
Held: No. Petitioners’ reliance on Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Landbank’s valuation.
Court is misplaced. As a rule, hearsay evidence is excluded and carries
no probative value. However, the rule does admit of an exception. Dissatisfied with the Decision of the PARAD, respondents filed with the
Where a party failed to object to hearsay evidence, then the same is RTC a petition for determination of just compensation.
admissible. The rationale for this exception is to be found in the right In determining the valuation of the land, the trial court based the
of a litigant to cross-examine. It is settled that it is the opportunity to same on the facts established in another case pending before it.
cross-examine which negates the claim that the matters testified to by
a witness are hearsay. However, the right to cross-examine may be ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in taking judicial
waived. The repeated failure of a party to cross-examine the witness notice of the average production figures in another case
is an implied waiver of such right. Petitioner was afforded several pending before it and applying the same to the present case
opportunities by the trial court to cross-examine the other party’s without conducting a hearing and without the knowledge or
witness. Petitioner repeatedly failed to take advantage of these consent of the parties
opportunities. No error was thus committed by the respondent court
when it sustained the trial courts finding that petitioner had waived its HELD: Well-settled is the rule that courts are not authorized to take
right to cross-examine the opposing party’s witness. It is now too late judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when
for petitioner to be raising this matter of hearsay evidence. said cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or before
the same judge. They may only do so “in the absence of objection”
Nor was the assailed testimony hearsay. The Court of Appeals and “with the knowledge of the opposing party,” which are not
correctly found that the witness of SIHI was a competent witness as obtaining here.
he testified to facts, which he knew of his personal knowledge. Thus,
Furthermore, as earlier stated, the Rules of Court shall apply to all In a letter dated February 6, 1997, the same appellants, except Jailon
proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts. In this regard, Kulais, withdrew their appealbecause of their application for amnesty
Section 3, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on Evidence is explicit on the (said motion granted)
necessity of a hearing before a court takes judicial notice of a certain
matter, thus: Hence, only the appeal of Kulais remains for the consideration of the
SC.
“SEC. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. – During the trial,
the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may ISSUE: Whether the trial court's erroneous taking of judicial
announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow notice of a witness' testimony in another case, alsopending
the parties to be heard thereon. before it, affects the conviction of the appellant, whose guilt
is proven beyond reasonable doubt byother clear, convincing
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on and overwhelming evidence, both testimonial and
its own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of documentary.
any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is
decisive of a material issue in the case. HELD: NO. The appeal of Kulais is bereft of merit. In the case at bar,
appellant Kulais argues that he was denied due process when the trial
The RTC failed to observe the above provisions. court took judicial notice of the testimony given in another case by
one Lt. Melquiades Feliciano, who was the team leader of the
government troops that captured him and his purported cohorts.
Because he was allegedly deprived of his right to cross-examine a
8. PEOPLE VS KULAIS 292 SCRA 551 material witness in the person of Lieutenant Feliciano, he contends
that the latter's testimony should not be used against him even if the
FACTS: Five Information for kidnapping for ransom and three court a quo did take judicial notice of the testimony of Lieutenant
informations for kidnapping were filed before the RTC of Zamboanga Feliciano, it did not use such testimony in deciding the cases against
City against Carlos Falcasantos, Jailon Kulais,Jumatiya Amlani, Norma the appellant. Hence, Appellant Kulais was not denied due process.
Sahiddan de Kulais, Jalina Hassan de Kamming, Salvador Mamaril, His conviction was based mainly on the positive identification made by
Hadjirul Plasin, Jaimuddin Hassan, Imam Taruk Alah, Freddie Manuel some of the kidnap victims, namely, Jessica Calunod, Armando
and several John and Jane Does. Bacarro and Edilberto Perez. These witnesses were subjected to
meticulous cross-examinations conducted by appellant's counsel. At
The information for kidnapping for ransom set forth identical best, then, the trial court's mention of Lieutenant Feliciano's testimony
allegations save for the names of the victims. The three informations is a decisional surplusage which neither affected the outcome of the
for kidnapping, also under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, case nor substantially prejudiced Appellant Kulais.
likewise alleged identical facts and circumstances, except the names
of the victims. Of the twelve accused, only nine were apprehended.
The trial court found Appellant Kulais guilty of five counts of 9. LAUREANO VS CA 324 SCRA 414
kidnapping for ransom and one count of kidnapping a woman and
public officer, for which offenses it imposed upon him six terms of life FACTS: In 1978, Menandro Laureano was hired as a pilot by the
imprisonment. It also found him guilty of two counts of slight illegal Singapore Airlines Limited (SAL). In 1982 however, SAL was hit by
detention for the kidnapping of MonicoSaavedra and Calixto Francisco. recession and so it had to lay off some employees. Laureano was one
[May 7, 1991] Jailon Kulais, Jumatiya Amlani de Falcasantos, Norma of them. Laureano asked for reconsideration but it was not granted.
Sahiddan de Kulais and Jaliha Hussin filed their Joint Notice of Appeal.
Aggrieved, Laureano filed a labor case for illegal dismissal against SAL. 9225 before the Consulate General of the Philippines in San
But in 1987, he withdrew the labor case and instead filed a civil case Franciso, USA and took the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic
for damages due to illegal termination of contract against SAL. of the Philippines on 10 July 2008. On the same day an Order
Laureano filed the case here in the Philippines. SAL moved for the
of Approval of his Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition was
dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The motion
issued in his favor.
was denied. On trial, SAL alleged that the termination of Laureano is
valid pursuant to Singaporean law.  On 3 April 2009 Arnado again took his Oath of Allegiance to
the Republic and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his
The trial court ruled in favor of Laureano. SAL appealed the case foreign citizenship. On 30 November 2009, Arnado filed his
raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction, non applicability of Philippine Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor. On 28 April 2010,
laws, and estoppel, among others. The Court of Appeals reversed the respondent Linog C. Balua (Balua), another mayoralty
trial court.
candidate, filed a petition to disqualify Arnado and/or to cancel
ISSUE: Whether or not Singaporean Law is applicable to this his certificate of candidacy for municipal mayor.
case.  Respondent Balua contended that Arnado is not a resident of
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and that he is a foreigner,
HELD: No. The specific Singaporean Law which holds valid the attaching thereto a certification issued by the Bureau of
dismissal of Laureano is not proved in court. As such, the trial court Immigration dated 23 April 2010 indicating the nationality of
cannot make a determination if the termination is indeed valid under Arnado as "USA-American and showing as evidence a travel
Singaporean Law. Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of the
record that Arnado has been using his US Passport No.
laws of Singapore. SAL has the burden of proof. SAL failed to prove
such law hence Philippine law shall apply. However, the case must be 057782700 in entering and departing the Philippines. The said
dismissed on the ground of estoppel. Under our laws, all money record shows that Arnado left the country on 14 April 2009 and
claims arising from employer-employee relationships must be filed returned on 25 June 2009, and again departed on 29 July
within three years from the time the cause of action accrued. 2009, arriving back in the Philippines on 24 November 2009.
Laureano’s cause of action accrued in 1982 when he was terminated  COMELEC ruled that although Arnado appears to have
but he only filed the money claim in 1987 or more than three years substantially complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 9225,
from 1982. Hence he is already barred by prescription.
Arnado’s act of consistently using his US passport after
renouncing his US citizenship on 03 April 2009 effectively
negated his Affidavit of Renunciation.
10. G.R. No. 195649               April 16, 2013  Arnado argues that section 349 of the immigration and
naturalization act of the United States provides that his
MAQUILING vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS execution of an affidavit of renunciation of American
citizenship has the effect of expatriation and thus was divested
Facts :
 Respondent Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen. However, of all the rights of an American citizen.
as a consequence of his subsequent naturalization as a citizen Issue:
of the United States of America, he lost his Filipino citizenship.  Whether or not Arnaldo’s argument regarding Section 349 of
Arnado applied for repatriation under Republic Act (R.A.) No. the immigration act of United States is applicable in this case.
Held : Issue:

 The court cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws, which  Whether or not the guilt of the accused was not proven
must be presented as public documents of a foreign country beyond reasonable doubt as they assert that the testimony of
and must be “evidenced by an official publication thereof.” the conductor was merely circumstantial, while that of Asali as
Mere reference to a foreign law in a pleading does not suffice to the conspiracy was insufficient.
for it to be considered in deciding a case.  Whether or not the testimony of Asali is inadmissible pursuant
to Sec. 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. that statements
made by a conspirator against a co-conspirator are admissible
11. G.R. No. 188314 January 10, 2011
PEOPLE vs. BAHARAN only when made during the existence of the conspiracy.
Facts:
 Held :
 On 14 February 2005, an RRCG bus was in its
 Yes, the guilt of the accused was proven as the accused's plea
usual southbound route, via EDSA Avenue. According to the
of guilt was not the sole basis of the condemnatory judgment
bus conductor, two men insisted on getting on the bus, so the
under consideration. The Court notes that prior to the change
conductor obliged and let them in. As soon as the bus reached
of plea to one of guilt, accused Baharan and Trinidad
the stoplight at the corner of Ayala Avenue the two
made two other confessions of guilt - one through
immediately got off the bus and ran. Moments after, they left
an extrajudicial confession (exclusive television interviews, as
they felt an explosion and then saw fire quickly engulfing the
stipulated by both accused during pre-trial), and the other via
bus.
judicial admission (pre-trial stipulation).
 The prosecution presented documents furnished by the
 That while it is true that under the rule, statements made by a
Department of Justice, confirming that shortly before the
conspirator against aco-conspirator are admissible only when
explosion, the spokesperson of the Abu Sayyaf Group
made during the existence of the conspiracy. However, as the
announced over radio station DZBB that the group had a
Court ruled that if the declarant repeats the statement in court,
Valentine's Day "gift" for former President Arroyo. Trinidad
his extrajudicial confession becomes a judicial admission,
gave ABS-CBN News Network an exclusive interview sometime
making the testimony admissible as to both conspirators.
after the incident, confessing his participation in the Valentine's
Day bombing incident. The bus conductor identified Baharan
and Trinidad, and confirmed that they were the two men
who had entered the RRCG bus on the evening of 14 February. 12. G.R. No. 152375               December 16, 2011
Members of the Abu Sayyaf Group were then charged with
multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. Only Baharan, REPUBLIC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
Trinidad, Asali, and Rohmat were arrested, while the other
Facts:
accused remain at-large. Baharan and Trinidad pled guilty to
the charge of multiple frustrated murder.
 Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, through the Presidential ETPI’s Authorized Capital Stock". The Sandiganbayan granted
Commission on Good Government ( PCGG), filed a complaint the holding of the special stockholder’s meeting prompting
against Jose L. Africa, Manuel H. Nieto, Jr., Ferdinand E. Africa’s filing of a petition for certiorari.
Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., Juan
Ponce Enrile, and Potenciano Ilusorio (collectively, the Issue:
respondents) for reconveyance, reversion, accounting,
restitution, and damages before the Sandiganbayan. The  Whether the Bane deposition is admissible under the principle
petitioner alleged, inter alia, that the respondents illegally of judicial notice
manipulated the purchase of the major shareholdings of Cable
Held:
and Wireless Limited in Eastern Telecommunications
Philippines, Inc. (ETPI), which shareholdings respondents Jose
 The petitioner expressly admitted that "due to oversight, [the
Africa and Manuel Nieto, Jr. held for themselves and, through
petitioner] closed and rested its case"; and that it "had
their holdings and the corporations they organized, beneficially
terminated the presentation of its evidence”. In the face of
for respondents Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos.
these categorical judicial admissions, the petitioner cannot
 PCGG-conducted ETPI stockholders meeting, a PCGG-
suddenly make an about-face and insist on the introduction of
controlled board of directors was elected. Later, the registered
evidence out of the usual order. Contrary to the petitioner’s
ETPI stockholders convened a special stockholders meeting
assertion, the resting of its case could not have been
wherein another set of board of directors was elected. As a
conditioned on the admission of the evidence it formally
result, two sets of ETPI board and officers were elected. Africa
offered. To begin with, the Bane deposition, which is the lone
filed a motion with the Sandiganbayan, alleging that PCGG had
piece of evidence subject of this present petition, was not
been "illegally ‘exercising’ the rights of stockholders of ETPI,
among the pieces of evidence included in its formal offer of
especially in the election of the members of the board of
evidence and thus could not have been admitted or rejected by
directors. Africa prayed for the issuance of an order for the
the trial court.
"calling and holding of [ETPI] annual stockholders meeting for
 Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that judges
1992 under the court’s control and supervision and prescribed
may properly take and act on without proof because these
guidelines. The Sandiganbayan favored Africa’s motion with
facts are already known to them. Put differently, it is the
only the registered owners, their duly authorized
assumption by a court of a fact without need of further
representatives or their proxies may vote their corresponding
traditional evidentiary support. The principle is based on
shares.
convenience and expediency in securing and introducing
 On appeal, the PCGG imputed grave abuse of discretion on the
evidence on matters which are not ordinarily capable of
Sandiganbayan for holding, inter alia, that the registered
dispute and are not bona fide disputed.
stockholders of ETPI had the right to vote.
 During the pendency of PCGG’s petition, the PCGG filed with The foundation for judicial notice may be traced to the civil
this Court a "Very Urgent Petition for Authority to Hold Special and canon law maxim, manifesta (or notoria) non indigent
Stockholders’ Meeting for the Sole Purpose of Increasing probatione. The taking of judicial notice means that the court
 will dispense with the traditional form of presentation of  The issue before the Court does not involve the applicability of
evidence. In so doing, the court assumes that the matter is so the rule on mandatory taking of judicial notice; neither is the
notorious that it would not be disputed. applicability of the rule on discretionary taking of judicial notice
seriously pursued. Rather, the petitioner approaches the
 The concept of judicial notice is embodied in Rule 129 of the
concept of judicial notice from a genealogical perspective of
Revised Rules on Evidence. Rule 129 either requires the court
treating whatever evidence offered in any of the "children"
to take judicial notice, inter alia, of "the official acts of the x x
cases as evidence in the "parent" case or "of the whole family
x judicial departments of the Philippines,” or gives the court
of cases."
the discretion to take judicial notice of matters "ought to be
known to judges because of their judicial functions." On the
First, the supporting cases the petitioner cited are inapplicable
other hand, a party-litigant may ask the court to take judicial either because these cases involve only a single proceeding or
notice of any matter and the court may allow the parties to be an exception to the rule, which proscribes the courts from
heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice of the matter taking judicial notice of the contents of the records of other
involved. cases. Second, the petitioner’s proposition is obviously
 In adjudicating a case on trial, generally, courts are not obnoxious to a system of orderly procedure. The petitioner
itself admits that the present case has generated a lot of
authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records
cases, which, in all likelihood, involve issues of varying
of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are complexity.
pending in the same court, and notwithstanding that both
cases may have been tried or are actually pending before the Following the logic of the petitioner’s argument would be
same judge. This rule though admits of exceptions. espousing judicial confusion by indiscriminately allowing the
admission of evidence in one case, which was presumably
As a matter of convenience to all the parties, a court may found competent and relevant in another case, simply based
properly treat all or any part of the original record of a case on the supposed lineage of the cases. It is the duty of the
filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending petitioner, as a party-litigant, to properly lay before the court
before it, when, with the knowledge of, and absent an the evidence it relies upon in support of the relief it seeks,
objection from, the adverse party, reference is made to instead of imposing that same duty on the court.
it for that purpose, by name and number or in some other
manner by which it is sufficiently designated; or when the
original record of the former case or any part of it, is actually
withdrawn from the archives at the court's direction, at the
request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a 13. MONICO LIGTAS v. People of the Philippines
part of the record of the case then pending. G.R. No. 200751. August 17, 2015.

Courts must also take judicial notice of the records of another Doctrine: Remedial Law; Evidence; Judicial Notice; It is true that
case or cases, where sufficient basis exists in the records of trial courts are not mandated to take judicial notice of decisions of
the case before it, warranting the dismissal of the latter case. other courts or even records of other cases that have been tried or
are pending in the same court or before the same judge.—It is true
that trial courts are not mandated to take judicial notice of
 decisions of other courts or even records of other cases that have
been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same Held: YES, The existence of the DARAB Decision adjudicating the
judge. In declaring that the DARAB’s findings on the tenancy issue of tenancy between petitioner and private complainant
relationship between petitioner and private complainant are negates the existence of the element that the taking was done
immaterial to the criminal case for theft, the Court of Appeals relied without the owner’s consent. The DARAB Decision implies that
on Cornes, et al. v. Leal Realty Centrum Co., Inc., 560 SCRA 545 petitioner had legitimate authority to harvest the abaca. The
(2008). prosecution, therefore, failed to establish all the elements of theft.
Facts: Monico Ligtas (Ligtas) was charged for theft for taking of the No less than the Constitution provides that the accused shall be
harvest of Abaca in the plantation of belonging to Anecita Pacate, presumed innocent of the crime until proven guilty. “It is better to
having feloniously harvested 1,000 kilos of abaca fibers, valued at acquit ten guilty individuals than to convict one innocent person.”
Php29,000.00 at Php29.00 per kilo, without the consent of said Thus, courts must consider “every circumstance against guilt and in
owner. Where Ligtas pleaded not guilty, alleging himself as the favor of innocence.” Equally settled is that “where the evidence
owner of the said property as he is the one who cultivated such, he admits of two interpretations, one of which is consistent with guilt,
further alleged the following defenses; setting an alibi that the and the other with innocence, the accused must be given the
alleged taking did not happen since he claimed that he was with benefit of doubt and should be acquitted.”
Cabero and Cipres attending a barangay fiesta at Sitio Hubasan,
San Juan, Sogod, Southern Leyte, when the alleged harvesting In adjudicating a case on trial, courts are not authorized to
happened but later on when confronted he admitted harvesting the take a judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases,
abaca but claimed as plantation owner, being a tenant of 1.5 to even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same
two hectares of land that he just prevented the men to harvest court and notwithstanding that both cases may have been tried or
from the land which he himself cultivated. are actually pending before the same judge; Rule admits of
exceptions. (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan [Fourth Division],
Meanwhile, Ligtas filed a Complaint before the Department of 662 SCRA 152 [2011])
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) of Sogod, Southern
Leyte for Maintenance of Peaceful Possession on November 21, 14. JUNIE MALILLIN y LOPEZ v. PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES.
2000. On January 22, 2002, the DARAB rendered the Decision G.R. No. 172953. April 30, 2008.
ruling that Ligtas was a bona fide tenant of the land. While records
are bereft as to when the DARAB Decision was formally offered as Doctrine: As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of
evidence before the trial court, records are clear that the DARAB custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded
Decision was considered by both the trial court and Court of by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in
Appeals and without any objection on the part of the People of the question is what the proponent claims it to be; The likelihood of
Philippines. In the Decision dated August 16, 2006, the Regional tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest
Trial Court held that “the prosecution was able to prove the when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical
elements of theft” Ligtas’ “defense of tenancy was not supported by characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances
concrete and substantial evidence nor was his claim of harvest familiar to people in their daily lives.
sharing between him and Anecita Pacate duly corroborated by any
witness.” —As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody
rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
Issue: Whether the DARAB Decision, finding Ligtas as tenant of the evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question
conclusive or can be taken judicial notice of in a criminal case for is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony
theft? about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked
 up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every she but rather a certain Mrs. Ofelia Garcia who received the items
person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from from Esternon at the laboratory.
whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while
in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received The evidence for the defense focused on the irregularity of the
and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the search and seizure conducted by the police operatives. Petitioner
chain. testified that Esternon began the search of the bedroom with Licup
and petitioner himself inside. However, it was momentarily
These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to interrupted when one of the police officers declared to Bolanos that
ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item petitioner’s wife, Sheila, was tucking something inside her
and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have underwear. Forthwith, a lady officer arrived to conduct the search
possession of the same. While testimony about a perfect chain is of Sheila’s body inside the same bedroom. At that point, everyone
not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to except Esternon was asked to step out of the room. So, it was in
obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and his presence that Sheila was searched by the lady officer. Petitioner
essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not was then asked by a police officer to buy cigarettes at a nearby
readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or store and when he returned from the errand, he was told that
trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its nothing was found on Sheila’s body. Sheila was ordered to transfer
uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the to the other bedroom together with her children.1Petitioner
evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and asserted that on his return from the errand, he was summoned by
even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibit’s level Esternon to the bedroom and once inside, the officer closed the
of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering— without door and asked him to lift the mattress on the bed. And as he was
regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not —dictates doing as told, Esternon stopped him and ordered him to lift the
the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule. portion of the headboard. In that instant, Esternon showed him
Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to “sachet of shabu” which according to him came from a pillow on
an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has the bed. The OSG bids to establish that the raiding team had
physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to regularly performed its duties in the conduct of the search.31 It
substances familiar to people in their daily lives. points to petitioner’s incredulous claim that he was framed up by
Esternon on the ground that the discovery of the two filled sachets
Facts: On the strength of a warrant of search and seizure issued by was made in his and Licup’s presence. It likewise notes that
the RTC of Sorsogon City, Branch 52, a team of five police officers petitioner’s bare denial cannot defeat the positive assertions of the
raided the residence of petitioner in Barangay Tugos, Sorsogon City prosecution and that the same does not suffice to overcome the
on 4 February 2003. Petitioner was charged with violation of Sec prima facie existence of animus possidendi.
11, Art 2 of RA 9165 for Illegal Drugs; search—conducted in the
presence of barangay kagawad Delfin Licup as well as petitioner Issue: Whether the accused be convicted notwithstanding the
himself, his wife Sheila and his mother, Norma—allegedly yielded irregularities in the procedure?
two (2) plastic sachets of shabu and five (5) empty plastic sachets
containing residual morsels of the said substance. But herein Held: NO, As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of
petitioner pleaded not guilty. During hearing proving the flow of the custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded
search and seizure of object; as testified when it is on the process by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in
to be delivered to the laboratory by Esternon in the afternoon of question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include
the same day that the warrant was executed except that it was not testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item
was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way
 that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and defines “Chain of Custody” as follows: “Chain of Custody” means
from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs
received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity
possession of the same. and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the
The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were
susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence,
substitution and exchange.40 In other words, the exhibit’s level of and the final disposition.
susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering —without regard
to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not—dictates the Same; Same; Same; Same; Evidentiary presumption that
level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule. official duties have been regularly performed cannot by itself
The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.—In
least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody sustaining the appellant’s conviction, the CA relied on the
over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or evidentiary presumption that official duties have been regularly
substitution of substances from other cases—by accident or performed. This presumption, it must be emphasized, is not
otherwise—in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar conclusive. It cannot, by itself, overcome the constitutional
evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in presumption of innocence. Any taint of irregularity affects the
authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable.
applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable In the present case, the failure of the apprehending team to
must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a chain of comply with paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,
custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it and with the chain of custody requirement of this Act effectively
improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with negates this presumption.
another or been contaminated or tampered with. A mere fleeting
glance at the records readily raises significant doubts as to the Facts: The prosecution charged the appellant before the RTC with
identity of the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from petitioner. violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 under an Information
In our constitutional system, basic and elementary is the that states: “That on or about December 27, 2003 at about 4:30
presupposition that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused o’clock (sic) in the afternoon, in the Municipality of Solano, Province of
lies on the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its own Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. The rule is Court, the above-named accused was caught during a by bust
invariable whatever may be the reputation of the accused, for the operation. But he pleaded not guilty, whereas the facts shows that
law presumes his innocence unless and until the contrary is shown. After having received information that the appellant was selling illegal
drugs in Nueva Vizcaya, Captain Jaim de Vera called, on his cellular
15. PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES v. FELIMON PAGADUAN y phone, PO3 Peter Almare and SPO1 Domingo Balido—who were both
TAMAYO in Santiago City—and informed them of a planned buy-bust operation,
G.R. No. 179029. August 9, 2010. they agreed to meet at the SSS Building near LMN Hote in
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. On their arrival there Captain de Vera
Doctrine: Chain of Custody.—Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board conducted a briefing and designated PO Almarez as the poseur buyer.
Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which implements R.A. No. 9165
 Thereafter, Captain de Ver introduced PO3 Almarez to the In the present case, the failure of the apprehending team to
police informant (tipster), and gave him (PO3 Almarez) two P100 bills comply with paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No.
(Exhibits “D and “E”) which the latter marked with his initials. The 9165, and with the chain of custody requirement of this Act
operation pushed thru, though the defense presented a different effectively negates this presumption. As we explained in
version of the events, that instead to be that one selling, appellant Malillin v. People:
was informed to be an asset by Captain de Vera but he was later on
turned to be the one arrested. He was convicted from RTC to CA, and “The presumption of regularity is merely just
that his defense of instigation was found unmeritorious by the CA that—a mere presumption disputable by
affirming RTC’s decision. contrary proof and which when challenged by
the evidence cannot be regarded as binding
The CA also held that the failure of the police to conduct a truth. Suffice it to say that this presumption cannot
prior surveillance on the appellant was not fatal to the prosecution’s preponderate over the presumption of innocence
case. It reasoned out that the police are given wide discretion to that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond
select effective means to apprehend dru dealers. A prior surveillance reasonable doubt. In the present case the lack of
is, therefore, not necessary, especially when the police are already conclusive identification of the illegal drugs
accompanied by their informant. The CA further ruled that the allegedly seized from petitioner, coupled with the
prosecution was able to sufficiently prove an unbroken chain of irregularity in the manner by which the same were
custody of the shabu. It explained that PO3 Almarez sealed the plasti placed under police custody before offered in court,
sachet seized from the appellant, marked it with his initials, and strongly militates a finding of guilt.”
transmitted it to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. PSI
Quintero conducted a qualitative examination and found the specimen Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof
positive for the presence of shabu. According to the CA, the sufficient to produce moral certainty that would convince and
prosecution was able to prove that the substance seized was the same satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment, is
specimen submitted to the laboratory and presented in court, indispensable to overcome this constitutional presumption. If the
notwithstanding that this specimen was turned over to the crime prosecution has not proved, in the first place, all the elements of
laboratory only after two days. the crime charged, which in this case is the corpus delicti, then the
appellant deserves no less than an acquittal.
Issue: Whether the accused be convicted due to the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties by the police?
16. NARCISO SALAS vs. ANNABELLE MATUSALEM
Held: NO, he is therefore acquitted. The prosecution failed to G.R. No. 180284
show that the police complied with paragraph 1, Section Ponente: VILLARAMA, JR., J.
21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and with the chain of custody
requirement of this Act. Doctrine: A high standard of proof is required to establish paternity
and filiation. An order for recognition and support may create an
In sustaining the appellant’s conviction, the CA relied on the unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the family or the lives
evidentiary presumption that official duties have been regularly of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is
performed. This presumption, it must be emphasized, is not established by clear and convincing evidence.
conclusive. It cannot, by itself, overcome the constitutional
presumption of innocence. Any taint of irregularity affects the FACTS: Annabelle Matusalem claimed that Narciso Salas is the father
whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable. of her son Christian Paulo Salas. However, when Matusalem refused
the offer of Salas’ family to take the child from her, he abandoned not sufficient to establish Christian Paulo’s filiation to petitioner as
respondent and her child and left them to the mercy of relatives and they were not signed by petitioner and contained no statement of
friends. Hence, she filed a complaint for Support/Damages against admission by petitioner that he is the father of said child. Thus, even if
Salas in the RTC of Cabanatuan City. Petitioner filed his answer with these notes were authentic, they do not qualify under Article 172 (2)
special and affirmative defenses and counterclaims. He described vis-à- vis Article 175 of the Family Code which admits as competent
respondent as a woman of loose morals and denied paternity of the evidence of illegitimate filiation an admission of filiation in a private
child Christian Paulo; he was motivated by no other reason except handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned. The
genuine altruism when he agreed to shoulder the expenses for the testimonies of respondent and Murillo as to the circumstances of the
delivery of said child, unaware of respondent’s chicanery and deceit birth of Christian Paulo, petitioner’s financial support while respondent
designed to “scandalize” him in exchange for financial favor. lived in Murillo’s apartment and his regular visits to her at the said
apartment, though replete with details, do not approximate the
At the trial, respondent and her witness Grace Murillo, the owner of “overwhelming evidence, documentary and testimonial”.
the apartment unit petitioner rented testified. Petitioner was declared
to have waived his right to present evidence and the case was Time and again, this Court has ruled that a high standard of proof is
considered submitted for decision based on respondent’s evidence. required to establish paternity and filiation. An order for recognition
The trial court rendered its decision in favor of respondent. Petitioner and support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an
appealed to the CA but the CA dismissed petitioner’s appeal. irritant to the family or the lives of the parties so that it must be
issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial and appellate courts erred in ruling convincing evidence.
that respondent’s evidence sufficiently proved that her son Christian WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The
Paulo is the illegitimate child of petitioner? Decision dated July 18, 2006 and Resolution dated October 19, 2007
of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. CV No. 64379 are hereby
HELD: YES. We have held that a certificate of live birth purportedly REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. 2124-AF of the Regional
identifying the putative father is not competent evidence of paternity Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 26 is DISMISSED.
when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the
preparation of the certificate. Thus, if the father did not sign in the
birth certificate, the placing of his name by the mother, doctor, 17. G.R. No. 209588, February 18, 2015
registrar, or other person is incompetent evidence of paternity. Also, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ERIC ROSAURO Y
while baptismal certificates may be considered public documents, they BONGCAWIL
can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacraments on Ponente: PEREZ, J.
the dates so specified. They are not necessarily competent evidence
of the veracity of entries therein with respect to the child’s paternity. Doctrine: The essential elements to be duly established for a
Pictures taken of the mother and her child together with the alleged successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of
father are inconclusive evidence to prove paternity. The Statement of dangerous or prohibited drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale
Account from the Good Samaritan General Hospital where respondent transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.
herself was indicated as the payee is likewise incompetent to prove FACTS: On July 3, 2004, the police authorities received information
that petitioner is the father of her child notwithstanding petitioner’s that drugs were being distributed at Purok 3, Barangay Poblacion,
admission in his answer that he shouldered the expenses in the Villanueva, Misamis Oriental. Thus, at 5:30 o’clock in the afternoon,
delivery of respondent’s child as an act of charity. As to the the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Unit (PAID-
handwritten notes of petitioner and respondent showing their SOTU) elements led by SPO4 Lorenzo Larot and PO3 Juancho Dizon
exchange of affectionate words and romantic trysts, these, too, are positioned themselves in the house of their confidential agent.
There, they saw Rosauro negotiate with the confidential agent and in The identity of the prohibited drug must be proved with moral
exchange for the one (1) sachet of shabu given by Rosauro to the certainty. It must also be established with the same degree of
confidential agent, the latter gave him a marked 100-peso bill with certitude that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust
serial number YZ7 12579. After the transaction, Larot and Dizon came operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit.
out of their hiding place and arrested Rosauro. Thereafter, the
confidential agent handed the sachet to Larot, who taped it, marked it In the case at bar, after the sale was consummated, the confidential
with the marking “Exhibit A”, and placed it inside his pocket. He also informant gave the seized item to SPO4 Larot who placed tape on the
took pictures of Rosauro and the drugs. In the police station, he sachet and marked it “Exhibit A.” Upon reaching the police station,
prepared a Certificate of Inventory and a Request for Laboratory SPO4 Larot executed the Certificate of Inventory, as well as the
Examination. Both the drugs and Rosauro were then turned over to request for laboratory examination. The request, the specimen, as
the Crime laboratory. Upon re-arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded well as the marked money and accused-appellant were then brought
not guilty to the crime charged and claimed that he was merely a to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. They were received by
victim of instigation. Thereafter, pre-trial and trial on the merits SPO2 Ricardo Maisog, the Receiving Clerk of the PNP Crime
ensued. Finding the evidence of the prosecution sufficient to establish Laboratory Office, who then forwarded them to Police Inspector Ma.
the guilt of accused-appellant, the RTC rendered a judgment of Leocy Jabonillo Mag-abo, the Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP
conviction Crime Laboratory.23 Moreover, the seized item was duly identified by
SPO4 Larot in open court as the same item seized from accused-
After a review of the records, the CA affirmed the RTC Judgment. The appellant.
appellate court ruled that what transpired in the case at bar was an
entrapment and not an instigation Accused-appellant’s guilt having been established, we likewise affirm
the penalty imposed by the RTC and the CA.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in convicting
the accused-appellant when his guilt was not proven beyond WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is DISMISSED.
reasonable doubt?

HELD: NO. This Court laid down the essential elements to be duly 18. G.R. No. 203984 June 18, 2014
established for a successful prosecution of offenses involving the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MEDARIO CALANTIAO y
illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs, like shabu, under Section DIMALANTA
5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and
the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the Ponente: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. Briefly, the delivery of
the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked Doctrine: Failure to strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of
money by the seller successfully consummate the buy-bust Republic Act No. 9165 will not automatically impair the integrity of
transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the chain of custody because what is of utmost importance is the
transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
of the corpus delicti. items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
Accused-appellant avers that the prosecution was not able to prove
the corpus delicti, and that the statutory safeguards provided for in FACTS: On November 13, 2003, at around 5:30 in the afternoon,
Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not followed. while PO1 NELSON MARIANO and PO3 EDUARDO RAMIREZ were on
duty, a certain EDWIN LOJERA arrived at their office and asked for
police assistance regarding a shooting incident. Per report of the In the case at bar, the marijuana was found in a black bag in
latter, it appears that while driving a towing truck and traversing along Calantiao’s possession and within his immediate control. He could
EDSA, Balintawak, Quezon City, he had a traffic dispute with a white have easily taken any weapon from the bag or dumped it to destroy
taxi cab prompting him to follow said vehicle until they reached along the evidence inside it. As the black bag containing the marijuana was
8th Avenue Street corner C-3 Road, Caloocan City. Thereat, the in Calantiao’s possession, it was within the permissible area that the
passengers of said taxi cab and fired their guns. Surprised, Lojera apprehending officers could validly conduct a warrantless search.
could not do anything but continued his driving until he reached a
police station nearby where he reported the incident. The police This Court has held that the failure to strictly comply with Section 21,
officers on duty immediately responded to said complaint by Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, such as immediately marking
proceeding to 5th Avenue corner 8th Street, Caloocan City where they seized drugs, will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of
found the white taxi. While approaching said vehicle, two armed men custody because what is of utmost importance is the preservation of
alighted therefrom, fired their guns towards them and ran away. PO1 the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these
Mariano and PO3 Ramirez chased them but they were subdued. PO1 would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
Mariano recovered from Calantiao a black bag containing two (2) accused.
bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops and a magazine of super 38 The prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody of the
stainless with ammos, while PO3 Ramirez recovered from Calantiao’s seized marijuana from the time the police officers confiscated it, to the
companion a .38 revolver. Thereafter, said specimen were forwarded time it was turned over to the investigating officer, up to the time it
to the PNP Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis. The result of the was brought to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. This
examination conducted by P/SINSP. JESSSE DELA ROSA revealed that Court has no reason to overrule the RTC and the Court of Appeals,
the same was positive for marijuana, a dangerous drug. which both found the chain of custody of the seized drugs to have not
been broken so as to render the marijuana seized from Calantiao
RTC rendered its Decision giving credence to the prosecution’s case. inadmissible in evidence. Hence, as Calantiao failed to show clear and
The Court of Appeals found no reason to overturn Calantiao’s convincing evidence that the apprehending officers were stirred by
conviction. illicit motive or failed to properly perform their duties, their
testimonies deserve full faith and credit.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marijuana found in Calantiao’s possession
was inadmissible as evidence against him on the grounds of either it WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the
was discovered via an illegal search, or because its custodial chain January 17, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C.
was broken? No. 04069.

HELD: NO. The purpose of allowing a warrantless search and seizure 19. G.R. No. 199689 March 12, 2014
incident to a lawful arrest is "to protect the arresting officer from
being harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed with a People of the Philippines vs. Hermanos Constantino, Jr. y
concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence Binayug aka “Jojit"
within reach." It is therefore a reasonable exercise of the State’s
police power to protect (1) law enforcers from the injury that may be DOCTRINE: Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of
inflicted on them by a person they have lawfully arrested; and (2) the seized dangerous drugs or other related items immediately after
evidence from being destroyed by the arrestee. It seeks to ensure the they are seized from the accused, for the marking upon seizure is the
safety of the arresting officers and the integrity of the evidence under starting point in the custodial link that succeeding handlers of the
the control and within the reach of the arrestee. evidence will use as reference point. A failure to mark at the time of
taking of initial custody imperils the integrity of the chain of custody prosecution of these offenses, the primary consideration is to ensure
that the law requires. that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs and other related
articles have been preserved from the time they were confiscated
from the accused until their presentation as evidence in court.
FACTS: In a buy-bust operation conducted in the city of Tuguegarao,
Province of Cagayan P03 Domingo, as poseur-buyer, received two As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule
plastic sachets of shabu from Constantino in exchange for P1,000. requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
However, P03 Domingo himself did not put any markings on the two sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
plastic sachets of shabu. Instead, upon arrival of the buy-bust team proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link
with Constantino at the police station, P03 Domingo turned over the in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is
two plastic sachets of shabu to the investigator, SPOZ Tamang, who offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched
was also a member of the buy-bust team. P03 Domingo testified that the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where
it was SPO2 Tamang who put the marking “NET” on the said sachets it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the
of shabu. However, P03 Hernandez, another member of the buy-bust condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was
team, categorically pointed to SPO2 Taguiam, also a member of the delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then
buy-bust team, as the one who put the marking “NBT” on the plastic describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no
sachets upon the team's return to the police station. To complicate change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone
things even further, P/Slnsp Tulauan, the Forensic Chemist, also not in the chain to have possession of the same.
declared before the trial court that the marking “NBT” on the two
plastic sachets of shabu were made by SPos Nelson B. Tamaray, the Thus, the following links must be established in the chain of custody in
duty officer who received the specimens at the crime laboratory on a buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of
cross-examination, P/Slnsp. Tulauan confirmed her previous the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
declaration that SP03 Tamaray had claimed making the marking on officer; second, the turn-over of the illegal drug seized by the
the sachets of shabu. Herein, the prosecution is completely silent as to apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turn over
why P03 Domingo, the poseur-buyer, despite having immediate by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist
custody of the two plastic sachets of shabu purchased from for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turn over and submission
Constantino, failed to immediately mark the seized drugs before of the marked illegal drugs seized from the forensic chemist to the
turning over the custody of the same to another police officer. court.

ISSUE: After a careful scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution

Whether the provisions regarding the Rule on Chain of witnesses, the Court finds glaring inconsistencies affecting the
Custody have been strictly complied with by the arresting integrity of the shabu purportedly confiscated from Constantino. The
officers. inconsistent testimonies of P03 Domingo, P03 Hernandez, and
P/Slnsp. Tulauan as to who, when, and where the two plastic sachets
RULING: NO. In a prosecution for the sale of a dangerous drug, the of shabu were marked lead the Court to question whether the two
following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and plastic sachets of shabu identified in court were the very same ones
the seller, the object, and the consideration, and (2) the delivery of confiscated from Constantino. The doubtful markings already broke
the thing sold and the payment therefor. Simply put, "[in] the chain of custody of the seized shabu at a very early stage.
prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, what is material is the proof that
the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized
presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence." And in the dangerous drugs or other related items immediately after they are
seized from the accused, for the marking upon seizure is the starting but at the police station and that there was no physical inventory
point in the custodial link that succeeding handlers of the evidence will made on the seized item nor was it photographed.
use as reference point. Moreover, the value of marking of the
evidence is to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all Issue: Whether or not the failure to strictly comply with
other similar or related evidence from the time of seizure from the Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is fatal to a case.
accused until disposition at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating
switching, "planting" or contamination of evidence. A failure to mark Ruling: No. Section 21(a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provided the
at the time of taking of initial custody imperils the integrity of the exception to the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21
chain of custody that the law requires. of R.A. No. 9165. Although ideally the prosecution should offer a
perfect chain of custody in the handling of evidence, “substantial
20. GR No. 212171, Sep 7, 2016 compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the seized
item” is sufficient. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that even
People vs. Mercury de la Cruz. if the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements
under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal
Doctrines: and will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence.
- The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been
observed in the absence of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and
evidence has been tampered with; the accused has the burden evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in
to prove this. the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The guilt
of the accused will not be affected as long as the chain of custody
- Failure of the arresting officers to strictly comply with the
remains unbroken, as in this case, even though the procedural
requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not fatal
requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not
and will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence, faithfully observed. The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have
provided such procedural lapse is satisfactorily explained and been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof
justified. that the evidence has been tampered with. Accused-appellant bears
the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled
Facts: During the course of a buy-bust operation, the arresting police with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the
officers involved testified that following the consummation of the drug handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public
purchase transaction, a commotion erupted when the accused- officers properly discharged their duties. In this case, the accused-
appellant resisted and shouted for help while she was being arrested. appellant failed to present any plausible reason to impute ill motive on
The commotion eventually gave accused-appellant the opportunity to the part of the arresting officers. Thus, the testimonies of the
run and elude arrest. The arresting officers further alleged that the apprehending officers deserve full faith and credit. In fact, accused-
people who gathered around them were already aggressive prompting appellant did not even question the credibility of the prosecution
them to decide to immediately proceed to the police station for their witnesses. She simply anchored her defense on denial and alibi.
safety. In fact, the arresting officers even had to fire a warning shot
and arrest Arthur Tabasa Ortega, the person who intervened in the 21. G.R. No. 181045, 2 July 2014
arrest of accused-appellant, in order for them to pacify the people Spouses Silos v. PNB
around them. The accused-appellant, who evaded arrest, was arrested
only after, by virtue of a warrant of arrest. She contended that that Doctrine: There is no ruling that documentary evidence prevails over
the drugs were marked not at the place where she was apprehended testimonial evidence.
Facts: Spouses Eduardo and Lydia Silos secured a revolving credit Held: No. The Supreme Court ruled that PNB’s contention that
line with Philippine National Bank (PNB) through a real estate documentary evidence deserves no consideration because it has
mortgage as a security. After two years, their credit line increased. already found credible the testimony of Lydia in this respect.
Spouses Silos then signed a Credit Agreement, which was also Respondent failed to discredit her; in fact, its witness PNB Kalibo
amended two years later, and several Promissory Notes (PN) as Branch Manager Aspa admitted that interest rates were fixed solely by
regards their Credit Agreements with PNB. The said loan was initially its Treasury Department in Manila, which were then simply
subjected to a 19.5% interest rate per annum. In the Credit communicated to all PNB branches for implementation. If this were
Agreements, Spouses Silos bound themselves to the power of PNB to the case, then this would explain why petitioners had to sign the
modify the interest rate depending on whatever policy that PNB may promissory notes in blank, since the imposable interest rates have yet
adopt in the future, without the need of notice upon them. Thus, the to be determined and fixed by respondent’s Treasury Department in
said interest rates played from 16% to as high as 32% per annum. Manila.
Spouses Silos acceded to the policy by pre-signing a total of twenty-
six (26) PNs leaving the individual applicable interest rates at hand
blank since it would be subject to modification by PNB.
22. MCMP Construction Corp., vs. Monark Equipment Corp.,
Spouses Silos regularly renewed and made good on their PNs, G. R. No. 201001, November 10, 2014
religiously paid the interests without objection or fail. However, during
the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, Spouses Silos faltered when the DOCTRINE:
interest rates soared. Spouses Silos’ 26th PN became past due, and
despite repeated demands by PNB, they failed to make good on the Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the
note. Thus, PNB foreclosed and auctioned the involved security for the contents of the original, the offeror must prove the following: (1) the
mortgage. Spouses Silos instituted an action to annul the foreclosure existence or due execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction
sale on the ground that the succeeding interest rates used in their of the original or the reason for its non-production in court; and (3) on
loan agreements was left to the sole will of PNB, the same fixed by the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the
the latter without their prior consent and thus, void. unavailability of the original can be attributed. The correct order of
proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents.
PNB argued that the Silos’ claims of signing credit agreements and
promissory notes in blank was never raised in the lower court, and FACTS:
that documentary evidence prevails over testimonial evidence; Lydia
Silos’ testimony in this regard is self-serving, unsupported and MCMP Construction and Monark Equipment Construction Corporation
uncorroborated, and for being the lone evidence on this issue. The agreed to the lease of heavy equipment by MCMP from Monark thru a
fact remains that these documents are in proper form, presumed Rental Equiptment Contract (Contract). Thus, Monark delivered five
regular, and endure, against arbitrary claims by Silos – who is an pieces of heavy equipment to MCMP’s project site in Tanay Rizal,
experienced business person – that she signed questionable loan evidenced by Documents Acknowledgment Recipt No. 04667 and
documents whose provisions for interest rates were left blank, and yet 5706, received by MCMP representatives Jorge and Rose.
she continued to pay the interests without protest for a number of
years. During trial, Reynaldo, Monark’s representative, testified that there
were two original copies of the contract, one for MCMP and one for
Issue: Is PNB’s contention that documentary evidence Monark; however, Monark’s copy was lost and despite diligent efforts,
prevails over testimonial evidence correct? cannot be located, hence he presented photocopy of the Contract
which he had on file. MCMP objected to the presentation of the
secondary evidence to prove the contents thereof, since there were no (c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
diligent efforts to locate it, but did not produce MCMP’s copy of the documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of
contract despite a directive from the trial court to produce it. time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the
general result of the whole; and
After trial, the RTC ruled in favour of Monark, ordering MCMP to pay (d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public
the balance of the rental fees inclusive of interest as well as 25% officer or is recorded in a public office.
attorney fees. MCMP appealed to the Court of Appeals when its
motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC, but the appeal was Relative thereto, Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 130 provide the relevant
also denied, hence it elevated its case to the Supreme Court, on the rules on the presentation of secondary evidence to prove the contents
issue of whether or not secondary evidence may be presented in the of a lost document:
absence of the original. It argues that the custodian of the original
document was not presented to prove its loss; its loss was not even “Section 5. When original document is unavailable. — When the
reported to the police; it was only searched by Monark for purposes of original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced
the instant case. in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the
cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its
ISSUE: contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic
document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
Whether the appellate court should have disallowed the presentation
of secondary evidence to prove the existence of the Contract, Section 6. When original document is in adverse party’s custody or
following the Best Evidence Rule. control. — If the document is in the custody or under the control of
adverse party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after
HELD: such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to
produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in
No. “Petitioner’s contention is erroneous. the case of its loss.”

The Best Evidence Rule, a basic postulate requiring the production of In Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Lagman,  the Court set
the original document whenever its contents are the subject of down the requirements before a party may present secondary
inquiry, is contained in Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court evidence to prove the contents of the original document whenever the
which provides: original copy has been lost:

“Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the
the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall contents of the original, the offeror must prove the following: (1) the
be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the existence or due execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction
following cases: of the original or the reason for its non-production in court; and (3) on
the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be unavailability of the original can be attributed. The correct order of
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents.
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the
party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to In the instant case, the CA correctly ruled that the above requisites
produce it after reasonable notice; are present. Both the CA and the RTC gave credence to the testimony
of Peregrino that the original Contract in the possession of Monark has
been lost and that diligent efforts were exerted to find the same but computerized copies of list of employees with automated teller
to no avail. Such testimony has remained uncontroverted. As has been machine (ATM) cards to the supplemental appeal. This list also
repeatedly held by this Court, “findings of facts and assessment of showed the amounts allegedly deposited in the employees’ ATM cards.
credibility of witnesses are matters best left to the trial court.” Hence, On the other hand, petitioners filed an Urgent Manifestation and
the Court will respect the evaluation of the trial court on the credibility Motion where they asked for the deletion of the supplemental appeal
of Peregrino. from the records because it allegedly suffered from infirmities. First,
the supplemental appeal was not verified. Second, it was belatedly
MCMP, to note, contends that the Contract presented by Monark is not filed six months from the filing of the respondents’ notice of appeal
the contract that they entered into. Yet, it has failed to present a copy with memorandum on appeal. The petitioners pointed out that they
of the Contract even despite the request of the trial court for it to only agreed to the respondents’ filing of a responsive pleading until
produce its copy of the Contract. Normal business practice dictates December 18, 2002. Third¸ the attached documentary evidence on
that MCMP should have asked for and retained a copy of their the supplemental appeal bore the petitioners’ forged signatures.
agreement. Thus, MCMP’s failure to present the same and even
explain its failure, not only justifies the presentation by Monark of NLRC giving weight to the photocopy of computerized payroll records
secondary evidence in accordance with Section 6 of Rule 130 of the ruled in favor of respondent. It maintained that the absence of the
Rules of Court, but it also gives rise to the disputable presumption petitioners’ signatures in the payrolls was not an indispensable factor
adverse to MCMP under Section 3 (e) of Rule 131 of the Rules of for their authenticity. The CA affirmed the NLRC’s ruling.
Court that “evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if
produced.” ISSUE:

23. Whether or not mere photocopies as documentary evidence filed 6

WILGEN LOON et al. vs. POWER MASTER, INC.et al. months from notice of appeal are admissible in evidence where there
G.R. No. 189404, December 11, 2013 is an allegation of forgery by the adverse party.
DOCTRINE:
HELD:
While courts generally admit in evidence and give probative value to
photocopied documents in administrative proceedings, allegations of The answer is in the negative. While strict adherence to the technical
forgery and fabrication should prompt the adverse party to present rules of procedure is not required in labor cases, the liberality of
the original documents for inspection. procedural rules is qualified by two requirements: (1) a party should
adequately explain any delay in the submission of evidence; and (2) a
party should sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be proven.
FACTS:
Respondents, in this case, failed to sufficiently prove the allegations
Respondents employed and assigned the petitioners as janitors and sought to be proven. Why the respondents’ photocopied and
leadsmen in various PLDT offices in Metro Manila area. Subsequently, computerized copies of documentary evidence were not presented at
the petitioners filed a complaint for money claims and illegal dismissal. the earliest opportunity is a serious question that lends credence to
Labor Arbiter (LA) partially ruled in favor of the petitioners. Both the petitioners’ claim that the respondents fabricated the evidence for
parties appealed the LA’s ruling with the NLRC. purposes of appeal.

Six (6) months after filing their notice of appeal, Respondents filed an While courts generally admit in evidence and give probative value to
unverified supplemental appeal. They attached photocopied and photocopied documents in administrative proceedings, allegations of
forgery and fabrication should prompt the adverse party to present Extrajudicial Partition, the certified true copy of cadastral map and the
the original documents for inspection. It was incumbent upon the municipal assessor's records. Hence, this petition for review on
respondents to present the originals, especially in this case where the certiorari where petitioners argued that the cadastral map, which
petitioners had submitted their specimen signatures. Instead, the serves as the basis of the alleged partition, is inadmissible in violation
respondents effectively deprived the petitioners of the opportunity to of the best evidence rule and hearsay rule.
examine and controvert the alleged spurious evidence by not adducing
the originals. Failure to present the originals raises the presumption ISSUE:
that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.
Whether or not a certified true copy of cadastral map is inadmissible
24. THERESITA DIMAGUILA et al. vs. JOSE and SONIA A. in evidence on the ground that it violates the best evidence rule and
MONTEIRO hearsay rule.
G.R. No. 201011, January 27, 2014
HELD:
DOCTRINE:
The answer is in the negative. Anent violation of Best Evidence Rule,
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no Section 3(d) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that when the
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
except when the original is a public record in the custody of a public admissible other than the original document itself, except when the
officer or is recorded in a public office. original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office. Section 7 of the same Rule provides that
FACTS: when the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or
is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified
Respondent spouses filed their Complaint for Partition and Damages copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. Section 24 of Rule
against the petitioners. Later on the complaint was amended to an 132 provides that the record of public documents may be evidenced
action for recovery. Respondent alleged: (1) that the disputed by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody or the
property was originally owned by Buenaseda; (2) had long been record. Certified true copies of the cadastral map of Liliw and the
partitioned between her two sons, Perfecto and Vitaliano Dimaguila; corresponding list of claimants of the area covered by the map were
and (3) that owned 1/3 of the portion of Perfecto’s share by virtue of presented by two public officers.
a deed of sale executed between them and one of Perfecto’s heir,
Pedro. As to the Hearsay Rule, Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
similarly provides that entries in official records are an exception to
While in their original answer, petitioner alleged that the subject the rule. The rule provides that entries in official records made in the
property had already been extra-judicially partitioned between the performance of the duty of a public officer of the Philippines, or by a
heirs of Vitaliano and Perfecto, they subsequently changed their person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are
position when the complaint was amended. They now claimed that the prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. The necessity of this
property was not partitioned with specific metes and bounds. What is rule consists in the inconvenience and difficulty of requiring the
cleared among the heirs is their respective shares thereof. official's attendance as a witness to testify to the innumerable
transactions in the course of his duty. The document's trustworthiness
RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Monteiro. CA affirmed the ruling of the consists in the presumption of regularity of performance of official
RTC. The CA found that Spouses Monteiro had established their case duty.
by a preponderance of evidence thru their presentation of the Deed of
Cadastral maps are the output of cadastral surveys. The DENR is the
department tasked to execute, supervise and manage the conduct of Trial ensued, there has been an issue as to the attendant costs of the
cadastral surveys. It is, therefore, clear that the cadastral map and the construction, PIATCO was required to submit the original documents
corresponding list of claimants qualify as entries in official records as to the court, however PIATCO argues that his non-submission is
they were prepared by the DENR, as mandated by law. As such, they justified under Sec. 3 rule 130 of the ROC, referring to the submission
are exceptions to the hearsay rule and are prima facie evidence of the of numerous accounts.
facts stated therein. Issue:
w/n the non-submission of original documents is justified
25. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS MUPAS Ruling:
The court held in the negative, that although the contention of non-
Doctrine: submission due to numerous accounts of the document is justifiable
Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiry relates to under the rule. However, as a condition precedent to the admission of
the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other a summary of numerous documents, the proponent must lay a proper
than the original document itself. In proving the terms of a written foundation for the admission of the original documents on which the
document, the original of the document must be produced in court.— summary is based. The proponent must prove that the source
Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiry relates to documents being summarized are also admissible if presented in
the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other court.
than the original document itself. In proving the terms of a written Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiry relates to
document, the original of the document must be produced in court. the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other
than the original document itself. In proving the terms of a written
Facts: document, the original of the document must be produced in court.—
On October 5, 1994, Asia's Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC) submitted Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiry relates to
an unsolicited proposal to the Government - through the Department the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other
of Transportation and Communications (DOTC)and the Manila than the original document itself. In proving the terms of a written
International Airport Authority (MIAA)- for the construction and document, the original of the document must be produced in court.
development of the NAIA-IPT III under a build-operate-and-transfer
(BOT) arrangement. The DOTC and the MIAA invited the public to Thus, PIATCO having failed to establish that the photocopied
submit competitive and comparative proposals to AEDC's unsolicited documents he presented in courts are authentic, theses photocopied
proposal in accordance with the BOT Law and its implementing rules documents are deemed as hearsay, and shall not be admissible as
Paircargo consortium also submitted their competitive proposal to evidence, or reference to the claimed attendant costs of the project.
build the NAIA-IPT III

Both AEDC and Paircargo offered to build, however, Paircargo 26. ORTAEZ VS CA, oscar inocentes, asuncion inocentes
submitted a bid superior to AEDC’s unsolicited proposal, thus DOTC
awarded the project to Paircargo (PIATCO) Doctrine:
Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of the
PIATCO engaged the services of Takenaka, as well as, Asahikosan, contract, it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract
both foreign corporations organized in Japan, for the construction of additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all
the NAIA-IPT, however, PIATCO defaulted on its obligations, and to in writing – unless there be fraud or mistake.
settle the problem Takenaka and Asahikosan agreed to defer
PIATCO’s payments until June 2003. Facts:
Two parcels of lands were sold, private respondents received the became due and the petitioners failed to pay the same, Allied Banking
payments, but failed to deliver the titles to petitioner, petitioner was constrained to file a case of collection against the respondents,
demanded for the delivery of the titles, but the petitioners refused, holding Elise and Lapu-lapu solidarily liable.
claiming that the first lot is in possession of another person, and the
second lot is subject to petitioners certain conditions However, in the foundation denied incurring the obligation,
During trial, private respondent oscar, a former judge, orally testified contending that the loan was contracted by Tan on his personal
that the sale was subject to the above conditions, although such was capacity, for his own use and benefit, the foundation maintained that
not incorporated in deed of sale it never authorized tan to co-sign in his capacity as President
Petitioner objected on the parol evidence rule, the lower court
nonetheless admitted them eventually. CA affirmed. Hence this Tan, admitted however, that the loans were actually in his personal
petition. capacity, and further alleging that there was an oral agreement
Issue: between Tan and an employee of allied bank, that the loans shall be
w/n the parol evidence here in proferred is admissible paid from Tan’s dividends on his shares of common stocks from the
Ruling: Foundation, and that the loans were to be rolled-over every year at an
No, under the general rule in Sec. 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, amount including unpaid interest, until such time it would be actually
when the terms of the agreement are reduced into writing, it is paid by tan
deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence can be Issues:
admitted other than the content thereof – such that whatever is not w/n the alleged oral agreement between Tan and an employee of
found in the instrument is deemed waived and abandoned by the allied bank, is valid and enforceable
parties. Here, after examination of the deed, the court cannot make Held:
an inference that the sale was subject to a condition. Thus, the No, the court held that under Sec 9 of Rule 130 of the rules of court
decision of CA shall be reversed and the case be remanded back to that [w]hen the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing,
trial court for proper disposition of the case. it is to be considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and
Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of the there can be, between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no
contract, it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written
additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all agreement. That the promissory notes clearly and explicitly contained
in writing – unless there be fraud or mistake. maturity dates, that nowhere is it stated therin that they would be
renewed on a year-to-year basis or rolled-over annually until paid
from the proceeds of petitioner Tans shares in the Lapulapu Industries
27. LAPU-LAPU FOUNDATION AND ELIAS TAN VS CA AND Corp. Accordingly, this purported unwritten agreement could not be
ALLIED BANKING made to vary or contradict the terms and conditions in the promissory
notes.
Doctrine:
Parol evidence is generally admissible to explain the meaning of a Thus, while parol evidence is generally admissible to explain the
written contract, it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating unto meaning of a written contract, it cannot serve the purpose of
said contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not incorporating unto said contract additional contemporaneous
mentioned in the writing, unless there be fraud or mistake. conditions which are not mentioned in the writing, unless there be
fraud or mistake.
Facts:
Elias tan, president of Lapu-Lapu, obtained four loans covered with
four promissory notes from respondent Allied Banking, Obligation 28. MODESTO LEOVERAS vs. CASIMERO VALDEZ
G.R. No. 169985               June 15, 2011 parties’ real intention - i.e., the extent of their ownership would be
Doctrine: based on their actual possession.
When the terms of an agreement are reduced to writing, the written Issue:
agreement is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no Whether the CA erred in ordering the reconveyance of the parcel of
evidence of these terms can be admitted other than what is contained land covered by the petitioner’s titles despite the fact that the assailed
in the written agreement. Agreement does not contain the true intent of the parties in
Facts: accordance to the allegations of the petitioner. – NO.
Maria Sta. Maria and Dominga Manangan were the registered owners Held:
- three-fourths (¾) and one-fourth (¼) pro-indiviso, respectively - of The petitioner’s argument calls for the application of the parol
a parcel of land located in Pangasinan. In September 1932, Sta. Maria evidence rule, i.e., when the terms of an agreement are reduced to
sold her share to Benigna Llamas. When Benigna died, she willed her writing, the written agreement is deemed to contain all the terms
share equally to her two sisters, Alejandra and Josefa. Alejandra’s agreed upon and no evidence of these terms can be admitted other
heirs sold their predecessor’s share to the respondent. Josefa sold her than what is contained in the written agreement. Whatever is not
own to the respondent and the petitioner. The respondent and the found in the writing is understood to have been waived and
petitioner executed an Agreement, allotting their portions of the abandoned.
subject property. The parties took possession of their respective To avoid the operation of the parol evidence rule, the Rules of Court
portions of the subject property and declared it in their name for allows a party to present evidence modifying, explaining or adding to
taxation purposes. the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading,
In 1996, the respondent asked the Register of Deeds of Lingayen, as in this case, the failure of the written agreement to express the
Pangasinan on the requirements for the transfer of title over the true intent and agreement of the parties. The failure of the written
portion allotted to him on the subject property. To his surprise, the agreement to express the true intention of the parties is either by
respondent learned that the petitioner had already obtained in his reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, which
name two transfer certificates of title: one, TCT No. 195812 - covering nevertheless did not prevent a meeting of the minds of the parties.
an area of 3,020 square meters; and two, TCT No. 195813 - covering At the trial, the petitioner attempted to prove, by parol evidence, the
an area of 1,004 square meters (or a total of 4,024 square meters). alleged true intention of the parties by presenting the Affidavit, which
The respondent filed a complaint for Annulment of Title, allegedly corrected the mistake in the previously executed Agreement
Reconveyance and Damages against the petitioner, seeking the and confirmed his ownership of the parcels of land covered by his
reconveyance of the 1,004-square meter portion, on the ground that titles. It was the petitioner’s staunch assertion that the respondent co-
the petitioner is entitled only to the 3,020 square meters identified in executed this Affidavit supposedly to reflect the parties’ true intention.
the parties’ Agreement. In the present petition, however, the petitioner made a damaging
The respondent contested the authenticity of the petitioner’s admission that the Benigna Deed is fabricated, thereby completely
documents. Particularly, the Benigna Deed by presenting Benigna’s bolstering the respondent’s cause of action for reconveyance of the
death certificate. The respondent argued that Benigna could not have disputed property on the ground of fraudulent registration of title.
executed a deed, which purports to convey 4,024 square meters to Since the Affidavit merely reflects what is embodied in the Benigna
the petitioner, in 1969 because Benigna already died in 1944. The Deed, the petitioner’s admission, coupled with the respondent’s denial
respondent added that neither could Sta. Maria have sold to the of his purported signature in the Affidavit, placed in serious doubt the
parties her three-fourths (¾) share in 1969 because she had already reliability of this document, supposedly the bedrock of the petitioner’s
sold her share to Benigna in 1932.  defense.
In his defense, the petitioner claimed in signing the Agreement, he Contrary to the petitioner’s claim that his actual possession determines
was led to believe, based on the parties’ rough estimation, that the the extent of his ownership, it is the parties’ Agreement that defines
area he actually possessed is only 3,020 square meters contrary to the the extent of their ownership in the subject property. One of the legal
effects of partition, whether by agreement among the co-owners or by Pursuant to the Agreement, Kimwa hauled 10,000 cubic meters of
judicial proceeding, is to terminate the co-ownership and, aggregates. Sometime after this, however, Kimwa stopped hauling
consequently, to make the previous co-owners the absolute and aggregates. Claiming that in so doing, Kimwa violated the Agreement,
exclusive owner of the share allotted to him. Lucia filed the Complaint for breach of contract with damages.
In its Answer, Kimwa alleged that it never committed to obtain 40,000
While the CA correctly nullified the petitioner’s certificates of title, the cubic meters of aggregates from Lucia. It argued that the
CA erred in ordering the reconveyance of the entire subject property controversial quantity of 40,000 cubic meters represented only an
in the respondent’s favor. The respondent himself admitted that the upper limit or the maximum quantity that it could haul. Kimwa
3,020- square meter portion covered by TCT No. 195812 is the asserted that the Agreement articulated the parties’ true intent that
petitioner’s just share in the subject property. Thus, although the 40,000 cubic meters was a maximum limit and that May 15, 1995 was
petitioner obtained TCT No. 195812 using the same spurious never set as a deadline. Invoking the Parol Evidence Rule, it insisted
documents, the land covered by this title should not be reconveyed in that Spouses Paras were barred from introducing evidence which
favor of the respondent since he is not the rightful owner of the would show that the parties had agreed differently.
property covered by this title. Issue:
WHEREFORE, the petition is partially GRANTED. The assailed decision Whether Spouses Paras were able to establish that Kimwa was obliged
and resolution of the Court of Appeals are MODIFIED. Accordingly, the to haul a total of 40,000 cubic meters of aggregates on or before May
petitioner is directed to RECONVEY to the respondent the parcel of 15, 1995. – YES.
land covered by TCT No. 195813. Costs against petitioner. Held:
Kimwa is liable for failing to haul the remainder of the quantity which
it was obliged to acquire from Paras.
29. SPOUSES BONIFACIO AND LUCIA PARAS vs. KIMWA Rule 130, Section 9 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides for the
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Parol Evidence Rule, the rule on admissibility of documentary evidence
G.R. No. 171601 April 8, 2015 when the terms of an agreement have been reduced into writing:
Doctrine: Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an
A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading: containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the
a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms
agreement; other than the contents of the written agreement.
b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to
and agreement of the parties thereto; the terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
c) The validity of the written agreement; or
d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement. agreement;
Facts: b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent
Lucia was a concessionaire of a sand and gravel permit and Kimwa is and agreement of the parties thereto;
a construction firm that sells concrete aggregates to contractors and c) The validity of the written agreement; or
haulers. On December 6, 1994, Lucia and Kimwa entered into a d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
contract where 40,000 cubic meters of aggregates were "allotted" by successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.
Lucia as supplier to Kimwa. Kimwa was to pick up the allotted Apart from pleading these exceptions, it is equally imperative that the
aggregates at Lucia’s permitted area in Toledo City at ₱240.00 per parol evidence sought to be introduced points to the conclusion
truckload. proposed by the party presenting it. That is, it must be relevant,
tending to "induce belief in [the] existence" of the flaw, true intent, or Spouses Paras’ assertion that, in entering into the Agreement with
subsequent extraneous terms averred by the party seeking to respondent Kimwa, petitioner Lucia Paras did so because of
introduce parol evidence. respondent Kimwa's promise that hauling can be completed by May
In sum, two (2) things must be established for parol evidence to be 15, 1995. Bound as she was by the Special Permit, petitioner Lucia
admitted: first, that the existence of any of the four (4) exceptions has Paras needed to make it eminently clear to any party she was
been put in issue in a party’s pleading or has not been objected to by transacting with that she could supply aggregates only up to May 15,
the adverse party; and second, that the parol evidence sought to be 1995 and that the other party's hauling must be completed by May 15,
presented serves to form the basis of the conclusion proposed by the 1995. She was merely acting with due diligence, for otherwise, any
presenting party. contract she would enter into would be negated; any commitment she
Contrary to the Court of Appeal’s conclusion, Spouses Paras pleaded in would make beyond May 15, 1995 would make her guilty of
the Complaint they filed before the trial court a mistake or misrepresentation, and any prospective income for her would be
imperfection in the Agreement, as well as the Agreement’s failure to rendered illusory.
express the true intent of the parties. Further, Kimwa, through its WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated
Answer, also responded to petitioners Spouses Paras’ pleading of July 4, 2005 and Resolution dated February 9, 2006 of the Court of
these issues. This is, thus, an exceptional case allowing admission of Appeals Special 20th Division in CA-G.R. CV No. 74682 are REVERSED
parol evidence. and SET ASIDE. The Decision of Branch 55 of the Regional Trial Court,
It is true that petitioners’ Complaint does not specifically state words Mandaue City dated May 16, 2001 in Civil Case No. MAN-2412 is
and phrases such as "mistake," "imperfection," or "failure to express REINSTATED.
the true intent of the parties." Nevertheless, it is evident that the crux
of petitioners Spouses Paras’ Complaint is their assertion that the 30. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GAYAM. PASIMIO
Agreement "entered into . . . on 6 December 1994 or thereabouts" G.R. No. 205590, September 02, 2015
was founded on the parties’ supposed understanding that the quantity Doctrine:
of aggregates allotted in favor of Kimwa must be hauled by May 15, When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
1995, lest such hauling be rendered impossible by the rechanneling of to be considered as containing all such terms, and, therefore, there
petitioner Lucia Paras’ permitted area. can be, between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no
The Special Permit’s condition (issued to Paras) that a total of only evidence of the terms of the agreement other than the contents of the
about 40,000 cubic meters of aggregates may be extracted by writing.
petitioner Lucia Paras from the permitted area lends credence to the Facts:
position that the aggregates "allotted" to respondent Kimwa was in Pasimio filed suit against PNB for the recovery of a sum of money and
consideration of its corresponding commitment to haul all 40,000 damages, she alleged having a peso and dollar time deposit accounts
cubic meters. This is so, especially in light of the Agreement’s own with PNB in the total amount of P4,322,057.57 and US$5,170.80,
statement that "the said Aggregates is for the exclusive use of respectively; that both investment placements have matured; and
[respondent Kimwa.]"57 By allotting the entire 40,000 cubic meters, when she sought to withdraw her deposit money with accrued
petitioner Lucia Paras bound her entire business to respondent Kimwa. interests, PNB refused to oblige.
Rational human behavior dictates that she must have done so with the PNB admitted the fact of deposit placement but it claimed that Pasimio
corresponding assurances from it. It would have been irrational, if not is without right to insist on their withdrawal, the deposited amount
ridiculous, of her to oblige herself to make this allotment without having already been used in payment of her outstanding loan
respondent Kimwa’s concomitant undertaking that it would obtain the obligations to the bank. PNB narrated how the set off of sort came
entire amount allotted. about: Pasimio and her husband took out three "loans against deposit
Likewise, the condition that the Special Permit shall be valid for only hold-out" from the PNB Sucat branch, as follows: Three Million One
six (6) months from November 14,1994 lends credence to petitioners Hundred Thousand Peso (P3,100,000) loan on March 21, 2001; a One
Million Seven Hundred Thousand Peso (P1,700,000) loan on April 2, instrument, is not sufficient to assail its validity. To overthrow the
2001; and a Thirty-One Thousand One Hundred US Dollar (US$31,1 recitals of such instrument, convincing and more than merely
00) loan on December 7, 2001. preponderant evidence is necessary. A contrary rule would throw wide
During the trial following the joinder of issues, Pasimio denied open doors to fraud. Following this doctrine, Pasimio's notarized
obtaining any loan from PNB, let alone receiving the corresponding promissory notes bearing her signature and that of her husband must
loan proceeds. While conceding signing certain documents which be upheld, absent, as here, strong, complete, and conclusive proof of
turned out to be the Peso Loans Against Peso/FX Deposit Loan their nullity.
Applications, the Promissory Notes and Hold-out on Savings The promissory notes, bearing Pasimio's signature, speak for
Deposit/Peso/FX Time Deposit and Assignment of Deposit Substitute themselves. To repeat, Pasimio has not questioned the genuineness
and the Disclosure Statements of Loan/Credit Transaction (Loan and due execution of the notes. By signing the promissory notes, she
Documents), she professed not understanding what they really meant. is deemed to acknowledge receipt of the corresponding loan proceeds.
She agreed to affix her signature on these loan documents in blank or Withal, she cannot plausibly set up the defense that she did not apply
in an incomplete state, she added, only because the PNB Sucat branch for any loan, and receive the value of the notes or any consideration
manager and Customer Relations Officer led her to believe that what therefor in order to escape her liabilities under these promissory
she was signing were related to new high-yielding PNB products. notes.
Pasimio would also deny re-lending the loan proceeds to Paolo Sun. But the foregoing is not all. PNB presented evidence that strengthened
The RTC ruled in favor of Pasimio. The disposition is predicated on the its allegation on the existence of the loan. Here, each promissory note
postulate that Pasimio had proven by convincing evidence that she did was supported by a corresponding loan application form and
not obtain any loan accommodation from PNB. As a corollary, the trial disclosure statement, all of which carried Pasimio's signatures.
court held that there was no evidence showing the release by PNB of Isolated from each other, these documents might not prove the
the loan proceeds to Pasimio. CA affirmed the RTC decision. existence of the loan, but when taken together, collectively, they show
Issue: that Pasimio took the necessary steps to contract loans from PNB and
Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC Decision granting was aware of their terms and conditions.
Pasimio's complaint for a sum of money. – YES. Finally, it is well to consider this rule: that when the terms of an
Held: agreement have been reduced to writing, it is to be considered as
In upholding the RTC's finding respecting Pasimio's never having containing all such terms, and, therefore, there can be, between the
received any loan proceeds, the CA doubtless disregarded the rule parties and their successors-in-interest, no evidence of the terms of
holding that a promissory note is the best evidence of the transaction the agreement other than the contents of the writing.
embodied therein; also, to prove the existence of the loan, there is no
need to submit a separate receipt to prove that the borrower received Under this rule, parol evidence or oral evidence cannot be given to
the loan proceeds. Indeed, a promissory note represents a solemn contradict, change or vary a written document, except if a party
acknowledgment of a debt and a formal commitment to repay it on presents evidence to modify, explain, or add to the terms of a written
the date and under the conditions agreed upon by the borrower and agreement and puts in issue in his pleadings: (a) an intrinsic
the lender. As has been held, a person who signs such an instrument ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the written agreement; (b) the
is bound to honor it as a legitimate obligation duly assumed by him failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
through the signature he affixes thereto as a token of his good faith. agreement of the parties; (c) the validity of the written agreement;
If he reneges on his promise without cause, he forfeits the sympathy and (d) the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
and assistance of this Court and deserves instead its sharp successors-in-interest after the execution of the written agreement.
repudiation. Such evidence, however, must be clear and convincing and of such
The Court has also declared that a mere denial of the receipt of the sufficient credibility as to overturn the written agreement. Since no
loan, which is stated in a clear and unequivocal manner in a public
evidence of such nature is before the Court, the documents
embodying the loan agreement of the parties should be upheld. Issue:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Whether or not the CA gravely abuse its discretion, and err in
assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 23, 2013 in declaring that, neither is there error on the part of the Regional Trial
CA-G.R. CV No. 94079 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Court, when it did not give importance to the affidavits by Gloria
Ligaya M. Pasimio's complaint in Civil Case No. CV-05-0195 before the Leano Saez, Noel [Oboza], and Paulina Paran for allegedly being self-
Regional Trial Court of Paranaque City, Branch 196 is DISMISSED for serving.
lack of merit.
Held:
31. Heirs of Sabanpan v. Comorposa (2003)
Petitioners assert that the CA erred in disregarding the Affidavits
of their witnesses, insisting that the Rule on Summary Procedure
DOCTRINE:
authorizes the use of affidavits. They also claim that the failure of
The admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative
respondents to file their position paper and counter-affidavits before
value.
the MTC amounts to an admission by silence.
Just because a piece of evidence is admitted does not ipso facto mean
that it conclusively proves the fact in dispute. The admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its
probative value. Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain
Facts: pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, while probative value
refers to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves an
A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by petitioners against issue. Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but its
respondents before the Santa Cruz, Davao del Sur Municipal Trial evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines
Court. It alleged that Marcos Saez was the lawful and actual possessor provided by the rules of evidence.
of the land. In 1960, he died leaving all his heirs, his children and
While in summary proceedings affidavits are admissible as the
grandchildren. Francisco Comorposa, being a close family friend of
witnesses respective testimonies, the failure of the adverse party to
Marcos, approached the late Saezs son, Adolfo, to occupy the land of
reply does not ipso facto  render the facts, set forth therein, duly
Marcos Saez. He occupied a portion of without paying any rental. He
proven. Petitioners still bear the burden of proving their cause of
was succeeded in his possession by the respondents who likewise did
action, because they are the ones asserting an affirmative relief.
not pay any rental and are occupying the premises through petitioners
tolerance.
32 Torres v. PAGCOR (2011)
On 7 May 1998, a formal demand was made upon the respondents to
vacate the premises but the latter refused to vacate the same and DOCTRINE:
claimed that they were the legitimate claimants and the actual and A facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic evidence.
lawful possessor of the premises. An action for unlawful detainer was It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best
filed by petitioners against respondents. Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence.

The Municipal Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of petitioners Facts:  

but the Regional Trial Court of Digos, Davao del Sur, on appeal, Ellery March G. Torres was a slot machine operator supervisor for
reversed and set aside the said decision PAGCOR.  Within the period November 2066 to March 2007, there was
a complaint filed before the office of the HR department of the
respondent for the involvement of Torres in the allege padding of the The public prosecutor charged petitioner-accused Rustan Ang
credit meter reading of the slot machines.  The investigation (Rustan) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baler, Aurora, of
conducted affirmatively proved that Torres was involved with the said violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act or
crime.  The administrative tribunal adjudge for the dismissal of Torres. Republic Act (R.A.) 9262 in an information that reads:
Torres filed a motion for reconsideration for the said judgment
through facsimile transmission. The Administrative tribunal denied On or about June 5, 2005, in the Municipality of Maria Aurora,
such motion, affirmed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and Province of Aurora, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
further affirmed by the appellate court. Honorable Court, the said accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
in a purposeful and reckless conduct, sent through the Short
Issue:   Messaging Service (SMS) using his mobile phone, a pornographic
Whether or not the CSC erred in ruling that there was no valid letter picture to one Irish Sagud, who was his former girlfriend, whereby the
reconsideration submitted. face of the latter was attached to a completely naked body of another
woman making it to appear that it was said Irish Sagud who is
Held:   depicted in the said obscene and pornographic picture thereby causing
No. The mode used by the petitioner in filing his reconsideration is not substantial emotional anguish, psychological distress and humiliation
sanctioned by the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil to the said Irish Sagud.
Service. As stated earlier, the motion for reconsideration may be filed
only in two ways, either by mail or personal delivery. On August 1, 2001, the RTC found Rustan guilty of the violation of
” A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It is, at best, an Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262. On Rustan’s appeal to the Court of Appeals
exact copy preserving all the marks of an original. Without the (CA), the latter rendered a decision dated January 31, 2008, affirming
original, there is no way of determining on its face whether the the RTC decision. Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish
facsimile pleading is genuine and authentic and was originally signed through a text message constitutes an electronic document. Thus, it
by them party and his counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham should be authenticated by means of an electronic signature, as
pleading.xxx” (Garvida vs Sales, Jr.) provided under Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence
“We, therefore, conclude that the terms “electronic data message” (A.M. 01-7-01-SC).
and “electronic document” as defined under the Electronic Commerce
Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission. Accordingly, a The CA denied Rustan’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution
facsimile transmission cannot be considered as electronic evidence. It dated April 25, 2008. Thus, Rustan filed the present for review
is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best Evidence on certiorari.
Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence.” (MCC Industries
Sales Corporation vs Ssangyong Corporation). Issue:  
Petition denied. Whether or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene
picture presented in the case.
33. Ang v. Republic (2010)
Held:  
Facts:   Yes. The Supreme Court affirms the decision of the CA. Rustan claims
This case concerns a claim of commission of the crime of violence that the obscene picture sent to Irish through a text message
against women when a former boyfriend sent to the girl the picture of constitutes an electronic document. Thus, it should be authenticated
a naked woman, not her, but with her face on it. by means of an electronic signature, as provided under Section 1, Rule
5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC).
However, Rustan is raising this objection to the admissibility of the ISSUE
obscene picture for the first time before the Supreme Court. The
objection is too late since he should have objected to the admission 1. Whether or not the evidence of the text messages were
of the picture on such ground at the time it was offered in evidence. inadmissible, not having been properly identified.
He should be deemed to have already waived such ground for 2. Whether or not circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to attain
objection. a conviction.

Moreover, the rules he cites do not apply to the present criminal HELD:
action. The Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions,
quasi-judicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings. In 1. As to the admissibility of the text messages, the RTC admitted them
conclusion, the Court finds that the prosecution has proved each and in conformity with the Court’s earlier Resolution applying the Rules
every element of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. on Electronic Evidence to criminal actions. Text messages are to be
proved by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or
has personal knowledge of them. Here, PO3 Cambi, posing as the
34. PEOPLE V. ENOJAS accused Enojas, exchanged text messages with the other accused in
order to identify and entrap them. As the recipient of those messages
DOCTRINE: Rules on Electronic Evidence to criminal actions: To be sent from and to the mobile phone in his possession, PO3 Cambi had
admissible, text messages are to be proved by the testimony of a personal knowledge of such messages and was competent to testify
person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge of on them.
them.
2. This may be true but the prosecution could prove their liability by
FACTS: The defendant, taxi driver Enojas, was stopped by police circumstantial evidence that meets the evidentiary standard of proof
while parked suspiciously in front of a glass shop. Enojas provided the beyond reasonable doubt. It has been held that circumstantial
police with identification that the officers suspected to be fake. The evidence is sufficient for conviction if: 1) there is more than one
officers then asked Enojas to accompany them to the police station. circumstance; 2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
Enojas agreed. proven; and 3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Here the totality of
On the way, the officers stopped at a 7/11 to use the restroom. The the circumstantial evidence the prosecution presented sufficiently
officer who went into the store apprehended two robbers, one of provides basis for the conviction of all the accused.
whom shot and killed the officer. The other officer got out of the car
upon hearing the gunshots. Returning to the police car, he found that 35. SYHUNLIONG VS RIVERA
Enojas had fled the scene. Later, the police searched his abandoned
taxi car and found Enojas’ phone. They monitored the messages on DOCTRINE : In order to prove that a statement falls within the
the phone and communicated with the other suspects, resulting in an purview of a qualified privileged communication under Article 354, No.
entrapment operation. 1, the following requisites must concur: (1) the person who made the
communication had a legal, moral, or social duty to make the
Enojas, along with several other defendants, was charged with murder communication, or at least, had an interest to protect, which interest
in 2006 before the Las Pifias Regional Trial Court. The Court of may either be his own or of the one to whom it is made; (2) the
Appeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior,
accused then appealed to the Supreme Court. having some interest or duty in the matter, and who has the power to
furnish the protection sought; and (3) the statements in the thereto, Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the
communication are made in good faith and without malice. prescription of crime has the effect of totally extinguishing the criminal
liability. Prescription of the crime is already a compelling reason for
FACTS: Syhunliong and Rivera are respectively the private this Court to order the dismissal of the libel information, but the Court
complainant and defendant in the instant case. Syhunliong is the still stresses that the text message which Rivera sent to Lumapas falls
President of BANFF Realty and Development Corporation (BANFF) within the purview of a qualified privileged communication. The rule
while Rivera, citing personal and family matters, tendered her on privileged communication means that a communication made in
resignation as Accounting Manager of BANFF, effective on February 3, good faith on any subject matter in which the communicator has an
2006 and continued working for BANFF until March of the same year interest, or concerning which he has a duty, is privileged if made to a
to complete the turn-over of papers under her custody to Jennifer person having a corresponding duty. In order to prove that a
Lumapas (Lumapas). Sometime in April of 2006, Rivera called statement falls within the purview of a qualified privileged
Lumapas to request for the payment of her remaining salaries, communication under Article 354, No. 1, the following requisites must
benefits and incentives. Lumapas informed Rivera that her benefits concur: (1) the person who made the communication had a legal,
would be paid, but the check representing her salaries was still moral, or social duty to make the communication, or at least, had an
unsigned, and her incentives were put on hold by Syhunliong. Hence, interest to protect, which interest may either be his own or of the one
on April 6, 2006, Rivera sent libelous text message to one of BANFF's to whom it is made; (2) the communication is addressed to an officer
official cellular phones held by Lumapas. Subsequently, on December or a board, or superior, having some interest or duty in the matter,
of 2006, Rivera filed before the National Labor Relations Commission a and who has the power to furnish the protection sought; and (3) the
complaint against Syhunliong for underpaid salaries, 13th to 16th statements in the communication are made in good faith and without
month and incentive pay, gratuities and tax refund. On April 16, 2007 malice. Presiding from the above, the Court thus finds no error in the
pending the resolution of the aforecited labor case, Syhunliong CA' s declaration that Rivera's text message falls within the ambit of a
instituted against Rivera a complaint for libel, and the public qualified privileged communication since she was speaking in response
prosecutor finds probable cause to indict Rivera the crime of libel. to duty, to protect her own interest, and not out of an intent to injure
the reputation of Syhunliong. Besides, there was no unnecessary
Issue/s: Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that the facts charged publicity of the message beyond that of conveying it to the party
in the information do not constitute the offense of libel? Whether or concerned.
not the CA committed reversible error in ordering the outright
dismissal of the complaint of Syhunliong on the putative ground that 36. MARCOS VS HEIRS OF ANDRES NAVARRO, 700 SCRA
the allegedly libelous text messages were privileged communication?
Ruling: There is no merit in the instant petition. Prescription had set DOCTRINE: As provided in Rules of Evidence, all persons who can
in. Well settled rule in statutory construction that the liberal perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others,
construction of prescriptive laws on criminal statutes emanates from may be witnesses, and may only be disqualified if the witness
the liberality of the State, any doubt on this matter must be resolved possesses any disqualifications specified under the rules.
in favor of the grantee thereof, the accused. As prescription of the
crime is the loss by the State of the right to prosecute and punish the FACTS: Spouses Andres Navarro, Sr. and Concepcion Medina-
same. In the case at bar, it is extant in the records that Syhunliong Navarro died, and left behind several parcels of land including the
filed his complaint against Rivera more than one year after the subject lot located in Cayabon, Milagros, Masbate.[3] The spouses
allegedly libelous message was sent to Lumapas. Whether the date of were survived by their daughters Luisa Navarro Marcos, herein
the filing of the complaint is April 16, 2007 or August 18, 2007, it petitioner, and Lydia Navarro Grageda, and the heirs of their only son
would not alter the fact that its institution was made beyond the Andres Navarro, Jr. The heirs of Andres, Jr. are the respondents
prescriptive period provided for in Article 90 of the RPC. In relation herein.[4]Petitioner and her sister Lydia discovered that respondents
are claiming exclusive ownership of the subject lot based on the Moreover, Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence is clear that
Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property dated May 19, 1954 where the opinion of an expert witness may be received in evidence, to wit:
Andres, Sr. donated the subject lot to Andres, Jr. Believing that the
affidavit is a forgery, the sisters, through Assistant Fiscal Andres SEC. 49. Opinion of expert witness. The opinion of a witness on a
Marcos, requested a handwriting examination of the affidavit. The matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which
PNP handwriting expert PO2 Mary Grace Alvarez found that Andres, he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence.
Sr.'s signature on the affidavit and the submitted standard signatures In sum, the RTC should not have disqualified PO2 Alvarez as a
of Andres, Sr. were not written by one and the same person. Thus, witness. She has the qualifications of witness and possess none of
the sisters sued the respondents for annulment of the deed of the disqualifications under the Rules. The Rules allow the opinion of
donation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Masbate. an expert witness to be received as evidence. In Tamani, we used the
opinion of an expert witness. The value of PO2 Alvarez's expert
After the pre-trial, respondents moved to disqualify PO2 Alvarez as a opinion cannot be determined if PO2 Alvarez is not even allowed to
witness. They argued that the RTC did not authorize the handwriting testify on the handwriting examination she conducted.
examination of the affidavit. They added that presenting PO2 Alvarez
as a witness will violate their constitutional right to due process since
no notice was given to them before the examination was conducted.
37. People vs Golimlim
Thus, PO2 Alvarez's report is a worthless piece of paper and her G.R. No. 145225, April 2, 2004
testimony would be useless and irrelevant. CARPIO MORALES, J.

ISSUE: WON PO2 Alvarez is disqualified as a witness. FACTS: Evelyn G. Canchela is a mental retardate. When her mother
Amparo Hachero left for Singapore to work, she entrusted Evelyn to
HELD: NO. the care and custody of her sister Jovita Guban and the latter‘s
In Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits husband appellant Salvador Golimlim.
System v. Republic of the Philippines, we said that a witness must In August 1996, Jovita left the house to meet someone,
only possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications leaving Evelyn with Golimlim. Taking advantage of the situation,
provided in the Rules of Court. Section 20, Rule 130 of the Rules on Golimlim instructed Eveln to sleep, and soon after she had laid down,
Evidence provides: he kissed her and took off her clothes. As he poked at her an object
which to Evelyn felt like a knife, he proceeded to insert his penis into
SEC. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. Except as provided in the her vagina. When Jovita arrived, Evelyn told her about what Golimlim
next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, did to her. Jovita, however, did not believe her.
can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. Lorna Hachero, Evelyn‘s half-sister, received a letter from their
As a handwriting expert of the PNP, PO2 Alvarez can surely perceive mother Amparo instructing her to fetch Evelyn from Sorsogon and
and make known her perception to others. We have no doubt that allow her to stay in Quezon City. Dutifully, Lorna immediately
she is qualified as a witness. She cannot be disqualified as a witness proceeded to Golimlim‘s home and brought Evelyn with her to Manila.
since she possesses none of the disqualifications specified under the A week after she brought Evelyn to stay with her, Lorna suspected
Rules. Respondents' motion to disqualify her should have been that her sister was pregnant as she noticed her growing belly. She
denied by the RTC for it was not based on any of these grounds for thereupon brought her to a doctor for check-up and ultrasound
disqualification. The RTC rather confused the qualification of the examination. The examinations revealed that Evelyn was indeed
witness with the credibility and weight of her testimony. pregnant. She thus asked her sister how she became pregnant, to
which Evelyn replied that appellant had sexual intercourse with her filed an opposition upon the objection of the accused. The trial court
while holding a knife. ordered the testimony of Esperanza to be deleted from the records
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon convicted Golimlim and that it was in violation of the aforesaid rule. Complainant filed for
of the crime of rape. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed a motion for reconsideration, but was subsequently denied, such order
the conviction. Hence, this recourse. prompted complainant to file a certiorari under Rule 65 upon the CA.
ISSUE: Was Evelyn disqualified to testify due to her retardation? The CA set aside the order of the trial court. Hence, this petition.
RULING: NO. The trial judge’s assessment of the credibility of ISSUE: Was Esperanza’s testimony against her husband admissible in
witnesses’ testimonies, as has repeatedly been held by the Supreme evidence?
Court, is accorded great respect on appeal in the absence of grave RULING: YES. Section 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court
abuse of discretion on its part, it having had the advantage of actually provides: During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may
examining both real and testimonial evidence including the demeanor testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected
of the witnesses. spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal
case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latters
In the present case, no cogent reason can be appreciated to direct descendants or ascendants.
warrant a departure from the findings of the trial court with respect to The reasons given for the rule are as follows, to wit: 1.There is
the assessment of Evelyn’s testimony. That Evelyn is a mental identity of interests between husband and wife; 2.If one were to
retardate does not disqualify her as a witness nor render her testify for or against the other, there is consequent danger of perjury;
testimony bereft of truth. 3.The policy of the law is to guard the security and confidences of
private life, even at the risk of an occasional failure of justice, and to
It can not then be gainsaid that a mental retardate can be a
prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness; and 4.Where there is
witness, depending on his or her ability to relate what he or she
want of domestic tranquility there is danger of punishing one spouse
knows. If his or her testimony is coherent, the same is admissible in
through the hostile testimony of the other.
court. Thus, in a long line of cases, the Supreme Court has upheld the
The disqualification of a witness by reason of marriage under
conviction of the accused based mainly on statements given in court
Section 22, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court has its exceptions as where
by the victim who was a mental retardate. And from a meticulous
the marital relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to
scrutiny of the records of this case, there is no reason to doubt
be preserved. The acts of the petitioner stamp out all major aspects of
Evelyn’s credibility.
marital life.
In the case at bar, the relationship between petitioner and his
38. Alvarez vs Ramirez wife was already strained. In fact, they were separated de
G.R. No. 143439, October 14, 2005 facto almost six months before the incident. Indeed, the evidence and
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. facts presented reveal that the preservation of the marriage between
FACTS: Susan Ramirez filled an information for arson against herein petitioner and Esperanza is no longer an interest the State aims to
petitioner Maximo Alvarez. According to Susan, herein petitioner tried protect.
to burn down her house while she and her sister, Esperanza Alvarez
was still inside the said house. Esperanza Alvarez was the estranged
wife of herein petitioner, Maximo Alvarez.
During the trial for the criminal case, complainant presented 39. People vs Castaneda
Esperanza Alvarez as witness; this prompted the accused Maximo to G.R. No. L-46306 February 27, 1979
object, alleging that it is in violation of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
SANTOS, J.
with respect to marital disqualification. Complainant Susan Ramirez
FACTS: On the basis of the complaint of his wife, Victoria M.
Manaloto, herein private respondent Benjamin Manaloto was charged 40. RAZON vs. CA
before the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, presided by G.R. No. 74306, March 16, 1992
respondent Judge, Hon. Mariano C. Castaneda Jr., with the crime of
Falsification of Public Documents. Benjamin forged the signature of DOCTRINE: In Dead Man’s Statute, the rule delimits the prohibition it
Victoria in a deed of sale executed by the accused wherein he sold a contemplates in that it is applicable to a case against the administrator
house and lot belonging to the conjugal partnership, making it appear or its representative of an estate upon a claim against the estate of
that Victoria consented to the sale thereof, when in fact she had not. the deceased person.
 The prosecution called the complaint-wife to the witness stand
but the defense moved to disqualify her as a witness, invoking the FACTS: The petition centers on the ownership of 1,500 shares of
marital disqualification rule. The prosecution opposed said motion to stock in E. Razon, Inc. covered by Stock Certificate No. 003,
disquality on the ground that the case falls under the exception to the registered under the name of Juan T. Chuidian in the books of the
rule, contending that it is a "criminal case for a crime committed by corporation. The RTC declared that Enrique Razon, the petitioner, is
one against the other." Notwithstanding such opposition, respondent the owner of the said shares of stock. The CA however, reversed the
Judge granted the motion, disqualifying Victoria Manaloto from trial court's decision and ruled that Juan T. Chuidian, the deceased
testifying for or against her husband. father of defendant Vicente B. Chuidian, is the owner of the shares of
stock. Enrique Razon wanted the appellate court's decision reversed
A motion for reconsideration petition was filed but was denied and the trial court's decision affirmed while Vicente Chuidian asked
by respondent Judge. Hence, this petition for certiorari. that all cash and stock dividends and all the pre-emptive rights
accruing to the 1,500 shares of stock be ordered delivered to him.
ISSUE: Was Victoria disqualified from testifying?
Petitioner Razon assails the appellate court's decision on its alleged
RULING: NO. It is undeniable that the act complained of had the
misapplication of the dead man's statute rule under Section 20(a) Rule
effect of directly and vitally impairing the conjugal relation. This is
130 of the Rules of Court. According to him, the "dead man's statute"
apparent not only in the act of the wife in personally lodging her
rule is not applicable to the instant case.
complaint with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, but also in her
insistent efforts in connection with the instant petition, which seeks to
ISSUE: Whether or not the “dead man’s satute” is applicable in this
set aside the order disqualified her from testifying against her
case.
husband.
Taken collectively, the actuations of the witness-wife
HELD: No.
underscore the fact that the martial and domestic relations between
The rule delimits the prohibition it contemplates in that it is applicable
her and the accused-husband have become so strained that there is
to a case against the administrator or its representative of an estate
no more harmony to be preserved said nor peace and tranquility
upon a claim against the estate of the deceased person. In the
which may be disturbed. In such a case, identity of interests
instant case, the testimony excluded by the appellate court is that of
disappears and the consequent danger of perjury based on that
the defendant (petitioner herein) to the affect that the late Juan
Identity is nonexistent. Likewise, in such a situation, the security and
Chuidian, (the father of private respondent Vicente Chuidian, the
confidence of private life which the law aims at protecting will be
administrator of the estate of Juan Chuidian) and the defendant
nothing but Ideals which, through their absence, merely leave a void
agreed in the lifetime of Juan Chuidian that the 1,500 shares of stock
in the unhappy home. Thus, there is no reason to apply the martial
in E. Razon, Inc. are actually owned by the defendant unless the
disqualification rule.
deceased Juan Chuidian opted to pay the same which never
happened. The case was filed by the administrator of the estate of the
late Juan Chuidian to recover shares of stock in E. Razon, Inc. undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained
allegedly owned by the late Juan T. Chuidian. account of the transaction.
It is clear, therefore, that the testimony of the petitioner is not within Two reasons forestall the application of the "Dead Man's Statute" to
the prohibition of the rule. The case was not filed against the this case.
administrator of the estate, nor was it filed upon claims against the First, petitioners filed a compulsory counterclaim against respondents
estate. in their answer before the trial court, and with the filing of their
counterclaim, petitioners themselves effectively removed this case
41. SUNGA-CHAN vs. CHUA from the ambit of the "Dead Man's Statute". Well entrenched is the
G.R. No. 143340, August 15, 2001 rule that when it is the executor or administrator or representatives of
DOCTRINE: The "Dead Man's Statute" provides that if one party to the estates that sets up the counterclaim, the plaintiff, herein
the alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by death, insanity, respondent, may testify to occurrences before the death of the
or other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to the deceased to defeat the counterclaim. Moreover, as defendant in the
undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained counterclaim, respondent is not disqualified from testifying as to
account of the transaction. matters of facts occurring before the death of the deceased, said
FACTS: Respondent Chua alleged that he verbally entered into a action not having been brought against but by the estate or
partnership with Jacinto in the distribution of Shellane LPG in Manila. representatives of the deceased.
For business convenience, respondent and Jacinto allegedly agreed to Second, the testimony of Josephine is not covered by the "Dead Man's
register the business name of their partnership, SHELLITE GAS Statute" for the simple reason that she is not "a party or assignor of a
APPLIANCE CENTER under the name of Jacinto as a sole party to a case or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted."
proprietorship. Upon Jacinto's death, his surviving wife, petitioner Records show that respondent offered the testimony of Josephine to
Cecilia and his daughter, petitioner Lilibeth, took over the operations establish the existence of the partnership between respondent and
of Shellite without respondent's consent. Despite respondent's Jacinto. Petitioners' insistence that Josephine is the alter ego of
repeated demands upon petitioners for accounting of Jacinto’s net respondent does not make her an assignor because the term
shares in the partnership, petitioners failed to comply. Thus, "assignor" of a party means "assignor of a cause of action which has
respondent filed a case against petitioners. Petitioners question the arisen, and not the assignor of a right assigned before any cause of
correctness of the finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals action has arisen." Plainly then, Josephine is merely a witness of
that a partnership existed between respondent and Jacinto from 1977 respondent, the latter being the party plaintiff.
until Jacinto's death. In the absence of any written document to show
such partnership between respondent and Jacinto, petitioners argues 42. BORDALBA vs. CA
that these courts were proscribes from hearing the testimonies of
respondent and his witness, Josephine, to prove the alleged G.R. No. 112443. January 25, 2002
partnership three years after Jacinto's death. To support this DOCTRINE: The dead man’s statute does not operate to close the
argument, petitioners invoke the "Dead Man's Statute' or "Survivorship mouth of a witness as to any matter of fact coming to his knowledge
Rule" under Section 23, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. in any other way than through personal dealings with the deceased
ISSUE: Whether or not the testimonies of respondent and his alter person, or communication made by the deceased to the witness.
ego, Josephine, should not have been admitted to prove certain claims FACTS: Elena Jayme Vda. de Perez alleged that the lot sought to be
against a deceased person (Jacinto), now represented by petitioners. registered was originally a part of a land owned by her late parents;
HELD: No. The "Dead Man's Statute" provides that if one party to the and that 1/3 of said land was adjudicated to her in an extra-judicial
alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or partition. She further stated that a portion of the lot for which title is
other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to the applied for is occupied by Nicanor Jayme with her permission.
Consequently, Nicanor Jayme and Asuncion Jayme-Baclay filed their
opposition contending that said application included the 1/3 portion injection on their way to the hospital. Eventually, the marriage
inherited by them in the 1947 extra-judicial partition. Subsequently, relations had gotten worse.
petitioner filed with the Bureau of Lands of Cebu City, seeking the
issuance of a Free Patent over the same lot subject of the aborted During the pre-trial conference, Josielene pre-marked the Philhealth
application of her mother. Claim Form that Johnny attached to his answer as proof of his forcible
Upon learning of the issuance in favor of petitioner of the aforesaid confinement. The form carried a physician’s handwritten note that
Free Patent, private respondents filed with the RTC the instant Johnny suffered from "methamphetamine and alcohol abuse."
complaint against petitioners praying that he Free Patent No be On August 22, 2006 Josielene motioned for a subpoena duces tecum
declared void. The trial court, finding that fraud was employed by to Medical City, covering Johnny’s medical records when he was
petitioner in obtaining Free Patent declared said patent and title void confined. Johnny opposed the motion, arguing that the medical
and ordered its cancellation. Petitioner filed the instant petition, records were covered by physician-patient privilege. RTC sustained
contending that the testimonies given by the witnesses for private the opposition. CA likewise sustained the opposition reasoning that if
respondents which touched on matters occurring prior to the death of courts were to allow the production of medical records, then patients
her mother should not have been admitted by the trial court, as the would be left with no assurance that whatever relevant disclosures
same violated the dead man’s statute. they may have made to their physicians would be kept confidential.
ISSUE: Whether or not the testimonies given by the witnesses
violated the dead man’s statute. Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the RTC correctly
HELD: No. As to the alleged violation of the dead man’s statute, denied the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum covering Johnny’s
suffice it to state that said rule finds no application in the present hospital records on the ground that these are covered by the
case. The dead man’s statute does not operate to close the mouth of privileged character of the physician-patient communication.
a witness as to any matter of fact coming to his knowledge in any
other way than through personal dealings with the deceased person, Ruling: The RTC and CA is correct on denying the motion.
or communication made by the deceased to the witness. SEC. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication.— The
Since the claim of private respondents and the testimony of their following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in
witnesses in the present case is based, inter alia, on the 1947 Deed of the following cases:
Extra-judicial Partition and other documents, and not on dealings and xxxx
communications with the deceased, the questioned testimonies were (c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics
properly admitted by the trial court. cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined
as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which
43. Chan vs. Chan, G.R. No. 179786, July 24, 2013 he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional
capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to act in that
Facts: On February 6, 2006 petitioner Josielene Lara Chan filed capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the patient.
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 144 a
petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to respondent The physician-patient privileged communication rule essentially means
Johnny Chan. Josielene claimed that Johnny failed to care for and that a physician who gets information while professionally attending a
support his family due to incessant drinking and excessive use of patient cannot in a civil case be examined without the patient’s
prohibited drugs. consent as to any facts which would blacken the latter’s reputation.
This rule is intended to encourage the patient to open up to the
Johnny resisted the action, claiming that it was Josielene who failed in physician, relate to him the history of his ailment, and give him access
her wifely duties. He agreed for marriage counseling but suddenly two to his body, enabling the physician to make a correct diagnosis of that
men forcibly held him by both arms while another gave him an ailment and provide the appropriate cure. Any fear that a physician
could be compelled in the future to come to court and narrate all that
had transpired between him and the patient might prompt the latter Facts: The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for plaintiff
to clam up, thus putting his own health at great risk. Alejandro R. Veneracion in a civil case for unlawful detainer against
defendant Federico Barrientos. The MTC of Cabanatuan City rendered
Josielene claims that the hospital records are not privileged since it is judgment in favor of Veneracion but Barrientos appealed to the RTC.
the "testimonial" evidence of the physician that may be regarded as The case was raffled to Branch 30 where Judge Lacurom was sitting
privileged. Section 24(c) of Rule 130 states that the physician "cannot as pairing judge. On 29 June 2001, Judge Lacurom issued a
in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined" Resolution reversing the earlier judgments rendered in favor
regarding their professional conversation. The privilege, says of Veneracion
Josielene, does not cover the hospital records, but only the
examination of the physician at the trial. On July 30, 2001, The plaintiffs’ consuel filed a Motion for
reconsideration with request for inhibition containing the words and
The Supreme Court ruled that to allow the disclosure during discovery phrases; abhorrent nullity, legal monstrosity, horrendous mistake,
procedure of the hospital records, the results of tests that the horrible error, boner, and an insult to the judiciary and an
physician ordered, the diagnosis of the patient’s illness, and the advice anachronism in the judicial process, which are in utter disprespect to
or treatment he gave him would be to allow access to evidence that is the court.
inadmissible because it is without the patient’s consent. Disclosing On 6 August 2001, Judge Lacurom ordered Velasco-Jacoba to appear
them would be the equivalent of compelling the physician to testify on before his sala and explain why she should not be held in contempt of
privileged matters he gained while dealing with the patient, without court for the very disrespectful, insulting and humiliating contents of
the latter’s prior consent. the 30 July 2001 motion.
In her Answer, Velasco-Jacoba claimed that His Honor knows
Josielene again argued that since Johnny attached in his answer the beforehand who actually prepared the subject Motion; records will
Philhealth claim form covering his confinement, he should be deemed show that the undersigned counsel did not actually or actively
to have waived the privileged character of its records. Josielene participate in this case. Nevertheless, Velasco-Jacoba expressed
invokes Section 17, Rule 132 of the Rules of Evidence that provides: willingness to apologize for whatever mistake committed and agreed
SEC. 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, to have the allegedly contemptuous phrases stricken off the record.
the remainder admissible.— When part of an act, declaration, On 13 September 2001, Judge Lacurom found Velasco-Jacoba guilty
conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by one party, the of contempt.
whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the other, and
when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is Velasco-Jacoba moved for reconsideration. She recounted that on her
given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, writing or way out of the house for an afternoon hearing, Atty. Ellis Jacoba
record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence. stopped her and said (“Sign this as it is due today, or it might not be
The Supreme Court ruled that such argument is premature as trial in filed on time.”) She signed the pleading handed to her without reading
the case had not yet begun. It cannot be said that Johnny already it, in trusting blind faith on her husband of 35 years with whom she
presented the Philhealth claim form in evidence. Johnny was not yet entrusted her whole life and future. This pleading turned out to be the
bound to adduce evidence in the case when he filed his answer. He 30 July 2001 motion which Jacoba drafted but could not sign because
attached the Philhealth form to his answer for the limited purpose of of his then suspension from the practice of law.
showing his alleged forcible confinement.
Judge Lacurom issued another order on 21 September 2001, this time
44. Judge Lacurom vs. Attys. Jacoba & Velasco-Jacoba, directing Atty. Jacoba to explain why he should not be held in
A.C. No. 5921, March 10, 2006 contempt. Atty. Jacoba filed his answer with another Motion for
Inhibition, wherein he denied that he typed or prepared the 30 July of rental fees; and (d) having a reputation of being immoral by siring
2001 motion. Against Velasco-Jacobas’ statements implicating him, illegitimate children.
Atty. Jacoba invoked the marital privilege rule in evidence. After Atty. Valencia’s filed comment, the Supreme Court, in its
Resolution referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Issue: Whether the statement of Atty. Velasco-Jacobas’ statement is (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
covered by the Martial privilege rule. The investigation was conducted by Commissioner Raval. After a
series of hearings, the parties filed their respective memoranda and
Ruling: Velasco-Jacoba insists, however, that she signed the 30 July the case was deemed submitted for resolution. Commissioner Reyes
2001 motion only because of her husband’s request but she did not prepared the Report and Recommendation . He found Atty. Valencia
know its contents beforehand. Apparently, this practice of signing guilty of violating Canons 15 and 21.
each others’ pleadings is a long-standing arrangement between the Issue: Whether Atty. Valencia violated Section 15 and 21 of the Code
spouses. According to Velasco-Jacoba, so implicit is their trust for each of Professional Responsibility by serving on two separate occasions as
other that this happens all the time. counsel for contending parties.
Through the years, she already lost count of the number of pleadings Ruling: Under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
prepared by one that is signed by the other. By Velasco-Jacobas own Responsibility, it provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting
admission, therefore, she violated Section 3 of Rule 7. This violation is interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full
an act of falsehood before the courts, which in itself is a ground for disclosure of the facts.
subjecting her to disciplinary action, independent of any other ground A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act
arising from the contents of the 30 July 2001 motion. as counsel for a person whose interest conflicts with that of his
 We now consider the evidence as regards Atty. Jacoba. His name present or former client. He may not also undertake to discharge
does not appear in the 30 July 2001 motion. He asserts the conflicting duties any more than he may represent antagonistic
inadmissibility of Velasco-Jacobas statement pointing to him as the interests. This stern rule is founded on the principles of public policy
author of the motion. The Court cannot easily let Atty. Jacoba off the and good taste. It springs from the relation of attorney and client
hook. Firstly, his Answer with Second Motion for Inhibition did not which is one of trust and confidence. 
contain a denial of his wifes’ account. Instead, Atty. Jacoba impliedly Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence,
admitted authorship of the motion by stating that he trained his guns but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for
and fired at the errors which he perceived and believed to be gigantic only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their
and monumental. lawyers, which is of paramount importance in the administration of
The marital privilege rule, being a rule of evidence, may be waived by justice.
failure of the claimant to object timely to its presentation or by any An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he
conduct that may be construed as implied consent. This waiver applies has represented him but also after the relation of attorney and client
to Atty. Jacoba who impliedly admitted authorship of the 30 July 2001 has terminated. The bare attorney-client relationship with a client
motion. precludes an attorney from accepting professional employment from
Hence, the statement is not covered due to its implied consent. the client’s adversary either in the same case or in a different but
related action. A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent
45. Samala vs. Atty. Valencia, A.C. No. 5439, January 22, 2007 client against a former client when the subject matter of the present
Facts: On May 2, 2001 filed by Clarita J. Samala filed a disbarment controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of
case against Atty. Luciano D. Valencia on the following grounds: (a) the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client.
serving on two separate occasions as counsel for contending parties; Further, Under Canon 21 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, it
(b) knowingly misleading the court by submitting false documentary states that a lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his
evidence; (c) initiating numerous cases in exchange for nonpayment client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.
 The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and
client, which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. A To put this case in perspective it should be stated at the outset that it
lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his client’s does not concern a demand by a citizen for information under the
case. He learns from his client the weak points of the action as well as freedom of information guarantee of the Constitution. 7 Rather it
the strong ones. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and concerns the power of the Office of the Ombudsman to obtain
guarded with care.  evidence in connection with an investigation conducted by it vis-a-
It is evident that Atty. Valencia’s representation of Valdez and Alba Government.
against Bustamante and her husband, in one case, and Valdez against There are several subsidiary issues raised by petitioners, but the
Alba, in another case, is a clear case of conflict of interests which principal ones revolve on the question whether petitioners can be
merits a corresponding sanction from this Court. ordered to produce documents relating to personal services and
Thus, Atty. Valencia is guilty of misconduct suspending him in the salary vouchers of EIIB employees on the plea that such documents
practice of law for three years. are classified.

Disclosure of the documents in question is resisted on the ground

that "knowledge of EIIB's documents relative to its Personal Services
46. ALMONTE V. VASQUEZ (1995) Funds and its plantilla . . . will necessarily [lead to] knowledge of its
operations, movements, targets, strategies, and tactics and the whole
of its being" and this could "destroy the EIIB." 9
Facts:
This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul Petitioners do not question the power of the Ombudsman to issue a
the subpoena duces tecum and orders issued by respondent subpoena duces tecum nor the relevancy or materiality of the
Ombudsman, requiring petitioners Nerio Rogado and Elisa Rivera, as documents required to be produced, to the pending investigation in
chief accountant and record custodian, respectively, of the Economic the Ombudsman's office. Accordingly, the focus of discussion should
Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) to produce "all be on the
documents relating to Personal Services Funds for the year 1988 and
all evidence, such as vouchers (salary) for the whole plantilla of EIIB Government's claim of privilege.
for 1988" and to enjoin him from enforcing his orders.

Petitioner Jose T. Almonte was formerly Commissioner of the EIIB, Held:

while Villamor C. Perez is Chief of the EIIB's Budget and Fiscal
Management Division. The subpoena duces tecum was issued by the In the case at bar, there is no claim that military or diplomatic secrets
Ombudsman in connection with his investigation of an anonymous will be disclosed by the production of records pertaining to the
letter alleging that funds representing savings from unfilled positions personnel of the EIIB. Indeed, EIIB's function is the gathering and
in the EIIB had been illegally disbursed. The letter, purporting to have evaluation of intelligence reports and information regarding "illegal
been written by an employee of the EIIB and a concerned citizen, activities affecting the national economy, such as, but not limited to,
was addressed to the Secretary of Finance, with copies furnished economic sabotage, smuggling, tax evasion, dollar salting." 18
several government offices, including the Office of the Ombudsman. Consequently, while in cases which involve state secrets it may be
sufficient to determine from the circumstances of the case that there
[Claim: The EIIB has a syndicate headed by the Chief of Budget is reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose
Division who is manipulating funds and also the brain of the so called military matters without compelling production, 19 no similar excuse
"ghost agents" or the "Emergency Intelligence Agents" (EIA). ] can be made for a privilege resting on other considerations.
Nor has our attention been called to any law or regulation which In 2005, scandals involving anomalous transactions about the North
considers personnel records of the EIIB as classified information. To Rail Project as well as the Garci tapes surfaced. This prompted the Senate to
conduct a public hearing to investigate the said anomalies particularly the
the contrary, COA Circular No. 88-293, which petitioners invoke to
alleged overpricing in the NRP. The investigating Senate committee issued
support their contention that there is adequate safeguard against invitations to certain department heads and military officials to speak before
misuse of public funds, provides that the "only item of expenditure the committee as resource persons. Ermita submitted that he and some of
which should be treated strictly confidential" is that which refers to the department heads cannot attend the said hearing due to pressing matters
the "purchase of information and payment of rewards." that need immediate attention. AFP Chief of Staff Senga likewise sent a
The other statutes and regulations 21 invoked by petitioners in similar letter. Drilon, the senate president, excepted the said requests for they
support of their contention that the documents sought in the were sent belatedly and arrangements were already made and scheduled.
Subsequently, GMA issued EO 464 which took effect immediately.
subpoena duces tecum of the Ombudsman are classified merely
indicate the confidential nature of the EIIB's functions, but they do EO 464 basically prohibited Department heads, Senior officials of executive
departments who in the judgment of the department heads are covered by
not exempt the EIIB from the duty to account for its funds to the
the executive privilege; Generals and flag officers of the Armed Forces of the
proper authorities. Philippines and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of Staff
The need for the documents thus outweighs the claim of are covered by the executive privilege; Philippine National Police (PNP)
confidentiality of petitioners. What is more, while there might have officers with rank of chief superintendent or higher and such other officers
been compelling reasons for the claim ofprivilege in 1988 when it was who in the judgment of the Chief of the PNP are covered by the executive
asserted by petitioners, now, seven years later, these reasons may privilege; Senior national security officials who in the judgment of the National
Security Adviser are covered by the executive privilege; and Such other
have been attenuated, if they have not in fact ceased. The agents
officers as may be determined by the President, from appearing in such
whose identities could not then be revealed may have ceased from hearings conducted by Congress without first securing the president’s
the service of the EIIB, while the covert missions to which they approval.
might have been deployed might either have been accomplished or The department heads and the military officers who were invited by the
abandoned. On the other hand, the Ombudsman's duty to investigate Senate committee then invoked EO 464 to except themselves. Despite EO
the complaint that there were in 1988 unfilled positions in the EIIB 464, the scheduled hearing proceeded with only 2 military personnel
for which continued funding was received by its officials and put to attending. For defying President Arroyo’s order barring military personnel
illegal use, remains. from testifying before legislative inquiries without her approval, Brig. Gen.
Above all, even if the subpoenaed documents are treated as Gudani and Col. Balutan were relieved from their military posts and were
made to face court martial proceedings. EO 464’s constitutionality was
presumptively privileged, this decision would only justify ordering
assailed for it is alleged that it infringes on the rights and duties of Congress
their inspection in camera but not their nonproduction. However, as to conduct investigation in aid of legislation and conduct oversight functions in
concession to the nature of the functions of the EIIB and just to be the implementation of laws.
sure no information of a confidential character is disclosed, the
examination of records in this case should be made in strict
ISSUE:
confidence by the Ombudsman himself. Reference may be made to
the documents in any decision or order which the Ombudsman may  Whether or not EO 464 is constitutional.
render or issue but only to the extent that it will not reveal covert
activities of the agency. Above all, there mustbe a scrupulous HELD:
protection of the documents delivered.  The SC ruled that EO 464 is constitutional in part. To determine the validity
of the provisions of EO 464, the SC sought to distinguish Section 21 from
47. Senate of the Philippines vs Executive Secretary Ermita Section 22 of Art 6 of the 1987 Constitution. The Congress’ power of inquiry
is expressly recognized in Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution.
Facts:
Although there is no provision in the Constitution expressly investing either
House of Congress with power to make investigations and exact testimony to
the end that it may exercise its legislative functions advisedly and effectively, the President herself or by the Executive Secretarry .When Congress merely
such power is so far incidental to the legislativefunction as to be implied.  In seeks to be informed on how department heads are implementing the
other words, the power of inquiry – with process to enforce it – is an essential statutes which it has issued, its right to such information is not as imperative
and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.  A legislative body cannot as that of the President to whom, as Chief Executive, such department heads
legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the must give a report of their performance as a matter of duty. In such instances,
conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the Section 22, in keeping with the separation of powers, states that Congress
legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information – which is may only request their appearance. Nonetheless, when the inquiry in which
not infrequently true – recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Congress requires their appearance is ‘in aid of legislation’ under Section 21,
Section 22 on the other hand provides for the Question Hour. The Question the appearance is mandatory for the same reasons stated in Arnault.
Hour is closely related with the legislative power, and it is precisely as a  
complement to or a supplement of the Legislative Inquiry.  The appearance of
the members of Cabinet would be very, very essential not only in the
application of check and balance but also, in effect, in aid of legislation. 48. G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008
Section 22 refers only to Question Hour, whereas, Section 21 would refer
specifically to inquiries in aid of legislation, under which anybody for that ROMULO L. NERI, petitioner vs. SENATE COMMITTEE ON
matter, may be summoned and if he refuses, he can be held in contempt of
the House. A distinction was thus made between inquiries in aid of legislation ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND
and the question hour.  While attendance was meant to be discretionary in
the question hour, it was compulsory in inquiries in aid of legislation. Sections INVESTIGATIONS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND
21 and 22, therefore, while closely related and complementary to each other, COMMERCE, AND SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL
should not be considered as pertaining to the same power of Congress.  One
specifically relates to the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, the DEFENSE AND SECURITY
aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for legislation, while the
other pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of which
is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress’ oversight function.  Ultimately,
the power of Congress to compel the appearance of executive officials under FACTS: On April 21, 2007, the Department of Transportation
Section 21 and the lack of it under Section 22 find their basis in the principle
and Communication (DOTC) entered into a contract with Zhong
of separation of powers.
While the executive branch is a co-equal branch of the legislature, it cannot Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) for the supply of
frustrate the power of Congress to legislate by refusing to comply with its
demands for information.  When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the equipment and services for the National Broadband Network
only way for department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid (NBN) Project in the amount of U.S. $ 329,481,290
claim of privilege.  They are not exempt by the mere fact that they are
department heads.  Only one executive official may be exempted from this (approximately P16 Billion Pesos). The Project was to be
power — the President on whom executive power is vested, hence, beyond
the reach of Congress except through the power of impeachment.   It is financed by the People’s Republic of China.
based on her being the highest official of the executive branch, and the due
respect accorded to a co-equal branch of government which is sanctioned by The Senate passed various resolutions relative to the NBN deal.
a long-standing custom.   The requirement then to secure presidential
consent under Section 1, limited as it is only to appearances in the question
In the September 18, 2007 hearing Jose de Venecia III testified
hour, is valid on its face.  For under Section 22, Article VI of the Constitution, that several high executive officials and power brokers were
the appearance of department heads in the question hour is discretionary on
their part. Section 1 cannot, however, be applied to appearances of using their influence to push the approval of the NBN Project by
department heads in inquiries in aid of legislation.  Congress is not bound in
such instances to respect the refusal of the department head to appear in the NEDA.
such inquiry, unless a valid claim of privilege is subsequently made, either by
Neri, the head of NEDA, was then invited to testify before the
Senate Blue Ribbon. He appeared in one hearing wherein he The communications are covered by executive privilege
was interrogated for 11 hrs and during which he admitted that
Abalos of COMELEC tried to bribe him with P200M in exchange The revocation of EO 464 (advised executive officials and
for his approval of the NBN project. He further narrated that he employees to follow and abide by the Constitution, existing laws
informed President Arroyo about the bribery attempt and that and jurisprudence, including, among others, the case of Senate
she instructed him not to accept the bribe. v. Ermita when they are invited to legislative inquiries in aid of
However, when probed further on what they discussed about legislation.), does not in any way diminish the concept of
the NBN Project, petitioner refused to answer, invoking executive privilege. This is because this concept has
“executive privilege”. In particular, he refused to answer the Constitutional underpinnings.
questions on:
(a) whether or not President Arroyo followed up the NBN The claim of executive privilege is highly recognized in cases
Project, where the subject of inquiry relates to a power textually
(b) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it, and committed by the Constitution to the President, such as the area
(c) whether or not she directed him to approve. of military and foreign relations. Under our Constitution, the
He later refused to attend the other hearings and Ermita sent a President is the repository of the commander-in-chief,
letter to the senate averring that the communications between appointing, pardoning, and diplomatic powers. Consistent with
GMA and Neri are privileged and that the jurisprudence laid the doctrine of separation of powers, the information relating to
down in Senate vs Ermita be applied. He was cited in contempt these powers may enjoy greater confidentiality than others.
of respondent committees and an order for his arrest and Several jurisprudence cited provide the elements of presidential
detention until such time that he would appear and give his communications privilege:
testimony 1) The protected communication must relate to a “quintessential
and non-delegable presidential power.”
ISSUE: 2) The communication must be authored or “solicited and
Are the communications elicited by the subject three (3) received” by a close advisor of the President or the President
questions covered by executive privilege? himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in
HELD: “operational proximity” with the President.
3) The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified “received” by a close advisor of the President. Under the
privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, “operational proximity” test, petitioner can be considered a close
such that the information sought “likely contains important advisor, being a member of President Arroyo’s cabinet. And
evidence” and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere third, there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that
by an appropriate investigating authority. would justify the limitation of the privilege and of the
unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate
In the case at bar, Executive Secretary Ermita premised his investigating authority.
claim of executive privilege on the ground that the
communications elicited by the three (3) questions “fall under Respondent Committees further contend that the grant of
conversation and correspondence between the President and petitioner’s claim of executive privilege violates the constitutional
public officials” necessary in “her executive and policy decision- provisions on the right of the people to information on matters
making process” and, that “the information sought to be of public concern.50 We might have agreed with such
disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic contention if petitioner did not appear before them at all. But
relations with the People’s Republic of China.” Simply put, the petitioner made himself available to them during the September
bases are presidential communications privilege and executive 26 hearing, where he was questioned for eleven (11) hours. Not
privilege on matters relating to diplomacy or foreign relations. only that, he expressly manifested his willingness to answer
more questions from the Senators, with the exception only of
Using the above elements, we are convinced that, indeed, the those covered by his claim of executive privilege.
communications elicited by the three (3) questions are covered The right to public information, like any other right, is subject to
by the presidential communications privilege. First, the limitation. Section 7 of Article III provides:
communications relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable The right of the people to information on matters of public
power” of the President, i.e. the power to enter into an concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to
executive agreement with other countries. This authority of the documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions,
President to enter into executive agreements without the or decisions, as well as to government research data used as
concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally been recognized basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen,
in Philippine jurisprudence. Second, the communications are subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
 On 17 June 1999, respondents Asuncion Laquindanum (Asuncion) and
Josefina Cailipan (Josefina), great grandchildren of Pedro Sr., in
representation of Pedro, Jr. filed a complaint5against petitioners Oscar
Constantino, Maxima Constantino and Casimira Maturingan,
49. G.R. No. 181508, October 02, 2013 grandchildren of Pedro Sr., for the nullification of a document
denominated as “Pagmamana sa Labas ng Hukuman” dated 10 August
OSCAR CONSTANTINO, MAXIMA CONSTANTINO AND
1992,6 Tax Declaration Nos. 96-10022 (02653)7 and 96-10022
CASIMIRA MATURINGAN, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF
(02655)8 and reinstatement of Tax Declaration No. 208149 in the
CONSTANTINO, REPRESENTED BY LAQUINDANUM, PEDRO
name of Pedro Sr.
JR., ASUNCION,Respondent.
In the said complaint, respondents alleged that sometime in October
1998, petitioners asserted their claim of ownership over the whole
Doctrine
parcel of land (240 sq m) owned by the late Pedro Sr., to the
Judicial Admissions - Judicial admissions are legally binding on the exclusion of respondents who are occupying a portion thereof.
party making the admissions. Pre-trial admission in civil cases is one
The issuance of the new tax declaration was allegedly due to the
of the instances of judicial admissions explicitly provided for under
execution of a simulated, fabricated and fictitious document
Section 7, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that the
denominated as “Pagmamana sa Labas ng Hukuman,” wherein the
contents of the pre-trial order shall control the subsequent course of
petitioners misrepresented themselves as the sole and only heirs of
the action, thereby, defining and limiting the issues to be tried.
Pedro Sr.
As contemplated in Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, the
Thus, respondents sought to annul the “Pagmamana sa Labas ng
general rule regarding conclusiveness of judicial admission upon the
Hukuman” as well as the Tax Declarations that were issued on the
party making it and the dispensation of proof admits of two
basis of such document.
exceptions: 1) when it is shown that the admission was made through
palpable mistake, and 2) when it is shown that no such admission was
On 15 August 2000, pre-trial conference15 was conducted wherein
in fact made. The latter exception allows one to contradict an
the parties entered into stipulations and admissions as well as
admission by denying that he made such an admission.
identification of the issues to be litigated. Thereupon, trial on the
merits ensued.
Facts
On 27 October 2003, the RTC rendered a Decision16 in favor of the
This involves a controversy over a parcel of land claimed to be part of respondents finding that they are in pari delicto, whereby the law
an estate which needed to be proportionally subdivided among heirs. leaves them as they are and denies recovery by either one of them.

Pedro Constantino, Sr., (Pedro Sr.) ancestors of the petitioners and Not convinced, the respondents appealed the aforequoted decision to
respondents, owned several parcels of land, one of which is an the Court of Appeals (CA) raising, among others, the erroneous
unregistered parcel of land declared for taxation purposes under Tax application by the trial court of the doctrine of “in pari delicto” in
Declaration 208143 consisting of 240 square meters situated at Sta. declaring the validity of the document “Pagmamana sa Labas ng
Monica, Hagonoy, Bulacan. Pedro, Sr., upon his death, was survived Hukuman.”
by his six (6) children.
In its 31 May 2007 Decision,18 the CA ruled in favor of the
respondents heirs of Pedro, Jr., declaring that the “Extrajudicial admissions. Pre-trial admission in civil cases is one of the instances of
Settlement with Waiver” dated 5 December 1968 they executed judicial admissions explicitly provided for under Section 7, Rule 18 of
covering the 192 sq m lot actually belongs to Pedro Jr., hence, not the Rules of Court, which mandates that the contents of the pre-trial
part of the estate of Pedro Sr. order shall control the subsequent course of the action, thereby,
defining and limiting the issues to be tried.
Thus, the CA went on to state that the respondents, heirs of Pedro Jr.,
As contemplated in Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, the
did not adjudicate the 192 sq m lot unto themselves to the exclusion
general rule regarding conclusiveness of judicial admission upon the
of all the other heirs of Pedro Sr. Rather, the adjudication in the
party making it and the dispensation of proof admits of two
document entitled “Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver dated 5
exceptions: 1) when it is shown that the admission was made through
December 1968 pertains to a different property and is valid absent
palpable mistake, and 2) when it is shown that no such admission was
any evidence to the contrary. Hence, it is erroneous for the trial court
in fact made. The latter exception allows one to contradict an
to declare the parties in pari delicto.
admission by denying that he made such an admission.

Issue However, respondents failed to refute the earlier admission/stipulation

before and during the trial.

The petitioners now question the said ruling assigning as error, among While denying ownership by Pedro Sr. of the 192 sq m lot, respondent
others, the failure of the CA to appreciate the existence of Asuncion Laquindanum, when placed on the stand, offered a vague
misrepresentation in both documents, thereby ignoring the propriety explanation as to how such parcel of land was acquired by Pedro Jr.
of the application of the in pari delicto doctrine. Consequently, respondents are bound by the infirmities of the contract
on which they based their right over the property subject matter
thereof.
Ruling
In light of the foregoing, while both parties acted in violation of the
Yes. The CA actually contradicted the admissions made no less by the law. Accordingly, in order not to put a premium to the circumvention
respondents during the pre-trial conference where they stipulated that of the laws as contemplated by the parties in the instant case, we
the land covered by Tax Declaration No. 9534 consisting of 192 sq. m must declare both contracts as void. Indeed, any circumvention of the
belongs to Pedro Sr. law cannot be countenanced.
50. [G.R. NO. 146111. February 23, 2004]
The respondent's admissions against respondents’ interest of the fact PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ROLENDO GAUDIA
of ownership by Pedro Sr. of the 192 sq m lot covered by Tax @ LENDOY or DODO ,Appellant.
Declaration No. 9534, which was transferred to respondents’ mother,
the daughter of Pedro Jr. Such that, in one of the issues submitted to
be resolved by the trial court, this was included: “Whether or not the Doctrine
“Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Waiver” is enforceable against
Circumstantial Evidence - Under Rule 133, Section 4 of the Revised
the plaintiffs, thus curing the legal infirmities, if any, of the
Rules of Court, conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence
“Pagmamana sa Labas ng Hukuman” – an issue earlier mentioned.
provided three requisites concur: (a) there is more than one
circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the
proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to Amalia confirmed in her testimony that two weeks after the incident,
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The ruling case law is Remelyn told her, Ma, Lendoy is crazy, she (sic)brought me to the ipil-
that for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a ipil trees.
conviction, all circumstances must be consistent with each other,
The prosecution also presented Tulon Mik, Remelyns neighbor and a
consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the
barangay kagawad in their area. Mik testified that on 24 March 1997,
same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and
at about 4:00 p.m., he and his wife were on their way home after
with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.
registering at the COMELEC office. They were in a hurry as their child
was running a fever. Mik saw appellant carrying a small girl in his
arms.19 He identified the little girl as Remelyn Loyola, daughter of
Facts
Amalia Loyola. Appellant and Remelyn were on their way toward
That on or about March 24, 1997 at about 6:30 oclock in the evening, the ipil-ipil trees.
in the Municipality of Hagonoy, Province of Davao del Sur, Philippines,
The appellant, ROLENDO GAUDIA, interposed the defense of alibi. He
the accused, Rolendo “Lendoy” Gaudiaby had carnal knowledge with
averred that on 24 March 1997, at about 4:00 p.m., he went to the
Remelyn Loyola, a minor, against her will. That said incident
Barangay Center to register at the COMELEC for the National
transpired when Remelyn was left with her younger sister in their
Elections.
house situated in Clib, Hagonoy, Davao del Sur, as their parents
gather pigs food at Bulatukan. As Remelyn's mother, Amalia came After trial, the trial court found that there was sufficient
back home, she noticed that the former was nowhere to be seen. circumstantial evidence to convict appellant for the crime of
Thereafter, Amelia tried to locate Remelyn within the vicinity of their rape with the qualifying circumstance that the victim was
neighborhood. As Amelia called for her daugther, she then heard below seven years of age. Appellant was sentenced to death
Remelyn calling out to her, Ma, I am here, from a grove of ipil- and ordered to indemnify the victim the sums of fifty
ipiltrees. Amalia rushed toward the place, but was met by Remelyn at thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, thirty
the mango trees, some thirty (30) meters from their house. She found thousand pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages, and to
Remelyn crying, naked,(walking with her legs spread apart) and with pay the costs of suit.
fresh and dried blood on her body.Ipil-ipil leaves clung to her
forehead. Blood was oozing from her private organ. Amalia brought
Remelyn home and washed her. Upon closer inspection, she found a Issue
whitish mucus-like substance coming from Remelyns private organ. It Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution and
was later discovered that Remelyn was raped. by which the trial court based its decision is sufficient to convict the
Tulon Mik, a neighbor, came and informed Amalia that he had seen accused-appellant for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
the appellant pass by her house and take Remelyn. At this point, the
parents the accused told Amalia, Mal, let us talk about this matter, we
will just settle this, we are willing to pay the amount of P15,000.00, Ruling
for the crime that my son committed. Police officers came and brought Yes. Under Rule 133, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Court,
Amalia, Remelyn and two barangay officials (kagawads)to the police conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence provided
precinct of Hagonoy for investigation.Amalias statement was taken. three requisites concur: (a) there is more than one
On 26 March 1997, Amalia executed her affidavit complaint. Amalia circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
stated therein that Remelyn had told her Buang Lendoy iya kong derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the
lugos. (Meaning crazy lendoy he forced me in the Visayan dialect.) circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. The ruling case law is that for 51. [G.R. NO. 164481. September 20, 2005]
circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a
CONRADO C. DOLDOL, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE
conviction, all circumstances must be consistent with each
PHILIPPINES and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is
Respondent.
guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis
that he is innocent and with every other rational hypothesis DECISION
except that of guilt.
The first circumstantial evidence against the appellant is the Doctrine
testimony of prosecution witness Tulon Mik that at 4:00 p.m. on
24 March 1997, he saw him carrying Remelyn toward the direction of An offer of compromise in criminal cases - Section 27, Rule 130
the ipil-ipil grove, some 130 meters from her house. As a neighbor of the Rules of Court- In criminal cases, except those involving quasi
and relative of Remelyns stepfather, Mik had sufficient familiarity with offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be
the child Remelyn. The possibility that he could have been mistaken in compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be
identifying the victim is nil. received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. We hold that
said payment, particularly when taken in conjunction with appellant's
The second circumstantial evidence against the appellant is commitment to gradually pay the remainder of the missing funds, is a
Amalias testimony that Remelyn emerged naked from the clear offer of compromise which must be treated as an implied
same ipil-ipil grove, with ipil-ipil leaves clinging to her forehead. admission of appellant's guilt that he embezzled or converted the
Remelyn was crying and walking with her legs spread far apart. missing funds to his personal use.
Remelyns private organ was bleeding and excreting a white mucus-
like substance.
The third circumstantial evidence against appellant is Facts
Remelyns statement to her mother that it was appellant who had The Municipal Treasurer of Urbiztondo, Pangasinan, Conrado C.
brought her to the ipil-ipil grove and forced her to do something Doldol was charged with two informations for malversation of public
against her will. funds were then filed against Doldol in the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
There is no question that Remelyn was violated. After examining of San Carlos City. The first Information, docketed as Criminal Case
Remelyn, Dr. Patricio Hernane, the Municipal Health Officer of No. SCC-2760, following his unlawful use and benefit of the amount of
Hagonoy, found her to have a broken hymen, as well as fresh vaginal ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR THOUSAND FOUR
lacerations. HUNDRED TWENTY-ONE PESOS and 54/100 (P1,134,421.54), as
discovered by a team of State Auditors led by State Auditor Emilie S.
From these, the culpability of the appellant can be inferred with moral Ritua, with State Auditors Lydia Naoe and Beverly T. Cruz as members
certainty. All the aforementioned circumstances have been indubitably following an audit of the cash account of the accused.
proven, both by the testimonial and documentary evidence presented
by the prosecution, and by the inability of the appellant to discredit The State Auditors discovered that Doldol had a shortage of
their veracity. P1,134,421.54. Consequently, the State Auditors demanded the
immediate refund of the said amount, and for Doldol to submit within
72 hours a written explanation on the said shortage. Doldol failed to
respond and was, thereafter, relieved of his duties. On July 20, 1995,
he was directed to transfer the account to Assistant Municipal
Treasurer Loida Cancino.
The State Auditors then conducted another audit of the said account, The petitioner offered no competent and credible evidence to prove
this time covering the another period. They discovered that Doldol that the missing funds were actually cash advances of employees in
incurred an added cash shortage of P149,905.92. In a Letter to Doldol the municipality. The petitioner could have offered in evidence the
dated July 27, 1995, the State Auditors demanded the immediate documents evidencing the names of the recipients and amounts of the
restitution of the missing fund, and directed him to submit within 72 cash advances, but failed to do so. Moreover, the petitioner wrote
hours a written explanation why he incurred such shortage. Again, the Provincial Auditor and offered to refund the missing funds
Doldol failed to respond. as follows: P200,000.00 on September 15, 1995, P200,000.00
on or before October 31, 1995, and P884,139.66 on
On the same day, Doldol wrote the Provincial Treasurer requesting
November 30, 1995. He was able to pay only P200,000.00 on
that a re-audit be conducted on his cash and cash account, taking
September 15, 1995, and failed to remit the balance of his
exception to the findings of the State Auditors.
shortage. Such partial restitution of the petitioners of the
Instead of pursuing his request for a re-audit, Doldol opted to cash shortage is an implied admission of misappropriation of
refund the missing funds. On September 15, 1995, he the missing funds.
remitted P200,000.00 to the Acting Municipal Treasurer for
which he was issued Official Receipt No. 436756. Doldol
promised to pay the balance of his shortage, as With respect to the balance of the missing funds, appellant promised
follows: P200,000.00 on October 31, 1995, and P884,139.66 to pay the same in installment basis. Appellant, though, failed to
on or before November 30, 1995. However, he reneged on his comply with his undertaking. Said payment is of no moment and could
promise. not have legally brought acquittal for the appellant. On the contrary,
as guided by Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence, We hold
Two informations for malversation of public funds were then filed
that said payment, particularly when taken in conjunction
against Doldol in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Carlos City.
with appellant's commitment to gradually pay the remainder
Thereafter, he was found guilty of the crime charge against him.
of the missing funds, is a clear offer of compromise which
On appeal, the CA rendered judgment affirming the appealed decision, must be treated as an implied admission of appellant's guilt
and, likewise, denied Doldol's motion for reconsideration thereof. that he embezzled or converted the missing funds to his
personal use.

Issue
52. Ladiana vs. People
Whether the offer of refund of the missing funds by the accused is an Doctrine: The rule is that any person, otherwise competent as a
implied admission of his guilt to the crime of malversation of public witness, who heard the confession, is competent to testify as to the
funds. substance of what he heard and understood all of it. An oral
confession need not be repeated verbatim, but in such case it must be
given in its substance.
Ruling Facts: The crime committed was Robbery with Homicide. The
Yes. Following the audit conducted, the State Auditors demanded accused are Antonio Manuel Uy and Ricky Ladiana. That on or about
that the petitioner immediately produce the missing funds. He was the 27th day of June 2001, in Pasay City, upon conspiring and
also required to submit within 72 hours a written explanation why the confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent
shortage occurred. However, the petitioner failed to respond to such to gain, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there
demand, and failed to object to the findings and conclusions of the willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and carry away the following
State Auditors. jewelry belonging to Jeepney Shopping Center. In the same evening,
appellant and Ricky went to the house of Eduardo dela Cruz in for the exclusion appears to lie in the fact that such testimony is not
Antipolo. Ricky told Eduardo that they were in trouble and asked him subject to the test which can ordinarily be applied for the
to accompany appellant to the house of Panfilo dela Cruz in Zambales. ascertainment of truth of testimony, since the declarant is not present
Ricky told Eduardo that appellant will be staying in Zambales for two and available for cross-examination.
to three days. Eduardo acceded to such request. While waiting for a Facts: The crimes committed were 2 counts of rape and 2 counts of
bus going to Zambales, they drank coffee in a nearby store. During acts of lasciviousness. The accused was Feliciano Ulit, the uncle of
their conversation, Eduardo asked appellant what happened. Antonio the victim. When the prosecution offered in evidence the appellants
confessed to Eduardo that he and Ricky entered a place in Pasay City Sinumpaang Salaysay before the barangay chairman as part of the
and they killed two persons and seriously wounded another whom testimony of Barangay Tanod Fernando David, the appellant objected
they left fighting for his life. Appellant also told Eduardo about the to its admission on the ground that the appellant was not assisted by
vault which contained money and that if "he can open the vault, and counsel and that, he was forced and coerced into signing the same.
even if they die their family will live comfortably”. After a week, Nevertheless, the trial court admitted the statement as part of David’s
Eduardo went to SPO3 Rodrigo Urbina of the PNP Regional Mobile testimony. The appellants counsel, likewise, objected to the
Patrol Group. Eduardo told SPO3 Urbina what was confessed to him admissibility of victim’s sworn statement on the ground that she was
by appellant and that he brought appellant to Zambales. SPO3 Urbano incompetent to give the same because of her mental illness. The trial
coordinated with the Pasay City Police Station, Crime Investigation court admitted the sworn statement of victim in evidence as part of
Division, for appellant's arrest. The joint team of the Regional Mobile her testimony.
Patrol Group, the Pasay City Police Station and the Palauig Police Issue: whether the Prosecution Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Station arrested appellant in the house of Panfilo in Zambales. Antonio that the Appellant Raped the Victim
was frisked and a cross pendant was recovered from his pocket.
Ruling: We have reviewed the evidence on record and we are
Issue:
convinced that the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable
Whether or not the confession to Eduardo Dela Cruz was sufficient to
doubt that the appellant raped the victim in November 1996. The
convict of the crime.
victim declared in her sworn statement, on direct examination and her
testimony on clarificatory questions made by the trial court, that
Ruling:
indeed, the appellant raped her in November 1996. We do not agree
Antonio's confession to Eduardo, who is not a police officer, is
with the ruling of the trial court that the contents of the sworn
admissible in evidence. The declaration of an accused acknowledging
statement of Lucelle are hearsay, simply because she did not testify
his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included
thereon and merely identified her signatures therein. By hearsay
therein, may be given in evidence against him. Appellant's admissions
evidence is meant that kind of evidence which does not derive its
are not covered by Sections 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the
value solely from the credence to be attributed to the witness herself
Constitution, because they were not extracted while he was under
but rests solely in part on the veracity and competence of some
custodial investigation. The rule is that any person, otherwise
persons from whom the witness has received the information. It
competent as a witness, who heard the confession, is competent to
signifies all evidence which is not founded upon the personal
testify as to the substance of what he heard and understood all of it.
knowledge of the witness from whom it is elicited, and which,
An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, but in such case it
consequently, is not subject to cross-examination. The basis for the
must be given in its substance.
exclusion appears to lie in the fact that such testimony is not subject
to the test which can ordinarily be applied for the ascertainment of
53. People vs. Ulit
truth of testimony, since the declarant is not present and available for
Doctrine: It signifies all evidence which is not founded upon the
cross-examination. In criminal cases, the admission of hearsay
personal knowledge of the witness from whom it is elicited, and
evidence would be a violation of the constitutional provision while the
which, consequently, is not subject to cross-examination.  The basis
accused shall enjoy the right to confront and cross-examine the time. However, Cagungao would stop questioning Sayaboc whenever
witness testifying against him. Generally, the affidavits of persons who Atty. Cornejo would leave to go to the comfort room. That night
are not presented to testify on the truth of the contents thereof are Sayaboc executed an extrajudicial confession in Ilocano dialect. He
hearsay evidence. Such affidavit must be formally offered in evidence therein confessed to killing Joseph Galam at the behest of Marlon
and accepted by the court; otherwise, it shall not be considered by the Buenviaje for the sum of P100,000. He likewise implicated Miguel
court for the simple reason that the court shall consider such evidence Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso. The confession was also signed by
formally offered and accepted. Atty. Cornejo and attested to by one Fiscal Melvin Tiongson. The
appellant argues that the extrajudicial confession may not be admitted
In this case, Lucelle testified on and affirmed the truth of the
in evidence against him because the PAO lawyer who was his counsel
contents of her sworn statement which she herself had given. As
during the custodial investigation, was not a competent, independent,
gleaned from the said statement, she narrated how and when the
vigilant, and effective counsel. He was ineffective because he
appellant raped and subjected her to lascivious acts. She was cross-
remained silent during the entire proceedings. He was not
examined by the appellants counsel and answered the trial courts
independent, as he was formerly a judge in the National Police
clarificatory questions. The prosecution offered her sworn statement
Commission, which was holding court inside the PNP Command of
as part of her testimony and the court admitted the same for the said
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.
purpose without objection on the part of the appellant.
Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting in evidence
the extrajudicial confession of accused Sayaboc when it was taken
54. People vs. Sayaboc without the assistance of not competent and independent nor by
Doctrine: The failure to properly inform a suspect of his rights during effective and vigilant counsel.
a custodial investigation renders the confession valueless and Ruling: Sayaboc’s extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence
inadmissible. against him, since it was made after he was informed of, and
Facts: The crime committed in this case was murder. The trial court accorded, his constitutional rights. Jurisprudence provides that
found Benjamin Sayaboc guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime extrajudicial confessions are presumed to be voluntary. The condition
of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death; and (2) for this presumption, however, is that the prosecution is able to show
finding appellant Marlon Buenviaje guilty as principal and appellants that the constitutional requirements safeguarding an accused’s rights
Miguel Buenviaje and Patricio Escorpiso guilty as accomplices in the during custodial investigation have been strictly complied with,
crime of homicide. The accused attacked, and assaulted Joseph especially when the extrajudicial confession has been denounced. The
Galam, inflicting upon him mortal wounds which were the direct and rationale for this requirement is to allay any fear that the person being
immediate cause of his death thereafter, to the damage and prejudice investigated would succumb to coercion while in the unfamiliar or
of his heirs. SPO4 Cagungao was called to to take the statement of intimidating environment that is inherent in custodial investigations.
Sayaboc. When he arrived at the headquarters he saw Sayaboc being Therefore, even if the confession may appear to have been given
interviewed by reporters inside the investigation room. He then voluntarily since the confessant did not file charges against his alleged
brought Sayaboc to the inner part of the room. Before taking the intimidators for maltreatment, the failure to properly inform a suspect
statement of Sayaboc, he advised the latter of his constitutional rights. of his rights during a custodial investigation renders the confession
Then Sayaboc told him that he wanted to have a counsel of his own valueless and inadmissible. The Court likewise ruled that Sayaboc was
choice. But since Sayaboc could not name one, Cagungao asked the not afforded his constitutional right to a competent counsel. While we
police officers to get a lawyer. The police officers brought Atty. are unable to rule on the unsubstantiated claim that Atty. Cornejo was
Rodolfo Cornejo of the PAO, who then conferred with Sayaboc for a partial to the police, still, the facts show through the testimonies of
while. After Cagungao heard Sayaboc say, okay, he continued the Sayaboc and prosecution witness SPO4 Cagungao that Atty. Cornejo
investigation, during which Atty. Cornejo remained silent the entire remained silent throughout the duration of the custodial investigation.
The Court held, however, that the prosecution has discharged its Whether Petitioner’s written statement is admissible in
burden of proving his guilt for the crime of homicide. evidence.

HELD:
55. G.R. No. 179448. June 26, 2013.
YES.
CARLOS L. TANENGGEE
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Petitioner’s written statement was given voluntarily, knowingly
and intelligently.
DOCTRINE:
Petitioner attempts to convince us that he signed, under
It is settled that a confession or admission is presumed duress and intimidation, an already prepared typewritten statement.
voluntary until the contrary is proved and the confessant bears the However, his claim lacks sustainable basis and his supposition is just
burden of proving the contrary. an afterthought for there is nothing in the records that would support
his claim of duress and intimidation.
FACTS:
Moreover, "it is settled that a confession or admission is
Five separate Informations for estafa through falsification of presumed voluntary until the contrary is proved and the confessant
commercial documents were filed against petitioner. bears the burden of proving the contrary." Petitioner failed to
overcome this presumption. On the contrary, his written statement
After the joint trial, the RTC rendered a consolidated Decision was found to have been executed freely and consciously. The
dated June 25, 1999 finding petitioner guilty of the crimes charged. pertinent details he narrated in his statement were of such nature and
quality that only a perpetrator of the crime could furnish. The details
Petitioner appealed the judgment of conviction to the CA. On contained therein attest to its voluntariness.
December 12, 2006, the CA promulgated its Decision affirming with
modification the RTC Decision. Petitioner moved for reconsideration,
which the CA denied per its September 6, 2007 Resolution. 56. G.R. NO. 190583. December 7, 2015.

The petitioner admits signing a written statement, however, he MARIA PAZ FRONTRERAS y ILAGAN
refutes the truth of the contents thereof and alleges that he was only vs.
forced to sign the same without reading its contents. He asserts that PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
said written statement was taken in violation of his rights under
Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, particularly of his right to
remain silent, right to counsel, and right to be informed of the first DOCTRINE:
two rights. Hence, the same should not have been admitted in
evidence against him. A confession, whether judicial or extrajudicial, if voluntarily and
freely made, constitutes evidence of a high order since it is supported
ISSUE: by the strong presumption that no sane person or one of normal mind
will deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator
of a crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience. The admissibility A confession, whether judicial or extrajudicial, if voluntarily and
and validity of a confession, thus hinges on its voluntariness, a freely made, constitutes evidence of a high order since it is supported
condition vividly present in this case. by the strong presumption that no sane person or one of normal mind
will deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator
FACTS: of a crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience. The admissibility
and validity of a confession, thus hinges on its voluntariness, a
An Information for Qualified Theft was filed before the RTC condition vividly present in this case.
against the petitioner, Salazar, and Carpon.
The language of the confession letter was straightforward,
The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that coherent and clear. It bore no suspicious circumstances tending to
the petitioner unlawfully deprived Cebuana of cash/money when she cast doubt upon its integrity and it was replete with details which
took out pawned items and released them to redeeming pledgors in could only be known to the petitioner. Moreover, it is obvious that
exchange for redemption payments which she, however, did not losing one’s job in an administrative case is less cumbersome than
turnover to the pawnshop, and instead pocketed them for her own risking one’s liberty by confessing to a crime one did not really
gain. She gravely abused the confidence concurrent with her sensitive commit. It is thus implausible for one to be cajoled into confessing to
position as a vault custodian when she exploited her exclusive and a wrongdoing at the mere prospect of losing his/her job. The
unlimited access to the vault to facilitate the unlawful taking. Her petitioner’s declarations to Talampas show that she fully understood
position entailed a high degree of confidence reposed by Cebuana as the consequences of her confession. She also executed the letter even
she had been granted daily unsupervised access to the vault. Also, the before Finolan came to the Old Balara branch, thus, negating her
petitioner knew the combinations of the branch’s vault and nobody claim that the latter threatened her with an administrative sanction.
was allowed to enter the vault without her presence. Without the
authority and consent of her employer, she repeatedly took and
appropriated for herself the redemption payments paid for the 57. G.R. No. 117873. December 22, 1997.
pawned items with the aggregate appraised value of ₱414,050.00.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
The accused submitted pawn tickets which were surrendered, vs.
together with the redemption payment by their respective pledgors. MERCY SANTOS y ENTIENZA
She submitted them during the spot audit along with a confession
letter stating that portions of the ₱1,250,800.00 missing value of DOCTRINE:
jewelry were actually already redeemed.
A confession is not admissible in evidence unless the
prosecution satisfactorily shows that it was obtained within the limits
imposed by the 1987 Constitution.
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Whether the extrajudicial written confession was admissible.
Charmaine Mamaril, a kindergarten pupil, was brought to
HELD: school, the Kaligayahan Elementary School, in Novaliches, Quezon City
by her mother, Raquel Mamaril, at noontime on March 8, 1993.
YES. Raquel left Charmaine in her classroom with her classmates but
stayed awhile, going home only after 12:30 p.m. She would be going Whether the extrajudicial written confession was admissible.
back for Charmaine, according to her daily routine, at 2:00 p.m. When
she returned to fetch Charmaine before 2:30 p.m., Charmaine’s HELD:
teacher Ms. Grace Lucena, met and asked her if the child had already
reached home; Raquel replied that Charmaine did not know the way NO.
home. She then looked for her child in school until someone informed
her that a woman had earlier fetched her daughter. She immediately A confession is not admissible in evidence unless the
reported the matter to the police authorities stationed in Novaliches at prosecution satisfactorily shows that it was obtained within the limits
around 3:00 p.m. and then to the National Bureau of Investigations imposed by the 1987 Constitution. Section 12, Article III thereof,
the next day; she also approached radio and television stations for provides:
help. She and her family conducted their own search from then until
her daughter was finally found on March 13, 1993. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent
Raquel recounted how her child was recovered. According to and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
her, a police sergeant came to her house on March 13, 1993 and choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
asked for her; he told her to contact Kagawad Aida Bautista of Sto. provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing
Domingo. When contacted, Bautista informed her that a child named and in the presence of counsel.
Charmaine was with her; Raquel immediately went to Bautista with
some identification papers of Charmaine, and the child was turned xxx xxx xxx
over to her after showing the birth certificate. This occurred on a
Saturday. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or
section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
Although Charmaine’s kidnapper was not immediately caught,
the matter did not end with the return of Charmaine to her family’s If the extrajudicial confession satisfies these constitutional
bosom. Two days later, on Monday, Bautista telephoned Raquel to tell standards, it is subsequently tested for voluntariness, i.e., if it was
her that the woman, a certain Mercy Santos, had returned to her given freely -- without coercion, intimidation, inducement, or false
place to claim Charmaine. Raquel wasted no time notifying NBI Agent promises; and credibility, i.e., if it was consistent with the normal
Roel Jovenir, who, in turn and with other NBI agents, accompanied by experience of mankind.
Raquel and her husband, proceeded to Bautista’s place and arrested
Santos. A confession that meets all the foregoing requisites constitutes
evidence of a high order because no person of normal mind will
Following the arrest of Santos, the kidnapping was investigated knowingly and deliberately confess to be the perpetrator of a crime
at the NBI office, where Raquel gave her written statement she unless prompted by truth and conscience. Otherwise, it is disregarded
admitted the kidnapping; that during the investigation by question and in accordance with the cold objectivity of the exclusionary rule.
answer, Atty. Uy would raise objections by cautioning Santos against Consequently, the burden of evidence to show that it was obtained
answering, in which case the objection and the question objected to through undue pressure, threat or intimidation shifts to the accused.
were not anymore typed in the statement; and that photographs were
taken of Charmaine and the accused during the confrontation. The trial court erred in admitting appellants extrajudicial
confession without showing that Atty. Gordon Uy was indeed the
ISSUE: competent and independent counsel of appellants own choosing. The
Court notes appellants insistent and persistent disavowals of knowing habit, we believe that the falsehoods committed by Lorielyn, assuming
said Atty. Uy, much less of retaining him as her counsel of choice. The them for the moment to be true, are petty and inconsequential. They
prosecution, for unexplained reasons, failed to present Uy as a witness are not as serious as charging one’s own father of the sordid crime of
to show his role in the taking of the alleged confession. rape, with all of its serious repercussions.
Furthermore, as a rule, findings by the trial court on the credibility of
witnesses are not to be disturbed, for the trial court is in a better
position to pass upon the same. Lastly, jurisprudence dictates that
testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit, since
when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been
raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was
58. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALFREDO NARDO y committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and
ROSALES sincerity.
G.R. No. 133888, March 1, 2001 (2)
An affidavit of recantation, being usually taken ex parte, would be
FACTS: considered inferior to the testimony given in open court. It would be a
Herein accused was charged of raping his eldest daughter. The dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken before a court of justice
prosecution presented the victim as its main witness, while, the simply because the witness who gave it later on changed his/her mind
defense presented a number of witnesses who testified to different for one reason or another. Such a rule would make a solemn trial a
occasion for which the victim was caught lying. mockery, and place the proceedings at the mercy of unscrupulous
witnesses.
After the trial, trial court, giving credence to the testimony of the
victim, convicted the accused. On appeal, the accused presented Recantations are frowned upon by the courts because they can easily
series of letters allegedly written by the victim to the defense counsel be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or for monetary
asking said counsel to help her father be acquitted. consideration. A retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier
declaration. Especially, recantations made after the conviction of the
accused deserve only scant consideration.
ISSUE:
(1)  Whether or not a minor witness’ credibility may be assailed by 59. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HEIRS OF FELIPE
proving that she lies on a number of occasion. ALEJAGA SR.
(2)  Whether or not letters written by the witness after trial containing G.R. No. 146030, December 3, 2002
details that is contrary to testimony made in open court constitutes
recantation of said testimony.
FACTS:
HELD: Respondent Felipe Alejaga, Sr. filed Free Patent Application. In
relation to the said application, Recio, Land Inspector, submitted a
(1)
report of his investigation to the Bureau of Lands. Less than 3 months
The answer is in the negative. Rule 130, Section 34, of the Rules of
after the application, free patent was issued.
Court provides that: "Evidence that one did or did not do a certain
thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did nor did not do Sometime in April 1979, the heirs of Ignacio Arrobang requested for
the same or a similar thing at another time; but it may be received to an investigation for irregularities in the issuance of the title of a
prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, foreshore land in favor of respondent. Isagani Cartagena, Supervising
habit, custom or usage, and the like." While lying may constitute a Special Investigator, submitted his Report. In that report, Recio
supposedly admitted that he had not actually conducted an
investigation and ocular inspection of the parcel of land. Thereafter, FACTS:
government instituted an action for Annulment/Cancellation of Patent Petitioner, a sales representative at Footlocker’s Chain of Stores, was
and Title and Reversion against respondent. charged with estafa for failure to account for the proceeds of the sales
Trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner. In reversing the RTC, CA and deliver the collection to the said company.
brushed aside as hearsay Isagani Cartagena’s testimony that Land During the trial, prosecution, in order to prove that collectibles lawfully
Inspector Efren L. Recio had not conducted an investigation on the belonging to the company where misappropriated by the accused,
free patent application of Felipe Alejaga Sr. submitted the following documentary evidence: (a) the receipts
allegedly issued by petitioner to each of her customers upon their
ISSUE: payment, (b) the ledgers listing the accounts pertaining to each
Whether or not testimony based on a report which relates an customer with the corresponding notations of the receipt numbers for
admission of a third person who was not presented as witness is each of the payments, and (c) the confirmation sheets accomplished
inadmissible in evidence for being a hearsay. by Guivencan herself. The ledgers and receipts were marked and
formally offered as Exhibits B to YY, and their derivatives, inclusive.
Prosecution also presented Guivencan to testify on the entries in the
HELD:
documentary evidence. Petitioner’s counsel interposed a continuing
The answer is in the negative. A witness may testify as to the state of objection on the ground that the figures entered in Exhibits B to YY
mind of another person — the latter’s knowledge, belief, or good or and their derivatives, inclusive, were hearsay because the persons
bad faith — and the former’s statements may then be regarded as who had made the entries were not themselves presented in court.
independently relevant without violating the hearsay rule. Recio’s
alleged admission may be considered as "independently relevant."
ISSUE:
Thus, because Cartagena took the witness stand and opened himself
to cross- examination, the Investigation Report he had submitted to Whether or not testimony of a witness pertaining to entries in a
the director of the Bureau of Lands constitutes part of his testimony. document made by another person constitutes hearsay and may not
Those portions of the report that consisted of his personal knowledge, be admitted as evidence.
perceptions and conclusions are not hearsay. On the other hand, the
part referring to the statement made by Recio may be considered as HELD:
independently relevant. Section 36 of Rule 130, Rules of Court, a rule that states that a
The doctrine on independently relevant statements holds that witness can testify only to those facts that she knows of her personal
conversations communicated to a witness by a third person may be knowledge; that is, which are derived from her own perception,
admitted as proof that, regardless of their truth or falsity, they were except as otherwise provided in the Rules of Court. The personal
actually made. Evidence as to the making of such statements is not knowledge of a witness is a substantive prerequisite for accepting
secondary but primary, for in itself it (a) constitutes a fact in issue or testimonial evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact. A
(b) is circumstantially relevant to the existence of such fact. witness bereft of personal knowledge of the disputed fact cannot be
Since Cartagena’s testimony was based on the report of the called upon for that purpose because her testimony derives its value
investigation he had conducted, his testimony was not hearsay and not from the credit accorded to her as a witness presently testifying
was, hence, properly admitted by the trial court. but from the veracity and competency of the extrajudicial source of
her information.
60. ANNA LERIMA PATULA, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012
The reason for the exclusion of hearsay evidence is that the person (b) it is made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant
from whom the witness derived the information on the facts in dispute is under a consciousness of impending death;
is not in court and under oath to be examined and cross-examined. (c) the declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she
Moreover, the theory of the hearsay rule is that when a human survived; and
utterance is offered as evidence of the truth of the fact asserted, the (d) the dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of
credit of the assert or becomes the basis of inference, and, therefore, inquiry involves the declarant's death
the assertion can be received as evidence only when made on the
witness stand, subject to the test of cross- examination. However, if Res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that
an extrajudicial utterance is offered, not as an assertion to prove the grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are
matter asserted but without reference to the truth of the matter so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to
asserted, the hearsay rule does not apply. For example, in a slander exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication. The test of
case, if a prosecution witness testifies that he heard the accused say admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore,
that the complainant was a thief, this testimony is admissible not to whether the act, declaration, or exclamation, is so interwoven or
prove that the complainant was really a thief, but merely to show that connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be
the accused uttered those words. This kind of utterance is hearsay in regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly
character but is not legal hearsay. The distinction is, therefore, negates any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.
between (a) the fact that the statement was made, to which the
hearsay rule does not apply, and (b) the truth of the facts asserted in FACTS:
the statement, to which the hearsay rule applies.
Hence, as Guivencan’s testimony intends to prove an asserted fact, On November 3, 2004, at 8 o’clock in the evening, Umali was riding a
i.e., misappropriation on the part of the accused through documentary bicycle on his way home when he saw Januario being mauled by two
evidence of which the witness has no personal knowledge, the same is persons opposite Dom’s Studio in Poblacion, Mabini, Batangas. Upon
inadmissible for being a hearsay evidence. seeing the incident, he stayed in front of the church until such time
that the accused ran away and were chased by policemen who
alighted from the police patrol vehicle.

On the same night, SPO3 Mendoza and PO1 Coronel were on board
61. G.R. No. 198022               April 7, 2014 their patrol vehicle performing their routine patrol duty when they met
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,  two men, later identified as the accused, who were running at a fast
Vs speed. When asked why they were running, the accused did not
SONNY GATARIN y CABALLERO @ "JAY-R" and EDUARDO answer prompting the policemen to chase them. The policemen,
QUISAYAS, Accused, however, were unsuccessful in catching them and when it became
EDUARDO QUISAYAS, Accused-Appellant. evident that they could no longer find them, they continued patrolling
the area. There they saw Januario lying on the street in front of Dom’s
DOCTRINE: studio. As he was severely injured, the policemen immediately
A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as evidence boarded Januario to the patrol vehicle and brought him to the Zigzag
due to its hearsay character, may nonetheless be admitted when Hospital. While inside the vehicle, SPO3 Mendoza asked Januario who
the following requisites concur, namely: hurt him. He answered that it was "Jay-R and his uncle" who stabbed
(a) the declaration concerns the cause and the surrounding him. The uncle turned out to be the appellant herein, while Jay-R is
circumstances of the declarant's death; his co-accused who remains at-large.
At the Zigzag Hospital, Januario was attended to by Dr. Rasa who character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the
found him in critical condition. Three fatal wounds caused by a bladed main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication. The
weapon were found in Januario’s body which eventually caused his test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is,
death. therefore, whether the act, declaration, or exclamation, is so
interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it
CA affirmed RTC decision hence this appeal. characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and
also whether it clearly negates any premeditation or purpose to
ISSUE: manufacture testimony.
Whether Dying Declaration by the victim on this case is admissible
evidence.

HELD: 62. G.R. No. 214453, June 17, 2015

No. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERNABE P.
A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as evidence due PALANAS ALIAS "ABE", Accused-Appellant.
to its hearsay character, may nonetheless be admitted when the
following requisites concur, namely: (a) the declaration concerns the DOCTRINE:
cause and the surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death; (b) A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as evidence
it is made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant is due to its hearsay character, may nonetheless be admitted when
under a consciousness of impending death; (c) the declarant would the following requisites concur, namely:
have been competent to testify had he or she survived; and (d) the (a) the declaration concerns the cause and the surrounding
dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of inquiry circumstances of the declarant's death;
involves the declarant's death. (b) it is made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant
is under a consciousness of impending death;
In the case at bar, it appears that not all the requisites of a dying (c) the declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she
declaration are present. From the records, no questions relative to the survived; and
second requisite was propounded to Januario. It does not appear that (d) the dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of
the declarant was under the consciousness of his impending death inquiry involves the declarant's death
when he made the statements. The rule is that, in order to make a
dying declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent Res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that
death must be entered by the declarant. It is the belief in impending grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are
death and not the rapid succession of death in point of fact that so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to
renders a dying declaration admissible. The test is whether the exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication. The test of
declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and looked on death as admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore,
certainly impending. Thus, the utterances made by Januario could not whether the act, declaration, or exclamation, is so interwoven or
be considered as a dying declaration. connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be
regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly
However, even if Januario’s utterances could not be appreciated as a negates any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. 41
dying declaration, his statements may still be appreciated as part of
the res gestae. Res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and FACTS
declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its
At around 6:40 in the morning of March 26, 2006, SPO2 Borre took his Whether Palanas's conviction for the crime of Murder should be
five (5)-month-old grandson outside his residence at Block 14, upheld on the basis of Dying declaration And as part of the res
Kenneth Street corner Eusebio Avenue, Pasig City. PO3 Leopoldo gestae.
Zapanta (PO3 Zapanta), who slept at SPO2 Borre's residence, was
watching television when four (4) successive gunshots rang out. PO3 HELD:
Zapanta looked through the open door of SPO2 Borre's house and saw Yes.
two (2) men armed with .38 caliber revolvers standing a meter away For a dying declaration24 to constitute an exception to the hearsay
from SPO2 Borre. He saw Palanas deliver the fourth shot to SPO2 evidence rule,25 four (4) conditions must concur: (a) the declaration
Borre, but he could not identify the other shooter. Thereafter, the two must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the
(2) assailants fled on a motorcycle. declarant's death; (b) that at the time the declaration was made, the
declarant is conscious of his impending death; ( c) the declarant was
PO3 Zapanta, together with SPO2 Borre's stepson Ramil Ranola competent as a witness; and ( d) the declaration is offered in a
(Ramil), brought SPO2 Borre to the Pasig City General Hospital. On criminal case for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide where the declarant is
the way to the hospital, SPO2 Borre told Ramil and PO3 Zapanta that the victim.26 On the other hand, a statement to be deemed to form
it was "Abe," "Aspog," or "Abe Palanas" - referring to his neighbor, part of the res gestae,27 and thus, constitute another exception to the
Palanas -who shot him. This statement was repeated to his wife, rule on hearsay evidence, requires the concurrence of the following
Resurreccion Borre (Resurreccion), who followed him at the hospital. requisites: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling
At around 11 o'clock in the morning of even date, SPO2 Borre died occurrence; (b) the statements were made before the declarant had
due to gunshot wounds on his head and trunk. time to contrive or devise; and ( c) the statements must concern the
occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
The RTC found that the prosecution had established beyond
reasonable doubt that Palanas and his companion were the ones who In the case at bar, SPO2 Borre's statements constitute a dying
killed SPO2 Borre through the positive identification of the declaration, given that they pertained to the cause and circumstances
eyewitnesses to the incident. Moreover, SPO2 Borre's statements that of his death and taking into consideration the number and severity of
Palanas shot him constituted an ante mortemstatement and formed his wounds, it may be reasonably presumed that he uttered the same
part of the res gestae, and, thus, admissible as evidence against under a fixed belief that his own death was already imminent. 29 This
Palanas. It further opined that treachery attended SPO2 Borre's killing declaration is considered evidence of the highest order and is entitled
as he had no inkling that the attack would take place, and that he was to utmost credence since no person aware of his impending death
in no position to mount any feasible defense. 12 The RTC, however, did would make a careless and false accusation. 30 Verily, because the
not appreciate evident premeditation because of the absence of the declaration was made in extremity, when the party is at the point of
following elements: (a) the time when the offender determined to death and when every motive of falsehood is silenced and the mind is
commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth, the
clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between law deems this as a situation so solemn and awful as creating an
determination and execution to allow himself time to reflect upon the obligation equal to that which is imposed by an oath administered in
consequences of his act. court.
CA affirmed the RTC's ruling with modification increasing amounts
awarded to the heirs of SPO2 Borre to F75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. In the same vein, SPO2 Borre's statements may likewise be deemed to
form part of the res gestae. "Res gestae refers to the circumstances,
ISSUE facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to
illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous
with the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and A plea of not guilty having been entered by Bernal during his
fabrication. The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res arraignment, trial ensued. The prosecution presented four witnesses.2
gestae is, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so On the other hand, Theodore Bernal testified for his defense.
intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event On December 10, 1993, the court a quo rendered judgment5 finding
that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction Bernal "guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping for
itself, and also whether it clearly negates any premeditation or the abduction and disappearance of Bienvenido Openda Jr. under
purpose to manufacture testimony." 32 In this case, SPO2 Borre's Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to
statements refer to a startling occurrence, i. e., him being shot by reclusion perpetua and to indemnify his mother Teresita Openda in
Palanas and his companion. While on his way to the hospital, SPO2 the amount of P50,000.00 for her mental anguish and moral
Borre had no time to contrive the identification of his assailants. suffering."6
Hence, his utterance was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to Bernal assails the lower court for giving weight and credence to the
the startling occurrence. Definitely, such statement is relevant prosecution witnesses' allegedly illusory testimonies and for convicting
because it identified Palanas as one of the authors of the crime. him when his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the killing of SPO2 Borre, perpetrated by Palanas, is ISSUE :
adequately proven by the prosecution. Whether the application of Declaration against interest is correct and
to merit accused conviction
63. G.R. No. 113685 June 19, 1997 RULING :
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Yes.
THEODORE BERNAL, JOHN DOE and PETER DOE, accused- With the deletion of the phrase "pecuniary or moral interest" from the
appellants. present provision, it is safe to assume that "declaration against
interest" has been expanded to include all kinds of interest, that is,
DOCTRINE pecuniary, proprietary, moral or even penal.
Declaration against interest. — The declaration made by a person A statement may be admissible when it complies with the following
deceased, or unable to testify, against the interest of the declarant, if requisites, to wit: "(1) that the declarant is dead or unable to testify;
the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far (2) that it relates to a fact against the interest of the declarant; (3)
contrary to declarant's own interest, that a reasonable man in his that at the time he made said declaration the declarant was aware
position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to that the same was contrary to his aforesaid interest; and (4) that the
be true, may be received in evidence against himself or his declarant had no motive to falsify and believed such declaration to be
successors-in-interest and against third persons. true."
Openda, Jr., having been missing since his abduction, cannot be called
upon to testify. His confession to Enriquez, definitely a declaration
FACTS against his own interest, since his affair with Naty Bernal was a crime,
That on or about August 5, 1991, in the City of Davao, Philippines, the is admissible in evidence because no sane person will be presumed to
above-mentioned accused, armed with hand guns, conspiring, tell a falsehood to his own detriment.
confederating and cooperating together and helping one another, and
by means of force, violence, intimidation and threat, wilfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously grabbed and kidnapped one Bienvenido
Openda, Jr., while the latter was drinking liquor with his friends as 64. G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997
Bolton Isla, this City and was brought, handcuffed and carried away
using the PU then fled together with Bienvenido Openda, Jr., thereby
depriving the said Bienvenido Openda, Jr. of his liberty against his will
CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON and RENE R. reconveyance claiming that they are entitled to inherit one-half of the
DEZOLLER, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and TEODORA property in question by right of representation.
DOMINGO, respondents. [REGALADO, J.:]
During the hearing, petitioner Corazon Dezoller Tison was presented
as the lone witness, with the following documentary evidence offered
Doctrine: The conditions for the admission of declarations about
to prove petitioners filiation to their father and their aunt, to wit: a
pedigree under Section 39, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, are the
family picture; baptismal certificates; certificates of destroyed records
following: (1) that the declarant is dead or unable to testify; (2) that
of birth of Teodora and Hermogenes; death certificates; certification
the declarant be related to the person whose pedigree is the subject
of destroyed records of live birth of Corazon and Rene Dezoller;
of inquiry; (3) that such relationship be shown by evidence other than
several joint affidavits executed by third persons; and the marriage
the declaration; and (4) that the declaration was made ante litem
certificate of Martin and Teodora Guerrero. Petitioners thereafter
motam, that is, not only before the commencement of the suit
rested their case and submitted a written offer of these exhibits to
involving the subject matter of the declaration, but before any
which a Comment was filed by herein private respondent.
controversy has arisen thereon.
Subsequently, private respondent filed a Demurrer to Plaintiffs
General Rule: Where the party claiming seeks recovery against a Evidence on the ground that petitioners failed to prove their legitimate
relative common to both claimant and declarant—not from the filiation with the deceased Teodora Guerrero in accordance with
declarant himself or the declarant’s estate—the relationship of the Article 172 of the Family Code. It is further averred that the testimony
declarant to the common relative may not be proved by the of petitioner Corazon Dezoller Tison regarding her relationship with
declaration itself, but this requirement does not apply where it is her alleged father and aunt is self-serving, uncorroborated and
sought to reach the estate of the declarant himself and not merely to incompetent, and that it falls short of the quantum of proof required
establish a right through his declarations to the property of some under Article 172 of the Family Code to establish filiation. Also, the
other member of the family. certification issued by the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of
Himamaylan, Negros Occidental is merely proof of the alleged
Facts: The case involves an action for reconveyance filed by
destruction of the records referred to therein, and the joint affidavits
petitioners against private respondent over a parcel of land with a
certifying to the date, place of birth and parentage of herein
house and apartment and which was originally owned by the spouses
petitioners is inadmissible for being hearsay since the affiants were
Martin Guerrero and Teodora Dezoller Guerrero. It appears that
never presented for cross-examination.
petitioners Corazon Tison and Rene Dezoller are the niece and
nephew, respectively, of the deceased Teodora Dezoller Guerrero who The trial court issued an order granting the demurrer to evidence and
is the sister of petitioners’ father, Hermogenes Dezoller. Teodora dismissing the complaint for reconveyance. In upholding the dismissal,
Dezoller Guerrero died without any ascendant or descendant, and was respondent Court of Appeals declared that the documentary evidence
survived only by her husband, Martin Guerrero, and herein presented by herein petitioners, such as the baptismal certificates,
petitioners. Petitioner’s father, Hermogenes, died hence they seek to family picture, and joint affidavits are all inadmissible and insufficient
inherit from Teodora Dezoller Guerrero by right of representation. to prove and establish filiation. Hence, this appeal.
Upon the death of Teodora Dezoller Guerrero, her surviving spouse, Issue: Whether or not the other documents offered in evidence
Martin, executed an Affidavit of Extrajudicial Settlement adjudicating sufficiently corroborate the declaration made by Teodora Dezoller
unto himself, allegedly as sole heir, the land in dispute. Martin sold Guerrero in her lifetime regarding the pedigree of petitioner Corazon
the lot to herein private respondent Teodora Domingo. Martin Dezoller Tison or, if at all, it is necessary to present evidence other
Guerrero died and subsequently, herein petitioners filed an action for than such declaration.
Ruling: We find for petitioners. The primary proof to be considered in justice. More importantly, there is in the present case an absolute
ascertaining the relationship between the parties concerned is the failure by all and sundry to refute that declaration made by the
testimony of Corazon Dezoller Tison to the effect that Teodora decedent.
Dezoller Guerrero in her lifetime, or sometime in 1946, categorically
From the foregoing disquisitions, it may thus be safely concluded, on
declared that the former is Teodora’s niece. Such a statement is
the sole basis of the decedent’s declaration and without need for
considered a declaration about pedigree which is admissible, as an
further proof thereof, that petitioners are the niece and nephew of
exception to the hearsay rule, under Section 39, Rule 130 of the Rules
Teodora Dezoller Guerrero. As held in one case, where the subject of
of Court, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the declarant is
the declaration is the declarants own relationship to another person, it
dead or unable to testify; (2) that the declarant be related to the
seems absurd to require, as a foundation for the admission of the
person whose pedigree is the subject of inquiry; (3) that such
declaration, proof of the very fact which the declaration is offered to
relationship be shown by evidence other than the declaration; and (4)
establish. The preliminary proof would render the main evidence
that the declaration was made ante litem motam, that is, not only
unnecessary.
before the commencement of the suit involving the subject matter of
the declaration, but before any controversy has arisen thereon. Applying the general rule in the present case would nonetheless
produce the same result. For while the documentary evidence
There is no dispute with respect to the first, second and fourth
submitted by petitioners do not strictly conform to the rules on their
elements. What remains for analysis is the third element. American
admissibility, we are however of the considered opinion that the same
jurisprudence has it that a distinction must be made as to when the
may be admitted by reason of private respondents failure to interpose
relationship of the declarant may be proved by the very declaration
any timely objection thereto at the time they were being offered in
itself, or by other declarations of said declarant, and when it must be
evidence. It is elementary that an objection shall be made at the time
supported by evidence aliunde.
when an alleged inadmissible document is offered in evidence,
The general rule is that where the party claiming seeks recovery otherwise, the objection shall be treated as waived, since the right to
against a relative common to both claimant and declarant, but not object is merely a privilege which the party may waive.
from the declarant himself or the declarant’s estate, the relationship of
Accordingly, the documents offered in evidence can be deemed to
the declarant to the common relative may not be proved by the
have sufficiently established the relationship between the declarant
declaration itself. There must be some independent proof of this
and herein petitioners. This is in consonance with the rule that
fact. As an exception, the requirement that there be other proof than
a prima facie showing is sufficient and that only slight proof of the
the declarations of the declarant as to the relationship, does not apply
relationship is required. Finally, it may not be amiss to consider as in
where it is sought to reach the estate of the declarant himself and not
the nature of circumstantial evidence the fact that both the declarant
merely to establish a right through his declarations to the property of
and the claimants, who are the subject of the declaration, bear the
some other member of the family.
surname Dezoller. The petitioners and private respondent are declared
We are sufficiently convinced, and so hold, that the present case is co-owners of the subject property with an undivided one-fourth (1/4)
one instance where the general requirement on evidence aliunde may and three-fourths (3/4) share therein, respectively.
be relaxed. Petitioners are claiming a right to part of the estate of the
declarant herself. Conformably, the declaration made by Teodora
65. G.R. No. 124853 February 24, 1998
Dezoller Guerrero that petitioner Corazon is her niece, is admissible
and constitutes sufficient proof of such relationship, notwithstanding
FRANCISCO L. JISON, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
the fact that there was no other preliminary evidence thereof, the
MONINA JISON, respondent.
reason being that such declaration is rendered competent by virtue of
[DAVIDE, JR., J.:]
the necessity of receiving such evidence to avoid a failure of
 serving and cannot bind the petitioner under the basic rules of
Doctrine: The enumeration contained in the second portion of Rule evidence.
130, Section 40, in light of the rule of ejusdem generis, is limited to
objects which are commonly known as “family possessions,” or those Ruling: The court finds merit against the probative value of some of
articles which represent, in effect, a family’s joint statement of its MONINA’s documentary evidence. The various notes and letters
belief as to the pedigree of a person. written by FRANCISCOs relatives allegedly attesting to MONINAs
filiation, while their due execution and authenticity are not in issue, as
It is the general repute, the common reputation in the family, and not MONINA witnessed the authors signing the documents, nevertheless,
the common reputation in community, that is a material element of under Rule 130, Section 39, the contents of these documents may not
evidence going to establish pedigree. be admitted, there being no showing that the declarants-authors were
dead or unable to testify, neither was the relationship between the
Facts: In a complaint filed with the RTC, MONINA alleged that declarants and MONINA shown by evidence other than the documents
FRANCISCO had been married to a certain Lilia Lopez Jison since in question. As to the admissibility of these documents under Rule
1940. At the end of 1945 or the start of 1946, however, FRANCISCO 130, Section 40, however, this requires further elaboration. Rule 130,
impregnated Esperanza F. Amolar (who was then employed as the Section 40, provides:
nanny of FRANCISCO's daughter, Lourdes). As a result, MONINA was
born on 6 August 1946, in Dingle, Iloilo, and since childhood, had Section 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. -- The
enjoyed the continuous, implied recognition as an illegitimate child of reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy,
FRANCISCO by his acts and that of his family. MONINA further alleged in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be received
that FRANCISCO gave her support and spent for her education, such in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the
that she obtained a Master's degree, became a certified public family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or
accountant (CPA) and eventually, a Central Bank examiner. In view of other family books or charts, engravings on rings, family portraits and
FRANCISCO's refusal to expressly recognize her, MONINA prayed for a the like, may be received as evidence of pedigree. (underscoring
judicial declaration of her illegitimate status and that FRANCISCO supplied)
support and treat her as such.
It is evident that this provision may be divided into two (2) parts: the
In his answer, FRANCISCO alleged that he could not have had sexual
portion containing the first underscored clause which pertains to
relations with Esperanza Amolar during the period specified in the
testimonial evidence, under which the documents in question may not
complaint as she had ceased to be in his employ as early as 1944, and
be admitted as the authors thereof did not take the witness
did not know of her whereabouts since then; further, he never
stand; and the section containing the second underscored
recognized MONINA, expressly or impliedly, as his illegitimate child. As
phrase. What must then be ascertained is whether the various notes
affirmative and special defenses, FRANCISCO contended that MONINA
and letters written by FRANCISCOs relatives, as private documents,
had no right or cause of action against him and that her action was
fall within the scope of the clause “and the like” as qualified by the
barred by estoppel, laches and/or prescription. He thus prayed for
preceding phrase entries in family bibles or other family books or
dismissal of the complaint and an award of damages due to the
charts, engravings on rights and family portraits.
malicious filing of the complaint.
We hold that the scope of the enumeration contained in the second
Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence
portion of this provision, in light of the rule of ejusdem generis, is
to documentary evidence presented by the private respondent as
limited to objects which are commonly known as family possessions,
evidence of filiation considering that the same are hearsay, self-
or those articles which represent, in effect, a family’s joint statement
of its belief as to the pedigree of a person. These have been described
as objects openly exhibited and well known to the family, or those Considering that the statements of the bystanders were made
which, if preserved in a family, may be regarded as giving a family immediately after the startling occurrence, they are, in fact, admissible
tradition. Other examples of these objects which are regarded as as evidence given in res gestae.
reflective of a family’s reputation or tradition regarding pedigree are
inscriptions on tombstones, monuments or coffin plates. Facts: On December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to 1:00 in the
afternoon, seven (7) members of the Sigma Rho fraternity were eating
Plainly then, the various notes and letters written by FRANCISCOs
lunch at the Beach House Canteen, near the Main Library of the
relatives, as private documents not constituting "family possessions"
University of the Philippines, Diliman, when they were attacked by
as discussed above, may not be admitted on the basis of Rule 130,
several masked men carrying baseball bats and lead pipes. Some of
Section 40. Neither may these exhibits be admitted on the basis of
them sustained injuries that required hospitalization. One of them,
Rule 130, Section 41 regarding common reputation, it having been
Dennis Venturina, died from his injuries. An information for murder
observed that:
was filed against several members of the Scintilla Juris fraternity, with
the Regional Trial Court. A separate information were also filed
The weight of authority appears to be in favor of the theory that against them for the attempted murder and another for frustrated
it is the general repute, the common reputation in the family, murder.
and not the common reputation in community, that is a material
element of evidence going to establish pedigree. xxx Thus Issue: Whether or not evidence as part of the res gestae may be
matters of pedigree may be proved by reputation in the family, admissible.
and not by reputation in the neighborhood or vicinity, except
where the pedigree in question is marriage which may be proved Ruling: Evidence as part of the res gestae may be admissible but
by common reputation in the community. have little persuasive value in this case. According to the testimony of
U.P. Police Officer Salvador, when he arrived at the scene, he
Their inadmissibility notwithstanding, the various notes and letters interviewed the bystanders who all told him that they could not
written by FRANCISCOs relatives, inclusive, may, in like manner as recognize the attackers since they were all masked. This, it is argued,
MONINA's school records, properly be admitted as part of her could be evidence that could be given as part of the res gestae.
testimony to strengthen her claim that, indeed, relatives of
FRANCISCO recognized her as his daughter. As a general rule, "a witness can testify only to the facts he knows of
his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own
perception, x x x." All other kinds of testimony are hearsay and are
inadmissible as evidence. The Rules of Court, however, provide
66. G.R. No. 196735 May 5, 2014 several exceptions to the general rule, and one of which is when the
evidence is part of res gestae, thus:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANILO
FELICIANO, JR., JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA, CHRISTOPHER Section 42. Part of res gestae. - Statements made by a person
SOLIVA, WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, and ROBERT MICHAEL while a starting occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
BELTRAN ALVIR, Accused-appellants. [LEONEN, J.:] subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof,
may be given in evidence as part of res gestae. So, also,
Doctrine: As a general rule, a witness can testify only to the facts he statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue,
knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the
own perception. res gestae.
In People v. Rodrigo Salafranca, this court has previously discussed x x x persons who witness an event perceive the same from their
the admissibility of testimony taken as part of res gestae, stating that: respective points of reference. Therefore, almost always, they
have different accounts of how it happened. Certainly, we
A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the res gestae cannot expect the testimony of witnesses to a crime to be
and thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay consistent in all aspects because different persons have different
rule when the following requisites concur, to wit: (a) the impressions and recollections of the same incident. x x x
principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the
The statements made by the bystanders, although admissible, have
statements are made before the declarant had time to contrive
little persuasive value since the bystanders could have seen the events
or devise; and (c) the statements must concern the occurrence
transpiring at different vantage points and at different points in time.
in question and its immediately attending circumstances. x x x x
Even Frisco Capilo, one of the bystanders at the time of the attack,
testified that the attackers had their masks on at first, but later on,
The term res gestae has been defined as "those circumstances which
some remained masked and some were unmasked.
are the undersigned incidents of a particular litigated act and which
are admissible when illustrative of such act." In a general way, res When the bystanders' testimonies are weighed against those of the
gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow victims who witnessed the entirety of the incident from beginning to
out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so end at close range, the former become merely corroborative of the
spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude fact that an attack occurred. Their account of the incident, therefore,
the idea of deliberation and fabrication. The rule on res gestae must be given considerably less weight than that of the victims.
encompasses the exclamations and statements made by either the
participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before,
during, or immediately after the commission of the crime when the
67. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GILBERTO VILLARICO,
circumstances are such that the statements were made as a
SR. “BERTING” GILBERTO VILLARICO, JR., JERRY
spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the
RAMENTOS, and RICKY VILLARICO
occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate
and to fabricate a false statement. The test of admissibility of
evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act,
FACTS:
declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected
with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded
On or about August 8, 1999, at about 7:50 o’clock in the
as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives
morning at Barangay Bolinsong, Municipality of Bonifacio, Province of
any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony.
Misamis Occidental, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill,
There is no doubt that a sudden attack on a group peacefully eating
armed with a short firearms, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
lunch on a school campus is a startling occurrence. Considering that
feloniously suddenly and treacherously shoot HAIDE CAGATAN at the
the statements of the bystanders were made immediately after the
back penetrating through the neck which caused the instant death of
startling occurrence, they are, in fact, admissible as evidence given in
said victim and that he had no chance to avoid or defend himself from
res gestae.
the attack.
In People v. Albarido, however, this court has stated that "in accord to The RTC accorded faith to the positive identification of the
ordinary human experience:" accused by the Prosecution’s witnesses, and disbelieved their denial
and alibis due to their failure to show the physical improbability for
them to be at the crime scene, for the distances between the crime
scene and the places where the accused allegedly were at the time of
the commission of the crime were shown to range from only 100 to
700 meters.17 The RTC found, however, that the Prosecution was not Facts:
able to prove treachery.
At the time of the incident, private complainant Concepcion C. Javier,
ISSUE: was a 70 year old widow who personally tended her 24-hour sari-sari
Whether or not the CA erred in convictine the accused- store located at 101 Rosal Street, Alido Heights Subdivision, Bulacan.
appellants of murder despite of failure of the prosecution to prove the She was suffering from recurrent insomnia, thus, she regularly took
identity of the assailant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. sleeping pills to ward off her sleeping problem. Twenty-eight year old
accused-appellant, single, was then working as a keyboardist and
HELD: sequencer of an establishment that produces “minus one” music. He
The term res gestae refers to “those circumstances which are was a resident of the same subdivision and a frequent buyer at private
the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act and which are complainant’s store during the wee hours of the morning.
admissible when illustrative of such act”. In a general way, res gestae
includes the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of Suddenly, accused-appellant entered through the kitchen door.
the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and which are so He swiftly darted towards private complainant; shoved her on the
spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude forehead and pushed her against the kitchen counter. When she
the idea of deliberation and fabrication. The rule on res gestae attempted to run, he grabbed her arm and punched her twice on the
encompasses the exclamations and statements made by either the abdomen, causing her to fall to the ground. Though private
participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, complainant was reeling from the physical assault as well as from the
during, or immediately after the commission of the crime when the effects of the sleeping pill, she felt accused-appellant raise her duster
circumstances are such that the statements were made as a and remove her underwear. She saw him unzip his pants and pull
spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the down his briefs. Then, accused-appellant forced her legs open and
occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate raped her. She felt pain and bled, but she could do nothing as she
and to fabricate a false statement. was feeling very weak. Moments later, accused-appellant put on his
The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae pants and pointed the blood on the floor to private complainant.
is whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately
interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it After accused-appellant left, private complainant struggled to
characterizes as to be regarded a part of the principal fact or event get up and wiped the blood on the floor. Then, she proceeded to the
itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or bedroom where one of her daughters, Teresa, was sleeping. Teresa
purpose to manufacture testimony. A declaration or an utterance is woke up and saw the bloodied underwear of her mother. Private
thus deemed as part of the res gestae that is admissible in evidence complainant told her that she was raped by accused-appellant but
as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites failed to give the details as she dozed off to sleep. The following day,
concur: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; May 20, 1998, private complainant submitted herself for physical
(b) the statements were made before the declarant had time to examination at the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory in Malolos,
contrive or devise; and (c) the statements must concern the Bulacan.
occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the evidence for the prosecution established
68. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NORMAN PALARCA y
the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
MERCADO alias “Bong”
HELD: Defendant disclaims any liability, claiming that the non-
At any rate, private complainant’s thorough narration of the accommodation of plaintiffs on said flight was due to their having
rape incident on the witness stand, which remained firm and check-in (sic) late for their flight. It is averred that even if defendant is
consistent under exhaustive cross-examination by the defense, found liable to the plaintiffs such liability is confined to, and limited by,
convinces us that she was indeed raped. It is settled jurisprudence the CAB Economic Regulations No. 7 in conjunction with P.D. 589.
that when a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect
all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed. It is hard The trial court rendered judgment finding defendant guilty of
to believe that a 70-year old woman who was not shown to have any breach of contract of carriage in bumping-off the plaintiffs from its
grudge against accused-appellant would concoct a humiliating rape F264 flight of September 25, 1985, and ordered defendant to pay the
story and spend the remaining days of her life in sending a man to plaintiffs.
prison if her motive was not to avenge her honor and have her
ravisher punished. Bolstered by the medical findings showing that ISSUE:
private complainant sustained multiple abrasions on the vaginal wall,
as well as bruises on the abdomen and right arm which confirmed that Whether or not the private respondents were late in checking-
she was indeed boxed and grabbed by accused- appellant, we see no in for their flight from Naga City to Manila.
reason to doubt her testimony.
HELD:
69. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. vs. JAIME M. RAMOS, NILDA
Under Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, each party in
RAMOS, ERLINDA ILANO, MILAGROS ILANO, DANIEL ILANO
a case is required to prove his affirmative allegations. In civil cases,
AND FELIPA JAVALERA
the degree of evidence required of a party in order to support his
claim is preponderance of evidence or that evidence adduced by one
party which is more conclusive and credible than that of the other
Facts: party.

Plaintiffs Jaime Ramos, Nilda Ramos, Erlinda Ilano, Milagros In the absence of any controverting evidence, the
Ilano, Daniel Ilano and Felipa Javalera, are officers of the Negros documentary evidence presented to corroborate the testimonies of
Telephone Company who held confirmed tickets for PAL Flight No. 264 PAL’s witnesses are prima facie evidence of the truth of their
from Naga City to Manila on September 24, 1985, scheduled to depart allegations. The plane tickets of the private respondents, exhs.
for Manila at 4:25 p.m. The tickets were bought sometime in August “1”-“4”(with emphasis on the printed condition of the contract of
1985. carriage regarding check-in time as well as on the notation „late
4:02‰ stamped on the flight coupon by the check-in clerk
Plaintiffs claim in their Complaint that they went to the check- immediately upon the check-in of private respondents) and the
in counter of the defendant’s Naga branch at least one (1) hour before passenger Manifest of Flight PR 264, exh. “5” (which showed the non-
the published departure time but no one was at the counter until 30 accommodation of Capati and Go and the private respondents) are
minutes before departure, but upon checking-in and presentation of entries made in the regular course of business which the private
their tickets to the employee/clerk who showed up, their tickets were respondents failed to overcome with substantial and convincing
cancelled and the seats awarded to chance passengers; plaintiffs had evidence other than their testimonies. Consequently, they carry more
to go to Manila by bus, and seek actual, moral and exemplary weight and credence. A writing or document made contemporaneously
damages, and attorney’s fees for breach of contract of carriage. with a transaction in which are evidenced facts pertinent to an issue,
when admitted as proof of those facts, is ordinarily regarded as more
reliable proof and of greater probative force than the oral testimony of
a witness as to such facts based upon memory and recollection. Ruling:
The police blotter was admitted under Rule 130, Section 44 of the
70. RUDY LAO, petitioner, vs. STANDARD INSURANCE CO., Rules of Court. Under the said rule, the following are the requisites for
INC., respondent. its admissibility: (a) that the entry was made by a public officer, or by
G.R. No. 140023. August 14, 2003 another person, specially enjoined by law to do so; (b) that it was
made by the public officer in the performance of his duties, or by such
Facts: other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law;
(c) that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge of
Petitioner Rudy Lao is the owner of a Fuso truck with Plate No. FCG- the facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him
538. The truck was insured with respondent Standard Insurance Co., personally or through official information.
Inc to cover any damages that might be caused to his goods.While the
policy was in effect, an accident occurred. At around 8:00 p.m. of April The police blotter was properly admitted as they form part of official
24, 1985, in Barangay Buhang, Jaro, Iloilo City, the insured truck records. Entries in police records made by a police officer in the
bumped another truck, with Plate No. FBS-917, also owned by performance of the duty especially enjoined by law are prima
petitioner Lao. The latter truck was running ahead of the insured truck facie  evidence of the fact therein stated, and their probative value
and was bumped from the rear. The insured truck sustained damages may be either substantiated or nullified by other competent
estimated to be around P110,692, while the damage to the other evidence. Although police blotters are of little probative value, they
truck and to properties in the vicinity of the accident, were placed are nevertheless admitted and considered in the absence of
at P35,000 more or less. competent evidence to refute the facts stated therein.
In this case, the entries in the police blotter reflected the information
Petitioner filed a claim with the insurance company for the proceeds subject of the controversy. Stated therein was the fact that Leonardo
from his policy. However, the claim was denied by the insurance Anit was driving the insured truck with plate number FCG-538. This is
company on the ground that when its adjuster went to investigate the unlike People v. Mejia, where we said that entries in the police blotters
matter, it was found that the driver of the insured truck, Leonardo should not be given undue significance or probative value, since the
Anit, did not possess a proper driver’s license at the time of the Court there found that the entries in question are sadly wanting in
accident. material particulars.
Furthermore, in this case the police blotter was identified and formally
Petitioner assails the admissibility and evidentiary weight given to the offered as evidence. The person who made the entries was likewise
police blotter. He contends that the same entry was belied by the presented in court; he identified and certified as correct the entries he
Motor Vehicle Accident Report and testimony of the investigating made on the blotter. The information was supplied to the entrant by
policeman himself, attesting that it was Giddie Boy Coyel, not the investigating officer who did not protest about any inaccuracy
Leonardo Anit, who was driving the insured vehicle. when the blotter was presented to him. No explanation was likewise
given by the investigating officer for the alleged interchange of
Respondent avers that the same police report and testimony were of names.
dubious nature. Both trial and appellate courts noted that the report
was made three days after the accident and did not form part of the 71. MEYNARDO SABILI, Petitioner vs. COMMISSION ON
official police records. ELECTIONS and FLORENCIO LIBREA, Respondents.
G. R. No. 193261, April 24, 2012
Issue:
Whether or not the police blotter is admissible as evidence. Facts:
 Whether or not the COMELECs treatment of the Barangay Captains
Petitioner filed his COC for mayor of Lipa City for the 2010 elections, Certification is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
he stated therein that he had been a resident of the city for two (2)
years and eight (8) months. Prior to the 2010 elections, he had been Ruling:
twice elected (in 1995 and in 1998) as Provincial Board Member
representing the 4th District of Batangas. During the 2007 elections, We disagree with the COMELECs treatment of the Barangay Captains
petitioner ran for the position of Representative of the 4 th District of Certification and find the same tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Batangas, but lost. The 4th District of Batangas includes Lipa
City. However, it is undisputed that when petitioner filed his COC Even without being sworn to before a notary public, Honrades
during the 2007 elections, he and his family were then staying at his Certification would not only be admissible in evidence, but would also
ancestral home in Barangay (Brgy.) Sico, San Juan, Batangas. be entitled to due consideration. Rule 130, Section 44 of the Rules of
Court provides:
Private respondent Florencio Librea (private respondent) filed a SEC. 44. Entries in official records. Entries in official records made in
Petition to Deny Due Course and to Cancel Certificate of Candidacy the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by
and to Disqualify a Candidate for Possessing Some Grounds for a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law,
Disqualification, against him before the COMELEC, docketed as SPA are prima facie  evidence of the facts therein stated.
No. 09-047 (DC). Citing Section 78 in relation to Section 74 of the
Omnibus Election Code, private respondent alleged that petitioner In Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Lianga Bay and
made material misrepresentations of fact in the latters COC and Community Multi-purpose Cooperative, Inc., we explained that the
likewise failed to comply with the one-year residency requirement following three (3) requisites must concur for entries in official
under Section 39 of the Local Government Code. Allegedly, petitioner records to be admissible in evidence:(a) The entry was made by a
falsely declared under oath in his COC that he had already been a public officer, or by another person specially enjoined by law to do so;
resident of Lipa City for two years and eight months prior to the (b) It was made by the public officer in the performance of his duties,
scheduled 10 May 2010 local elections. or by such other person in the performance of a duty specially
enjoined by law; and (c) The public officer or other person had
Private respondents evidence shall be grouped as follows: (1) sufficient knowledge of the facts stated by him, which facts must have
Certificates regarding ownership of real property; (2) petitioners Voter been acquired by him personally or through official information.
Registration and Certification (common exhibits of the parties); (3)
petitioners COCs in previous elections; (3) Certifications regarding As to the first requisite, the Barangay Secretary is required by the
petitioners family members; and (4) Affidavits of Lipa City residents. Local Government Code to keep an updated record of all inhabitants
of the barangay. Regarding the second requisite, we have explicitly
While for petitioners evidence shall be grouped as follows: (1) his recognized in Mitra v. Commission on Elections, that it is the business
Income Tax Returns and corresponding Official Receipts for the years of a punong barangay to know who the residents are in his own
2007 and 2008; (2) Certification from the barangay captain of barangay. Anent the third requisite, the Barangay Captains exercise of
Pinagtong-ulan; (3) Affidavit of his common-law wife, Bernadette powers and duties concomitant to his position requires him to be privy
Palomares; and (4) Affidavits from a previous property owner, to these records kept by the Barangay Secretary.
neighbors, Certificate of Appreciation from the barangay parish and
Memorandum from the local chapter of Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. Accordingly, there is basis in faulting the COMELEC for its failure to
consider Honrades Certification on the sole ground that it was initially
Issue: not notarized.
 Whether or not the marriage contract or Contrato Matrimonial is
sufficient to prove the fact of marriage.
72. SIMPLICIA CERCADO-SIGA AND LIGAYA CERCADO-
BELISON, Petitioners, v. VICENTE CERCADO, JR., MANUELA C. Ruling:
ARABIT, LOLITA C. BASCO, MARIA C. ARALAR AND VIOLETA Under Section 20, Rule 132, Rules of Court, before a private document
C. BINADAS, Respondent. is admitted in evidence, it must be authenticated either by the person
G.R. No. 185374, March 11, 2015 who executed it, the person before whom its execution was
acknowledged, any person who was present and saw it executed, or
Facts: who after its execution, saw it and recognized the signatures, or the
person to whom the parties to the instruments had previously
Petitioners Simplicia Cercado-Siga (Simplicia) and Ligaya Cercado- confessed execution thereof. As observed by the Court of Appeals,
Belison (Ligaya) claimed that they are the legitimate children of the petitioners failed to present any one of such witnesses. In fact, only
late Vicente and Benita Castillo (Benita), who were married last 9 Simplicia testified that her mother gave her the marriage contract.
October 1929 in Pililla, Rizal. In support of the existence thereof, Unfortunately however, she was not present during its execution nor
petitioners presented a copy of the Contrato Matrimonial which was could she identify Benita’s handwriting because Simplicia admitted
issued by Iglesia Filipina Independiente church. Petitioners insist that that she is illiterate.
the Contrato Matrimonial is a public document because it is required
by law to be recorded in the local civil registrar and the National While petitioners concede that the marriage contract is a private
Statistics Office (NSO). Petitioners claim to have in their possession a document, they now argue that it is an ancient document which need
duplicate original of the Contrato Matrimonial which should be not be authenticated. Petitioners’ argument still has no merit. Section
regarded as original. Granting that the Contrato Matrimonial is a 21, Rule 132 defines an ancient document as one that: 1) is more
private document, petitioners maintain that said document should be than 30 years old; 2) is produced from custody in which it would
considered an ancient document which should be excluded from the naturally be found if genuine; and 3) is unblemished by any alteration
requirement of authentication. or by any circumstance of suspicion. The marriage contract was
executed on 9 October 1929, hence it is clearly more than 30-years
In their Answer, respondents alleged that they are the legitimate heirs old. On its face, there appears to be no evidence of alteration.
of Vicente and Leonora, who were married on 27 June 1977 as
evidenced by a marriage certificate registered with the Local Civil The marriage contract however does not meet the second
Registrar of Binangonan, Rizal. In their Comment, respondents submit requirement.
that the Contrato Matrimonial is a private document and the fact that
marriages are required to be registered in the local civil registrar does Ancient documents are considered from proper custody if they come
not ipso facto make it a public document. Respondents assert that the from a place from which they might reasonably be expected to be
certificate of baptism is likewise a private document which tends to found. Custody is proper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin
prove only the administration of the sacrament of baptism and not the or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render
veracity of the declarations therein. Respondents moreover refute the such an origin probable. If a document is found where it would not
certification issued by the local civil registry arguing that it does not properly and naturally be, its absence from the proper place must be
prove filiation but only the fact that there is no record of Ligaya on file satisfactorily accounted for.
with said office.
73. Manila Electric Company v. Hon. Secretary of Labor,
Issue: Leonardo Quisumbin and MERALCO Employees and Workers
Association.
 which carries no persuasive weight for purposes of this case as no
GR No. 127598, 22 February 2000 sufficient figures to support it were presented. Neither did anybody
testify to its accuracy. It cannot be said that businessmen generally
DOCTRINE: rely on news items such as this in their occupation. Besides, no
Statement of matters contained in a periodical may be admitted only evidence was presented that the publication was regularly prepared
"if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in that by a person in touch with the market and that it is generally regarded
occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them therein. as trustworthy and reliable. Absent extrinsic proof of their accuracy,
these reports are not admissible. In the same manner, newspapers
FACTS: containing stock quotations are not admissible in evidence when the
On 27 January 1999, the Court granted a petition and orders the source of the reports is available. With more reason, mere analyses
public respondent are set aside. The parties are directed to execute a or projections of such reports cannot be admitted. In particular, the
Collective Bargaining Agreement incorporating the terms and source of the report in this case can be easily made available
conditions contained in the unaffected portions of the Secretary of considering that the same is necessary for compliance with certain
Labors orders of August 19, 1996 and December 28, 1996, and the governmental requirements.
modifications set forth above. The retirement fund issue is remanded
to the Secretary of Labor for reception of evidence and determination
of the legal personality of the Meralco retirement fund. 74. People of the Philippines v Lanie Ortiz-Miyake

It was noted that the respondent labor union, MERALCO Employees GR No. 115338-39, 16 September 2017
and Workers Association’s request for increases in benefits including
salaries and wages were based on the Asia Capital report. DOCTRINE:
A previous decision or judgment, while admissible in evidence, may
ISSUE: only prove that an accused was previously convicted of a crime. It
Whether information published in the Asia report can be relied and may not be used to prove that the accused is guilty of a crime
can be received as evidence. charged in a subsequent case, in lieu of the requisite evidence proving
the commission of the crime, as said previous decision is hearsay. To
HELD: No. sanction its being used as a basis for conviction in a subsequent case
Section 45 of Rule 130 Rules of Evidence provides: "Commercial lists would constitute a violation of the right of the accused to confront the
and the like. - Evidence of statements of matters of interest to witnesses against him.
persons engaged in an occupation contained in a list, register,
periodical, or other published compilation is admissible as tending to FACTS:
prove the truth of any relevant matter so stated if that compilation is The accused Lanie Ortiz-Miyake was charged with large scale illegal
published for use by persons engaged in that occupation and is recruitment by the complainants in the Regional Trial Court of Makati
generally used and relied upon by them therein." by Elenita Marasigan, Imelda Generillo and Rosamar del Rosario.
Ortiz-Miyake was convicted by the RTC of Paranaque by a complaint
Under the afore-quoted rule, statement of matters contained in a by Elenita Marasigan alone for the charge of estafa.
periodical may be admitted only "if that compilation is published for
use by persons engaged in that occupation and is generally used and The RTC of Makati convicted Ortiz-Miyake. The decision therein of the
relied upon by them therein." As correctly held in our Decision dated RTC stated that the facts in the foregoing estafa cases were the same
January 27, 1999, the cited report is a mere newspaper account and as those in the illegal recruitment cases before it. It, therefore,
not even a commercial list. At most, it is but an analysis or opinion adopted the facts and conclusion established in the earlier decision as
its own findings of facts and as its rationale for the conviction in the xxx
cases before it.
It will be noted that the principle embodied in the foregoing rule is
ISSUE: likewise found in the following provision of Rule 130:
Whether the court adopt the finding of facts of a previous decision of
another court. Section 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. - The
testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify,
HELD: No. given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative,
The position of the Solicitor General is that the conviction of appellant involving the same parties and subject matter, may be given in
should be merely for the lesser offense of simple illegal recruitment. evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-
He submits that the Regional Trial Court of Makati erred in convicting examine him.
appellant of illegal recruitment in large scale because the conviction
was based on an earlier decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Under the aforecited rules, the accused in a criminal case is
Paraaque where appellant was found guilty of estafa committed guaranteed the right of confrontation. Such right has two purposes:
against Generillo and Del Rosario. first, to secure the opportunity of cross-examination; and, second, to
allow the judge to observe the deportment and appearance of the
It is argued that the Makati court could not validly adopt the facts witness while testifying.
embodied in the decision of the Paranaque court to show that illegal
recruitment was committed against Generillo and Del Rosario as well. This right, however, is not absolute as it is recognized that it is
Illegal recruitment was allegedly proven to have been committed sometimes impossible to recall or produce a witness who has already
against only one person, particularly, Elenita Marasigan. Appellant, testified in a previous proceeding, in which event his previous
therefore, may only be held guilty of simple illegal recruitment and not testimony is made admissible as a distinct piece of evidence, by way
of such offense in large scale. of exception to the hearsay rule. The previous testimony is made
admissible because it makes the administration of justice orderly and
He further submits that the adoption by the Makati court of the facts expeditious.
in the decision of the Paraaque court for estafa to constitute the basis
of the subsequent conviction for illegal recruitment is erroneous as it Under these rules, the adoption by the Makati trial court of the facts
is a violation of the right of appellant to confront the witnesses, that stated in the decision of the Paraaque trial court does not fall under
is, complainants Generillo and Del Rosario, during trial before it. He the exception to the right of confrontation as the exception
cites the pertinent provision of Rule 115 of the Rules of Court, to wit: contemplated by law covers only the utilization of testimonies of
absent witnesses made in previous proceedings, and does not include
Section 1. Rights of accused at the trial. In all criminal prosecutions, utilization of previous decisions or judgments.
the accused shall be entitled:
xxx In the instant case, the prosecution did not offer the testimonies made
(f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the by complainants Generillo and Del Rosario in the previous estafa case.
trial. Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a Instead, what was offered, admitted in evidence, and utilized as a
witness who is deceased, out of or cannot, with due diligence be basis for the conviction in the case for illegal recruitment in large scale
found in the Philippines, unavailable or otherwise unable to testify, was the previous decision in the estafa case.
given in another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative,
involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse party A previous decision or judgment, while admissible in evidence, may
having had the opportunity to cross-examine him. only prove that an accused was previously convicted of a crime. It
may not be used to prove that the accused is guilty of a crime the Bataan Export Processing Zone (BEPZ) in Mariveles, Bataan,
charged in a subsequent case, in lieu of the requisite evidence proving executed a Deed of Mortgage for a consideration of the amount of
the commission of the crime, as said previous decision is hearsay. To $464,266.90 or its peso equivalent at P20,892,010.50 more or less in
sanction its being used as a basis for conviction in a subsequent case favor of ML Resources and Highdone Company Ltd. Representing that
would constitute a violation of the right of the accused to confront the the said deed is a FIRST MORTGAGE when in truth and in fact the
witnesses against him. accused well knew that the same had been previously encumbered,
mortgaged and foreclosed by CHINA BANK CORPORATION as early as
As earlier stated, the Makati courts utilization of and reliance on the September 1994 thereby causing damage and prejudice to said
previous decision of the Paranaque court must be rejected. Every HIGHDONE COMPANY LTD., in the said amount of $464,266.90 or its
conviction must be based on the findings of fact made by a trial court peso equivalent at P20,892,010.50 more or less.
according to its appreciation of the evidence before it. A conviction
may not be based merely on the findings of fact of another court, Upon arraignment, petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge. The
especially where what is presented is only its decision sans the prosecution's complaining witness, Li Luen Ping, a frail old
transcript of the testimony of the witnesses who testified therein and businessman from Laos, Cambodia, traveled from his home country
upon which the decision is based. back to the Philippines in order to attend the hearing held on
September 9, 2004. However, trial dates were subsequently
postponed due to his unavailability. On October 13, 2005, the private
75. Harry L. Go, Tonny Ngo, Jerry Ngo and Jane Go v. People prosecutor filed with the MeTC a Motion to Take Oral Deposition6 of Li
of the Philippines and Highdone Company Ltd., et. al. Luen Ping, alleging that he was being treated for lung infection at the
Cambodia Charity Hospital in Laos, Cambodia and that, upon doctor's
GR No. 185527, 18 July 2012 advice, he could not make the long travel to the Philippines by reason
of ill health.
DOCTRINE:
The procedure for taking depositions in criminal cases recognizes the ISSUE:
prosecution's right to preserve testimonial evidence and prove its case Whether oral deposition may be taken outside court for criminal cases.
despite the unavailability of its witness. It cannot, however, give
license to prosecutorial indifference or unseemly involvement in a HELD: No.
prosecution witness' absence from trial. To rule otherwise would The Procedure for Testimonial Examination of an Unavailable
effectively deprive the accused of his fundamental right to be Prosecution Witness is Covered Under Section 15, Rule 119.
confronted with the witnesses against him.
The examination of witnesses must be done orally before a judge in
FACTS: open court. This is true especially in criminal cases where the
That sometime in August 1996, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the Constitution secures to the accused his right to a public trial and to
said accused, conspiring, confederating together and helping one meet the witnesses against him face to face. The requirement is the
another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously "safest and most satisfactory method of investigating facts" as it
defraud Highdone Company Ltd. Represented by Li Luen Ping, in the enables the judge to test the witness' credibility through his manner
following manner, to wit: all said accused, by means of false and deportment while testifying. It is not without exceptions,
manifestations and fraudulent representations which they made to however, as the Rules of Court recognizes the conditional examination
said Li Luen Ping to the effect that they have chattels such as of witnesses and the use of their depositions as testimonial evidence
machinery, spare parts, equipment and raw materials installed and in lieu of direct court testimony.
fixed in the premises of BGB Industrial Textile Mills Factory located in
Even in criminal proceedings, there is no doubt as to the availability of
conditional examination of witnesses – both for the benefit of the Since the conditional examination of a prosecution witness must take
defense, as well as the prosecution. The Court's ruling in the case of place at no other place than the court where the case is pending, the
Vda. de Manguerra v. Risos explicitly states that – RTC properly nullified the MeTC's orders granting the motion to take
"x x x As exceptions, Rule 23 to 28 of the Rules of Court provide for the deposition of Li Luen Ping before the Philippine consular official in
the different modes of discovery that may be resorted to by a party to Laos, Cambodia. We quote with approval the RTC's ratiocination in
an action. These rules are adopted either to perpetuate the this wise:
testimonies of witnesses or as modes of discovery. In criminal The condition of the private complainant being sick and of advanced
proceedings, Sections 12, 13 and 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of age falls within the provision of Section 15 Rule 119 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, allow the Court. However, said rule substantially provides that he should be
conditional examination of both the defense and prosecution conditionally examined before the court where the case is pending.
witnesses." (Underscoring supplied) Thus, this Court concludes that the language of Section 15 Rule 119
must be interpreted to require the parties to present testimony at the
The procedure under Rule 23 to 28 of the Rules of Court allows the hearing through live witnesses, whose demeanor and credibility can
taking of depositions in civil cases, either upon oral examination or be evaluated by the judge presiding at the hearing, rather than by
written interrogatories, before any judge, notary public or person means of deposition. No where in the said rule permits the taking of
authorized to administer oaths at any time or place within the deposition outside the Philippines whether the deponent is sick or not.
Philippines; or before any Philippine consular official, commissioned
officer or person authorized to administer oaths in a foreign state or Certainly, to take the deposition of the prosecution witness elsewhere
country, with no additional requirement except reasonable notice in and not before the very same court where the case is pending would
writing to the other party. not only deprive a detained accused of his right to attend the
proceedings but also deprive the trial judge of the opportunity to
But for purposes of taking the deposition in criminal cases, more observe the prosecution witness' deportment and properly assess his
particularly of a prosecution witness who would forseeably be credibility, which is especially intolerable when the witness' testimony
unavailable for trial, the testimonial examination should be made is crucial to the prosecution's case against the accused. This is the
before the court, or at least before the judge, where the case is import of the Court's ruling in Vda. de Manguerra where we further
pending as required by the clear mandate of Section 15, Rule 119 of declared that –
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The pertinent provision reads
thus: While we recognize the prosecution's right to preserve the testimony
of its witness in order to prove its case, we cannot disregard the rules
SEC. 15. Examination of witness for the prosecution. – When it which are designed mainly for the protection of the accused's
satisfactorily appears that a witness for the prosecution is too sick or constitutional rights. The giving of testimony during trial is the general
infirm to appear at the trial as directed by the court, or has to leave rule. The conditional examination of a witness outside of the trial is
the Philippines with no definite date of returning, he may forthwith be only an exception, and as such, calls for a strict construction of the
conditionally examined before the court where the case is pending. rules.
Such examination, in the presence of the accused, or in his absence
after reasonable notice to attend the examination has been served on
him shall be conducted in the same manner as an examination at the
trial. Failure or refusal of the accused to attend the examination after 76. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDWIN IBANEZ y
notice shall be considered a waiver. The statement taken may be ALBANTE and ALFREDO (FREDDIE) NULLA y IBANEZ
admitted in behalf of or against the accused. G.R. No. 197813
September 25, 2013 on the ground covered with blood on his face and forehead. Upon
reaching Wilfredo, Rowena saw accused Jesus, standing one meter
Doctrine: away from Wilfredo, holding an iron bar. Edwin and Alfredo stood
The rule on Examination of a Child Witness specifies that every child is beside Jesus; Edwin held a white shirt. Forthwith, Jesus and Alfredo
presumed qualified to be a witness. ran away while Edwin went home. Rowena asked for help to bring
Facts: Wilfredo to the hospital. However, Wilfredo did not reach the hospital
That on or about the 29th day of August, 2004, in the alive and was pronounced dead on arrival.
municipality of Bocaue, province of Bulacan, Philippines, the above- Expectedly, the defense mainly of Edwin and Alfredo, proffered
named accused, armed with a soil digger (bareta) and with intent to an altogether different version of the events.
kill one Wilfredo Atendido y Dohenog, conspiring, confederating and The two accused-appellants pointed to Jesus as the sole
helping one another did then and there willfully, unlawfully and culprit, proclaimed their innocence and professed to being at the
feloniously, with evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength scene of the crime only because of their curiosity for what had
and treachery, attack, assault and hit with the said soildigger (bareta) occurred.
the said Wilfredo Atendido y Dohenog, hitting the latter on his head, The defense, accused-appellants herein, tried to further
thereby inflicting upon him serious physical injuries which directly discredit Rachel’s testimony by arguing that Rachel was a mere child
caused his death. who had studied only until the first grade of elementary school and
During arraignment, Edwin and Alfredo pleaded not guilty. could barely read, and did not know how to tell time.
Jesus, on the other hand, remained at large; the case against him was The Trial Court found hereby accused guilty and the Court of Appeals
archived. Thereafter, trial ensued. did not deviate from the RTC’s ruling and affirmed its finding of guilt.
The prosecution’s version was testified to by the victim’s wife Issue:
and daughter, in succession. Whether or not the Lower Court erred in giving full weight and
On that fateful day, Wilfredo Atendido y Dohenog (Wilfredo) credence to the testimony of Rachel?
was invited by Alfredo to a drinking session with Jesus and Edwin Held:
making them a party of four. Rachel, Wilfredo’s daughter, an No, The Court held that Rachel’s testimony cannot be taken
adolescent at the time, was underneath the house (silong in the lightly simply because she was a mere child when she witnessed the
vernacular) of a neighbor, three (3) meters away from the place incident and when she gave her testimony in court. There is no
where Wilfredo and his companions were ostensibly in merrymaking. showing that her mental maturity rendered her incapable of testifying
Rachel saw her father step away from the group to urinate. and of relating the incident truthfully.
While Wilfredo relieved himself, Edwin snatched a t-shirt from a With exceptions provided in the Rules of Court, all persons
nearby clothesline, and hooded the t-shirt over the head and face of who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception
Wilfredo. Robbed of vision as his head was fully covered, Wilfredo was to others, may be witnesses. That is even buttressed by the Rule on
wrestled and pinned down by Edwin, while Alfredo boxed the left side Examination of a Child Witness which specifies that every child is
of Wilfredo’s chest. Jesus, armed with a long iron bar, swung at and presumed qualified to be a witness. To rebut this presumption, the
hit Wilfredo in the head. Terrified, Rachel stood immobilized as she burden of proof lies on the party challenging the child's competence.
watched the attack on father. Thereafter, she saw her mother running Only when substantial doubt exists regarding the ability of the child to
out of their house and crying for help. perceive, remember, communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood,
On that same auspicious date, 29 August 2004, Rowena, or appreciate the duty to tell the truth in court will the court, motu
Wilfredo’s wife and Rachel’s mother, was inside their house taking proprio or on motion of a party, conduct a competency examination of
care of their youngest daughter. She heard a commotion coming from a child. Thus, petitioners’ flimsy objections on Rachel’s lack of
the neighboring house, about eight (8) steps away, so she rushed in education and inability to read and tell time carry no weight and
that direction. Once outside their house, she saw Wilfredo prostrate
cannot overcome the clear and convincing testimony of Rachel as to assailant took money from his father’s pocket. He likewise admitted
who killed her father. that he did not see very well the perpetrator because there was no
light.

Upon being asked by the trial court, Carl stated that although
77. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALVIN ESUGON y there was no light when his mother was stabbed, he was sure of what
AVILA he saw since there was light at their second floor, which illumined the
G.R. No. 195244 ground floor through the stairway.
June 22, 2015
Next to testify was Dennis, husband of the victim. He narrated
Doctrine: that he and the victim were married for nine years before the incident
and that they have four children: Monica, 11 years old; Mary Joy, 9
Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. The party years old; Carl, 5 years old; and Cherry Ann, 7 months old. At about 9
challenging the child's competency as a witness has the burden of p.m. on October 21, 2003, he and his wife were sleeping downstairs in
substantiating his challenge. their sala, with their baby, while their other children slept upstairs.
Their sala measures 3 by 3 meters. At around 2 a.m., his son Carl
Facts: woke up crying and went downstairs to sleep with them. Fifteen to
thirty minutes later, he heard someone shout "magnanakaw!" He
That on or about the 22nd day of October 2003, in the City of turned on the light and saw that their door was open. He got their
Mandaluyong, Philippines, the above-named accused, with intent to bolo and ran outside. When he did not see anybody, he returned and
gain, with the use of a bladed weapon, by means of force and heard his wife moaning. He embraced and carried her and saw blood
violence, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, on her back. He shouted for help and his brother-in law helped him
steal and carry away cash money amounting to ₱13,000.00 belonging bring the victim to the hospital where she eventually died. He spent
to JOSEPHINE CASTRO y BARRERA, to the damage and prejudice of ₱23,000.00 for the funeral and ₱44,500.00 for the wake and burial.
the latter; that by reason or on occasion of said robbery, accused did, On cross-examination, he admitted that he has no personal knowledge
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and as to who stabbed his wife since he did not actually see the
stab with the said bladed weapon said JOSEPHINE CASTRO y perpetrator and that it was his son who saw the appellant.
BARRERA, thereby inflicting upon her physical injuries which directly
caused her death. Sharon, sister-in-law of the victim, testified that she and her
husband were sleeping upstairs when they were roused from their
Carl or Muymoy, 5-year old son of the victim, testified that on sleep at around 2 a.m. of October 22, 2003 by Dennis’ cry for help.
the night of the incident, he, his younger sister Cheche, and his She saw that there was blood on the victim’s chest. After the victim
mother and father, were sleeping on the ground floor of their house. was brought to the hospital, she noticed that the victim’s children
He saw appellant, whom he calls "Nonoy," enter their house and stab were trembling in fear and were crying. They got outside and went to
her mother with a knife, while he (Carl) peeped through a chair. the billiard hall in front of their house. She took Carl and had him sit
Although there was no light at the ground floor, there was light on her lap. Then Carl said, "Tita, sya pasok bahay namin" pointing to
upstairs. After his mother got stabbed, his father chased the someone but she did not see who it was since there were many
appellant. Carl saw blood come out of his mother’s lower chest. His people passing by. Later, the police asked Carl whether he saw
father then brought her to the hospital. Carl positively identified the somebody enter their house and he answered yes and demonstrated
appellant, a neighbor who often goes to their house, as the one who how his mother was stabbed. Carl also said that the person who
stabbed his mother. On cross-examination, he related that the stabbed his mother was present in the vicinity. He then pointed to
appellant and said " siya po yung pumaso k sa bahay namin." As a Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case,
resident there, appellant often goes to the billiard hall and sometimes or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be
watches the television at the house of the victim. a ground for disqualification. (l8 a)

PO1 Fabela also testified that after it was reported to him that Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or
there was a stabbing incident, he went to the hospital then to the immaturity. - The following persons cannot be witnesses:
crime scene and interviewed the persons thereat. Later, Carl
pinpointed and positively identified the appellant as the one who (a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their
stabbed his mother and robbed them of their money. Appellant was production for examination, is such that they are incapable of
arrested and brought to the police station. intelligently making known their perception to others;

In turn, the appellant denied the accusation. (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them
incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined
The RTC pronounced the Accused- appellant guilty of the and of relating them truthfully.
crime.
As the rules show, anyone who is sensible and aware of a
The appellant argued that the RTC erred in finding him guilty relevant event or incident, and can communicate such awareness,
beyond reasonable doubt of the composite crime of robbery with experience, or observation to others can be a witness. Age, religion,
homicide based solely on the testimony of Carl, a 5-year old witness ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, or social status are not
whose recollections could only be the product of his imagination. necessary to qualify a person to be a witness, so long as he does not
However, The Court of Appeals sustain such decision. possess any of the disqualifications as listed the rules. The generosity
with which the Rules of Court allows people to testify is apparent, for
Issue: religious beliefs, interest in the outcome of a case, and conviction of a
crime unless otherwise provided by law are not grounds for
Whether or not the identification of the appellant as the disqualification.
perpetrator of the robbery with homicide was credible and competent
considering that the identifying witness was Carl, a 5-year old? That the witness is a child cannot be the sole reason for
disqualification. The dismissiveness with which the testimonies of child
Held: witnesses were treated in the past has long been erased. Under the
Yes, The Court states that the qualification of a person to Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (A.M. No. 004-07-SC 15
testify rests on the ability to relate to others the acts and events December 2000), every child is now presumed qualified to be a
witnessed. Towards that end, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court makes witness. To rebut this presumption, the burden of proof lies on the
clear who may and may not be witnesses in judicial proceedings, to party challenging the child’s competency. Only when substantial doubt
wit: exists regarding the ability of the child to perceive, remember,
communicate, distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty
Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. - Except as provided to tell the truth in court will the court, motu proprio or on motion of a
in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and party, conduct a competency examination of a child.
perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be
witnesses.
78. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL, On nearby Colon Street, SPO1 Eleazar Abrigana and PO2
MACARIO ASTELLERO, and JANUARIO DOSDOS Romeo Abellana were cruising aboard patrol car No. 208, when they
G.R. No. 123137 heard a radio message that the suspects in the shooting incident were
October 17, 2001 aboard a Jiffy. As they turned left at Leon Kilat Street, they saw the
Jiffy heading towards Carbon Market. They pursued the Jiffy which
Doctrine: stopped in front of the Don Bosco Building near BBRC, when police car
An expert witness is “one who belongs to the profession or No. 205, with PO Eugenio Badrinas and PO2 Gerald Cue aboard,
calling which the subject matter of the inquiry relates and who blocked the Jiffys path. Cue fired a warning shot and three persons
possesses special knowledge on questions on which he proposes to alighted. The driver was appellant Astellero, whom Cue had
express an opinion”. recognized and seen before at the BBRC. Abrigana and Cue
approached the trio who stood a meter away from the Jiffy. SPO1
Facts: Abrigana frisked Abriol and seized from his waist a .38 caliber revolver
At around 11:50 P.M., June 5, 1993, Romeo Sta. Cruz, Jr., a with serial number PO8485 with six (6) empty shells in its cylinder.
radio news reporter then aboard his jeep, had just reached the ABS- Under Abriols seat, the police also found a .45 caliber pistol bearing
CBN compound in P. del Rosario Street, Cebu City, when he heard a serial number PGO 13506 with nine (9) live rounds in its magazine
couple of gunshots. He looked around and saw a man running and another .45 caliber pistol with serial number 52469 loaded with
unsteadily towards the intersection of P. del Rosario Street and Jones five (5) unfired bullets.
Avenue (Osmea Boulevard). The man was shouting Tabang, tabang!
(Help! Help!). Sta. Cruz, Jr., saw a red Jiffy make a U-turn near the While the patrol cars were chasing the Jiffy, another police
gate of the city central school that nearly ran over the man shouting team proceeded to the crime scene in response to the alarm. This
for help. The man turned back and staggered towards the direction of team from Police Station No. 3 in San Nicolas, Cebu City rushed the
Bacalso Avenue and Urgello Private Road, but after a few meters on victim to the Cebu City Medical Center, where he was pronounced
wobbly legs, he stopped and collapsed. dead on arrival. Meanwhile, PO3 Celso Seville, Jr., a homicide
investigator of Police Station No. 3 found four (4) .45 caliber shells
Meanwhile, the Jiffy followed. It stopped beside the fallen some four (4) feet away from the victim’s body, and two (2) deformed
figure and a tall, thin man alighted. The man fired several shots at the slugs where the victim had lain, and submitted them to the Region 7
prostrate figure. He boarded the Jiffy which sped away towards Leon PNP Crime Laboratory for ballistics testing.
Kilat Street. Romeo Sta. Cruz, Jr., moved his jeep and focused its
headlights on the victim. Dr. Ladislao Diola, Jr., Chief of the PNP Region 7 Crime
Laboratory autopsied the victim’s body. He found that the cause of the
In the meantime, PO3 Alexander Rustela was at a vulcanizing victim’s death was cardiorespiratory arrest due to shock and
shop near the intersection of Bacalso Avenue and Leon Kilat Street, hemorrhage secondary to multiple gunshot wounds to the trunk and
when he heard gunshots coming from the north. He ran towards head. Dr. Diola recovered a .38 caliber slug from the corpse, which he
where the gunshots came and saw people scampering. All of a later submitted for ballistics examination.
sudden, the Jiffy with three persons on board sped past him and
made an abrupt left turn at Leon Kilat Street. Rustela immediately SPO4 Lemuel Caser, ballistician of the PNP Crime Laboratory,
radioed for assistance. Minutes later, patrol car No. 201 with PO2 reported the following:
Herbert Ramos on board arrived. Rustela boarded the car and they
followed the Jiffy, while broadcasting an alarm to police headquarters
and other mobile patrol cars.
 1. Fired cartridge cases marked JA-1 to JA-3 possesses similar subject by foreign authorities. (3) He could not scientifically determine
individual characteristics markings with the test cartridge cases the caliber of a bullet. Since P/Inspector Caser lacked adequate
fired from cal .45 with SN: PGO13506; training and expertise in ballistics, they claim that his opinion that the
2. Fired cartridge cases marked JA-4 and E-69-6 possesses test bullets and cartridges matched the slugs and cartridges recovered
similar individual characteristics markings with the test from the scene of the crime was not reliable. Appellants also assail
cartridge cases fired from cal .45 pistol with SN: 52469; Casers failure to take the necessary photographs to support his
findings.
3. Fired bullet metal jacket marked JA-5 possesses similar
individual characteristics markings with test bullets fired from
Issue:
cal .45 pistol with SN: PGO13506;
4. Fired cartridge cases marked E-45-1 to E-45-6 possesses Whether or not P/Inspector Lemuel Caser can qualify as an
similar individual characteristics markings with the test expert witness?
cartridge cases fired from cal .38 Rev. SN: P8445;
5. Fired bullets marked as JA-6 and LD possesses similar Held:
individual characteristic markings with the test bullets fired Yes, an expert witness is one who belongs to the profession or
from cal .38 Rev. SN: P8445. calling to which the subject matter of the inquiry relates and who
possesses special knowledge on questions on which he proposes to
The following day, appellants underwent a paraffin test. The express an opinion. There is no definite standard of determining the
hands of appellants were found positive for gunpowder residues. A degree of skill or knowledge that a witness must possess in order to
chemistry test on the firearms showed that the three handguns were testify as an expert. It is sufficient that the following factors be
also positive. Inspector Myrna Areola, Chief of the Chemistry Section present: (1) training and education; (2) particular, first-hand
of the PNP Region 7 Crime Laboratory, stated in her testimony that familiarity with the facts of the case; and (3) presentation of
the firearms had been fired, and that appellants had fired the guns authorities or standards upon which his opinion is based.
within a period of seventy-two (72) hours prior to the examination.
The defense downgraded the capability of Caser in forensics
The widow and relatives of the victim testified on the possible ballistics and identifying firearms. Much stress is given to the absence
motive behind the killing. They claimed the victim, a confessed drug of photographs of his examination. Nonetheless, the Court is satisfied
user, may have been rubbed out on the orders of Navales for failure (with) Casers examination, findings and conclusions with the use of a
to remit P31,000 as proceeds from pushing prohibited drugs. After microscope. Casers conclusion based on his examination deserves
failing to deliver the drug money to Navales, for whom he was credit. He found the impressions on the primer of the fired cartridges
repeatedly pushing drugs, the victim went into hiding, but later that were test-fired to have the same characteristics with those
returned to Cebu City because he missed his family. recovered at the scene of the crime. Whenever a triggerman pumps a
bullet (into) the body of his victim, he releases a chunk of concrete
Appellants deny the accusations. evidence that binds him inseparably to his act. Every gun barrel
deeply imprints on every bullet its characteristic marking peculiar to
Appellants allege that the testimony of P/Inspector Lemuel Caser, that gun and that gun alone. These marking might be microscopic but
the prosecutions ballistics expert, clearly shows that: (1) He is they are terribly vocal in announcing their origin. And they are as
ignorant about such ballistics instruments such as the micrometer, infallible for purposes of identification, as the print left by the human
goniometer, and pressure barrel. (2) He is not conversant with the finger.
required references concerning ballistics, particularly books on the
 P/Inspector Caser qualifies as a ballistics expert. He is a Renato Sosas, an employee of Bobby Avelino overheard the group
licensed criminologist, trained at the Ballistics Command and composed of Toto Mata, Nato, Domeng Bakukang, Bobot Tuwad, Boy
Laboratory Center in Fort Bonifacio, in the PNP Crime Laboratory in Muslim, Angkol, Charlie, Sonny Muslim and Mon and Bobby Avelino
Camp Crame, and in the National Bureau of Investigation. He had where said Avelino uttered "Papatayin is Chairman", Bobot Tuwad
previously testified as an expert witness in at least twenty-seven (27) asked "Sino pong chairman?", Avelino responded "Sino pa, Ninong
murder and homicide cases all over the country. An expert witness Chairman Gener".
need not present comparative microphotographs of test bullets and
cartridges to support his findings. Examination under a comparison Alfredo Manalansang, while on his way to Tondo in a tricycle, gave
microscope showing that the test bullet and the evidence bullet both way to a jeep owned by the barangay driven by Generoso Hispano
came from the same gun is sufficient. Moreover, the ballistician (the victim)
conclusively found similar characteristic markings in the evidence, test
cartridges and slugs. A man emerged and blocked the jeep.

Manalansang heard gunshots and saw Hispano's lifeless body and saw
3 men who drove away using the same jeep.

79. Bautista v. CA The jeep, on its way towards Divisoria, was blocked by a white car
which prompted the companion of appellant to shout "tabi-tabi". Mary
Facts: Ann Canada saw appellant, wearing a green hacket and a bonnet, she
The case stems from a Deed of Absolute sale over a parcel of land by readily recognized the appellant as she was familiar with the face of
the deceased owner to his niece teh appellant having seen him driving the jeep of the Hispano several
A Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale was filed, times before.
alleging that the signatures therein were forged.
The Petitioner presented expert witnesses in support of his claim - (1) The jeep was reovered in front of a house in binondo manila with gun
Chief Examiner of the PC-INP Crime Laboratory Service (2) Chief of shells scattered on the floor.
the Fingerprint Division of the PC-INP Crime Laboratory Service
RTC: Avelino - Guilty, murder qualified by treachery
Issue: Farouk Musa, Benjamin Elbona, Renato Menses - Acquitted failure to
Is the testimony of the expert witnesses conclusive to be a strong prove beyond reasonable doubt
basis to nullify a duly executed and notarized deed of absolute sale?
Avelino raised in his appeal the fact of inconsistency between the
Ruling: statements of Manlangsang and the findings of the Medio-legal and
In another case, examination of questioned handwriting, even with SOCO PSI Cabamongan as to the position of the gunman and the CA
the aid of experts and science, is, at best, inconclusive. not giving credence to the latter.
No evidence to prove fraud, mistake or undue influence indicative of
vitiated consent was presented other than the respondents self- ISSUE:
serving allegations Did the CA err in not appreciating the findings of the medico-legal and
The Deed of Absolute Sale is Valid SOCO PSI?

80. Avelino v. Pp. RULING:

Facts: No.
Expert evidence is admissible only if: (a) the matter to be testified to The fact that accused-appellant is endowed with
is one that requires expertise, and (b) the witness has been qualified such "sterling" qualities hardly justifies the conclusion that he is
as an expert. In this case, counsel for the petitioner failed to make the innocent of the crime charged. Indeed, religiosity is not always an
necessary qualification upon presenting Cabamongan during trial. emblem of good conduct, and it is not the unreligious alone who
succumbs to the impulse to rob and rape. An accused is not entitled to
"...slight inconsistencies and variances in the declarations of a witness an acquittal simply because of his previous good moral character and
hardly weaken their probative value. It is well settled that immaterial exemplary conduct. The affirmance or reversal of his conviction must
and insignificant details do not discredit a testimony on the very be resolved on the basic issue of whether the prosecution had
material and significant point bearing on the very act of accused- discharged its duty of proving his guilt beyond any peradventure of
appellants. As long as the testimonies of the witnesses corroborate doubt.
one another on material points, minor inconsistencies therein cannot FACTS:
destroy their credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details do not Complaining witness Dominga Pikit-pikit, on her way home from work,
undermine the integrity of a prosecution witness. a man appeared from behind, looped his arm around her neck and
warned her not to shout or else she would die. [2] The man then
Thus, the positive identification of the petitioner as the gunman by dragged her through the banana plantation towards the cornfields
Manalangsang, as corroborated by Canada, must stand. where the plants were a meter high and far apart. Dominga Pikit-pikit
got a good look at the man, who turned out to be accused-appellant
81. People v. Duranan Rafael Diopita y Guzman, as he proceeded to divest her of her
Facts: belongings. Thereafter, accused-appellant Diopita announced his
The accused allegedly raped AAA (25 years old) on two occasions, desire to have carnal knowledge of Dominga. As he was sexually
taking advantage of her feeblemindedness. assaulting her, Dominga made desperate struggles and frantic calls for
BBB, AAA's mother, took her for examination in Camp Crame headed help but her efforts proved futile until he finally satiated his lust. He
by Dr. Rosalina Cosidon then warned Dominga not to tell anyone and that should he hear that
The accused raises the defense of alibi, that the victim is not she told anybody about the incident he would shoot her to
competent to testify in court due to her mental deficiency death. Then he dressed up and left, walking casually to the opposite
direction of the subdivision before disappearing in the darkness.
Issue: Exhausted, Dominga slowly stood up, put on her clothes and walked
Was the psychological evalutation of an expert witness required in this away in the direction of her house. Finding it locked, she asked help
case? from her neighbors who called the police. Thereafter, Dominga was
Ruling: brought to Precinct No. 4 of Sasa, Davao City, where SPO1 Stephen
No, the mother's testimony was enough through a series of questions Batacan entered her complaint in the police blotter. Later, she was
propounded to her. examined by Dr. Floranne Lam-Vergara at the Davao Medical Center
The mental retardation of the complainant is proven by the testimony who found her "positive for spermatocytes."
of her mother, the trial courts ovsservations during the trial of her  Dominga gave a description of the suspect and his possible
demeanor, behavior and her intelligence. whereabouts.[10] Acting on that information, PO3 dela Cruz went to the
Although the complainant is a retardate, she was nevertheless able to scene of the crime to investigate and there he recovered a colored
tell the court what the accused had done to her and to answer the white/yellow, size ten (10) slipper. Since the victim earlier disclosed
quetions of both the prosecutor and defense counsel. that the suspect headed north after committing the crime, he
82. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, proceeded to that direction where he came upon four (4) houses
vs.  RAFAEL DIOPITA y GUZMAN, accused-appellant. about fifteen (15) to fifty (50) meters away from the scene of the
[G.R. No. 130601. December 4, 2000] crime. A back-up team was called and they rounded up all the
residents therein. Afterwards, four (4) men who fitted the description the first. We quote once more, and with approval, the pertinent
of the suspect were invited to the police station for questioning, portion of the trial court’s ruling on this point -
including the accused. The police invited Dominga to identify the
suspect at the police station. Thereat, Dominga saw the four (4) men x x x x it is so easy for witnesses to get confused as to dates and
in a police line-up and readily pointed at accused-appellant. [12] The time. The precision with which the witnesses for the defense, who are
police then had him try on the recovered slipper; it easily fitted him. his co-members in the Jehovahs Witnesses, quoted the respective
[13]
 Thus, Diopita was detained while the others were released. hours when the participants in the Bible sharing session supposedly
arrived is, at best, self-serving and deserves scant consideration
The defense denied the charge and invoked alibi. Accused-
because of the facility with which it may be concocted and fabricated
appellant claimed that between 8:30 to 12:00 oclock in the evening of
(underscoring supplied).
16 April 1995 he was with his wife Flora, son Ryan and fellow
Jehovahs Witnesses Roger Custorio and Ruben Suarez at the house of
The matter of assigning values to the declarations of witnesses is
Eulalio Nisnisan for an informal Bible session upon the invitation of
best and most competently performed by the trial court who had the
Juan Nisnisan.[14] Accused-appellant also claimed that during those
unmatched opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while
hours, he never left the place. Flora, Roger, Ruben, Eulalio and Juan
testifying, and to assess their credibility using various indicia available
corroborated his alibi and testified on his good moral character as a
but not reflected in the records. [25] Hence, the court a quo's appraisal
ministerial servant of their faith.
on the matter is entitled to the highest respect, and will not be
disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing that it overlooked,
ISSUE: WON the accused’s defense of good moral character misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight
as a ministerial servant of their faith make him innocent and substance that would affect the result of the case. [26] There is no
HELD: NO compelling reason in the present case to depart from this rule.
We are not impressed. The fact that accused-appellant is endowed
with such "sterling" qualities hardly justifies the conclusion that he is
83. FAR EAST BANK TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, 
innocent of the crime charged. Similarly, his having attained the
vs.
position of "Ministerial Servant" in his faith is no guarantee against
ROBERTO MAR CHANTE, a.k.a. ROBERT MAR G.
any sexual perversion and plunderous proclivity on his part. Indeed,
CHAN, Respondents.
religiosity is not always an emblem of good conduct, and it is not the
G.R. No. 170598               October 9, 2013
unreligious alone who succumbs to the impulse to rob and rape. An
Burden of proof is a term that refers to two separate and quite
accused is not entitled to an acquittal simply because of his previous
different concepts, namely: (a) the risk of non-persuasion, or the
good moral character and exemplary conduct. The affirmance or
burden of persuasion, or simply persuasion burden; and (b) the duty
reversal of his conviction must be resolved on the basic issue of
of producing evidence, or the burden of going forward with the
whether the prosecution had discharged its duty of proving his guilt
evidence, or simply the production burden or the burden of
beyond any peradventure of doubt. Since the evidence of the crime in
evidence.10 In its first concept, it is the duty to establish the truth of a
the instant case is more than sufficient to convict, the evidence of
given proposition or issue by such a quantum of evidence as the law
good moral character of accused-appellant is unavailing.
demands in the case at which the issue arises. 11 In its other concept,
Accused-appellant likewise bewails and assigns as reversible error it is the duty of producing evidence at the beginning or at any
the failure of the trial court to give credence to the testimonies of the subsequent stage of trial in order to make or meet a prima facie case.
defense witnesses. He argues that these are Jehovahs Witnesses, and Generally speaking, burden of proof in its second concept passes from
as such, they are God-fearing people who would never lie as to his party to party as the case progresses, while in its first concept it rests
whereabouts at the time in question. This argument is as puerile as throughout upon the party asserting the affirmative of the issue.
FACTS: and that FEBTC conducted an in-depth investigation and a time-and-
motion study of the withdrawals in question.
Civil Case was filed by petitioner Far East Bank & Trust Co. (FEBTC) in
the RTC,3 to recover from Chan the principal sum of ₱770,488.30 ISSUE: WON Chan be held liable
representing the unpaid balance of the amount fraudulently withdrawn HELD: NO
from Chan’s Current Account No. 5012-00340-3 with the use of Far
East Card No. 05-01120-5-0. FEBTC alleged that between 8:52 p.m. of Although there was no question that Chan had the physical possession
May 4, 1992 and 4:06 a.m. of May 5, 1992, Chan had used Far East of Far East Card No. 05-01120-5-0 at the time of the withdrawals, the
Card No. 05-01120-5-0 to withdraw funds totalling ₱967,000.00 from exclusive possession of the card alone did not suffice to
the PNB-MEGALINK ATM facility at the Manila Pavilion Hotel in Manila. preponderantly establish that he had himself made the withdrawals, or
FEBTC added that at the time of the ATM withdrawal transactions, that he had caused the withdrawals to be made. In his answer, he
there was an error in its computer system known as "system bug" denied using the card to withdraw funds from his account on the
whose nature had allowed Chan to successfully withdraw funds in dates in question, and averred that the withdrawals had been an
excess of his current credit balance of ₱198,511.70; and that Chan "inside job." His denial effectively traversed FEBTC’s claim of his direct
had taken advantage of the system bug to do the withdrawal and personal liability for the withdrawals, that it would lose the case
transactions. n his part, Chan denied liability. Although admitting his unless it competently and sufficiently established that he had
physical possession of Far East Card No. 05-01120-5-0 on May 4 and personally made the withdrawals himself, or that he had caused the
May 5, 1992, he denied making the ATM withdrawals totalling withdrawals. In other words, it carried the burden of proof.
₱967,000.00, and instead insisted that he had been actually home at
the time of the withdrawals. He alluded to a possible "inside job" as Burden of proof is a term that refers to two separate and quite
the cause of the supposed withdrawals, citing a newspaper report to different concepts, namely: (a) the risk of non-persuasion, or the
the effect that an employee of FEBTC’s had admitted having debited burden of persuasion, or simply persuasion burden; and (b) the duty
accounts of its depositors by using his knowledge of computers as well of producing evidence, or the burden of going forward with the
as information available to him. Chan claimed that it would be evidence, or simply the production burden or the burden of
physically impossible for any human being like him to stand long hours evidence.10 In its first concept, it is the duty to establish the truth of a
in front of the ATM facility just to withdraw funds. He contested the given proposition or issue by such a quantum of evidence as the law
debiting of his account, stating that the debiting had affected his demands in the case at which the issue arises. 11 In its other concept,
business and had caused him to suffer great humiliation after the it is the duty of producing evidence at the beginning or at any
dishonor of his sufficiently-funded checks by FEBTC. subsequent stage of trial in order to make or meet a prima facie case.
Generally speaking, burden of proof in its second concept passes from
The records show that FEBTC discovered the system bug only after its party to party as the case progresses, while in its first concept it rests
routine reconciliation of the ATM-MEGALINK transactions on May 7, throughout upon the party asserting the affirmative of the issue. 12
1992; that it immediately adopted remedial and corrective measures
to protect its interest in order to avoid incurring further damage as The party who alleges an affirmative fact has the burden of proving it
well as to prevent a recurrence of the incident; that one of the because mere allegation of the fact is not evidence of it. 13 Verily, the
measures it adopted pursuant to its ATM Service Agreement with party who asserts, not he who denies, must prove. 14
Chan was to program its computer system to repossess his ATM card;
that his ATM card was repossessed at the Ermita Branch of FEBTC In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party who would be
when he again attempted to withdraw at the ATM facility there; that defeated if no evidence is given on either side. 15This is because our
the ATM facility retained his ATM card until its recovery by the bank; system frees the trier of facts from the responsibility of investigating
and presenting the facts and arguments, placing that responsibility question. Private respondents failed to pay the loan and the bank
entirely upon the respective parties. 16 The burden of proof, which may extra-judicially foreclosed on the mortgaged lots. The Provincial Sheriff
either be on the plaintiff or the defendant, is on the plaintiff if the conducted a public auction of the lots and awarded the lots to the
defendant denies the factual allegations of the complaint in the bank, the sole bidder. On December 13, 1978, the Provincial Sheriff
manner required by the Rules of Court; or on the defendant if he issued a Certificate of Sale which was registered on October 16,
admits expressly or impliedly the essential allegations but raises an 1979. The certificate stated that the redemption period expires two
affirmative defense or defenses, that, if proved, would exculpate him (2) years from the registration of the sale. No notice of the
from liability. extrajudicial foreclosure was given to the private respondents. On
Being the plaintiff, FEBTC must rely on the strength of its own September 23, 1981, private respondents offered to redeem the
evidence instead of upon the weakness of Chan’s evidence. Its burden foreclosed lots and tendered the redemption amount of
of proof thus required it to preponderantly demonstrate that his ATM P77,737.45. However, petitioner Bank refused the redemption on the
card had been used to make the withdrawals, and that he had used ground that it had consolidated its titles over the lots. The Provincial
the ATM card and PIN by himself or by another person to make the Sheriff also denied the redemption on the ground that private
fraudulent withdrawals. Otherwise, it could not recover from him any respondents did not appear on the title to be the owners of the lots.
funds supposedly improperly withdrawn from the ATM account. We
Private respondents filed a complaint to compel the bank to allow
remind that as a banking institution, FEBTC had the duty and
their redemption of the foreclosed lots. They alleged that the extra-
responsibility to ensure the safety of the funds it held in trust for its
judicial foreclosure was null and void for lack of valid notice and
depositors. It could not avoid the duty or evade the responsibility
demand upon them. They further argued that they were entitled to
because it alone should bear the price for the fraud resulting from the
redeem the foreclosed lots because they offered to redeem and
system bug on account of its exclusive control of its computer system.
tendered the redemption price before October 16, 1981, the deadline
of the 2-year redemption period.
84. BAAN RURAL BANK INC., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF The bank opposed the redemption, contending that the private
APPEALS and MR. and MRS. RAMON TARNATE, respondents. respondents had no right to redeem the lots because they were not
[G.R. No. 123817. December 17, 1999] the real parties in interest; that at the time they offered to redeem on
When circumstances imply a duty to speak on the part of the person September 23, 1981, the right to redeem had prescribed, as more
for whom an obligation is proposed, his silence can be construed as than one year had elapsed from the registration of the Certificate of
consent. Sale on October 16, 1979; that there was no need of personal notice
Estoppel in pais  arises when one, by his acts, representations or to them because under Section 3 of Act 3135, only the posting of
admissions, or by his own silence when he ought to speak out, notice of sale at three public places of the municipality where the
intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another to properties are located was required. [
believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts
on such belief, so that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted ISSUE: What was the period of redemption: two years as unilaterally
to deny the existence of such facts.[7] fixed by the sheriff in the contract, or one year as fixed by law?
FACTS: HELD: 2 years
Spouses Cesar and Leonila Reyes were the owners of three (3) lots.
On March 21, 1976, the spouses mortgaged these lots to Ibaan Rural When petitioner received a copy of the Certificate of Sale
Bank, Inc. [herein petitioner]. On June 11, 1976, with the knowledge registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Lipa City, it had
and consent of the petitioner, the spouses as sellers, and Mr. and Mrs. actual and constructive knowledge of the certificate and its contents.
[5]
Ramon Tarnate [herein private respondents] as buyers, entered into a  For two years, it did not object to the two-year redemption period
Deed of Absolute Sale with Assumption of Mortgage of the lots in provided in the certificate. Thus, it could be said that petitioner
consented to the two-year redemption period specially since it had interest, are expected to exercise a degree of diligence in the handling
time to object and did not. When circumstances imply a duty to speak of its affairs higher than that expected of an ordinary business firm.
on the part of the person for whom an obligation is proposed, his
silence can be construed as consent. [6] By its silence and inaction,
85. Alcaraz vs. Tangga-an, 401 SCRA.
petitioner misled private respondents to believe that they had two
years within which to redeem the mortgage. After the lapse of two Doctrine:
years, petitioner is estopped from asserting that the period for The petitioners after recognizing the validity of the lease contract for
redemption was only one year and that the period had already two years, are barred from alleging the automatic cancellation of the
lapsed. Estoppel in pais  arises when one, by his acts, representations contract of lease on the ground that the respondents lost ownership of
or admissions, or by his own silence when he ought to speak out, the house, having created a conclusive presumption by their own
intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another to
declaration that the said contract exists.
believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts
on such belief, so that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted
to deny the existence of such facts.[7] Facts:
Tangga-an (respondents) leased a residential bldg. to petitioner
In affirming the decision of the trial court, the Court of Appeals
(Alcaraz) limited to the use of said house for a monthly rental of 4k
relied on Lazo vs. Republic Surety and Insurance Co., Inc.,[8] where
the court held that the one year period of redemption provided in Act starting 1991 for five years. They agreed however, that the rental did
No. 3135 is only directory and can be extended by agreement of the not include the lot on which the rented house was constructed
parties. True, but it bears noting that in Lazo the because the same was owned by the NHA. By 1994 petitioners were
parties voluntarily agreed to extend the redemption period. Thus, in arrears in the amount of 48k. Despite demand by the respondents
the concept of legal redemption was converted by the parties to vacate and pay petitioner refused to comply. Respondents were
in Lazo into conventional redemption. This is not so in the instant thereafter compelled to file a complaint for unlawful detainer against
case. There was no voluntary agreement. In fact, the sheriff
petitioners. The petitioners on the other hand answered that the
unilaterally and arbitrarily extended the period of redemption to two
(2) years in the Certificate of Sale. The parties were not even privy to ownership of the lot was transferred from the NHA to Virgilio and that
the extension made by the sheriff. Nonetheless, as above discussed, this change in ownership resulted in the cancellation of the contract of
the bank can not after the lapse of two years insist that the lease between them and respondents, freeing them from the
redemption period was one year only. obligation to pay rent. The MTC ruled that the petitioners were liable
Additionally, the rule on redemption is liberally interpreted in for the payment of rent and ordered them to vacate. The RTC upheld
favor of the original owner of a property. The fact alone that he is the municipal trial courts decision in ordering the ejectment of the
allowed the right to redeem clearly demonstrates the solicitousness of petitioner spouses from the house they were renting for lack of
the law in giving him another opportunity, should his fortune improve, evidence showing that the lease was modified. The CA affirmed lower
to recover his lost property.[9] court decision reasoning that the claim of ownership is not a ground
Lastly, petitioner is a banking institution on whom the public to suspend the ejectment proceeding. Hence this petition.
expects diligence, meticulousness and mastery of its transactions. Had
petitioner diligently reviewed the Certificate of Sale it could have easily Issue:
discovered that the period was extended one year beyond the usual Were the petitioners able to substantiate their claim that the contract
period for redemption. Banks, being greatly affected with public
was rescinded.
 loan UM through its vice president for finance Saturnino petalcorin,
Held: executed a deed of real estate mortgage (REM) over UM’s property in
No, they were not able to prove their claim. After examining the Cagayan de Oro in favor of Banko Sentral (BSP). BSP extended to
records, the Court found out that all the petitioner spouses presented FISLAI another loan in the amount of Php600k over which a REM was
was Virgilios uncertified xerox copy of the certificate of title over the executed over UMs properties in Iligan City. Thereafter FISLAI became
lot. No other document was ever shown evidencing cession of the subject of a merger and became Mindanao Savings and Loan
subject house in Virgilio’s favor. Therefore Virgilio’s title could not be Association(MSLAI). G died. Thereafter BSP sent a demand letter for
used to prove ownership over the house built on said lot as it carried payment of the loan. UM denied receiving any loan and thereafter
no reference at all to the house. A building by itself is a real or filed two complaints for nullification and cancellation of mortgage, one
immovable property distinct from the land on which it is constructed with RTC Cagayan de Oro and the other with RTC Iligan City.  The
and therefore can be a separate subject of contracts. Furthermore, RTC of CDO decided in favor of UM declaring the REM involving
the respondents proved that, as compulsory heirs of Virginia, they properties in CDO be cancelled reasoning that there was no board
were the rightful owners of the subject house. They presented a tax resolution giving Saturnino authority to execute the mortgage on
declaration in the name of their trustees, co-respondent Hermes behalf of UM and upon Aurora de Leon’s testimony that there was no
Tangga-an and his wife, which tax declaration sufficiently evidences board resolution and that she signed the certificate only upon G’s
their co-ownership and acquisition of title following the death of the orders. The RTC of iligan City also rendered a similar decision to which
decedent Virginia. Thus, the petitioners are not excused from paying BSP appealed. The CA reversed the decision of the two trial courts and
rent. The ruling of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.  upheld the right to foreclose of BSP reasoning that there is a
presumption of regularity in the decisions of corporations absent any
sign of fraud. That this presumption is proved by the certificate
executed by aurora de leon as secretary, which had clothed saturnino
86. University of Mindanao vs. BSP, 778 SCRA (2016) with apparent authority to execute the mortgage and that BSP relied
Doctrine: in good faith on the said certificate. UM therefore is estopped from
Courts have created a presumption that corporate acts are valid if on denying saturnino’s authority.
their face, the acts were within the corporations powers or purposes
and that contracts entered into by corporations in the exercise of their Issue:
incidental powers are not ultra vires. However, this should not be was the execution of the mortgage contract was ultra vires. 
interpreted to mean that such presumption applies to all cases, even
when the act in question is on its face beyond the corporation's power Held:
to do or when the evidence contradicts the presumption. Yes it was ultra vires because a corporation may exercise only powers
given by law and as provided in its charter. Securing loans from third
Facts: persons is not among the purposes for which petitioner UM was
Guillermo Torres (G) who chaired the board of Trustees of University established. As an educational institution, it is limited to developing
of Mindanao (UM) and previously operated a thrift bank First Iligan human capital through formal instruction. It is not a corporation
Savings & Loan Associations (FISLAI) requested and was granted by engaged in the business of securing loans of others The Court ruled
BSP an emergency credit of 1.9M for FISLAI. As mortgage for said
that The RTC decision of November 23, 2001 and December 7, 2001 notarized and that Luis and his second wife, Lourdes, signed the same
are reinstated. before him. He also identified the signatures of the subscribing
witnesses.24 Thus, they invoke the finding of the RTC. Petitioners also
assert that Meridian was a buyer in bad faith because when its
87. Rosaroso vs. Soria, 699 SCRA. representative visited the site, she did not make the necessary
Doctrine: inquiries. The fact that there were already houses on the said lots
Self-serving testimony, such as that of Lourdes, to which the Appellate should have put Meridian on its guard and, for said reason, should
Court based its decision, is not enough to overthrow a disputable have made inquiries as to who owned those houses and what their
presumption. what is needed is clear and convincing evidence as rights were over the same.
required by law to despute said presumption. As such the presumption
that there was sufficient consideration will not be disturbed. Issue:
which of the two deed of sale is valid.
Facts:
Spouses Luis rosaroso and Honorata duazo acquired several real Held:
properties in cebu including the subject properties. They had 9 the first deed of sale was valid. In this case, the respondents failed to
children who later on became the parties to this case over the parcels trounce the said presumption. Aside from their bare allegation that the
of land left by Luis when he died. A complaint for Declaration of Nullity sale was made without a consideration, they failed to supply clear and
of Documents was filed by Luis (petitioner) against her daughter convincing evidence to back up this claim. It is elementary in
Lucila and Meridian Realty Corp (respondents) because of the Lucila’s procedural law that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are
fraudulent execution of an SPA and subsequent selling of the subject not equivalent to proof under the Rules of Court. The decision of RTC
properties to Meridian notwithstanding the fact that Luis had already Cebu City is reinstated.
sold the same to Antonio, Angelica and Cleofe (Lucia’s siblings). The
RTC ruled in favor of petitioners sustaining the validity of the first sale 88. HEIRS OF TRAZONA vs. HEIRS OF CANADA
and declaring that the SPA is null and void and ordering respondents
to pay damages while dismissing the crossclaim by meridian. The CA DOCTRINE(S):
It is true that notarized documents are accorded evidentiary
however decided that the first sale to petitioners was void for failure
weight as regards their due execution. Nevertheless, while
of petitioners to prove that there was consideration for the sale of the notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity,
land. The CA relied on the testimony of Lourdes that petitioners did this presumption is disputable. They can be contradicted by
not pay Luis and with respect to the second sale it was declared valid evidence that is clear, convincing, and more than merely
because the document was notarized and as such enjoyed the preponderant.
presumption of regularity. Petitioner argues that the second deed of
sale was null and void because Luis could not have validly transferred FACTS:
Petitioners are heirs of Cipriano Trazona (Cipriano), who
the ownership of the subject properties to Meridian, he being no
owned an untitled parcel of land located in Minglanilla, Cebu. The land
longer the owner after selling them to his children. No less than Atty. was purchased from the government. Since then, Cipriano had taken
William Boco, the lawyer who notarized the first deed of sale, possession of the land, cultivated it and diligently paid taxes thereon.
appeared and testified in court that the said deed was the one he
Dionisio bought the adjacent parcel of land. It was later found that he of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 11 April 1953 brings into question
had encroached on a small portion of Cipriano’s lot. He was then the regularity of the assailed deed. This deed was never disputed by
summoned by Cipriano for a confrontation before the barangay. respondents at any stage of the proceedings, and was in fact admitted
Dionisio offered to buy the encroached portion, but Cipriano refused by them in their Comments. Fourth, Cipriano had cultivated the
the offer. Later on, Cipriano gave Dionisio permission to temporarily property and paid taxes thereon since the time he acquired it from the
build a house on said portion, where it still stands. No action for government, and even after its purported sale to Dionisio, until his
ejectment was filed against Dionisio during the lifetime of Cipriano, death. Petitioners continued paying the taxes thereon even after
who eventually died. The latter’s son Hermogenes, one of the Cipriano had died. Respondents started paying taxes on the property
petitioners herein who had cultivated the lot since. Dionisio also only after Tax Declaration No. 23959 was issued in Dionisio’s name in
eventually died. 1997. It would be absurd for petitioners to pay taxes on a property
The controversy arose when petitioners tried to secure a copy they do not own.
of the tax declaration of the property. To their surprise, they were WHEREFORE, the Decision and Resolution of the Court
informed that the tax declaration had been cancelled and, in lieu of Appeals Cebu City in CA-G.R. CV No. 00099 are REVERSED and
thereof, a new tax declaration was issued in the name of Dionisio. SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu
Apparently, respondents had caused the issuance of the new tax
City, Branch 57, in Civil Case No. CEB-20620 is REINSTATED in all
declaration by submitting a Deed of Absolute Sale supposedly
respects. SO ORDERED.
executed by Cipriano in favor of Dionisio.
As conciliation proved to be futile, petitioners filed a Complaint
against respondents for quieting of title, annulment of deed of sale, 89. UY vs. LACSAMANA
cancellation of tax declaration, recovery of possession and ownership,
damages, and payment of attorney’s fees. Petitioners alleged therein DOCTRINE(S):
that the Deed of Absolute Sale was a forgery. Respondents, in their There is a presumption established in our Rules "that a man
Answer, alleged that the assailed deed was a genuine document. and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have
RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners while CA reversed the entered into a lawful contract of marriage." Semper
decision in favor of respondents. praesumitur pro matrimonio — Always presume marriage.
However, this presumption may be contradicted by a party
ISSUE(S): Whether petitioners were not able to overturn the and overcome by other evidence.
presumption of regularity of the assailed deed.
In People vs. Borromeo, this Court held that persons living
RULING: YES. together in apparent matrimony are presumed, absent any
It is true that notarized documents are accorded evidentiary counter presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in
weight as regards their due execution. Nevertheless, while notarized fact married. Consequently, with the presumption of
documents enjoy the presumption of regularity, this presumption is marriage sufficiently overcome, the onus probandi of
disputable. They can be contradicted by evidence that is clear, defendant Rosca shifted to plaintiff Uy. It then became the
convincing, and more than merely preponderant. Here, contrary to the burden of plaintiff Uy to prove that he and defendant Rosca,
conclusion of the CA, we find clear and convincing evidence that is were legally married. It became necessary for plaintiff Uy
enough to overturn the presumption of regularity of the assailed deed. therefore to submit additional proof to show that they were
First, the document examiner determined that the signature of legally married. He, however, dismally failed to do so.
Cipriano in the assailed deed had been forged. No issue has been
raised about his expertise. Second, the RTC did not just rely on expert FACTS:
testimony in ruling that the signature was forged. Third, the existence
 Luis Uy (Uy) filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a presumption may be contradicted by a party and overcome by other
Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Documents with Damages evidence.
against respondents Petra Rosca (Rosca), and spouses Jose Marriage may be proven by any competent and relevant
Lacsamana and Rosaura Mendoza (Spouses Lacsamana). Uy alleged evidence. In Pugeda v. Trias, we held that testimony by one of the
that he was the lawful husband of Rosca. He stated that they lived parties to the marriage, or by one of the witnesses to the marriage, as
together as husband and wife from the time they were married in until well as the person who officiated at the solemnization of the marriage,
they separated and lived apart. Uy contends that the Deed of Sale has been held to be admissible to prove the fact of marriage.
executed by Rosca alone in favor of Spouses Lacsamana over a Uy was not able to present any copy of the marriage certificate
property he alleges to be a part of their marital property regime is not which he could have sourced from his own personal records, the
valid for being simulated or fictitious for lack of consideration and solemnizing officer, or the municipal office where the marriage
consent. allegedly took place. Even the findings of the RTC revealed that Uy did
Rosca denied the allegations of Uy and claimed that she not show a single relevant evidence that he was actually married to
lawfully acquired the subject real properties using her paraphernal Rosca. On the contrary, the documents Uy submitted showed that he
funds. She added that she and Uy cohabited and attempted to and Rosca were not legally married to each other.
formalize their marital union with a marriage ceremony. However, the While it is true that plaintiff Uy and defendant Rosca cohabited
celebration was not consummated because of the bombings which as husband and wife, defendant Rosca's testimony revealed that
occurred on the day of the ceremony. Likewise, they were unable to plaintiff Uy was not legally married to her because their marriage was
secure a marriage contract. not consummated. In People vs. Borromeo, this Court held that
Spouses Lacsamana also filed their Answer with Counterclaim persons living together in apparent matrimony are presumed, absent
dated claiming that they were buyers in good faith and for value and any counter presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact
that they relied on the Torrens title which stated that Rosca was the married. Consequently, with the presumption of marriage sufficiently
owner of the subject property. overcome, the onus probandi of defendant Rosca shifted to plaintiff
Uy died and is two daughters, Lydia Uy Velasquez (Lydia) and Uy. It then became the burden of plaintiff Uy to prove that he and
Shirley Uy Macaraig (Shirley) substituted him in the case. Rosca and defendant Rosca, were legally married. It became necessary for
respondent Jose Lacsamana also died. Meanwhile Spouses plaintiff Uy therefore to submit additional proof to show that they
Lacsamana sold the property to Corazon Buena (Buena). Thus, both were legally married. He, however, dismally failed to do so. Since Uy
Rosca and the Spouses Lacsamana were substituted by Buena as failed to discharge the burden that he was legally married to Rosca,
respondent in this case. their property relations would be governed by Article 147 of the
Both RTC and CA ruled in favor of respondents. Family Code which applies when a couple living together were not
incapacitated from getting married.
ISSUE(S): Whether the Deed of Sale executed by Rosca alone, The provision states that properties acquired during
without Uy's consent, in favor of Spouses Lacsamana, is valid. cohabitation are presumed co-owned unless there is proof to the
contrary. We agree with both the trial and appellate courts that Rosca
RULING: YES. was able to prove that the subject property is not co-owned but is
Here, the main issue in determining the validity of the sale of paraphernal.
the property by Rosca alone is anchored on whether Uy and Rosca Based on the evidence she presented, Rosca was able to
had a valid marriage. There is a presumption established in our Rules sufficiently overcome the presumption that any property acquired
"that a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife while living together shall be owned by the couple in equal shares.
have entered into a lawful contract of marriage." Semper praesumitur The house and lot were clearly Rosca's paraphernal properties and she
pro matrimonio — Always presume marriage. However, this had every right to sell the same even without Uy's consent.
 WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the In her defense, petitioner admitted having previous business
Decision dated 14 September 2011 and Resolution dated 1 March dealings with respondent but not as an agent. She clarified that she
2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 93786. was a client who used to buy purchase order cards (POCs) and gift
checks (GCs) from respondent on installment basis and that, during
each deal, she was made to sign a blank sheet of paper prior to the
90. DIAZ vs. PEOPLE issuance of POCs and GCs. She further claimed that their last
transaction was conducted in 1995, which had long been settled.
DOCTRINE(S): However, she denied having received P32,000.00 worth of
In this relation, it should be pointed out that under Section 3 merchandise from respondent on February 20, 1996.
(d), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the legal presumption is RTC acquitted petitioner of the charge of estafa but held her
that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. To this, civilly liable to pay respondent the amount of P32,000.00.
case law dictates that the natural presumption is that one CA upheld petitioner's civil liability. It ruled that respondent
does not sign a document without first informing himself of was able to establish by preponderance of evidence her transaction
its contents and consequences. Further, under Section 3 (p) with petitioner, as well as the latter's failure to remit the proceeds of
of the same Rule, it is equally presumed that private the sale of the merchandise worth P32,000.00, or to return the same
transactions have been fair and regular. This behooves every to respondent in case the items were not sold, the fact of which
contracting party to learn and know the contents of a having been substantiated by the acknowledgment receipt. To this,
document before he signs and delivers it. The effect of a the CA rejected petitioner's attempt to discredit the said receipt which
presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of she denied executing on the ground that she was only made to sign
presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case blank documents, finding that even if petitioner was indeed made to
created, thereby which, if no contrary proof is offered, will sign such blank documents, such was merely a safety precaution
prevail. employed by respondent in the event the former reneges on her
obligation.
FACTS:
An Information for estafa was filed by Leticia S. Arcilla (Leticia) ISSUE(S): Whether petitioner may be held civilly liable.
against Dolores Diaz (Dolores) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
for her alleged failure to return or remit the proceeds from various RULING: YES.
merchandise valued at P32,000.00 received by her in trust - i.e., on At the outset, it is noteworthy to mention that the extinction of
consignment basis from respondent. the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil
Leticia alleged that she is a businesswoman engaged in the liability where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only
business of selling goods/merchandise through agents (one of whom preponderance of evidence, or "greater weight of the credible
is petitioner) under the condition that the latter shall turn over the evidence," is required. Thus, an accused acquitted of estafa may still
proceeds or return the unsold items to her a month after they were be held civilly liable where the facts established by the evidence so
entrusted. She averred that she entrusted merchandise worth warrant, as in this case.
P35,300.00 to Dolores as evidenced by an acknowledgment receipt Petitioner's claim that she was required to sign two (2) one-
signed by the latter. However, petitioner was only able to remit the half sheets of paper and a trust receipt in blank during her
amount of P3,300.00 and thereafter, failed to make further transactions with respondent, which she allegedly failed to retrieve
remittances and ignored respondent's demands to remit the proceeds after paying her obligations, is a bare allegation that cannot be given
or return the goods. credence. It is well-settled that "[h]e who alleges a fact has the
burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence."
 On the contrary, espondent was able to prove by ROBERTO PADRIGONE a.k.a. ROBERTO SAN MIGUEL,
preponderance of evidence the fact of the transaction, as well as accused-appellant.
petitioner's failure to remit the proceeds of the sale of the
merchandise worth P32,000.00, or to return the same to respondent Doctrine:
in case such merchandise were not sold. This was established through The non-presentation of victim on the witness stand cannot
the presentation of the acknowledgment receipt dated February 20, be considered as suppression of evidence. Under Rule 131, Section
1996, which, as the document's name connotes, shows that petitioner 3(e) of the Rules of Court, the rule that evidence willfully suppressed
acknowledged receipt from respondent of the listed items with their would be adverse if produced does not apply if (a) the evidence is at
corresponding values, and assumed the obligation to return the same the disposal of both parties; (b) the suppression was not willful; (c) it
on March 20, 1996 if not sold. is merely corroborative or cumulative; and (d) the suppression is an
In this relation, it should be pointed out that under Section 3 exercise of a privilege.
(d), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the legal presumption is that a
person takes ordinary care of his concerns. To this, case law dictates Facts:
that the natural presumption is that one does not sign a document Roberto Padrigone a.k.a. Roberto San Miguel, among others,
without first informing himself of its contents and consequences. were charged with rape in an amended information. The facts
Further, under Section 3 (p) of the same Rule, it is equally presumed indicated that the accused broke into the house of the victim
that private transactions have been fair and regular. This behooves (Rowena), poked a knife at its inhabitants (Nimfa), and committed the
every contracting party to learn and know the contents of a document act. Before they left, they warned the sisters not to report the
before he signs and delivers it. The effect of a presumption upon the incident or else, they will kill them.
burden of proof is to create the need of presenting evidence to Despite the threats, the inhabitants reported the incident to
overcome the prima facie case created, thereby which, if no contrary the police. However, based on the police blotter, it was only
proof is offered, will prevail. In this case, petitioner failed to present Padrigone who raped Rowena.
any evidence to controvert these presumptions. Also, respondent's The medical examination reported that Rowena was suffering
possession of the document pertaining to the obligation strongly from Acute Psychotic Depressive Condition, that the mental disorder
buttresses her claim that the same has not been extinguished. was not hereditary because before the incident took place, she did not
Preponderance of evidence only requires that evidence be greater or exhibit any unusual behavior. It concluded that the mental illness was
more convincing than the opposing evidence. All things considered, strongly related to a traumatic experience.
the evidence in this case clearly preponderates in respondent's favor. The trial court held Padrigone guilty of the crime of rape.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated Padrigone appealed, contending that the prosecution evidence
January 30, 2013 and the Resolution dated July 10, 2013 of the Court was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 97571 are hereby AFFIRMED with assailed the credibility of the witness (Nimfa), and that the witness’
MODIFICATION, directing petitioner Dolores Diaz to pay respondent reaction after the rape of her sister was unnatural, especially since she
Leticia S. Arcilla the amount of P32,000.00 with legal interest at the slept thereafter and even reported for work the following day. Also,
rate of six percent (6%) per annum from July 28, 1998 until full throughout the trial, it was Nimfa who stood at the witness stand, and
payment. SO ORDERED. not Rowena.

Issue:
91. [G.R. No. 137664. May 9, 2002] Whether or not there was suppression of evidence in this case,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, considering that the victim (Rowena) did not take the witness stand.
vs.
Held:
 No. The non-presentation of Rowena on the witness stand that an uncritical acceptance should be the rule. It is only to
cannot be considered as suppression of evidence. Under Rule 131, emphasize that skepticism should be kept under control.
Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court, the rule that evidence willfully Nonetheless, no young and decent Filipina would publicly
suppressed would be adverse if produced does not apply if (a) the admit that she was ravished and her honor tainted unless the same
evidence is at the disposal of both parties; (b) the suppression was were true, for it would be instinctive on her part to protect her honor
not willful; (c) it is merely corroborative or cumulative; and (d) the and obtain justice for the wicked acts committed upon her. Not to be
suppression is an exercise of a privilege. overlooked is the complainants willingness to face police investigators
Plainly, there was no suppression of evidence in this case. and to submit to a physical examination which are eloquent and
First, the defense had the opportunity to subpoena Rowena even if sufficient affirmations of the truth of her charge.
the prosecution did not present her as a witness. Instead, the defense
failed to call her to the witness stand. Second, Rowena was certified 92. [G.R. No. 122899. June 8, 2000]
to be suffering from Acute Psychotic Depressive Condition and thus METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, petitioner,
cannot stand judicial proceedings yet. The non-presentation, vs.
therefore, of Rowena was not willful. Third, in any case, while Rowena COURT OF APPEALS and G.T.P. DEVELOPMENT
was the victim, Nimfa was also present and in fact witnessed the CORPORATION, respondents.
violation committed on her sister.
Appellant cannot claim that the trial court erred in convicting Doctrine:
him on the basis of Rowena’s statement as recorded in the police It is a well-settled rule that when the evidence tends to prove
blotter. His conviction was based on the trial court’s findings of facts a material fact which imposes a liability on a party, and he has it in his
and assessment of the witnesses credibility. Well-settled is the rule power to produce evidence which from its very nature must overthrow
that the findings of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses is the case made against him if it is not founded on fact, and he refuses
a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique position of to produce such evidence, the presumption arises that the evidence, if
having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the produced, would operate to his prejudice, and support the case of his
witnesses deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity adversary.
is denied to the appellate courts. Only the trial judge can observe the No rule of law is better settled than that a party having it in his
furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or power to prove a fact, if it exists, which, if proved, would benefit him,
sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an his failure to prove it must be taken as conclusive that the fact does
oath, all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a not exist.
witness honesty and sincerity. The trial courts findings are accorded
finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance Facts:
of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood Saddled with debts and business reverses, Mr. Chia offered his
or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the property for sale to private respondent G.T.P. Development
results of the case. Corporation (hereafter, GTP), with assumption of the mortgage
Besides, in rape cases where the offended parties are young indebtedness in favor of petitioner METROBANK secured by the
and immature girls from the ages of twelve to sixteen, we have subject property.
consistently held that the victims version of what transpired deserves Pending negotiations for the proposed sale, Atty. Atienza,
credence, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the acting in behalf of respondent GTP, went to the METROBANK to
shame and embarrassment to which such a grueling experience as a inquire on Mr. Chia's remaining balance on the real estate mortgage.
court trial, where they are called upon to lay bare what perhaps METROBANK obliged with a statement of account of Mr. Chia
should be shrouded in secrecy, exposed them to. This is not to say amounting to about P115,000.00. The deed of sale and the
memorandum of agreement between Mr. Chia and respondent GTP
were eventually executed and signed. Twelve days later, Atty. Atienza Whether or not METROBANK's failure to bring before CA the
went to METROBANK and paid P116,416.71, for which METROBANK current statement evidencing the alleged "other unliquidated past due
issued an official receipt acknowledging payment. This loans" is tantamout to suppression of evidence.
notwithstanding, petitioner METROBANK refused to release the real
estate mortgage on the subject property despite repeated requests Held:
from Atty. Atienza, thus prompting respondent GTP to file an action Yes.
for specific performance against petitioner METROBANK and Mr. Chia. Just as decisive is petitioner METROBANK's failure to bring
In answer to the complaint, Mr. Chia denied having executed before respondent Court of Appeals the current statement evidencing
any deed of sale in favor of respondent GTP involving the subject what it claims as "other unliquidated past due loans" at the scheduled
property. Petitioner for its part justified its non-release of the real hearing of 8 March 1995. It was a golden opportunity, lost for
estate mortgage upon the advise of Mr. Chia that he never executed petitioner METROBANK to defend its non-release of the real estate
any sales agreement with respondent GTP, and by the fact that there mortgage.
are other loans incurred by Mr. Chia which are also secured by the It is a well-settled rule that when the evidence tends to prove
subject property. a material fact which imposes a liability on a party, and he has it in his
RTC ruled in favor of GTP. CA reversed the decision of RTC. power to produce evidence which from its very nature must overthrow
In a motion for reconsideration filed before CA, Metrobank the case made against him if it is not founded on fact, and he refuses
failed to bring before the court the current statement of the mortgage to produce such evidence, the presumption arises that the evidence, if
debt of Mr. Chia secured by the deeds of mortgage sought to be produced, would operate to his prejudice, and support the case of his
released. METROBANK's counsel did not appear; only the lawyers of adversary.
respondent GTP and Mr. Chia appeared. Thus, the Court required No rule of law is better settled than that a party having it in his
GTP's counsel to file a memorandum in lieu of oral arguments in power to prove a fact, if it exists, which, if proved, would benefit him,
support of its motion for reconsideration, to which a reply his failure to prove it must be taken as conclusive that the fact does
memorandum from Metrobank was filed. not exist.
Respondent Court of Appeals took a second hard look at the Where facts are in evidence affording legitimate inferences
evidence on hand and seriously considered METROBANK's refusal to going to establish the ultimate fact that the evidence is designed to
specify any unpaid debt secured by the subject property. It ruled that prove, and the party to be affected by the proof, with an opportunity
the debts and loans of Chia contracted with METROBANk could not be to do so, fails to deny or explain them, they may well be taken as
adjudged as part of the mortage debt. It held that, "The stipulation in admitted with all the effect of the inferences afforded.
subject Deeds of Mortgage that mortgagors' debts subsequently The ordinary rule is that one who has knowledge peculiarly
obtained would be covered by the same security became inapplicable, within his own control, and refuses to divulge it, cannot complain if
when mortgagor sold to appellee the mortgaged property with the the court puts the most unfavorable construction upon his silence, and
knowledge of the mortgagee bank. Thus, since September 4, 1980, it infers that a disclosure would have shown the fact to be as claimed by
was obvious that whatever additional loan mortgagor got from the opposing party.
Metrobank, the same was not chargeable to and collectible from Verily, petitioner METROBANK's omission to present its
plaintiff-appellee. It is then decisively clear that Metrobank is without evidence only created an adverse inference against its cause.
any valid cause or ground not to release the Deeds of Mortgage in Therefore, it cannot now be heard to complain since respondent Court
question, despite full payment of the mortgage debt assumed by extended a reasonable opportunity to petitioner METROBANK that it
appellee." did not avail.

Issue: 93. G.R. No. 198457, August 13, 2013

FILOMENA G. DELOS SANTOS, JOSEFA A. BACALTOS, NELANIE (Delos Santos), who succeeded Dr. Alquizalas, created a fact-finding
A. ANTONI, AND MAUREEN A. BIEN, Petitioners, committee to investigate the matter.
v. The fact-finding committee created by Delos Santos affirming
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS the “unseen and unnoticeable” irregularities attendant to the
COMMISSIONERS, Respondent. availment of the TNT Program but pointing out, however, that: (a)
VSMMC was made an “unwilling tool to perpetuate a scandal involving
Doctrine: government funds”; (b) the VSMMC management was completely
Jurisprudence holds that, absent any showing of bad faith and “blinded” as its participation involved merely “a routinary ministerial
malice, there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of duty” in issuing the checks upon receipt of the referral slips,
official duties. However, this presumption must fail in the presence of prescriptions, and delivery receipts that appeared on their faces to be
an explicit rule that was violated. regular and complete; and (c) the detection of the falsification and
forgeries “could not be attained even in the exercise of the highest
degree or form of diligence” as the VSMMC personnel were not
Facts: handwriting experts.
Sometime in October 2001, then Congressman Cuenco CoA's review however found several irregularities, including
(Cuenco) of the Second District of Cebu City entered into a fictitious patients and falsified prescriptions. Also, it alleged that the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Vicente Sotto Memorial prescriptions allegedly dispensed by Dell Pharmacy and already paid
Medical Center (VSMMC or hospital), represented by Dr. Alquizalas by VSMMC from the PDFA were falsified. Examination of the records
(Dr. Alquizalas), Medical Center Chief, appropriating to the hospital and interviews with the personnel involved showed that the purported
the amount of P1,500,000.00 from his Priority Development patients-beneficiaries of the TNT Program were mostly non-existent
Assistance Fund (PDAF) to cover the medical assistance of indigent and there was no actual procedure followed except for the mere
patients under the Tony N' Tommy (TNT) Health Program (TNT preparation of payment documents which were found to be falsified.
Program). It was agreed, inter alia, that: (a) Cuenco shall identify and Subsequently, the Special Audit Team disallowed a sum of
recommend the indigent patients who may avail of the benefits of the money for the payment of drugs and medicines with falsified
TNT Program for an amount not exceeding P5,000.00 per patient, prescription and documents, and held Delos Santos, together with
except those with major illnesses for whom a separate limit may be other VSMMC officials, solidarily liable therefor.
specified; (b) an indigent patient who has been a beneficiary will be Aggrieved, petitioners filed their respective appeals before the CoA
subsequently disqualified from seeking further medical assistance; and which were denied, maintaining their solidary liability.
(c) the hospital shall purchase medicines intended for the indigent By way of defense, petitioners nonetheless argue that VSMMC
patients from outside sources if the same are not available in its was merely a passive entity in the disbursement of funds under the
pharmacy, subject to reimbursement when such expenses are TNT Program and, thus, invoke good faith in the performance of their
supported by official receipts and other documents. In line with this, respective duties, capitalizing on the failure of the assailed Decisions
Ma. Isabel Cuenco, Project Director of the TNT Program, wrote of the CoA to show that their lapses in the implementation of the TNT
petitioner Antoni (Antoni), Pharmacist V of VSMMC, requesting the Program were attended by malice or bad faith.
latter to purchase needed medicines not available at the hospital
pharmacy from Sacred Heart Pharmacy or Dell Pharmacy which were Issue:
supposedly accredited suppliers of the Department of Health. Whether or not the officers of VSMMC may be held solidarily
Several years after the enforcement of the MOA, allegations of liable, on the ground that VSMMC was merely a passive entity in the
forgery and falsification of prescriptions and referrals for the availment disbursement of funds, and thus, was in good faith.
of medicines under the TNT Program surfaced. Petitioner Delos Santos
Held:
 No. required diligence which resulted to the irregular disbursements from
Jurisprudence holds that, absent any showing of bad faith and Cuenco’s PDAF.
malice, there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of In this light, their liability pursuant to Sections 10473 and
official duties. However, this presumption must fail in the presence of 10574 of the Auditing Code, as well as Section 16 of the 2009 Rules
an explicit rule that was violated. and Regulations on Settlement of Accounts, as prescribed in CoA
SC found that the petitioners herein have equally failed to Circular No. 2009-006, must perforce be upheld. Truly, the degree of
make a case justifying their non-observance of existing auditing rules their neglect in handling Cuenco’s PDAF and the resulting detriment to
and regulations, and of their duties under the MOA. Evidently, the public cannot pass unsanctioned, else the standard of public
petitioners’ neglect to properly monitor the disbursement of Cuenco's accountability be loosely protected and even rendered illusory.
PDAF facilitated the validation and eventual payment of falsified
prescriptions and fictitious claims supplied by both the VSMMC and 94. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HADJI SOCOR CANDIDIA
Dell Pharmacy, despite the patent irregularities borne out by the G.R. No. 191263 October 16, 2013
referral slips and prescriptions related thereto. Had there been an
internal control system installed by petitioners, the irregularities would
have been exposed, and the hospital would have been prevented from DOCTRINE:
processing falsified claims and unlawfully disbursing funds from the Presumptions; Official Duty; In cases involving violations of the
said PDAF. Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who
Verily, petitioners cannot escape liability for failing to monitor are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their
the procedures implemented by the TNT Office on the ground that duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary
Cuenco always reminded them that it was his money. Neither may suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers;  
deviations, from the usual procedure at the hospital, such as the
admitted bypassing of the VSMMC social worker in the qualification of SAME; SAME; SAME; Minor inconsistencies do not negate the
the indigent-beneficiaries, be justified as “a welcome relief to the eyewitnesses’ positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator
already overworked and undermanned section of the hospital.” of the crime. As long as the testimonies as a whole presented a
In this relation, it bears stating that Delos Santos’ argument coherent and believable recollection, the credibility would still be
that the practices of the TNT Office were already pre-existing when upheld.
she assumed her post and that she found no reason to change the
same remains highly untenable. Records clearly reveal that she, in FACTS:
fact, admitted that when she was installed as the new Medical Center While performing her duty as a female frisker at the Manila
Chief of VSMMC, she was informed of the irregularities. Hence, having Domestic Airport Terminal I, Marilyn Trayvilla, a Non-Uniformed
known this significant information, she should have probed into the Personnel of PNP, frisked the accused Cadidia upon her entry at the
matter further, and, likewise, have taken more stringent measures to departure area and noticed something unusual and thick in the area of
correct the situation. Instead, Delos Santos contented herself with her buttocks. Upon inquiry, Cadidia answered that it was only her
giving oral instructions to resident doctors, training officers, and Chiefs sanitary napkin but unconvinced with Cadidia’s explanation, Trayvilla
of Clinics not to leave pre-signed prescriptions pads. The falsification and her female co-employee Leilani Bagsican brought the accused to
and forgeries continued, and it was only a year after that Delos Santos the comfort room, asked Candidia to remove her underwear and
ordered a formal investigation of the attendant irregularities. By then, found two sachets of shabu. Cadidia denied that the two sachets of
too much damage had already been done. shabu were hers and said that she was only asked by an unidentified
All told, petitioners’ acts and/or omissions as detailed in the person to bring the same.
assailed CoA issuances reasonably figure into the finding that they
failed to faithfully discharge their respective duties and to exercise the
 The two sachets of shabu were turned over to their supervisor In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should
SPO3 Appang. SPO3 Appang turned the items over to the Intelligence be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses
and Investigation Office of the 2nd Regional Aviation Security Office especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have
(RASO), which was then turned over to SPO4 Villaceran of NAIA- performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to
DITG. SP03 Appang placed his initials on the confiscated items at the the contrary. Even assuming that the said set of facts provided
PDEA Office located at the NAIA. The specimens in turn were referred conflicting statements, minor inconsistencies do not negate the
by PO2 Cobilla of the NAIA-DITG to Forensic Chemist Reyes of the eyewitnesses’ positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator
Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame, Quezon City for examination. In of the crime. As long as the testimonies as a whole presented a
open court, Trayvilla identified the two sachets containing shabu coherent and believable recollection, the credibility would still be
previously marked as Exhibits "B-2" and "B-3." She also identified the upheld. What is essential is that the witnesses’ testimonies
signature placed by her co-employee, Bagsican, at the side of the corroborate one another on material details surrounding the
items, as well as the picture of the sanitary napkin used by the commission of the crime.
accused to conceal the bags of shabu.
In the case, the prosecution witnesses were unable to show ill-motive
An Information was filed against Candidia for violation of the Anti- for the police to impute the crime against Cadidia. Trayvilla was doing
Dangerous Drugs Act where the testimony of Trayvilla was her regular duty as an airport frisker when she handled the accused.
corroborated by Bagsican & Appang. The RTC found Canidia guilty of There was no pre-determined notice to particularly search the accused
the offense charged. At the CA, on appeal, respondent Candidia especially in her private area. The unusual thickness of the buttocks of
pointed to an inconsistency in the testimony of the witnesses as to the accused upon frisking prompted Trayvilla to notify her supervisor
who among them instructed the accused-appellant to bring out the SPO3 Appang of the incident. The subsequent search of the accused
contents of her underwear. Another contradiction pressed on by the would only show that the two female friskers were just doing their
defense was the recollection of Bagsican that when she and Trayvilla usual task when they found the illegal drugs inside accused’s
found the illegal drugs, Bagsican placed it inside her blazer for underwear. This is bolstered by the fact that the accused on the one
safekeeping, in contrast with statement of SPO3 Appang that when hand and the two friskers on the other were unfamiliar to each other.
Bagsican and Trayvilla went out of the comfort room, they Neither could they harbour any ill-will against each other. The
immediately handed him the shabu allegedly taken from the accused- allegation of frame-up and denial of the accused cannot prevail over
appellant. the positive testimonies of three prosecution witnesses who
corroborated on circumstances surrounding the apprehension.

ISSUE: 95. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JESUS EDUALINO

Whether the conflicting testimonies given by the witnesses should not G.R. No. 119072 April 11, 1997
be given credit and should result in the acquittal of the accused

DOCTRINE:
RULING: Presumptions; A person accused of rape can be convicted solely on
the testimony of the victim provided the testimony is credible, natural,
No, the testimonies of the witnesses should be given credit and should convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the
result in the conviction of the accused. course of things.

FACTS:
 Accused Jesus Edualino was charged with rape in an of the commission of the offense. Lastly, Court cannot believe that a
information filed by complainant AAA. The complainant’s version of married woman would invent a story that she was raped in an attempt
fact states that she was invited to drink one bottle of beer by then a to conceal addiction to drugs or alcohol, in order to save her
drunk Edualino. When she was semi-conscious, she was dragged in a marriage.  The SC ruled that it failed to understand how a false rape
place where the rape was consummated. The accused arguments rely story can save a marriage under the circumstances averred by
on alternative defenses and alibi, to wit; 1) that there was foreplay accused-appellant.
and orgasm that occurred in the alleged consummation and that
according to the defense bear the earmarks of a voluntary and mutual
coition of a consensual intercourse 2) that the character of the 96. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LEONARDO FABRE y
complainant is of ill-refute on the basis that no responsible and decent VICENTE
pregnant married woman, would be out at two (2) o'clock in the G.R. No. 146697 July 23, 2002
morning getting drunk much less would a decent Filipina ask a man to
accompany her to drink beer 3) that the complainant merely
concocted the charge of rape to save her marriage since her husband DOCTRINE:
had found out that she was using drugs and drinking alcohol and even Presentation of Evidence; Order of presentation of evidence; The
made a spectacle of herself when she previously tried to seduce cross-examination of a witness is a prerogative of the party against
accused-appellant while she was under the influence of drug and whom the witness is called. The trial court is not bound to give full
alcohol. weight to the testimony of a witness on direct examination merely
because he is not cross-examined by the other party.
ISSUE:
Whether the constitutional presumption of accused-appellant's FACTS:
innocence has been overcome by proof of guilt beyond reasonable Leonardo Fabre was adjudged guilty by the Regional Trial
doubt Court of raping his own 13-year-old daughter, and was sentenced to
suffer the extreme penalty of death. The trial court gave credence to
RULING: the evidence given by the prosecution, particularly to the narration of
Yes, the constitutional presumption of accused-appellant's innocence the young complainant. In the proceeding for automatic review, one
has been overcome by proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. of the errors assigned by the accused is that the RTC gravely erred in
not giving credence of his defense of alibi and denial when he was
There is no doubt that the crime committed by accused-appellant is adjudged guilty even though the prosecution did not cross examine
rape. A person accused of rape can be convicted solely on the him and did not allow him to present any rebuttal evidence.
testimony of the victim provided the testimony is credible, natural,
convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the ISSUE:
course of things. On whether the acts of accused-appellant constitute Whether the testimony of appellant should acquire added strength for
rape, the victim’s testimony was sufficiently clear to show that the the failure of the prosecution to conduct cross-examination on him
carnal knowledge was without her consent and with force and and allow him to present any rebuttal evidence
intimidation. The testimony of the victim is supported by the findings
in the medical certificate which shows that the injuries suffered by the RULING:
victim are consistent with the charges of rape. On accused-appellant's No, testimony of appellant cannot acquire added strength merely
contention that the presence of force and intimidation was not proven, because the prosecution did not cross-examine him.
the Court has consistently ruled that force and intimidation should be
viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time
The cross-examination of a witness is a prerogative of the party Appellant contends that his identification in open court by Mayia
against whom the witness is called. The purpose of cross-examination was highly irregular. Appellant points out that the prosecutor had
is to test the truth or accuracy of the statements of a witness made on already identified him as the man wearing an orange t-shirt when the
direct examination. The party against whom the witness testifies may prosecutor asked Mayia to identify her alleged rapist. Appellant
deem any further examination unnecessary and instead rely on any stresses that when Mayia identified him in open court, she referred to
other evidence theretofore adduced or thereafter to be adduced or on him as a man named Johnny and did not give any description or any
what would be believed is the perception of the court identifying mark. Moreover, appellant claims he was alone in the cell
thereon. Certainly, the trial court is not bound to give full weight to when Mayia identified him after the police arrested him. Appellant
the testimony of a witness on direct examination merely because he is bewails that the identification was not done with the usual police line-
not cross-examined by the other party. The evidently candid and up.
straightforward testimony of the victim should be more than enough
ISSUE: WON, the RTC gravely erred in finding that the guilt of the
to rebut the claim of innocence made by appellant.
appellant has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
97. People vs. Perez HELD: No.Appellants contention is untenable.
397 SCRA 12,G.R. No. 142556. February 5, 2003.*
DOCTRINE: As a rule, leading questions are not allowed. However, the rules
Criminal Law; Rape; Evidence; Witnesses; Leading Questions; provide for exceptions when the witness is a child of tender years as it
General Rule; Exceptions.—As a rule, leading questions are not is usually difficult for such child to state facts without prompting or
allowed. However, the rules provide for exceptions when the witness suggestion. Leading questions are necessary to coax the truth out of
is a child of tender years as it is usually difficult for such child to state their reluctant lips. In the case at bar, the trial court was justified in
facts without prompting or suggestion. Leading questions are allowing leading questions to Mayia as she was evidently young and
necessary to coax the truth out of their reluctant lips. unlettered, making the recall of events difficult, if not uncertain. As
explained in People v. Rodito Dagamo:
FACTS:
For automatic review is the Decision dated October 26, 1999 of The trend in procedural law is to give wide latitude to the courts
the Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales, Branch 69, in Criminal Case in exercising control over the questioning of a child witness. The
No. RTC-2116-I, finding appellant Jesus S. Perez, guilty of raping reasons are spelled out in our Rule on Examination of a Child
Mayia P. Ponseca (Mayia for brevity), and imposing on appellant the Witness, which took effect on December 15, 2000, namely, (1) to
death penalty. facilitate the ascertainment of the truth, (2) to ensure that
questions are stated in a form appropriate to the developmental
Antecedent facts shows that on January 17, 1997, about level of the child, (3) to protect children from harassment or
noontime, in Sitio Baco, Barangay Macarang, Palauig, Zambales, six- undue embarrassment, and (4) avoid waste of time. Leading
year old Mayia was walking along Sulok on her way to her house in questions in all stages of examination of a child are allowed if the
Sitio Camiling when appellant approached her. Appellant introduced same will further the interests of justice.
himself as Johnny and immediately afterwards, strangled her neck and
boxed her abdomen. Appellant then proceeded to lower his black Mayias simple, positive and straightforward recounting on the
denim pants while simultaneously removing Mayias panty. He then witness stand of her harrowing experience lends credence to her
inserted his penis inside Mayias vagina. After satisfying his beastly accusation. Her tender age belies any allegation that her accusation
desires, appellant raised his pants and ran away. was a mere invention impelled by some ill-motive. As the Court has
stressed in numerous cases, when a woman or a child victim says that
she has been raped, she in effect says all that is necessary to show innocent lapses do not necessarily affect his credibility. The
that rape was indeed committed. testimonies of witnesses must be considered and calibrated in their
entirety and not by their truncated portions or isolated passages. And
then again, minor contradictions among several witnesses of a
98. People vs. Castillano, Sr.
particular incident and aspect thereof which do not relate to the
400 SCRA 401,G.R. No. 139412. April 2, 2003.*
gravamen of the crime charged are to be expected in view of their
Criminal Law; Murder; Evidence; Witnesses; Impeachment ;
differences in impressions, memory, vantage points and other related
The witness must be given a chance to recollect and to explain the
factors.
apparent inconsistency between his two statements and state the
FACTS:
circumstances under which they were made.—Before the credibility of
a witness and the truthfulness of his testimony can be impeached by This is an appeal from the Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court
evidence consisting of his prior statements which are inconsistent with of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 31, in Criminal Case No. P-2542,
his present testimony, the cross-examiner must lay the predicate or convicting appellants Ronald Castillano alias Nono and Jaime
the foundation for impeachment and thereby prevent an injustice to Castillano, Jr. of murder, meting on each of them the penalty
the witness being cross-examined. The witness must be given a of reclusion perpetua  and ordering them to pay, jointly and severally,
chance to recollect and to explain the apparent inconsistency between damages to the heirs of the victim Diosdado Volante.
his two statements and state the circumstances under which they
were made.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; “Laying a predicate” ; The Diosdado Volante, who eked out a living as a farmer, his wife Luz,
process of cross-examining a witness upon the point of prior [2]
 and their four children lived in their farmland located in the outskirt
contradictory statements is called “laying a predicate” for the of Sitio Danawan, Barangay Sagrada, Bula, Camarines Sur.
introduction of contradictory statements.—If the witness admits the
making of such contradictory statement, the accused has the benefit About 200 meters away from Diosdados farmland was the
of the admission, while the witness has the opportunity to explain the farmhouse of Jaime Castillano, Sr.[3] He tasked his son, Jaime
discrepancy, if he can. On the other hand, if the witness denies Castillano, Jr., to take care of the farmhouse and allowed him to
making any such contradictory statement, the accused has the right to reside there.[4] Jaime, Sr., his wife Concepcion, their son Ronald
prove that the witness did make such statement; and if the fiscal (Nono) Castillano and other children lived at their family residence in
should refuse upon due notice to produce the document, secondary Sagrada, Bula, Camarines Sur, approximately three kilometers away
evidence of the contents thereof would be admissible. This process of from their farmhouse in Sitio Danawan.[5]
cross-examining a witness upon the point of prior contradictory Sometime in the early part of June 1996, [6] Jaime, Sr. fired his
statements is called in the practice of the American courts “laying a gun indiscriminately. Afraid that a stray bullet might hit any member
predicate” for the introduction of contradictory statements. It is almost of his family, Diosdado accosted Jaime, Sr. and asked him to desist
universally accepted that unless a ground is thus laid upon cross- from firing his gun indiscriminately. Jaime, Sr. resented the intrusion.
examination, evidence of contradictory statements are not admissible He remonstrated that neighbors did not even complain about him
to impeach a witness; though undoubtedly the matter is to a large firing his gun. A heated altercation ensued. Jaime, Sr. then fired his
extent in the discretion of the court. gun towards the house of Diosdado. The incident germinated deep
Same; Same; Same; Same; Inconsistencies; Minor contradictions animosity between the two and their respective families. [7] Jaime, Sr.
among several witnesses of a particular incident and aspect thereof always carried a bolo whenever he passed by the house of Diosdado.
are to be expected in view of their differences in impressions,
memory, vantage points and other related factors.—It bears stressing At around 8:00 p.m., Luz and Diosdado were about to retire for
that even the most truthful witness can make mistakes but such the night. Their children were already fast asleep. Diosdado was tired
after a days work of spraying chemicals at the rice field. He reclined testimony during the preliminary examination and her sworn
on a bamboo bench near the main door of their house. A kerosene statement to the police investigators. Luz was not, therefore, accorded
lamp lighted the house. Suddenly, Luz heard voices near their house. a chance to explain the purported inconsistencies, as mandated by
She saw Jaime, Sr. holding a flashlight and his two sons, Jaime Jr. and Section 13, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Evidence which reads:
Ronald, on their way to the house. All of a sudden, Jaime, Sr. fired his
gun at Diosdados house. Terrified, Luz hastily carried her baby How witness is impeached by evidence of inconsistent
daughter Mary Jane, sought cover and hid near the rear door. She statement.  - Before a witness can be impeached by evidence
was about five meters away from her husband when the Castillanos that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his
barged inside their house and ganged up on Diosdado. Jaime, Jr. and present testimony, the statements must be related to him, with
Ronald, armed with bladed weapons, took turns in stabbing Diosdado. the circumstances of the times and places and the persons
Ronald stabbed Diosdado on the right side of his breast, right thigh present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements,
and on the back. He also struck him with a one-meter long pipe. Not and if so, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing
satisfied, Jaime, Sr. fired his gun hitting the right thigh of Diosdado. they must be shown to the witness before any question is put to
Luz was so shocked by the sudden turn of events. As soon as she him concerning them.
could, Luz fled to the rice paddies where she hid for a time. The
Castillanos fled on board a jeep parked in the NIA road about 200 Issue: WON, the Prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt
meters from the house of Diosdado. When Luz returned to their beyond reasonable doubt on the ground that the testimony of the
house, she saw her husband sprawled on the ground in a pool of his witnesses must be impeached because of inconsistencies.
own blood. Diosdado, at the point of death, asked her for help.
Held: No. The Court agrees with the Office of the Solicitor General.
On December 22, 1998, the trial court rendered a decision Before the credibility of a witness and the truthfulness of his testimony
convicting Jaime, Jr. and Ronald of murder qualified by evident can be impeached by evidence consisting of his prior statements
premeditation and treachery. The trial court exonerated Jaime, Sr. of which are inconsistent with his present testimony, the cross-examiner
the crime on reasonable doubt. The trial court gave no credence to must lay the predicate or the foundation for impeachment and thereby
Ronalds claim that he acted in self-defense. prevent an injustice to the witness being cross-examined. The witness
must be given a chance to recollect and to explain the apparent
Now appellant Jaime, Jr. avers that the prosecution failed to
inconsistency between his two statements and state the circumstances
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. He
under which they were made.This Court held in People v.
asserts that the testimony of Luz Volante, the widow of Diosdado, was
Escosura:  that the statements of a witness prior to her present
inconsistent with her testimony during the preliminary examination in
testimony cannot serve as basis for impeaching her credibility unless
the municipal trial court and her sworn statement before the police
her attention was directed to the inconsistencies or discrepancies and
investigators as well as the testimonies of SPO1 Fornillos and SPO4
she was given an opportunity to explain said inconsistencies. In a case
Jaime Favier, and the physical evidence on record.
where the cross-examiner tries to impeach the credibility and
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General asserts that truthfulness of a witness via her testimony during a preliminary
the credibility of the testimony of Luz, the prosecutions principal examination.
witness, cannot be impeached via her testimony during the
In this case, the appellants never confronted Luz with her
preliminary examination before the municipal trial court nor by her
testimony during the preliminary examination and her sworn
sworn statement given to the police investigators for the reason that
statement. She was not afforded any chance to explain any
the transcripts and sworn statement were neither marked and offered
discrepancies between her present testimony and her testimony
in evidence by the appellants nor admitted in evidence by the trial
during the preliminary examination and her sworn statement. The
court. Moreover, the appellants did not confront Luz with her
appellants did not even mark and offer in evidence the said transcript retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to swear that
and sworn statement for the specific purpose of impeaching her the writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made; but
credibility and her present testimony. Unless so marked and offered in such evidence must be received with caution.” (Italics supplied.)
evidence and accepted by the trial court, said transcript and sworn Allowing a witness to refer to her notesrests on the sound discretion
statement cannot be considered by the court. of the trial court. In this case, the exercise of that discretion has not
been abused; the witness herself has explained that she merely
wanted to be accurate on dates and like details.
99. People vs. Plasencia
Facts:
249 SCRA 675, G.R. No. 90198. November 7, 1995.*
Antonio Plasencia, Roberto Descartin and Joelito (Julito)
Doctrines:
Descartin were accused of robbery with homicide in an information,
Evidence; Witnesses; Judgments; Judges; Transcript of
dated 20 December 1984.
Steno-graphic Notes; The initial assessment on the testimony of a
Antecedent facts shows that at around ten o'clock in the
witness is done by the trial court, and its findings still deserve due
morning of 29 November 1984, Herminio Mansueto, wearing a blue
regard notwithstanding that the presiding judge who pens the decision
and white striped t-shirt, maong pants, Seiko 5 stop watch and
is not the one who personally may have heard the testimony; Reliance
a pandan  hat, left on his bicycle for Barangay Patao, Bantayan, Cebu.
on the transcript of stenographic notes should not, for that reason
He had with him P10,000.00 cash which he would use to purchase
alone, render the judgment subject to challenge.—The focus of this
hogs from a certain "Ruby."
appeal is clearly one of credibility. The initial assessment on the
testimony of a witness is done by the trial court, and its findings still
In Patao, Francisca Espina, also known in the locality as
deserve due regard notwithstanding that the presiding judge who
Pansing and whose house was just across the street from the
pens the decision is not the one who personally may have heard the
respective residences of the three accused, saw at the roadside
testimony. The reliance on the transcript of stenographic notes should
Herminio Mansueto and Roberto Descartin alias "Ruby" engaged in
not, for that reason alone, render the judgment subject to challenge.
conversation. Pansing approached them and asked Mansueto if he
The continuity of the court and the efficacy of its decision are not
would be interested in buying two of her pigs for P1,400.00. Mansueto
affected by the cessation from the service of the judge presiding it or
said "yes" and promised that he would be right back.
by the fact that its writer merely took over from a colleague who
Mansueto and Ruby meantime proceeded to the latter's
presided at the trial.
piggery. Joelito Descartin and his brother-in-law Rene were also seen
going to the place. After some time, Pansing noticed Joelito take
Same; Same; Allowing a witness to refer to her notes rests on
Mansueto's bicycle. Believing that Mansueto was already preparing to
the sound discretion of the trial court .—The use of memory aids
leave and in her desire to catch up with him, Pansing promptly walked
during an examination of a witness is not altogether proscribed.
towards the piggery which was around 100 meters away from her
Section 16, Rule 132, of the Rules of Court states: “Sec. 16. When
house. She could see Mansueto leaning on the pigsty with Ruby on his
witness may refer to memorandum.—A witness may be allowed to
right side and Antonio Plasencia alias "Tonying" on his left; behind
refresh his memory respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded
was Joelito.2 Midway, she was halted on her tracks; she suddenly saw
by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred,
Antonio stab Mansueto. The latter staggered towards Ruby who
or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was
himself then delivered another stab blow. Mansueto fell on his back.
fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was correctly written
Joelito started hitting Mansueto on the forehead while Rene held
or recorded;but in such casethe writing or record must be produced
Mansueto's legs.3 Except for a coconut tree and some ipil-ipil trees
and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he chooses,
around the area, nothing obstructed Pansing's line of vision. Pansing
cross-examine the witness upon it and may read it in evidence. So,
rushed back home. The image of Antonio waving the weapon and the
also, a witness may testify from such a writing or record, though he
thought that she might herself be killed kept her from revealing to knew that the same was correctly written or recorded ;
anyone what she saw. but in such case the writing or record must be
The following day, in Kodia, Madridejos, Cebu, where produced and may be inspected by the adverse party,
Mansueto resided, his daughter Rosalinda reported to Francisca Tayo, who may, if he chooses, cross-examine the witness
the barangay captain, that her father had not returned home. Tayo upon it and may read it in evidence . So, also, a witness
proceeded to Putian, which was in Mansueto's itinerary, and then to may testify from such a writing or record, though he
Ruby's piggery in Patao, where a youngster, who turned out to be retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is able
Ruby's son, innocently informed her that Mansueto's bicycle was taken to swear that the writing or record correctly stated the
by Joelito. transaction when made; but such evidence must be
received with caution. (Emphasis supplied.)
The Regional Trial Court did not give credence to the defense
of alibi. It convicted the three accused of murder (punishable under Allowing a witness to refer to her notes rests on the sound
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code), instead of robbery with discretion of the trial court. 23 In this case, the exercise of that
homicide, explaining that the term "homicide" was used in the discretion has not been abused; the witness herself has
information in its generic sense. Finding conspiracy, the trial court explained that she merely wanted to be accurate on dates and
ruled that the killing was qualified by both treachery and abuse of like details.
superior strength with the latter, however, being absorbed by the
former.

Hence, This Appeal. 100. G.R. No. 96202. April 13, 1999

Appellant Roberto Descartin, challenged Francisca Espina's credibility ROSELLA D. CANQUE vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and SOCOR
because of her alleged inconsistencies, faults the trial court for CONSTR UCTION CORPORATION
allowing the witness to glance at the notes written on her palm while
testifying. He also argues that his alibi, being corroborated, should
have been given weight.
DOCTRINE: Evidence; Conditions to be satisfied before entries in
Issue: WON, that the testimony of Francisca Espina who at times be corporate books may be admitted in evidence .—The admission in
seen reading some notes be not given worth. evidence of entries in corporate books requires the satisfaction of the
following conditions: 1. The person who made the entry must be
Held: No.The use of memory aids during an examination of a witness dead, outside the country or unable to testify; 2. The entries were
is not altogether proscribed. Section 16, Rule 132, of the Rules of made at or near the time of the transactions to which they refer; 3.
Court states: The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries;
4. The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the
Sec. 16. When witness may refer to memorandum . — A performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or religious;
witness may be allowed to refresh his memory and 5. The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of
respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by business or duty.
himself  or under his direction at the time when the fact
occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other
time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he Facts: Rosario Canque is a contractor doing business under the na
me RDC Construction. Canque had contracts with the go vernment pesos and seventy - two centavos (P616,435.72);
and in relation to the projects, she entered into tw o contracts with
Socor Construction Corporation for supplying as well as ap plying This is also the purpose for which its admission is sought as a
certain materials in the construction sites. When Soc or Construction memorandum to refresh the memory of Dolores Aday as a witness. In
billed Canque, it amo unted to a total of P299,717.75 which included other words, i t is the nature of the evidence that is changed, not the
interest. Canque refused to pay the amount, c laiming that Socor purpose for which it is offered.
Construction failed to submit the delivery receipts showing the actual
Be that as it may, considered as a memorandum, Exh. K does not
weight in m etric tons of the items an d the acceptance thereof of the
itself constitute evidence. As explained in Borromeo v. Court of
government. This led to a complaint b eing filed with RTC of Cebu for
Appeals:
recovery the amount stated. During trial, Socor Construction pres
ented its Vice President, Sofia Sanchez and its bookkeeper Dolores
Under the above provision (R ule 132, §10), the memorandum used to
Aday while Canque’s evi dence consisted only of her own testimony.
refresh the memory of the witness does not constitute evidence, and
The trial court ruled in favor of Socor Construct ion, ordering Canque
may not be admitted as such, for the simple reason that the witness
to pay the amount. The CA affirmed. Canque contests the ad
has just the same to testify on the basis of refreshed memory. In
missibility of the said Book of Collectible Accounts (Exhibit K). On its
other words, whe re the witness has testified independently of or after
part, Socor Construction said that that although the entries cannot be
his testimony has been refreshed by a memorandum of the events in
considered an exception to the hearsay rule, they may be admitte d
dispute, such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative
under Rule 132, Section 10 of the Rules of Court
evidence. It is self - evident that a witness may not be corroborated
by any written statement prepared wholly by him. He cannot be more
Issue: Whether or not the Books of Collectible Accounts
credible just because he supports his open - court declaration with
referred into by the private respondent in refreshing the
written statements of the same facts even if he did prepare them
memory of the witness is admissible in evidence.
during the occasion in dispute, unless the proper predicate of his
Held: No. It should be noted, however, that Exh. K is not really being failing memory is priorly laid down. What is more, even where this
presented for another purpose. Private respondent’s counsel offered it requirement has been satisfied, the express injunction of the rule itself
for the purpose of showing the amount of petitioner’s indebtedness. is that such evidence must be received with caution, if only because it
He said: is not very difficult to conceive and fabricate evidence of this nature.
This is doubly true when the witness stands to gain materially or
Exhibit “K,” your Honor - faithful reproduction of page (17) of the otherwise from the admission of such evidence . . . .
book on Collectible Accounts of the plaintiff, reflecting the principal
indebtedness of defendant in the amount of Two hundred ninety - nin As the entries in question (Exh. K) were not made based on personal
e thousand seven hundred seventeen pesos and seventy - five knowledge, they could only corro borate Dolores Aday’s testimony that
centavos (P299,717.75) and reflecting as well the accumulated she made the ent ries as she received the bills.
interest of three percent (3%) monthly compounded such that as of
December 11, 1987, the amount collectible from the defendant by the
pl aintiff is Six hundred sixteen thousand four hundred thirty - five
101. G.R. No. 204169 September 11, 2013 In July 2009, petitioner noticed his wife become depressed.
Suspecting that something might have happened in the Philippines, he
YASUO IWASAWA, PETITION ER, vs. FELISA CUSTODIO confronted his wife about it. To his shock, private respondent
GANGAN1 (A.K.A FELISA GANGAN ARAMBULO, AND FELISA confessed to him that she received news that her previous husband
GANGAN IWASAWA) AND THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF passe d away.
PASAY CITY
Petitioner sought to confirm the truth of his wife’s confession and
discovered that indeed, she was married to one Raymond Maglonzo
Arambulo and that their marriage took place on June 20, 1994. This
DOCTRINE: Evidence; Public Documents; As public documents, they
prompted petitioner to file a petition for the d eclaration of his
are admissible in evidence even without further proof of their due
execution and genuineness; Not only are said documents admissible, marriage to private respondent as null and void on the ground that
they deserve to be given evidentiary weight because they constitute their marriage is a bigamous one, based on Article 35(4) in relation to
prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. —There is no question Article 41 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
that the documentary evidence submitted by petitioner are all public
documents. As provided in the Civil Code: ART. 410. The books During trial, aside from his testimony, petitione r also offered the
making up the civil register and all documents relating thereto shall be following pieces of documentary evidence issued by the National
considered public documents and shall be prima facie evidence of the Statistics Office (NSO):
facts therein contained. As public documents, they are admissible in
evidence even without further proof of their due execution and (1) Certificate of Marriage between petitioner and private respondent
genuineness. Thus, the RTC erred when it disregarded said marked as Exhibit "A" to prove the fact of marriage between the
documents on the sole ground that the petitioner did not present the
parties on Nov ember 28, 2002;
records custodian of the NSO who issued them to testify on their
authenticity and due execution since proof of authenticity and due
(2) Certificate of Marriage between private respondent and Raymond
execution was not anymore necessary. Moreover, not only are said
documents admissible, they deserve to be given evidentiary weight Maglonzo Arambulo marked as Exhibit "B" to prove the fact of
because they constitute prima facie evidence of the facts stated marriage between the parties on June 20, 1994;
therein. And in the instant case, the facts stated therein remain
unrebutted since neither the private respondent nor the public (3) Certificate of Death of Raymond Maglonzo Arambulo marked as E
prosecutor presented evidence to the contrary. xhibits "C" and "C - 1" to prove the fact of the latter’s death on July
14, 2009; and

FACTS: Petitioner, a Japanese national, met private respondent (4) Certification from the NSO to the effect that there are two entries
sometime in 2002 in one of his visits to the Philippines. Private of marriage recorded by the office pertaining to private respondent
respondent introduced herself as "single" and "has never married marked as Exhibit "D" to prove t hat private respondent in fact
before." Since then, the two became close to each other. Later that contracted two marriages, the first one was to a Raymond Maglonzo
year, petitioner came back to the Philippines and married private Arambulo on June 20, 1994, and second, to petitioner on November
respondent on November 28, 2002 in Pasay City. After the wedding, 28, 2002.
the couple resided in Japan.
The prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Office of the Solicitor issued them to testify on their authentici ty and due execution since
General (OSG) admi tted the authenticity and due execution of the proof of authenticity and due execution was not anymore necessary.
above documentary exhibits during pre - trial. Moreover, not only are said documents admissible, they deserve to be
given evidentiary weight because they constitute prima facie evidence
RTC rendered the assailed decision. It ruled that there was insufficient of the facts stated the rein. And in the instant case, the facts stated
evidence to prove private respondent’s prior existing valid marriage to therein remain unrebutted since neither the private respondent nor
another man. It he ld that while petitioner offered the certificate of the public prosecutor presented evidence to the contrary.
marriage of private respondent to Arambulo, it was only petitioner
who testified about said marriage. The RTC ruled that petitioner’s As correctly pointed out by the OSG, the documentary exhibits taken
testimony is unreliable because he has no personal knowledge of together concre tely establish the nullity of the marriage of petitioner
privat e respondent’s prior marriage nor of Arambulo’s death which to private respondent on the ground that their marriage is bigamous.
makes him a complete stranger to the marriage certificate between
private respondent and Arambulo and the latter’s death certificate. It The marriage of petitioner Yasuo Iwasawa and private respondent
further ruled that petitioner’s testimony about the NSO cer tification is Felisa Custodio Gangan is declared NULL and VOID.
likewise unreliable since he is a stranger to the preparation of said
document.
102. G.R. No. 181163 July 24, 2013
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied
by the RTC.
ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., Petitioner, vs. PHILAM INSURANCE
CO., INC. (now Chartis Philippine s Insurance, Inc.),
ISSUE: Whether the testimony of the NSO records custodian
Respondent.
certifying the authen ticity and due execution of the public
documents issued by said office was necessary before they
DOCTRINE: Remedial Law; Evidence; Public Documents; Private
could be accorded evidentiary weight.
Documents; The nature of documents as either public or private
determines how the documents may be presented as evidence in
RULING: YES. There is no question that the documentary evidence
court. Public documents, as enumerated under Section 19, Rule 132 of
submitted by petitioner are all public documents. As provided in the
the Rules of Court, are self-authenticating and require no further
Civil Code:
authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court. In
ART. 410. The books making up the civil register and all documents contrast, a private document is any other writing, deed or instrument
relating thereto shall be considered public documents and shall be executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary or
prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained. other person legally authorized by which some disposition or
agreement is proved or set forth.—The nature of documents as either
As public documents, they are admissible in evidence even without public or private determines how the documents may be presented as
further proof of their due execution and genuineness. Thus, the RTC evidence in court. Public documents, as enumerated under Section 19,
erred when it disregarded said documents on the sole ground that the Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, are self-authenticating and require no
petitioner did not present the records custodian of the NSO who further authentication in order to be presented as evidence in court.
In contrast, a private document is any other writing, deed or dented and broken.
instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a
notary or other person legally authorized by which some disposition or Universal Motors filed a formal claim for damages in the amount of
agreement is proved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign P643,963.84 against Westwind, A TI and R.F. Revilla Customs
character of a public document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, Brokerage, Inc. When Universal Motors’ demands remained unheeded,
a private document requires authentication in the manner prescribed it sought reparation from and was compensated in the sum of
under Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules: SEC. 20. Proof of private P633,957.15 by Philam. Accordingly, Universal Motors issued a
document.—Before any private document offered as authentic is Subrogation Receipt dated November 15, 1 995 in favor of Philam
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be
On January 18, 1996, Philam, as subrogee of Universal Motors, filed a
proved either: (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or
Complaint for damages against Westwind, ATI and R.F. Revilla
written; or (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
Customs Brokerage, Inc. before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 148.
handwriting of the maker. Any other private document need only be
identified as that which it is claimed to be. The requirement of
On September 24, 1999, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of
authentication of a private document is excused only in four instances,
Philam and ordered Westwind and ATI to pay Philam, jointly and
specifically: (a) when the document is an ancient one within the
severally, the sum of P633,957.15 with interest at the rate of 12% per
context of Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules; (b) when the
annum, P158,989.28 by way of attorney’s fees and expenses of
genuineness and authenticity of the actionable document have not
litigation.
been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party; (c) when
the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been On appeal, the CA a ffirmed with modification the ruling of the RTC.
admitted; or (d) when the document is not being offered as genuine.
All the parties moved for reconsideration, but their motions were
denied in a Resolution dated January 11, 2008. Thus, they each filed a
petition for review on certiorari which were consolidated together by
FACTS: Nichimen Corporation shipped to Universal Motors
this Court considering that all three petitions assail the same CA
Corporation (Universal Motors) 219 packages contai ning 120 units of
decision and resolution and involve the same parties
brand new Nissan Pickup Truck Double Cab 4x2 model, without
engine, tires and batteries, on board the vessel S/S "Calayan Iris" ISSUE: Whether the Marine Certificate No. 708 - 8006717 - 4
from Japan to Manila. The shipment, which had a declared value of and the Subrogation Receipt are private documents
US$81,368 or P29,400,000, was insured with P hilam against all risks
under Marine Policy No. 708 - 8006717 - 4. HELD: YES.

The carrying vessel arrived at the port of Manila on April 20, 1995, The nature of docu ments as either public or private determines how
and when the shipment was unloaded by the staff of ATI, it was found the documents may be presented as evidence in court. Public
that the package marked as 03 - 245 - 42K/1 was in bad orde r. The documents, as enumerated under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Turn Over Survey of Bad Order Cargoes dated April 21, 1995 identified Court, are self - authenticating and require no further authentication
two packages, labeled 03 - 245 - 42K/1 and 03/237/7CK/2, as being in order t o be presented as evidence in court.
In contrast, a private document is any other writing, deed or 103. G.R. No. 165285 June 18, 2012
instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a Aludos v. Suerte
notary or other person legally authorized by which some disposition or
DOCTRINE: Rule 132, Section 34. Offer of Evidence- the Court
agreement is pro ved or set forth. Lacking the official or sovereign
shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The
character of a public document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, purpose for which the offer must be specified.
a private document requires authentication in the manner prescribed
under Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules: FACTS: Deceased Petitioner acquired from the City
Government to occupy two stalls as evidenced by a permit. Petitioner
SEC. 20. Proof of private document. – Before any private document entered into an agreement with Respondent to transfer over the rights
offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and of the two stalls as evidenced by an acknowledged receipt of the
authenticity must be proved either: amount in a document. Before full payment of the agreement
Petitioner backed out of the agreement and opted to return the
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or money paid by Respondent.
Respondent protested the return of his money and insisted on the
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of continuation and enforcement of his agreement with Petitioner. When
the maker. the latter refused, Respondent filed an action against the other. The
RTC ruled against Respondent as the Petitioner was a mere lessee of
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is the two stalls and has no authority to transfer the lease without the
consent of the City Gov’t. Petitioner appealed the case to the C.A.
claimed to be.
which ruled that the Motion was denied after finding that Petitioner’s
lawyer misrepresented the governing lease contract between
The requirement of authentication of a private document is excused
Petitioner and the City Gov’t. The contract was never offered in
only in four instances, specifically: (a) when the document is an evidence before the RTC and could not be considered pursuant to the
ancient one within the context of Section 21, Rule 132 of the Rules; ruled of evidence.
(b) when the genuineness and authenticity of the actionable
document have not been specifically denied under oath by the adverse ISSUE: Whether or not the CA was correct in not
party; (c) when the genuineness and authenticity of the document h considering the lease contract as evidence.
ave been admitted; or (d) when the document is not being offered as
RULING The Court ruled in the affirmative. Under Rule 132,
genuine.
Section 34 of the Rules of Court. The Court shall consider no evidence
which has not been formally offered. The offer of evidence is
Indubitably, Marine Certificate No. 708 - 8006717 - 4 and the
necessary because it is the duty of the court to rest its findings of the
Subrogation Receipt are private documents which Philam and the fact and its judgment only and strictly upon the evidence offered by
consignee, respectively, issue in the pursuit of their bus iness. Since the parties. Unless and until admitted by the Court in evidence for the
none of the exceptions to the requirement of authentication of a purpose or purposes for which such document is offered, the same is
private document obtains in these cases, said documents may not be merely a scrap of paper barren of probative weight. What was
admitted in evidence for Philam withou t being properly authenticated. formally offered was the 1969 permit, which only stated that the
Petitioner was permitted to occupy a stall and nothing else. In other
words no evidence was presented and formally offered showing
that any and all improvements in the market stalls shall be owned by other personal circumstances of the witness and the substance of the
the City. Gov’t. proposed testimony. These procedures are known as offer of proof or
tender of excluded evidence and are made for purposes of appeal. If
104. G.R. No. 194128 December 7, 2011 an adverse judgment is eventually rendered against the offeror, he
Westmont Investment Corporation v. Francia Et,. Al. may in his appeal assign as error the rejection of the excluded
evidence.
DOCTRINE: Rule 132, Section 34. Offer of Evidence- the Court
shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The FACTS: Petitioner is the manufacturer and producer of its
purpose for which the offer must be specified. cigarette brands and prior to 1997 were subject to ad valorem tax.
FACTS: They former failed to collect upon maturity and However on Jan. 1, 1997 R.A. 8240 took effect and caused a shift
their investment were rolled over for which confirmation advices were from ad valorem tax to specific tax. As a result of such shift, the
issued by Petitioner indicating Pearl Bank as the actual borrower of aforesaid cigarette brands were subjected to specific tax. Petitioner
the funds invested. Failing again to collect Respondents filed a later on filed a claim for tax credit or refund under Sec. 229 of the
complaint for collection of sum of money arising from their NIRC for illegally collected specific taxes. After trial on the merits the
investments against Petitioner before the RTC. Petitioner did not Court ruled that it was contrary to law and that there is insufficiency
object on or comment to the evidence offered by Respondent and of evidence on the claim for refund. Petitioner elevated the case to the
filed a Motion to postpone the hearings 3 days before the scheduled CTA but the latter found no cause to reverse the decision.
hearing for presentation of Petitioner which was denied. The RTC
considered Petitioner to have waived its right to present evidence and ISSUE: Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to
held that Petitioner was solely liable to Respondent and dismissed the warrant or grant the Petitioner’s claim for tax refund.
case against Pearl Bank. Petitioner appealed the case to the C.A. but
was denied. RULING: The Court ruled in the negative. The denial of
ISSUE: Whether or not the C.A. was correct in not Petitioners claim for tax refund in this case is based on the ground
admitting the documents attached to Petitioner’s pleadings. that it failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove its claim and
RULING: The Court ruled in the affirmative. It appeared that amount thereof. As a result, Petitioner seeks the Court to re-examine
Petitioner was given ample opportunity to file its comment and the probative value of its evidence and determine whether it should be
objection to the formal offer of evidence of Respondent but it chose refunded the amount of excise taxes it allegedly overpaid.
not to file any. All documents attached by Petitioner to its pleadings This cannot be done. The settled rule is that only questions of
before the C.A. cannot be given weight or evidentiary value for the law can be raised in a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It
reason that as correctly observed by the C.A. these documents were is not the function of the SC. to analyze or weight all over again the
not formally offered as evidence in Court. To consider them now evidence already considered in the proceedings below. The Court’s
would deny the other parties the right to examine and rebut them. In jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only the errors of the law that
accordance with Rule 132, Section 34 of the Rules of Court. may have been committed by the lower court. The resolution of the
factual issues is the function of the lower court whose findings on
105. G.R. No. 192024 July 1, 2015 these matters are received with respect. A question of law which the
Fortune Tobacco Corp. v. CIR Court may pass upon must not involve an examination of the
DOCTRINE: The rule is that evidence formally offered by a party probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants.
may be admitted or excluded by the court. If a party's offered
documentary or object evidence is excluded, he may move or request
that it be attached to form part of the records of the case. If the 106. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DELFIN CALISO
excluded evidence is oral, he may state for the record the name and
FACTS: killer was no other than Caliso. As matters stand, therefore, Caliso’s
conviction hangs by a single thread of evidence, the direct evidence of
The accused, by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then Amegable’s identification of him as the perpetrator of the killing. But
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge that single thread was thin, and cannot stand sincere scrutiny.
upon one AAA, who is a minor of 16 years old and a mentally retarded
girl, against her will and consent.The records show that AAA died in In the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the identity of
the river and that the immediate cause of her death was asphyxia, the culprit, the accused’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent
secondary to drowning due to smothering; until the contrary is proved is not overcome, and he is entitled to an
acquittal, though his innocence may be doubted. The constitutional
The lone eyewitness, 34-year old Soledad Amegable (Amegable), had presumption of innocence guaranteed to every individual is of primary
been clearing her farm when she heard the anguished cries of a girl importance, and the conviction of the accused must rest not on the
pleading for mercy. The lone witness narrated that the whole time, weakness of the defense he put up but on the strength of the
Amegable could not have a look at his face because he always had his evidence for the Prosecution.
back turned towards her; that she nonetheless insisted that the man
was Caliso, whose physical features she was familiar with due to The decision is REVERSED and accused-appellant Delfin Caliso is
having seen him pass by their barangay several times prior to the ACQUITTED of the crime of murder.
incident; that he interviewed Amegable who identified the killer by his
physical features and clothing (short pants); that based on such
information, he traced Caliso as AAA’s killer; and that Caliso gave an
extrajudicial admission of the killing of AAA. 107. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FELIMON PATENTES y
ZAMORA
The RTC and CA found Caliso guilty of Murder.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
AAA boarded a bus for Bansalan, Davao City, to visit and bring
Whether Amegable’s identification of Caliso as the man who killed AAA medicines to her sick grandmother. While seated at the rear portion of
was positive and reliable. the bus, appellant suddenly sat next to her

HELD: No. Upon reaching Davao City, they rode a jeepney to Sasa and alighted
at a nearby convenience store. Upon arrival, a man gave something to
In every criminal prosecution, the identity of the offender, like the appellant, which he immediately placed inside his pocket. Appellant
crime itself, must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. then brought AAA to his house in Hacienda Heights, Davao City,
Indeed, the first duty of the Prosecution is not to prove the crime but where his parents, sister, brother-in-law, nephews and nieces live.
to prove the identity of the criminal, for even if the commission of the
crime can be established, there can be no conviction without proof of Upon entering the house, appellant dragged AAA to a room upstairs
identity of the criminal beyond reasonable doubt. and tied her to a sewing machine. Appellant then started to smoke
something, which he also forced AAA to inhale, causing AAA to feel
Amegable asserted that she was familiar with Caliso because she had light, weak and dizzy. This prevented AAA from fighting back as
seen him pass by in her barangay several times prior to the killing. appellant removed AAA’s clothes. Doffed of his own clothes, appellant
Such assertion indicates that she was obviously assuming that the mounted her and inserted his penis into her vagina.
Accused countered that he offered to bring AAA to her house but the raped by the accused if the accusations were really true." 20 Indeed, it
latter refused, insisting that she wanted to live with appellant because is incompatible with human experience to keep a sex slave for eight
she was fed up with her mother, who often called her "buntog" or (8) days in a house where the abuser’s entire family, including the
prostitute. abuser’s minor nephews and nieces live.

The lower court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of

one (1) count of Forcible Abduction with Rape and seven (7) counts of
Rape 108. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROSENDO
DELGADO ALIAS "NONGNONG",
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Whether or not the lower court erred in finding accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt The accused, with the use of a deadly bladed weapon, with intent to
kill and treachery, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
HELD: YES. feloniously attack, assault, hack, stab and wound one Santos
Zamora's, who, as a result thereof, sustained wounds on the different
The numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of private complainant parts of his body which directly caused the death of said Santos
have created reasonable doubt. Zamora's.

A conviction in a criminal case must be supported by proof beyond The facts to which the trial court gave credence in its finding of guilt
reasonable doubt, which means a moral certainty that the accused is beyond reasonable doubt are based on the narration of the lone
guilty; the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution. The testimony eyewitness, Rogelio Zamora's, supported by the postmortem
of the offended party in crimes against chastity should not be received examination report and the testimonies of Leonardo de Ballon and
with precipitate credulity for the charge can easily be concocted. Aurora Zamora's.
Courts should be wary of giving undue credibility to a claim of rape,
especially where the sole evidence comes from an alleged victim The appellant while admitting the stabbing, however, claims self-
whose charge is not corroborated and whose conduct during and after defense. In these errors, the appellant questions the trial court's
the rape is open to conflicting interpretations. While judges ought to appreciation of the testimony of Rogelio Zamoras as against his own
be cognizant of the anguish and humiliation that a rape victim testimony
undergoes as she seeks justice, they should equally bear in mind that
their responsibility is to render justice based on the law. Issue:

In the case at bar, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden Whether or not lower court erred in giving full credit to the testimony
of establishing with moral certainty the truthfulness of the charge that of the lone witness Rogelio Zamora.
appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA against her will using threats,
force or intimidation. AAA lived with appellant’s family for eight (8) Held: YES.
days – in the same house where appellant’s parents, sister, brother-in-
law, nephews and nieces also lived. AAA even called appellant’s A person who seeks justification for his act must prove by clear and
mother, "mama." As argued by the defense, "the members of the convincing evidence the presence of the necessary justifying
appellant’s family could have noticed that she was being forced and circumstance for having admitted wounding or killing his adversary,
and he is criminally liable unless he is able to satisfy the Court that he higher than preponderance of evidence. The potential extraditee
acted in legitimate self-defense. For there to be legitimate self- must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight
defense, there must be three requisites as provided in paragraph 1 of risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition
Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, namely: (1) unlawful aggression court.
(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person FACTS: Private respondent Muñoz was charged before the Hong
defending himself. Kong Court with three (3) counts of an offense of "accepting an
advantage as agent," in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the
The appellant contends that the victim was the unlawful aggressor. Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 of Hong Kong.
This contention is negated by the physical evidence. If indeed, the
appellant and the victim were in the positions described by the He also faces seven (7) counts of the offense of conspiracy to
appellant, it would have been impossible for him to inflict the back defraud, penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. On August 23,
stab wound described in the post-mortem report. 1997 and October 25, 1999, warrants of arrest were issued against
him.
In the case at bar, the testimony of Rogelio Zamoras is not as patently
absurd as contended by the appellant. It was natural for Santos Petitioner Hong Kong Special Administrative Region filed with the
Zamoras, after he had stabbed Clemente, to realize the gravity of his RTC of Manila a petition for the extradition of private
act, sit on the concrete pavement, place one hand over the other, and respondent, raffled off to Branch 10, presided by Judge Ricardo
press his head (obviously the forehead) on top of the two hands. The Bernardo, Jr. For his part, private respondent filed, in the same
appellant states that it was abnormal for the eyewitness to deduce case, a petition for bail which was opposed by petitioner.
from the act that Santos Zamoras was going to sleep. We do not think
so. The attribution of sleepiness instead of remorse, reflection, or fear After hearing, Judge Bernardo, Jr. issued an Order denying the
indicates naivete and guilelessness. petition for bail, holding that there is no Philippine law granting bail
in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high "flight risk."
The guilt of the accused having been proved beyond reasonable
doubt. On October 30, 2001, private respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Order denying his application for bail. This
was granted by respondent judge allowing private respondent to
post bail.

On December 21, 2001, petitioner filed an urgent motion to vacate

109. GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL the above Order, but it was denied by respondent judge in his Order
ADMINISTRATIVE REGION vs. HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLALIA, dated April 10, 2002. Hence, the instant petition.
JR.
ISSUE: Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion
DOCTRINE: In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in admitting private
Justice, now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new respondent to bail since there is nothing in the Constitution or
standard which he termed "clear and convincing evidence" should be statutory law providing that a potential extraditee has a right to bail,
used in granting bail in extradition cases. According to him, this the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings.
standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but
HELD: NO.
 In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice, now
Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new standard which
bears all earmarks of a criminal process. A potential extraditee may he termed "clear and convincing evidence" should be used in
be subjected to arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced granting bail in extradition cases. According to him, this standard
to transfer to the demanding state following the proceedings. should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher
"Temporary detention" may be a necessary step in the process of than preponderance of evidence. The potential extraditee must
extradition, but the length of time of the detention should be prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk
reasonable. and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition
court.
Records show that private respondent was arrested on September
23, 1999, and remained incarcerated until December 20, 2001, when In this case, there is no showing that private respondent presented
the trial court ordered his admission to bail. In other words, he had evidence to show that he is not a flight risk. Consequently, this case
been detained for over two (2) years without having been convicted should be remanded to the trial court to determine whether private
of any crime. By any standard, such an extended period of respondent may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and
detention is a serious deprivation of his fundamental right to liberty. convincing evidence."
In fact, it was this prolonged deprivation of liberty which prompted
the extradition court to grant him bail. While our extradition law does
not provide for the grant of bail to an extraditee, however, there is 110. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALFONSO FONTANILLA
no provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, a y OBALDO
right to due process under the Constitution
DOCTRINE: In order for self-defense to be appreciated, he had to
The time-honored principle of pacta sunt servanda demands that the prove by clear and convincing evidence the following elements: (a)
Philippines honor its obligations under the Extradition Treaty it unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable
entered into with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack
Failure to comply with these obligations is a setback in our foreign of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
relations and defeats the purpose of extradition. However, it does not
necessarily mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations, the FACTS: Alfonso Fontanilla was charged of murder for allegedly
Philippines should diminish a potential extraditee’s rights to life, strucking Olias in the head with a piece of wood called Bellang
liberty, and due process. More so, where these rights are guaranteed, causing the latter fell facedown to the ground, but Fontanilla hit him
not only by our Constitution, but also by international conventions, again in the head with a piece of stone. As a result, the victim died.
to which the Philippines is a party. We should not, therefore, Fontanilla claimed self-defense alleging that on the night of the
deprive an extraditee of his right to apply for bail, provided that a incident, he had been standing on the road near his house when
certain standard for the grant is satisfactorily met Olais, wielding a nightstick and appearing to be drunk, had boxed him
in the stomach; that although he had then talked to Olais nicely, the
An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of proof latter had continued hitting him with his fists, striking him with
required in granting or denying bail can neither be the proof beyond straight blows; that Olais, a karate expert, hadalso kicked him with
reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the standard of proof of both his legs; that he had thus been forced to defendhimself by
preponderance of evidence in civil cases. While administrative in picking up a stone which he had hit the victim’s head.
character, the standard of substantial evidence used in administrative
cases cannot likewise apply given the object of extradition law which The RTC in rejected Fontanilla’s plea of self-defense noted that he
is to prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction.
did not suffer any injury despite his claim that the victim had mauled DOCTRINE: In civil cases, the party carrying the burden of proof
him; that Fontanilla did not receive any treatment, and no medical must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence
certificate attested to any injury he might have suffered, having been which, to the court, is more worthy of belief than the evidence
immediately released from the hospital; that Fontanilla’s failure to offered in opposition.
give any statement at the time he surrendered to the police was
inconsistent with his plea of self-defense. This Court, in Encinas v. National Bookstore, Inc., defined
"preponderance of evidence" in the following manner:
ISSUE: Whether or not there is self-defense in the instant case.
"Preponderance of evidence" is the weight, credit, and value of the
HELD: In order for self-defense to be appreciated, he had to prove aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be
by clear and convincing evidence the following elements: (a) synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable "greater weight of the credible evidence." Preponderance of
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means
of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to
the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition
By invoking self-defense, however, Fontanilla admitted inflicting the thereto.
fatal injuries that caused the death of Olais. It is basic that once an
accused in a prosecution for murder or homicide admitted his FACTS: PCIB filed an action for recovery of sum of money with
infliction of the fatal injuries on the deceased, he assumed the damages before the RTC against Antonio Balmaceda, the Branch
burden to prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence the Manager of its Sta. Cruz, Manila branch. In its complaint, PCIB
justifying circumstance that would avoid his criminal liability. Having alleged that between 1991 and 1993, Balmaceda, by taking
thus admitted being the author of the death of the victim, Fontanilla advantage of his position as branch manager, fraudulently obtained
came to bear the burden of proving the justifying circumstance to and encashed 31 Manager’s checks in the total amount of
the satisfaction of the court, and he would be held criminally liable P10,782,150.00.
unless he established self-defense by sufficient and satisfactory
proof. He should discharge the burden by relying on the strength of On February 28, 1994, PCIB moved to be allowed to file an amended
his own evidence, because the Prosecution’s evidence, even if weak, complaint to implead Rolando Ramos as one of the recipients of a
would not be disbelieved in view of his admission of the killing. portion of the proceeds from Balmaceda’s alleged fraud. PCIB also
Nonetheless, the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt increased the number of fraudulently obtained and encashed
remained with the State until the end of the proceedings. Manager’s checks to 34, in the total amount of P11,937,150.00. The
RTC granted this motion.
Fontanilla did not discharge his burden. A review of the records
reveals that, one, Olais did not commit unlawful aggression against Since Balmaceda did not file an Answer, he was declared in default.
Fontanilla, and, two, Fontanilla’s act of hitting the victim’s head with On the other hand, Ramos filed an Answer denying any knowledge
a stone, causing the mortal injury, was not proportional to, and of Balmaceda’s scheme. According to Ramos, he is a reputable
constituted an unreasonable response to the victim’s fistic attack and businessman engaged in the business of buying and selling fighting
kicks. cocks, and Balmaceda was one of his clients. Ramos admitted
receiving money from Balmaceda as payment for the fighting cocks
111. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK vs. that he sold to Balmaceda, but maintained that he had no knowledge
ANTONIO B. BALMACEDA of the source of Balmaceda’s money.
The RTC issued a decision in favor of PCIB. from the others. Also, while Ramos is Balmaceda’s brother-in-law,
their relationship is not sufficient, by itself, to render Ramos liable,
On appeal, the CA dismissed the complaint against Ramos, holding absent concrete proof of his actual participation in the fraudulent
that no sufficient evidence existed to prove that Ramos colluded with scheme.
Balmaceda in the latter’s fraudulent manipulations.
Moreover, the evidence on record clearly shows that Balmaceda
ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in holding that there is no evidence to acted on his own when he applied for the Manager’s checks against
hold that respondent Ramos acted in complicity with respondent the bank account of one of PCIB’s clients, as well as when he
Balcameda. encashed the fraudulently acquired Manager’s checks.

HELD: NO. 112. Dela Llana vs. Biong

GR No. 182356 December 4, 2013
From the testimonial and documentary evidence presented, we find it
beyond question that Balmaceda, by taking advantage of his FACTS:
position as branch manager of PCIB’s Sta. Cruz, Manila branch, was Dra. Dela Llana was involved in a car accident, wherein she suffered
able to apply for and obtain Manager’s checks drawn against the minor wounds. After two months, she began to feel pain on the left
bank account of one of PCIB’s clients. The unsettled question is side of her neck and shoulder. She was diagnosed a whiplash injury
whether Ramos, who received a portion of the money that and underwent an operation on her spine and neck. She demanded
Balmaceda took from PCIB, should also be held liable for the return of from Biong compensation for her injuries but the latter refused to pay.
this money to the Bank. On trial, Dra. Dela Llana, a surgeon, presented herself as ordinary
witness. No other physician was presented. She also showed pictures
PCIB insists that it presented sufficient evidence to establish that of collusion as well as copy of medical certificate. The RTC ruled in
Ramos colluded with Balmaceda in the scheme to fraudulently secure favor of Dra. Dela Llana and held that the proximate cause of the
Manager’s checks and to misappropriate their proceeds. Since whiplash injury was the accident. CA reversed the RTC ruling for
Ramos’ defense – anchored on mere denial of any participation in failure to establish a reasonable connection between the accident and
Balmaceda’s wrongdoing – is an intrinsically weak defense, it was the whiplash injury by preponderance of evidence.
error for the CA to exonerate Ramos from any liability.
ISSUE:
PCIB, as plaintiff, had to prove, by preponderance of evidence, its WON the accident is the proximate cause of Dra. Dela Llana's
positive assertion that Ramos conspired with Balmaceda in whiplash injury.
perpetrating the latter’s scheme to defraud the Bank.
HELD:
On its face, all that PCIB’s evidence proves is that Balmaceda used No. Dra. Dela Llana failed to establish her case by preponderance of
Ramos’ name as a payee when he filled up the application forms for evidence. The pictures only demonstrate the impact of the collusion.
the Manager’s checks. But, as the CA correctly observed, the mere The medical certificate cannot be considered because it was not
fact that Balmaceda made Ramos the payee on some of the admitted in evidence. It is a basic rule that evidence which has not
Manager’s checks is not enough basis to conclude that Ramos was been submitted cannot be validly considered by the courts in arriving
complicit in Balmaceda’s fraud; a number of other people were made at their judgments. The medical certificate has no probative value for
payees on the other Manager’s checks yet PCIB never alleged them being hearsay.
to be liable, nor did the Bank adduce any other evidence pointing The doctor who has personal knowledge of the contents of the
to Ramos’ participation that would justify his separate treatment medical certificate was not presented to testify in court. Dra. Dela
Llana's opinion that the driver's negligence caused her whiplash injury PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
has no probative value because even though she was a physician, she
testified as an ordinary witness, not an expert witness.. Doctrine:

 The requirement that the NLRC’s findings should be

supported by substantial evidence is clearly expressed in
114. Office of the Ombudsman vs. Reyes Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court which provides
GR No. 170512 October 5, 2011 that "in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial
bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported
FACTS: by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant
Reyes and Pealoza, employees of LTO-Camiguin, were alleged to be evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
illegally exacted money from Acero, an applicant for a driver's license. adequate to justify a conclusion."
Pealoza submitted a counter affidavit pointing Reyes as the main
culprit. Affidavits of witnesses were also submitted in evidence in Facts:
support of Pealoza's claim. Reyes, without receiving copy of those
affidavits, submitted its counter affidavit to the complaint filed by  Ramos was a former Vice-President for Dealer Network
Acero. The Ombudsman, there being substantial evidence, finds Reyes Marketing/Auto Loans Division of BPI Family. During his
guilty of grave misconduct and meted a penalty of dismissal. tenure, a client named Trezita B. Acosta entered into and
obtained several auto and real estate loans from BPI
ISSUE: Family which were duly approved and promptly paid.
WON the charge of grave misconduct was sufficiently proven by
substantial evidence. Acosta later purportedly secured another auto loan from
BPI Family for the purchase of a Toyota Prado vehicle
HELD: which had remained unpaid. As it turned out, she did not
No. One of the principles of due process is that the decision must be authorize nor personally apply for the subject loan,
rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing or at least rendering the transaction fraudulent.
contained in the record and disclosed to parties affected. In the The amount of losses suffered by BPI Family was divided
instant case, petitioner rendered its decision on the basis of evidence between Ramos’ benefits, which accrued upon his
that were not disclosed to Reyes. This the Court cannot sanction. A retirement, and his three (3) other subordinates.
judgment in an administrative case that imposes the extreme penalty
of dismissal must not only be based on substantial evidence but also Claiming that the deductions made by BPI Family were
rendered with due regard to the rights of the parties to due process. illegal, Ramos filed a complaint against BPI Family before
the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Ramos’ complaint,
which was later reversed by the NLRC.

In a petition filed before the CA, BPI Family was held

concurrently negligent with Ramos; hence, the petition.
115. XAVIER C. RAMOS vs. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK Inc.
and/or ALFONSO L. SALCEDO, Jr. (G.R. No. 203186, Issue:
December 4, 2013)
 Whether or not the CA erred in attributing grave abuse of the part of the NLRC in finding that the deduction made
discretion on the part of the NLRC when it found the from Ramos’s retirement benefits was improper on two (2)
deduction made from Ramos’s retirement benefits to be grounds:
illegal and unreasonable
First, as correctly observed by the NLRC, BPI Family was
Ruling: not able to substantially prove its imputation of negligence
against Ramos. Well-settled is the rule that the burden of
 In labor disputes, the NLRC’s findings are said to be tainted proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of
with grave abuse of discretion when its conclusions are not an issue.
supported by substantial evidence as held in the case of
Mercado v. AMA Computer College-Parañaque City, Inc ., Second, as similarly observed by the NLRC, Ramos merely
citing Protacio v. Laya Mananghaya & Co.: followed standing company practice when he issued the PO
and ATD without prior approval from the bank’s Credit
As a general rule, in certiorari proceedings under Rule Services Department.
65 of the Rules of Court, the appellate court does not
assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon 116. JESSE U. LUCAS vs. JESUS S. LUCAS (G.R. No. 190710,
which the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC based their June 6, 2011)
conclusion. The query in this proceeding is limited to
the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted NACHURA, J.:
without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion in rendering its decision. However, Doctrine:
as an exception, the appellate court may examine and
measure the factual findings of the NLRC if the same  A prima facie case is built by a party’s evidence and not by
are not supported by substantial evidence. mere allegations in the initiatory pleading. The requirement
of a prima facie case, or reasonable possibility, was
The Court has not hesitated to affirm the appellate imposed in civil actions as a counterpart of a finding of
court’s reversals of the decisions of labor tribunals if probable cause.
they are not supported by substantial evidence.
Facts:
The requirement that the NLRC’s findings should be
supported by substantial evidence is clearly expressed in  Jesse U. Lucas filed a Petition to establish illegitimate
Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court which provides filiation before the RTC Branch 72 of Valenzuela City. His
that "in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial mother, Elsie Uy (Elsie), migrated to Manila from Davao to
bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported work in a prominent nightspot in Manila, where she had an
by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant intimate relationship with his alleged father, Jesus S. Lucas.
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as The name of petitioner’s father was not stated in the
adequate to justify a conclusion." petitioner’s Certificate of Live Birth, but Elsie later told
petitioner that his father is the respondent.
Applying the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the
CA to have erred in attributing grave abuse of discretion on
 Respondent allegedly extended financial support to Elsie a prima facie case or a reasonable possibility of paternity or
and petitioner for a period of about two (2) years. When good cause for the holding of the test. In these states, a
their relationship ended, Elsie refused to accept court order for blood testing is considered a search, which,
respondent’s offer of support and decided to raise under the Constitution, must be preceded by a finding of
petitioner on her own. While petitioner was growing up, probable cause in order to be valid. Hence, the
Elsie made several attempts to introduce petitioner to requirement of a prima facie case, or reasonable possibility,
respondent, but all attempts were in vain. was imposed in civil actions as a counterpart of a finding of
probable cause.
The RTC dismissed the case since the petitioner failed to
establish the four significant procedural aspects of a The same condition precedent should be applied in our
traditional paternity action which the parties have to face: jurisdiction to protect the putative father from mere
a prima facie case, affirmative defense, presumption of harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on the motion
legitimacy, and physical resemblance between the putative for DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie
father and the child. evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.

In a petitioner for certiorari, the CA affirmed the decision of 117. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. AMELIO TRIA and JOHN
the RTC; hence, the petition. DOE (G.R. No. 193250, April 25, 2012)

Issue: VELASCO, JR., J.:

 Whether or not the CA erred when it essentially ruled that Doctrine:

DNA testing can only be ordered after the petitioner
establishes prima facie proof of filiation  Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal
information, are such facts as are sufficient to engender a
Ruling: well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and
that the accused is probably guilty thereof. It is the
 The Court held the petition meritorious. existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite
the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within
The statement in Herrera v. Alba that there are four the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged
significant procedural aspects in a traditional paternity case was guilty of the crime for which he is to be prosecuted. A
which parties have to face has been widely misunderstood finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence
and misapplied in this case. A party is confronted by these showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been
so-called procedural aspects during trial, when the parties committed and that it was committed by the accused.
have presented their respective evidence. A prima facie
case is built by a party’s evidence and not by mere Facts:
allegations in the initiatory pleading.
 Amelio C. Tria was a former Branch Manager of PNB,
In some states, to warrant the issuance of the DNA testing assigned at theMetropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
order, there must be a show cause hearing wherein the System Branch (PNB-MWSS). MWSS opened a current
applicant must first present sufficient evidence to establish account with PNB-MWSS, which was intended as a
 depository for a loan from ADB to fund a contract. After that the accused is probably guilty thereof. It is the
sometime, said account became dormant. existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite
the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within
PNB-MWSS later received a letter-request from MWSS the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged
instructing the deduction of PhP 5,200,000 (plus charges) was guilty of the crime for which he is to be prosecuted. A
from said current account and the issuance of the finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence
corresponding managers check in the same amount showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been
payable to a certain Atty. Rodrigo A. Reyes, who was later committed and that it was committed by the accused.
found to be fraudulent. After verification processes were
conducted, the transaction was effected. The acts of Tria and the relevant circumstances that led to
the encashment of the check provide more than sufficient
Aside from the missing pertinent documents, it was later basis for the finding of probable cause to file an
realized that MWSS did not apply for the issuance of the information against him and John Doe/Atty. Reyes for
managers check payable to Atty. Reyes. PNB conducted its qualified theft. In fact, it is easy to infer from the factual
own investigation and found Tria liable for qualified theft. milieu of the instant case the existence of all the elements
necessary for the prosecution of the crime of qualified
The City Prosecutor of Quezon City dismissed the charge of theft.
qualified theft against Tria, which was later affirmed by the
DOJ Secretary and the CA; hence, the petition. 118. RUBEN DEL CASTILLO @ BOY CASTILLO vs. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES
Issue: G.R. No. 185128, January 30, 2012

 Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that probable cause Facts:

against Tria and Atty. Reyes was not established since the
employees of PNB made the encashment after their own Pursuant to a confidential information that petitioner was engaged in
independent verification of the subject managers check
selling shabu, police officers, after conducting surveillance and test-
Ruling: buy operation at the house of petitioner, secured a search warrant
from the RTC and around 3 o'clock in the afternoon of September 13,
 The Court held the petition meritorious.
1997, the same police operatives went to Gil Tudtud St., Mabolo, Cebu
It must be emphasized at the outset that what is necessary City to serve the search warrant to petitioner. Upon arrival, somebody
for the filing of a criminal information is not proof beyond
shouted raid, which prompted them to immediately disembark from
reasonable doubt that the person accused is guilty of the
acts imputed on him, but only that there is probable cause the jeep they were riding and went directly to petitioner's house and
to believe that he is guilty of the crime charged. cordoned it. The structure of the petitioner's residence is a two-storey
house and the petitioner was staying in the second floor. When they
Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal
information, are such facts as are sufficient to engender a went upstairs, they met petitioner's wife and informed her that they
well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and will implement the search warrant. But before they can search the
area, SPO3 Masnayon claimed that he saw petitioner run towards a
Petitioner insists that there was no probable cause to issue the search
small structure, a nipa hut, in front of his house. Masnayon chased warrant, considering that SPO1 Reynaldo Matillano, the police officer
him but to no avail, because he and his men were not familiar with who applied for it, had no personal knowledge of the alleged illegal
sale of drugs during a test-buy operation conducted prior to the
the entrances and exits of the place.
application of the same search warrant.
 
They all went back to the residence of the petitioner and closely Issue: W/N there was probable cause to support the search warrant
guarded the place where the subject ran for cover. SPO3 Masnayon
requested his men to get a barangay tanod and a few minutes Ruling: YES, there was probable cause. The SC held that, “This Court
thereafter, his men returned with two barangay tanods. finds no merit on the first argument of petitioner. 
   
In the presence of the barangay tanod, Nelson Gonzalado, and the The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are: (1) probable
elder sister of petitioner named Dolly del Castillo, searched the house cause is present; (2) such probable cause must be determined
of petitioner including the nipa hut where the petitioner allegedly ran personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and
for cover. His men who searched the residence of the petitioner found under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or
nothing, but one of the barangay tanods was able to confiscate from she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the
the nipa hut several articles, including four (4) plastic packs containing facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically
white crystalline substance. Consequently, the articles that were describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.
confiscated were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for According to petitioner, there was no probable cause. Probable cause
examination. The contents of the four (4) heat- sealed transparent for a search warrant is defined as such facts and circumstances which
plastic packs were subjected to laboratory examination, the result of would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
which proved positive for the presence of methamphetamine offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection
hydrochloride,  or shabu. with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. A finding of
  probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more
Thus, an Information was filed before the RTC against petitioner, likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was
charging him with violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. 6425, as committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than bare
amended. suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would justify
conviction. The judge, in determining probable cause, is to consider
RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable of the charge against the totality of the circumstances made known to him and not by a
him in the Information. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed his case with
fixed and rigid formula, and must employ a flexible, totality of the
the CA, but the latter affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this
petition. circumstances standard. The existence depends to a large degree
upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination. Later, when AAA thought that the intruders were already gone, she
attempted to run but to her surprise, someone wearing a bonnet was
This Court, therefore, is in no position to disturb the factual findings of watching her. Someone, whom she later recognized as Dick Taedo,
the judge which led to the issuance of the search warrant. A tapped her shoulder. AAA asked Taedo, Why Kuya? Taedo replied,
Somebody will die. After a brief commotion, appellant alias Lando
magistrate's determination of probable cause for the issuance of
Calaguas asked the group saying, What shall we do now? They then
a search warrant is paid great deference by a reviewing court, as long decided to tie AAA. Later, AAA was untied and led her outside the
as there was substantial basis for that determination. Substantial basis house. Outside, AAA saw Abad, who was also tied and blindfolded,
seated inside a vehicle.
means that the questions of the examining judge brought out such
 
facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and The group later brought AAA and Abad to the fishpond owned by their
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and the employers. AAA saw Cita Taedo there. The group brought Abad
outside the vehicle and led him away.
objects in connection with the offense sought to be seized are in the
 
place sought to be searched. A review of the records shows that in the Later, alias Fred returned telling the group, Make the decision now,
present case, a substantial basis exists. Abad has already four bullets in his body, and the one left is for this
girl. When Cita Taedo made a motion of cutting her neck, appellant
alias Lando Calaguas and Fred boarded the vehicle taking along with
119. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA them AAA. They later proceeded towards San Miguel Tarlac.
y CABILLO and FERNANDO CALAGUAS FERNANDEZ a.k.a.
LANDO CALAGUAS The RTC found Aacused Fernando Calaguas Fernandez (alyas Lando
G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011 Calaguas) and Alberto Anticamara (alyas Al Camara) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of Murder of Abad. The
FACTS: CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this petition. Lando and
Al, through the PAO, alleged that the prosecution failed to prove their
About 3 o'clock in the early morning of May 7, 2002, househelper AAA guil of the murder beyond reasonable doubt, considering that there
and driver Abad Sulpacio were sleeping in their employers' house. are no direct eyewitnesess to the said crime.
Their employers, Conrado Estrella and his wife, were out of the house
at that time. Momentarily, AAA was jolted from sleep when she heard Issue: W/N the appellants are guilty of murder
voices saying, We will kill her, kill her now and another voice saying, Ruling: YES. The SC held that. “The trial court found that although
Not yet! Hiding under her blanket, AAA later heard someone saying, there was no direct eyewitness in the killing of Sulpacio in the early
We only need money, we only need money.  morning of May 7, 2002 at Sitio Rosalia, Barangay San Bartolome,
  Rosales, Pangasinan, the prosecution adduced sufficient circumstantial
Thereafter, AAA observed about six (6) persons enter the house, who evidence to establish with moral certainty the identities and guilt of
she later identified as accused Dick Taedo, Marvin Lim, Bert Taedo, a the perpetrators of the crime. 
certain Fred and appellants Alberto Anticamara alias Al Camara, and  
Fernando Fernandez alias Lando Calaguas. One of the intruders Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and
approached her and told her not to move. circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be
  inferred according to reason and common
experience . Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction
if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which
the inferences are derived are proven; (c) the combination of all  
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable  
doubt. A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can In addition to these circumstances, the trial court further found that
be sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain AAA heard Fred utter Usapan natin pare, kung sino ang masagasaan,
that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the sagasaan. (Our agreement is that whoever comes our way should be
accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator. eliminated). Moreover, NBI Agent Gerald V. Geralde testified that on
  June 23, 2002, appellant Al admitted his participation as lookout and
In this case, the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, naming his companions Dick, Lando, Fred, Marvin and Bet as the ones
when analyzed and taken together, lead to the inescapable conclusion who took AAA and Sulpacio from the house of the Estrellas and
that the appellants are responsible for the death of Sulpacio. The brought them to the fishpond. Al also pointed and led the authorities
Court quotes with approval the lower court's enumeration of those to a shallow grave in Sitio Rosalia, Barangay San Bartolome, Rosales,
circumstantial evidence: Pangasinan, where the remains of Sulpacio were buried. The autopsy
  conducted on the body, prepared by the Medico Legal Officer Dr.
The testimony of AAA had clearly established the following Bandonil, shows that several holes were found on various parts of the
facts: body of the victim and Dr. Bandonil concluded that the cause of the
  victim's death was the gunshot wounds. The report also indicates that
1. At about 3:00 in the early morning of May 7, 2002, a piece of cloth was found wrapped around the eye sockets and tied
while she and the victim Abad Sulpacio were sleeping at the back of the skull, and another cloth was also found tied at the
inside the house of the Estrella family in Barangay remnants of the left wrist.
Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan several persons entered to
rob the place; In the case at bar, although no one directly saw the actual killing of
2. Inside the house, she saw and recognized the accused Sulpacio, the prosecution was able to paint a clear picture that the
Lando Calaguas and Dick Taedo, and heard the latter appellants took Sulpacio away from the house of the Estrellas, tied
uttering somebody will die; and blindfolded him, and brought him to another place where he was
3. Bringing her outside the house, Lando pushed her into repeatedly shot and buried.
the Revo where she saw inside Abad Sulpacio who was
blindfolded and with his hands tied;
4. Inside the Revo, she recognized the accused Dick 120. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARITESS ALOLOD,
Taedo, Lando Calaguas, Marvin Lim, Roberto Taedo, EFREN
Alberto Anticamara and Fred; DEOCAMPO, ELMER DEOCAMPO
5. The Revo then proceeded towards the fishpond owned and EDWIN DEOCAMPO
by the Estrellas in Sitio Rosalia, Brgy. San Bartolome, G.R. No. 185212, February 15, 2012
Rosales, Pangasinan;
6. The last time that she saw Abad Sulpacio was when he Facts:
was dragged out from the vehicle by Lando, Fred, Marvin
and Al upon reaching Sitio Rosalia. At that, time Dick Melanio and Lucena Alolod adopted accused Maritess and took
Taedo stayed with her in the vehicle; her into their home in Barangay  Poblacion, Lebak, Sultan Kudarat. 
7. Thereafter, when Fred returned to the vehicle, she Maritess had two children with her lover, Efren Deocampo, who was
heard him uttered (sic): Make a decision now. Abad has never allowed to set foot on her parents house since they loathed
already four (4) bullets in his body, and the one left is for him.  In May 1998, the old couple, Melanio and Lucena, suddenly
this girl. went missing. 
   
Neighbors and relatives testified last seeing the old couple on On May 30 Annaliza and Generita saw Efrens younger brothers
May 27, 1998.  A neighbor, Magdalena Ato, recalled that the two were Edwin and Elmer at the Alolod residence.  The next day, during their
in good health.  In fact, Melanio even went to market early in the town fiesta, friends and relatives came by to visit the old couple but
day.  At around 8:30 that evening, as he was making his rounds, a Maritess told them that they had gone to Davao City and would not
security guard at Salaman Institute, Demetrio Nebit, saw two men return until August 16 or 17.  By June the couples grandchildren who
standing near the fence that separated the school from the Alolod would stay at their house for school began arriving.  They observed
house.  On seeing Nebit, the two hurried into a nearby toilet but the the frequent presence of the Deocampo brothers in the house. 
security guard followed and told them to come out.  Nebit identified Sometime in August, Generita and her mother, Lucenas sister, came
one of the two to be Efren Deocampo, a former classmate, and his to pay a visit. They saw Efren wearing Melanios wristwatch.  Maritess
brother Edwin. insisted that her parents were still in Davao for medical check-up.
   
At about 2:00 a.m. on the following day, May 28, Victor Ato, In August, Maritess and her children, together with
Magdalenas husband, awakened to strange sounds coming from the the Deocampo brothers, left the Alolod house to live at Sitio Gila-
Alolod house just five to six meters away.  Victor heard a woman gila, Barangay  Kuya, South Upi, Maguindanao.  When the Alolod
sobbing and what sounded like a pig being butchered.  He looked out spouses did not return to their home, their relatives started looking for
through the window but, seeing no one, he just went back to bed.  them.  They found out that the missing couple did not go to either
When Victor woke up at 5:30 a.m., he saw Efren at the kitchen of the Davao or Cotabato or to their relatives in Iloilo.  Their clothes and
Alolod house.   other personal effects were still in the house.  The last entry on the
  recovered diary of Melanio was on May 27.  Suspecting that
Later that day, Magdalena had the chance to ask Maritess about the something was amiss, the couples relatives, Francisco Estaris and Joel
sounds coming from their house during the night.  Maritess explained Relles, searched the house for clues.  They even dug up elevated and
that Melanio was ill and she was having a difficult time giving him depressed soil formation around the place but for naught. 
medicine.  Maritess added that her parents had left for Cotabato City  
early that morning. Meantime, on inspection that morning, the school Finally, on October 9, 1998 Francisco noticed a portion of the
security guard noticed that the cyclone wire of the fence where he land planted with camote.  Francisco found the place unlikely
saw Efren and Edwin standing the night before had been cut.  He for camote since it was shaded from the sun. Those who boarded at
reported the incident to the school principal.   the house said that it was Maritess and Efren who planted them.  With
  the help of others, Francisco dug up the suspected spot.  There they
Annaliza Relles, the grandniece of the Alolods, noticed the absence of found the decomposing bodies of Melanio and Lucena.  Based on the
the old couple when she came over that morning to cook for them.  post-mortem report, Melanio was strangled with a wire; Lucena was
Only Maritess and her two children were there.  Maritess told Annaliza stabbed.    
that her parents had left for a vacation.  Annaliza tried to use one of
the toilets in the house but it was padlocked.  Maritess told her to just RTC found the four accused guilty of murder of Lucena and Melanio,
use the other toilet. with Efren and Edwin as principals and Maritess and Elmer as
  accessories. While the case was on appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA)
On May 29 Generita Caspillo, Maritess relative and close friend, granted the request of Maritess and Elmer to withdraw their appeals,
stayed at the Alolod residence to keep them company because leaving only those of Efren and Edwin for its consideration. The CA
according to Maritess, her father suffered a stroke and had to be affirmed the RTC decision. Efren and Edwin appealed to this
brought to Cotabato for medical treatment.  While Generita was there, Court. Edwin, however, on a letter to the Office of the Solicitor
she noticed a pile of red soil near the well at the garden.     General dated December 7, 2008, manifested his intention to
withdraw his appeal. The Court granted Edwin’s withdrawal, leaving in the school toilet. The next day, the guard discovered that the fence
Efren as the sole accused-appellant in this case. wire had been cut.  
 
Issue: WON the CA erred in affirming the RTCs finding that accused 5. At about 2:00 a.m. of May 28 a neighbor heard the sound of
Efren was responsible for the murder of the Alolod couple based on a woman sobbing and what seemed like the butchering of a pig.  
circumstantial evidence  
6. At break of dawn, a witness saw Efren in the Alolod kitchen.
Ruling: NO. The SC held that, “The rule of evidence that applies  
when no witness saw the commission of the crime provides: 7. From then on Efren and his brothers frequented the old
  couples house, with Efren wearing the old mans watch.  
SEC. 4.  Circumstantial evidence, when  
sufficient.    Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for 8. Maritess definitely lied about her adoptive parents going to
conviction if: Cotabato City and subsequently to Davao City for medical treatment
  when people started looking for them. They were of course buried in
(a) There is more than one circumstance; the garden.
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are  
proven; and 9. A witness heard Efren instructing Maritess to plant
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as more camote  on a pile of red soil beside the house.  
to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.  
  10. The bodies of the old couple were found underneath those
The circumstances must constitute an unbroken chain that plants.
inexorably leads to one fair conclusion: the accused committed the  
crime to the exclusion of all others.[2] The alibi of Efren that he was in Maguindanao at about the
  time the old couple was killed does not encourage belief. The security
Here, those circumstances abound.  guard saw him with his brother at 8:30 p.m. of May 27 near the
  couples house where they had no business being there. A neighbor
1. Efren had always been banned from the old couples house saw Efren at the kitchen of that house on the morning following the
because they strongly disapproved his relationship with Maritess, their slaying of the couple. And it was not physically impossible for the
adopted daughter so he had no business being around that house.   accused to be at the crime scene when it happened. Sitio Gila-gila,
  South Upi, Maguindao was merely 15 kilometers from Lebak, Sultan
2. The old couple were enjoying good health before the Kudarat.”
evening of May 27, 1998.
 
3. On May 28 they were suddenly gone from the house, 121. EDUARDO CELEDONIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
meaning that they were killed on the night of May 27 or early morning G.R. No. 209137, July 01, 2015
of May 28.  
  Facts:
4. On the night of May 27 the security guard at Salaman The evidence for the prosecution shows that on the evening of April
Institute saw Efren and Edwin standing on the school side of the fence 21, 2007, a certain Adriano Marquez ( Marquez) witnessed the robbery
next to the old couples house.  They even tried to conceal themselves perpetrated in the house of Carmencita De Guzman ( De Guzman)
while she was away to attend to the wake of her deceased husband.
No one was left in the house. Marquez, whose house was opposite the may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The rules on evidence
house of De Guzman and Celedonio, which were adjacent to each allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its
other, identified Celedonio as the culprit. Upon learning of the conclusion of guilt. The lack of direct evidence does not ipso factobar
incident, De Guzman reported it to the police and requested that the finding of guilt against the appellant. As long as the prosecution
Celedomo be investigated for possibly having committed the crime, establishes the accused-appellant's participation in the crime through
based on the account of Marquez. credible and sufficient circumstantial evidence that leads to the
inescapable conclusion that he committed the imputed crime, the
Later, a follow-up operation was conducted by PO1 Rommel Roque latter should be convicted.
(PO1 Roque) and SPO2 Adrian Sugui (SPO2 Sugui), accompanied by
Marquez. They proceeded to Raja Humabon St., Navotas, to survey Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: 1) there is more
the area for the possible identification and apprehension of the than one circumstance; 2) the facts from which the inferences are
suspect. On their way, Marquez pointed to a man on a motorcycle and derived are proven; and 3) the combination of all the circumstances is
said, "Sir, siya po si Eduardo Celedonio ." The police immediately such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
flagged down Celedonio. PO1 Roque asked him if he was Eduardo
Celedonio, but he did not reply and just bowed his head. In this case, the prosecution sufficiently laid down the circumstances
that, when taken together, constituted an unbroken chain that led to a
SPO2 Sugui informed Celedonio of a complaint for robbery against reasonable conclusion that Celedonio was the perpetrator. The CA
him. Celedonio still remained silent and just bowed his head. SPO2 opined that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Sugui asked him, "Where are the stolen items?" Celedonio then
alighted from his motorcycle and opened its compartment where PO1 xxx As correctly pointed out by the trial court, these circumstances
Roque saw some of the stolen items, as per report of the incident, are: accused was a next door neighbor of private complainant; he was
such as the portable DVD player and a wristwatch, among seen by another neighbor going over the concrete fence separating
others.obleslaw their houses and ransacking a room in complainant's house; during
the time, no one was inside complainant's house as all of them were
PO1 Roque asked Celedonio if the same were stolen, to which the at the wake of private complainant's recently demised husband; two
latter answered, "Iyan po." Thus, Celedonio was arrested and was (2) days after, most of the items discovered to have been stolen that
informed of his constitutional rights. More items were seized from night were found in the compartment of the accused's motorcycle
Celedonio at the police station. which he was riding on when accosted by the police; the items
recovered from him were identified by the complainant as her stolen
RTC found Celedonio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of property; during the trial accused denied that the stolen items were
Robbery with Force Upon Things. Insisting on his innocence, found in his possession and claimed that they were "planted" by the
Celedonio appealed to the Court of Appeals ( CA), arguing that the police investigators to frame him up of the robbery. In short, the
RTC erred in convicting him of the crime despite the insufficiency of accused could not explain his possession of the recently stolen items
the circumstantial evidence. found in his sole possession.

Issue: WON THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED xxxx

IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING THAT THE PETITIONER'S
GUILT WAS PROVEN BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE We find the conviction of accused-appellant based on circumstantial
evidence factually and legally tenable, as the facts from which the
Ruling: NO. The SC held that, “Jurisprudence tells us that direct aforementioned circumstances arose have been proved through the
evidence of the crime is not the only matrix from which a trial court
positive testimony of Adriano Marquez, POi Rommel Roque and
Carmencita de Guzman.

The defense does not refute the existence of the commission of

robbery. In fact, Celedonio himself acknowledged that the
prosecution's circumstantial evidence, although weak, ambiguous and
inconclusive, established that 1) a robbery had been committed; 2) it
was committed recently; 3) several of the stolen items including cash
were found in his possession; and 4) he had no valid explanation for
his possession of the stolen goods.”