B.

   Judicial Admissions therefore, is Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of

Court which provides that:
People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 108028, July 30,
1996 An admission, verbal or written,
made by a party in the course of the
FACTS: Accused appellant met the private proceedings in the same case, does
complainants introducing herself as the general not require proof. The admission
manager  Philippine-Thai. may be contradicted only by
-The private complainant were promised to work showing that it was made through
abroad but they were ask to pay placement and palpable mistake or that no such
passport fees in the total amount of P22,500.00 per admission was made.
applicant, to be paid in three installments, to wit:
P1,500 on December 14, 1988, P10,000.00 on 2. Whether or not the court is not authorized to
December 16, 1988, and P11,000.00 on December take judicial notice of the contents of the records
22, 1988. of other cases, even when such cases have been
-When the complainants paid, they were issued tried or are pending in the same court?
receipts by the alleged treasurer Liza Mendoza but
after they paid for the entire amount, they were not HELD: Yes as a general rule, but it is subject to
able to leave abroad. exception;
- The court found the appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment In the absence of objection and as a matter of
committed in large scale convenience to all parties, a court may properly
treat all or any part of the original record of the case
-The appellant argued that  (1) the stipulation of filed in its archives as read into the records of a case
facts was not tantamount to an admission by the pending before it, when with the knowledge of the
appellant of the fact of non-possession of the opposing party, reference is made to it, by name and
requisite authority or license from the POEA, but number or in some other manner by which it is
was merely an admission that the Chief Licensing sufficiently designated
Officer of the POEA, if presented in court, would
testify to this fact, and (2) the stipulation of facts is And even assuming that judicial notice is misplace
null and void for being contrary to law and public it will not affect the prosecution because the case is
policy. not base to on the existence of another illegal
-Appellant posits the foregoing arguments to bolster recruitment case filed against appellant by a
her contention that the stipulation of facts did not different group of complainants, but on the
relieve the prosecution of its duty to present overwhelming evidence against her in the instant
evidence to prove all the elements of the crime case.
charged to the end that the guilt of the accused may
be proven beyond reasonable doubt. 3. Whether of not denials of the accused may be
considered as evidence?
-And she argued further that the admission by the
POEA chief licensing officer here was no judicial HELD: NO.  denials if unsubstantiated by clear and
admission of the fact of non-possession of a convincing evidence are negative, self-serving
license/authority but rather a mere admission that evidence which deserve no weight in law and
the witness, if presented, would testify to such fact.  cannot be given greater evidentiary weight over the
ISSUE: 1.whether or not A stipulation of facts testimony of credible witnesses who testify on
entered into by the prosecution and defense counsel affirmative matters
is a jucial admission binding his client?
HELD: YES "judicial admission are frequently In this case, she did not merely deny, but likewise
those of counsel or of the attorney of record, who is, raised as an affirmative defense her appointment as
for the purpose of the trial, the agent of his client. mere nominee-president of Philippine-Thai is a
When such admissions are made . . . for the purpose futile attempt at exculpating herself and is of no
of dispensing with proof of some fact, . . . they bind consequence whatsoever when weighed against the
the client, whether made during, or even after, the positive declarations of witnesses that it was the
trial." appellant who executed the acts of illegal
recruitment as complained of.
In this case the stipulation of facts proposed during
trial by prosecution and admitted by defense DECISION Affirmed, she is guilty of illegal
counsel is tantamount to a judicial admission by the recruitment by a large scale.
appellant of the facts stipulated on. Controlling,

Page 1 of 31
 -They filed an MR but was denied and thus they
filed this petition for review on certiorari and insist
III. OBJECT AND DOCUMENTARY different version of events.
EVIDENCE (RULE 130)
-People of the phil filed their comment and said that
it is improper for this court to re-evaluate the
Section 1. Object as evidence. — Objects findings of the lower court.
as evidence are those addressed to the
senses of the court. When an object is -Petitiner reply that respondent failed to directly
relevant to the fact in issue, it may be confront the factual issues they had raised.
exhibited to, examined or viewed by the
court. (1a) ISSUE: whether or not petitioners are guilty beyond
reasonable doubt?

A. Object (Real) Evidence (Section 1) HELD:NO.

Daayata, et al v. People, G.R. No. 205745, March Requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt finds
8, 2017 basis not only in the due process clause of the
Constitution, but similarly, in the right of an
FACTS:  Petitioners Capistrano Daayata (Daayata), accused to be "presumed innocent until the contrary
Dexter Salisi (Salisi), and Bregido Malacat, Jr. is proved." "Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional
(Malacat) were charged with frustrated murder. presumption of innocence that lays such burden
upon the prosecution." Should the prosecution fail
-they box and struck one Rolando 0. Bahian with a to discharge its burden, it follows, as a matter of
stone and hitting the latter's head and several parts course, that an accused must be acquitted. As
of his body, thereby inflicting injuries. explained in Basilio v. People of the Philippine

-Five (5) witnesses testified for the prosecution: the In this case the prosecution case was not able to
offended party, Rolando Bahian (Bahian); Kagawad stand on its own merits. There were doubts on
Leonardo Abalde (Kagawad Abalde) of Barangay whether challenged the petitioners in vicente’s
San Simon, Cagayan de Oro City; Barangay house, whether complainant was relentlessly
Captain Reynaldo Yafiez (Barangay Captain assaulted
Yafiez); Dr. Percy H. Arreza (Dr. Arreza) of the
Cagayan de Oro City Hospital; and Dr. John Mata It appears that, rather than letting the better part of
(Dr. Mata), the surgeon who tended to Bahian. reason and modesty prevail, Bahian elected to make
good on his threat to eventually just get even with
-According to the witness Bahian has altercation his adversaries. Along the way, it even appears that
with Salisi in a Basketball game Bahian and he enlisted the aid of Kagawad Abalde, whose
Kagawad Abalde made their way to Barangay participation in the clash in the morning of
Captain Yafiez' house.18 While on their way, they December 17, 1995, as the defense recounted, was
were blocked by petitioners.19 Daayata hit Bahian not as a pacifier but also as an aggressor.
on the left part of his chest.20 Bahian staggered and Unfortunately for Bahian, it appears that his own
fell onto a parked jeep.21 Salisi then hit Bahian with hubris and lack of fighting prowess not only
a stone on the left side of his forehead, causing prolonged his quarrel, but even brought him
Bahian to fall to the ground.22 While Bahian was potentially fatal physical harm.
lying prostrate on the ground, petitioners boxed and
kicked Bahian.23 Kagawad Abalde tried his best to
get Bahian away but to no avail.24 All he could do
was to shout for help.25 Daayata then poked a gun at
Bahian, Malacat unsheathed a bolo, and Salisi
wielded an iron bar.  People v. Larrañaga, G.R.
No. 138874-75. January 31,
2006
RTC decision- find them guilty of frustrated muder.
Facts:
On appeal the CA affirmed the RTC.
A Decision convicting the Uy
brothers, together with Francisco Juan
Larrañaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen
Page 2 of 31
Adlawan, Alberto Caño and Ariel Balansag temporal.6 There being no aggravating and
of the crimes of (a) special complex crime mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention imposed on James Andrew is reclusion
with homicide and rape; and (b) simple temporal in its medium period. Applying
kidnapping and serious illegal detention. the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he
should be sentenced to suffer the penalty
Three (3) Justices of the Court of twelve (12) years of prision mayor in its
maintain their position that RA 7659 is maximum period, as minimum, to
unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes seventeen (17) years of reclusion
the death penalty; nevertheless, they temporal in its medium period, as
submit to the ruling of the majority that maximum.
the law is constitutional and the death
penalty can be lawfully imposed in the People v. Guarin, G.R. Nos. 83437-38, July 17,
case at bar. 1996

In accordance with Article 83 of The PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-

Revised Penal Code, as amended by appellee,
Section 25 of RA No. 7659, upon the vs.
finality of this Decision the records of this WILFREDO GUARIN y REYES, accused-
case forwarded to the Office of the appellant.
President for the possible exercise of Her
Excellency’s pardoning power. In the said FACTS:
motion the Uy brothers claim that James The accused Wilfredo Guarin armed with M16
Andrew was only seventeen (17) years and armalite rifle with Serial No. RP 107024 issued to
two hundred sixty two (262) days old at him as a former member of the Mangatarem INP,
the time the crimes were committed. with intent to kill, with treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there, willfully,
To substantiate such claim, he begs unlawfully and feloniously shoot Alicia Reyes,
leave and pleads that we admit at this inflicting upon her "gunshot wound — POE — 0.5
stage of the proceedings his (1) Certificate x 0.5 cm., 3rd ICS anterior axillary line left.
of Live Birth issued by the National
Statistics Office, and (2) Baptismal
Certificate. In the ultimate, he prays that The defense witnesses states that  saw a man on the
his penalty be reduced, as in the case of road brandishing a bolo at a man on a motorcycle,
but he was unable to specifically identify them or
his brother James Anthony.
state their names. Even assuming the same to be
true, it cannot be concluded from his bare statement
Issue:
that the formen was then in the act of committing an
unlawful aggression.
WON Andrew should be convicted.
The second defense witness, Norma Reyes Casipit,
RULING:
merely declared that she saw Reyes and appellant
on the road, and that she saw Reyes moving towards
Yes, however Upon a person over fifteen appellant while shouting, "I will kill you," and the
and under eighteen years of age the latter fired shots to the air. Again, granting the truth
penalty next lower than that prescribed by of her story, the fact remains that she never testified
law shall be imposed, but always in the on the actual shooting since, according to her, she
proper period. ran away and went to the house of appellant to
inform his wife about what was supposedly taking
Thus, the imposable penalty on James place
Andrew, by reason of his minority, is one
degree lower than the statutory penalty. -He plead not guilty because his argue that it is for
The penalty for the special complex crime self defense.
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
with homicide and rape, being death, one
degree lower therefrom is reclusion However the court found him guilty of the crime of
perpetua.5 On the other hand, the penalty Murder and Frustrated Murder, respectively,
for simple kidnapping and serious illegal beyond reasonable doubt, as charged in the two
detention is reclusion perpetua to death. information.
One degree lower therefrom is reclusion
Page 3 of 31
ISSUE: Whether or not he acted for self defense?
Facts:
HELD: NO
Respondents, together with one
The factual ambience of the case at bar also readily Celeste Tagudin (Tagudin), were former
yields the conclusion that alevosia attended the employees of herein petitioner company.
commission of the crimes. The evidence establishes
that the victim was suddenly shot by appellant while Petitioner filed a criminal
the former was without any opportunity to defend complaint for qualified theft against
himself. Appellant deliberately adopted means to respondents and Tagudin, accusing them
ensure the consummation of his objective to the of having taken HP ink cartridges from the
extent of availing himself of two automatic and company's stock room through stealth and
heavy caliber firearms and rapidly firing at the without the consent of petitioner or any of
victim while the latter was in a defenseless state. its authorized representatives. In a
Resolution/Recommendation4 dated
On appellant's invocation of self-defense, the Court March 22, 2012, the Assistant City
entertains serious doubts on the veracity of the Prosecutor (ACP) of Angeles City
testimonies of witnesses Lucio Basa and Norma recommended that the complaint against
Reyes Casipit, and rejects the testimony of appellant Tagudin be dismissed for insufficiency of
for being inherentlincredible. As earlier stated, the evidence. Petitioner filed a Motion for
presence of several fatal gunshot wounds on the Reconsideration, but the same was denied
body of the deceased is physical evidence which by the RTC in its Order. Hence, the
eloquently refutes such defense.17 If the intention of petitioner presented the an argument and
appellant was merely to defend himself from the
one of those is THE COURTS MUST
supposed aggression of the deceased who was at the
ABIDE BY THE EVIDENCE FORMALLY
time of the incident allegedly drunk and holding a
OFFERED DURING THE TRIAL SUCH
bolo, appellant could have easily repelled that
THAT OBJECT AND OTHER EVIDENCE
aggression with one or two shots at the legs or non-
ALREADY ADMITTED SHOULD BE THE
vital part of the victim's anatomy. Also, appellant
BASES OF THE FINDINGS OF FACTS
was then riding a motorcycle and armed with an
armalite and a revolver. Evidently, he could have AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURTS
easily evaded the aggression of the deceased by x x x.
simply speeding away or, as just stated, by aiming
at the legs or feet of the advancing Orlando Reyes,
instead of shooting him nine times in vital areas of
his body. All these are even on the supposition ex Issue: WON Reyes ahall be held
hypothesi that the supposed encounter on the road liable for the complaint filed against
did actually happen. him/

Ruling:

THUS, decision affirmed and some modification No, The court cannot consider any
to the other crim case for less serious physical evidence which has not been presented,
injury. identified and offered.All of the
prosecution witnesses had no personal
knowledge of the fact of taking: thus, there
was no clear and convincing evidence as
B. Documentary Evidence to the fact of taking.

Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Witness Jovita Matias testified that he

Documents as evidence consist of writing lifted pictures from the DVD copy of the
or any material containing letters, words, video recording; however, his testimony on
numbers, figures, symbols or other modes what were depicted on the pictures
of written expression offered as proof of (Exhibits DD to UU) could not be given
their contents. (n) much weight, as the pictures themselves
were not clear and the video file from
which the said pictures were lifted from
 Yokohama Tire v. Reyes, et was (sic) not presented. If it were true that
al., G.R. No. 236686, the video recording clearly showed
February 5, 2020 accused Sandra in the act of taking the
Page 4 of 31
cartridges, then the pictures which had donated site. In fact, It renamed the
been lifted from said video recording school as Isaias Del Rosario Primary
should have clearly depicted such School. There was no dispute that the
fact. Thus, it is the court’s opinion that property was registered in the name of
the best evidence of the fact of taking respondents; hence. The parties agreed to
should have been the video recording a reverse trial with DECS presenting
itself; however, no witness for the Nicolas, De Jesus and Judge Natividad as
prosecution ever identified said video witnesses to prove that there was a valid
recording nor any DVD copy thereof. donation to the municipality. Nicolas:
witnessed Isaias and then Mayor Ramos
sign the deed of donation in favor of the
a. Best Evidence Rule municipality, which was made in the
 DECS v. Del Rosario, et al, presence of Judge Natividad. De Jesus: In
G.R. No. 146586, January 26, 1991, the barangay council and Isaias’
2005 children had a meeting in the presence of
Judge Natividad who informed them that
Doctrine: the land was donated by their father. The
children agreed but requested that the
The best or primary evidence of a school be renamed after their father. The
donation of real property is an council tried to secure a copy of the deed
authentic copy of the deed of donation from the municipality but, according to
with all the formalities required by the people in the municipal hall, the deed
Article 749 of the Civil Code; When a got lost when they transferred to the new
party wants to prove the contents of a municipal bldg. The DECS office in
document, the best evidence is the Malolos could likewise not find a copy of
original writing itself. Secondary the deed. Judge Natividad: In 1961, while
evidence of the contents of a document he was still a municipal councilor, Isaias,
refers to evidence other than the his relative, came to him and told him that
original document itself; The correct he was willing to donate a portion of the
order of proof is as follows: existence, lot for a school site, as he saw the plight of
execution, loss, contents, although the small pupils in their place. He also
court in its discretion may change this testified that he prepared the deed which
order if necessary. Prior to the was signed by Isaias in his residence and
introduction of secondary evidence, a accepted by the municipality through a
party must establish the existence and resolution, a copy of which could not be
due execution of the instrument, after found due to the transfer of the municipal
which he must prove that the hall from he old to the new bldg. RTC
document was lost or destroyed. dismissed the complaint, stating that the
defense was able to prove the due
execution of the deed of donation and its
FACTS: acceptance, as well as the loss of the
same, in accordance with Sec. 4, Rule
Respondents filed a complaint for recovery 130. It stated the rule that a
of possession against DECS, alleging that recantation/recollection of witness is a
they own a property in Kaypombo, Sta. form of secondary evidence to prove the
Maria, Bulacan, wherein the Kaypombo existence/content of a document. Since
Primary School Annex (KPPS) was the loss of the deed subject matter of this
occupying a portion thereof through their case was likewise duly proved by the
and their predecessors-in-interests’ defense, exerting the best possible efforts
tolerance. They allege that KPPS refused to locate or secure a copy of the same and
to vacate despite their valid demands to do without bad faith on its part, it is bent to
so. DECS claims that sometime in 1959, give a greater weight to the secondary
Isias Del Rosario, respondents’ father, evidence adduced by the defense vis-à-vis
donated a portion of the property to the the title in the name of the Del Rosarios,
Municipality of Sta. Maria for school site most particularly in this case, where the
purposes. The deed and acceptance was they failed to make it appear that other
prepared by Atty. Natividad. KPPS started and more secondary evidence is known to
occupying the donated site in 1962. Thus, DECS and can be produced by them. CA
DECS now claims ownership of the reversed, holding that DECS failed to
Page 5 of 31
prove the existence and due execution of signing of the document, during cross,
the deed of donation as well as the Nicolas admitted that he did not read and
Resolution of the municipal council did not have personal knowledge of the
accepting the donation. It was not fully contents of the document that Isaias and
satisfied that DECS or the Municipality the mayor supposedly signed. In the same
had made a diligent search of the alleged vein, De Jesus’ testimony does not help to
“lost” deed of donation. MR denied. establish the deed of donation’s existence,
execution and contents. He testified that
ISSUE: he never saw the deed of donation. On
cross, he admitted that the information
Whether or Not the DECS failed to prove that Isaias donated the lot to the
the due execution of the DoD and the Municipality was only relayed to him by
resolution of the municipal council Judge Natividad himself to establish the
accepting the donation, as well as the loss loss of the deed of donation. DECS did not
of the documents as the cause of their introduce in evidence the municipal
unavailability – YES. council Resolution accepting the donation.
There is also no proof that the donee
RULING: communicated in writing its acceptance to
Article 749 of the Civil Code requires that the donor aside from the circumstance
the donation of real property must be that DECS constructed the school during
made in a public instrument. Otherwise, Isaias’ lifetime without objection on his
the donation is void. The best or primary part. There is absolutely no showing that
evidence of a donation of real property is these steps were noted in both
an authentic copy of the deed of donation instruments. Prior to the introduction of
with all the formalities required by Article secondary evidence, a party must
749 of the Civil Code. The duty to produce establish the existence and due execution
the original document arises when the of the instrument. After a party
subject of the inquiry are the contents of establishes the existence and due
the writing in which case there can be no execution of the document, he must prove
evidence of the contents of the writing that the document was lost or destroyed.
other than the writing itself. Simply put, DECS allegedly made a search in the
when a party wants to prove the contents municipal building and in the DECS
of the document, the best evidence is the Division Office in Bulacan. The copies of
original writing itself. A party may prove the deed of donation furnished these
the donation by other competent or offices were purportedly “lost” when these
secondary evidence under the exceptions offices transferred to new locations.
in Sec. 3, Rule 130, and Sec. 5, Rule 130 However, as the CA correctly pointed out,
in relation thereto. Secondary evidence of Judge Natividad who claimed to have
the contents of a document refers to notarized the deed of donation failed to
evidence other than the original document account for other copies of the deed,
itself. A party may introduce secondary which the law strictly enjoins him to
evidence of the contents of a written record, and furnish to other designated
instrument not only when the original is government offices. The Notarial Law
lost or destroyed, but also when it cannot mandates a notary public to record in his
be produced in court, provided there is no notarial register the necessary information
bad faith on the part of the offeror. regarding the instrument acknowledged
However, a party must first satisfactorily before him. The Notarial Law also
explain the loss of the best or primary mandates the notary public to retain a
evidence before he can resort to secondary copy of the instrument acknowledged
evidence. A party must first present to the before him when it is a contract. The
court proof of loss or other satisfactory notarial register is a record of the notary
explanation for non-production of the public’s official acts. Acknowledged
original instrument. The correct order of instruments recorded in the notarial
proof is as follows: existence, execution, register are public documents. If the
loss, contents, although the court in its instrument is not recorded in the notarial
discretion may change this order if register and there is no copy in the
necessary. While Nicolas’ testimony may notarial records, the presumption arises
have established to some extent the that the document was not notarized and
existence of the deed as he witnessed the is not a public document. DECS should
Page 6 of 31
have produced at the trial the notarial demand letters were made by CSFL to TKI
register where Judge Natividad as the for the payment of its unpaid accounts,
notary public should have recorded the but to no avail. To protect its interest,
deed of donation. Alternatively, DECS CSFL filed a complaint for collection of
should have explained the unavailability of sum of money and damages against TKI
the notarial register. Judge Natividad before the RTC.
could have also explained why he did not
retain a copy of the deed of donation as After the presentation of its last witness,
required by law. As the Court of Appeals CSFL filed its Formal Offer of Exhibits
correctly observed, there was no evidence seeking the admission of the sales invoices
showing that DECS looked for a copy from and order slips. TKI objected to the
the Clerk of Court concerned or from the admission of the documents offered,
National Archives. All told, these contending that several of the sales
circumstances preclude a finding that invoices and order slips should not be
DECS or the Municipality made a diligent admitted because they were merely
search to obtain a copy of the deed of photocopies. TKI also objected to the
donation. admission of documents by which CSFL
sought to prove its claim for attorney's
fees. Nonetheless the RTC issued an Order
 Capital Shoes Factory, LTD. admitting all the exhibits offered by CSFL.
V. Traveler Kids, Inc., G.R. No. TKI filed a motion for reconsideration but
200065, September 24, 2014 was denied by the RTC. It ruled that the
sales invoices and order slips could be
Doctrine: Duplicate originals are admitted because the duplicate originals
admissible as evidence in accordance of the invoices were already sufficiently
with Section 4 (b), Rule 130 of the established by the testimony of CSFL's
Rules of Court. In this case the witness officer and principal witness, Susan Chiu.
convincingly explained that petitioner
usually prepares two (2) copies of Instead of presenting evidence, TKI opted
invoices for a particular transaction, to file a petition for certiorari with prayer
giving one copy to a client and for TRO before the CA. Thereafter the CA
retaining the other copy. The Court saw rendered a decision partially granting
no reason why Section 4 (b), Rule 130 TKI's petition and denying the admission
of the Rules of Court should not apply of sales invoices and order slips presented
in admitting the petitioner’s copy of as evidence by CSFL. Applying Section 3,
the invoice as evidence. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the CA
explained that while it was true that the
Facts: Capital Shoes Factory Ltd., (CSFL) original copies of the sales invoices were
and Traveller Kids, Inc. (TKI), entered into the best evidence to prove TKI's obligation,
an agreement, wherein they agreed that CSFL merely presented photocopies of the
TKI would import the shoes and sandals questioned exhibits. It stated that Chiu's
made by CSFL from its China factory. testimony merely established the existence
After TKI placed numerous purchase or due execution of the original invoices.
orders, CSFL began manufacturing the CSFL, however, did not present the
goods pursuant to the special designs and original invoices, only the photocopies,
specifications of TKI. CSFL then shipped contrary to Section 5, Rule 130 of the
the goods to TKI. It was their arrangement Rules of Court. CSFL filed an MR with the
that TKI would pay thirty (30%) percent of CA but was denied thus the present case
the purchase price of the goods by way of before the SC.
letters of credit, and the balance of
seventy (70%) percent by way of CSFL now argues that the excluded
telegraphic transfer, thirty (30) days from documents are admissible in evidence
the date of delivery of the goods. because it was duly established during the
trial that the said documents were
For the first three years, TKI was able to duplicate originals, and not mere
pay its purchase orders and the photocopies, considering that they were
shipments made by CSFL. In 2004, prepared at the same time as the
however, TKI started to default in its originals. On the other hand, TKI counters
payments. Both verbal and written that CSFL's claim that the photocopied
Page 7 of 31
documents were duplicate originals was Heir of Cardenas v. The Christian and
just a unilateral and self-serving Missionary Alliance Churches of the Philippines,
statement without any supportive Inc.,
evidence.
FACTS: Petitioner Remedios], heir of [Sps.
Issue: WON sales invoices and order slips, Cardenas], represented by her attorney-in-fact,
offered as evidence by CSFL, are duplicate [Janet] who is her daugther[4] filed a Complaint for
originals and thus admissible as evidence? Recovery of Possession and Use of Real Property
and Damages against [respondents] The Christian
Held: Yes. and Missionary Alliance Churches of the
Philippines, Inc. (CAMACOP) which is a religious
Records reveal that Chiu, CSFL's principal corporation, Reo Repollo [(Repollo)] and Leocadio
witness, was able to satisfactorily explain Duque, Jr. [(Duque, Jr.)] before the Regional Trial
that the documents in question were Court (RTC) of Midsayap, Cotabato.
duplicate originals of invoices and order
slips, and not mere photocopies. The - It was alleged that CAMACOP illegally occupy
transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) the property registered by the petitioners.
clearly show that Chiu convincingly
explained that CSFL usually prepared two -CAMACOP alleged that they actually bought the
(2) copies of invoices for a particular said property from certain Pastora.
transaction, giving one copy to a client
and retaining the other copy. The Court - However CAMACOP has no copy of the
combed through her testimony and found document is available because its counsel, Atty.
Calud, submitted to the then Secretary of
nothing that would indicate that the
Agriculture and Natural Resources of the
documents offered were mere photocopies.
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources
She remained firm and consistent with her
(DANR), now Department of Environment and
statement that the subject invoices were
Natural Resources (DENR), all the copies of the
duplicate originals as they were prepared
Deed of Sale.
at the same time. The Court saw no
reason why Section 4 (b), Rule 130 of the - The RTC rendered decision dismissing the
Rules of Court should not apply. At any complaint for lack of merit.
rate, those exhibits can be admitted as
part of the testimony of Chiu. -CAMACOP was able to provide sufficient
documentary and testimonial evidence that the
The Court went over the RTC records and subject property was indeed sold to it by Pastora.
the TSNs and found that, contrary to the Hence, the RTC found as a fact the existence of a
assertion of TKI, the duplicate originals sale transaction between CAMACOP and the
were produced in court and compared predecessor-in-interest of Janet and Remedios, i.e.,
with their photocopies during the hearing Pastora.
before the trial court. The transcripts bare
all of these but were missed by the CA, -On appeal, the CA denied and affirm the RTC
which believed the assertion of TKI that decision. It ruled that "failed to overcome the
what were produced in court and offered burden of proving her claim by preponderance of
in evidence were mere photocopies. The evidence [and found] that the court a quo did not err
TSNs further reveal that after the in its appreciation of the evidence and in ruling that
comparison, the photocopies were the there was in fact a sale of the subject property by
ones retained in the records. the late spouses in favor of [CAMACOP.] The
failure of [Janet] to prove her claim makes [the]
Records of the case are ordered remanded appeal vulnerable to denial.
to the trial court for appropriate
proceedings.
ISSUE: Whether or not CAMACOP has a better
right to possess the property?
b. Seconndary Evidence rule

HELD:NO.

As a general rule, a certificate of title serves as

evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible
Page 8 of 31
title to the property in favor of the person whose the place of its execution, unless the
name appears therein. parties intended otherwise. (8)

-in this case "the property Lot 90, Psd-37322 FACTS:

covered by TCT No. T-6097 is still registered in
the names of Pastora T. Cardenas and Eustaquio The accused was charged with
Cardenas. the crime of estafa, defined and
penalized under Article 315,
- "the same lot is still declared for tax purposes in paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised
the name of the plaintiffs Pastora Cardenas and Penal Code, as amended.
Eustaquio Cardenas.  While Tax Declarations are Teresita Lazaro, a rice trader in
not conclusive proof of ownership, at the very least Rizal, Nueva Ecija, gave the
they are proof that the holder has a claim of title petitioner the amount of
over the property and serve as sufficient basis for P132,000.00 for the purpose of
inferring possession. buying palay.  According to the
"Kasunduan" signed by the
In asserting that the subject property was sold by petitioner, the parties agreed that
Pastora to CAMACOP, the latter relies on the for every kilo of palay bought the
existence of a Deed of Sale purportedly executed in petitioner shall earn a
1962. CAMACOP however maintains that, since all
commission of twenty centavos
of the copies of this alleged Deed of Sale had been
(P0.20). But if no pal ay is
supposedly lost, it had to resort to the presentation
purchased and delivered on
of secondary evidence to prove the existence of this
November 28, the petitioner must
Deec of Sale.
return the P132,000.00 to
Teresita within one (1) week after
According to Section 5, Rule 130 of the Revised
November 28.  After failing to
Rules on Evidence, when the original document has
receive any palay or the
been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or P132,000.00 on November 28
existence and the cause of its unavailability without and one (1) week thereafter,
bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by respectively, Teresita made oral
presenting secondary evidence. These secondary and written demands to the
evidence pertain to: (1) a copy of the lost document, petitioner for the return of the
(2) by a recital of the contents of the lost document P132,000.00 but her demands
in some authentic document, or (3) by a testimony were simply ignored. She thus
of a witnesses, in the order stated. filed an affidavit-complaint for
estafa against the petitioner
before the Fiscal's Office. The
accused denied that she entered
While the allegation of CAMACOP that it had lost into a "principal-agent"
copies of the Deed of absolute sale it is quite agreement with, and received the
unbelievable and extraordinary that not even a P132,000.00 from, Teresita. She
single copy of the purported Deed of Sale was alleged that she owed Teresita a
retained by CAMACOP or its counsel, considering balance of P13,704.32 for the
the grave importance of such a document. fertilizers and rice that she
purchased from the latter in
THUS, instant appeal is granted, the RTC and CA 1995 and 1996, 5 and that, in
decision is hereby reverse and set aside. November 1996, she was made to
sign a blank "Kasunduan" that
reflected no written date and
amount. She likewise denied
c. Parole Evidence Rule (Sec. personally receiving any written
10) demand letter from Teresita.RTC:
 Carganillo v. People, G.R. No. RTC convicted the petitioner of
182424, September 22, 2014 the crime of estafa: On appeal,
the CA affirmed the petitioner's
Section 10. Interpretation of a writing conviction.
according to its legal meaning. — The
language of a writing is to be interpreted Issue:
according to the legal meaning it bears in
Page 9 of 31
 WON parol vidence rule comes FACTS:  Benjamin Joseph Nakamoto (Nakamoto)
into play when the parties went to work out at the Body Shape Gym  and lost
executed the written contract. his NOKIA 3660 cell phone where it was alleged
that petitioner Guilberner Franco (Franco) stole it.

Ruling: - There were 3 witnesses testify that Franco

took the cap and cellphone of the
Section 9, Rule 130 of the respondents, that he was the only one eho
Rules of Court provides that a left the gym after it was respondent
party to a written agreement may announced that the phone was lost and
present evidence to modify, nobody should leave the gym and lastly the
explain or add to the terms of the caretaker saw Franco not actually working
agreement if he puts in issue in out but was just walking in the area.
his pleading the following: a. An - The RTC decision finds him guilty beyond
intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or reasonable doubt due to positive testimony
imperfection in the written of Rosario.
agreement; b. The failure of the -  The CA affirmed the decision of RTC.
written agreement to express the
true intent and agreement of the
parties thereto; c. The validity of ISSUE:WHETHER OR NOT THE ERRED IN ITS
the written agreement; or d. The RULING?
existence of other terms agreed to
HELD: YES.
by the parties or their successors
in interest after the execution of
Circumstantial evidence, Section 4, Rule 133 of the
the written agreement.  In this
Rules of Court provides that the following
case, the petitioner alleges that
requisites must concur:
the subject "Kasunduan" failed to
express the real agreement (l) there must be more than one circumstance to
between her and Teresita; that convict;
theirs was a plain and simple
loan agreement and not that of a (2) the facts on which the inference of guilt is
principalagent relationship in the based must be proved; and
buy-and-sell of palay. The
documentary and testimonial (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such
evidence presented by the as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
petitioner, however, fail to With respect to the third requisite, it is essential that
support her claims.  The the circumstantial evidence presented must
petitioner's claim that she had constitute an unbroken chain, which leads one to a
been the victim of a fraud fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the
because Teresita deceived her into accused, to the exclusion of others, as the guilty
signing a blank document. For person.
fraud to vitiate consent, the
deception employed must be the Rosario's testimony definitely cannot fall under
causal (dolo causante) the first category of positive identification. While
inducement to the making of the it may support the conclusion that Franco took a
contract, and must be serious in cell phone from the altar, it does not establish with
character. In this case, the SC certainty that what Franco feloniously took,
find no vitiated consent on the assuming that he did, was Nakamoto's cell phone.
part of the petitioner as she was Rosario merely testified that Franco took "a cell
fully aware of the possible phone."
implications of the act of signing a
document Ramos, the gym caretaker, also testified that he
did not see Franco take Nakamoto 's cell phone
and only assumed that the cell phone on the altar
a. Authentication and was Nakamoto's.
Proof of Documents
Franco v. People, G.R. No. 191185, February 1,  Records show that there were other people in
2016 the gym before and after Nakamoto lost his cell

Page 10 of 31
phone. In fact, Nakamoto himself suspected prove only the administration of the
Rosario of having taken his cell phone sacrament of baptism and not the
veracity of the declarations therein.
Respondents moreover refute the
Thus in this case- No other convincing evidence certification issued by the local civil
was presented by the prosecution that would link registry arguing that it does not
him to the theft.57 The fact Franco took a cell prove filiation but only the fact that
phone from· the altar does not necessarily point there is no record of Ligaya on file
to the conclusion that it was Nakamoto's cell with said office.
phone that he took. In the appreciation of RTC upheld the validity of the
circumstantial evidence, the rule is that the marriage between Vicente and
circumstances must be proved, and not Benita and considered the
themselves presumed. The circumstantial subsequent marriage between
evidence must exclude the possibility that some Vicente and Leonora as void and
bigamous before it concluded that
other person has committed the offense charged.
the subject property was part of the
conjugal property of Vicente and
Benita. Consequently, the trial court
 Cercado-Siga v. Cercado, Jr., held that the Extrajudicial
G.R. No. 185374, March 11, Settlement of the Estate (Deed)
executed and signed by respondents
2015
is null and void because it deprived
Benita of her share of the property
Facts:
as surviving spouse and impaired
the shares and legitimes of
petitioners Simplicia Cercado-Siga
petitioners. Thus, it ruled that
(Simplicia) and Ligaya Cercado-
petitioners are entitled to recover
Belison (Ligaya) claimed that they
their share in the subject property.
are the legitimate children of the
late Vicente and Benita Castillo
CA ruled that the trial court "can
(Benita), who were married last 9
pass upon the issue of the validity of
October 1929 in Pililla, Rizal. In
marriage of Vicente and Leonora
support of the existence thereof,
[because] no judicial action is
petitioners presented a copy of the
necessary to declare a marriage an
Contrato Matrimonial which was
absolute nullity and the court may
issued by Iglesia Filipina
pass upon the validity of a marriage
Independiente church. Petitioners
even in a suit not directly instituted
insist that the Contrato Matrimonial
to question the same, as long as it is
is a public document because it is
essential to the determination of the
required by law to be recorded in
case before it." However, the
the local civil registrar and the
appellate court found that the
National Statistics Office (NSO).
Contrato Matrimonial of Vicente and
Petitioners claim to have in their
Benita, being a private document,
possession a duplicate original of
was not properly authenticated,
the Contrato Matrimonial which
hence, not admissible in evidence.
should be regarded as original.
Moreover, the appellate court did
Granting that the Contrato
not consider the baptismal
Matrimonial is a private document,
certificate submitted by petitioners
petitioners maintain that said
as conclusive proof of filiation. The
document should be considered an
Joint Affidavit executed by a certain
ancient document which should be
Mario Casale and Balas Chimlangco
excluded from the requirement of
attesting to the birth of Ligaya to
authentication.
Vicente and Benita was not given
credence by the appellate court for
In their Answer, respondents alleged
being a hearsay evidence. For failure
that they are the legitimate heirs of
of petitioners to prove their cause of
Vicente and Leonora, who were
action by preponderance of
married on 27 June 1977 as
evidence, the appellate court
evidenced by a marriage certificate
reversed and set aside the Decision
registered with the Local Civil
and Resolution of the RTC.
Registrar of Binangonan, Rizal. In
their Comment, respondents submit
Issue:
that the Contrato Matrimonial is a
private document and the fact that
Whether the marriage contract or
marriages are required to be
Contrato Matrimonial is sufficient to
registered in the local civil registrar
prove the fact of marriage between
does not ipso facto make it a public
Vicente and Benita.
document. Respondents assert that
the certificate of baptism is likewise
Ruling:
a private document which tends to

Page 11 of 31
No. Petition is DENIED. Extrajudicial Settlement of the
Estate of Vicente and Leonora.
The Court of Appeals correctly ruled
that it is a private document. As Ratio:
early as in the case of U.S. v. Ancient documents are considered
Evangelista,22 it has been settled from proper custody if they come
that church registries of births, from a place from which they might
marriages, and deaths made reasonably be expected to be found.
subsequent to the promulgation of Custody is proper if it is proved to
General Orders No. 68 and the have had a legitimate origin or if the
passage of Act No. 190 are no longer circumstances of the particular case
public writings, nor are they kept by are such as to render such an origin
duly authorized public officials. probable. If a document is found
They are private writings and their where it would not properly and
authenticity must therefore be naturally be, its absence from the
proved as are all other private proper place must be satisfactorily
writings in accordance with the accounted for.
rules of evidence.
d. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
Petitioners insist on the
admissibility of the marriage
a. Qualification of Witnesses
contract on the ground that it is a i. Witnesses and their
duplicate original, hence, the Qualifications (Sec. 21)
original need not be produced. The
Court do not agree. The Court had
previously ruled in Vallarta v. Court
of Appeals that " a signed carbon
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Chiong, 543 SCRA
copy or duplicate of a document 308
executed at the same time as the
original is known as a duplicate DOCTRINE
original and maybe introduced in
evidence without accounting for the
A witness’ relationship to the victim does not
non- production of the original. But,
an unsigned and uncertified automatically affect the veracity of his or her
document purporting to be a carbon testimony. While this principle is often applied in
copy is not competent evidence. It is criminal cases, we deem that the same principle
because there is no public officer may apply in this case, albeit civil in nature. If a
acknowledging the accuracy of the witness’ relationship with a party does not ipso
copy."
facto render him a biased witness in criminal cases
On the other hand, the document where the quantum of evidence required is proof
presented to prove Ligaya’s kinship beyond reasonable doubt, there is no reason why the
is a Joint Affidavit executed by two same principle should not apply in civil cases where
persons to the effect that she was the quantum of evidence is only preponderance of
born to Vicente and Benita. These evidence.
two affiants were never presented in
court. Thus, their statement is
tantamount to hearsay evidence.
FACTS
Petitioners also presented
certifications from the local civil  Philimare, as the authorized Philippine agent
registrar certifying that the records
of birth from 1930 to 1946 were
of TransOcean, hired respondent Steven
destroyed by fire and/or war. In Chiong as Third Engineer of TransOcean’s
said documents, there contains an vessel  at the San Diego, California Port.
advice that petitioners may make a
further verification with the NSO  Philimare purchased for Chiong a Northwest
because the local civil registrar
submits a copy of the birth
plane ticket for San Diego, California with a
certificate of every registered birth departure date of April 1, 1989 from Manila.
with the NSO. The advice was not
heeded. Petitioners failed to present  Chiong was present at MIA on April 1,
a certification from NSO whether 1989, passed through the PCG counter
such records do exist or not.
without delay, proceeded to the Northwest
Considering that petitioners failed to check-in counter, but when he presented his
prove the validity of the marriage confirmed ticket thereat, he was not issued a
between Vicente and Benita, it boarding pass, and ultimately barred from
follows that they do not have a boarding Northwest Flight No. 24 on that
cause of action in the case for the day.
declaration of nullity of the
Page 12 of 31
 It appears that Chiong’s name was crossed the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA)
out and substituted with "W. Costine" in Decision.
Northwest’s Air Passenger Manifest.
ISSUE
 Chiong’s counsel demanded as
compensation to northwest. However,  Whether or not Choing's witnesses in
Northwest objected contending that criminal case filed by northwest should be
Northwest contends that Chiong, as a "no- considered biased witnesses in Choing's
show" passenger on April 1, 1989, already civil case.
defaulted in his obligation to abide by the
terms and conditions of the contract of RULING
carriage;18 and thus, Northwest could not
have been in breach of its reciprocal The court ruled in the negative. If a witness’
obligation to transport Chiong. In sum, relationship with a party does not ipso facto render
Northwest insists that Chiong’s testimony is him a biased witness in criminal cases where the
a complete fabrication, supposedly quantum of evidence required is proof beyond
demonstrated by the following: (1) Chiong’s reasonable doubt, there is no reason why the same
seaman service record book reflects that he principle should not apply in civil cases where the
left the Philippines after April 1, 1989, quantum of evidence is only preponderance of
specifically on April 17, 1989, to board evidence. In this case, Chiong’s witnesses—who
the M/V Elbia, and was discharged all corroborated his testimony on his presence at the
therefrom upon his personal request; (2) the airport on, and flight details for, April 1, 1989, and
Information filed against Chiong for False that he was subsequently bumped-off—are,
Testimony; and (3) the Flight Manifest and likewise, employees of Philimare which may have
the Passenger Name Record both indicate an interest in the outcome of this case. In one of the
that he was a "no-show" passenger. decisions of the court, it was held that a witness’
relationship to the victim does not automatically
 Chiong filed a Complaint for breach of affect the veracity of his or her testimony. While
contract of carriage before the RTC. this principle is often applied in criminal cases, the
same principle may apply in this case, albeit civil in
 In the course of proceedings, Northwest, nature.
filed a separate criminal complaint for False
Testimony against Chiong based on the
latter’s testimony that he did not leave the
Philippines after April 1, 1989 contrary to ii. Testimony Confined to
the notations in his seaman service record Personal Knowledge (Sec. 22)
book that he had left the country on April
17, 1989, and returned on October 5 of the Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental
same year. Chiong did not participate in the incapacity or immaturity. — The following
preliminary investigation; thus, on persons cannot be witnesses:
December 14, 1990, the City Prosecutor of
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the
Manila filed Information against Chiong time of their production for examination,
with the RTC. However, the proceedings is such that they are incapable of
were denied by the RTC. intelligently making known their
perception to others;
 As to the civil case, the RTC rendered a
Decision finding preponderance of evidence (b) Children whose mental maturity is
in favor of Chiong, and holding Northwest such as to render them incapable of
liable for breach of contract of carriage. The perceiving the facts respecting which they
RTC ruled that the evidence adduced by the are examined and of relating them
truthfully.
parties supported the conclusion that Chiong
was deliberately prevented from checking-in
and his boarding pass unjustifiably withheld
to accommodate an American passenger by
Binarao v. People, G.R. No. 243962 and 245521-
the name of W. Costine.
26, July 30, 2019
 On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the
ruling of the RTC. DOCTRINE
 Hence, this petition for review
on certiorari was filed by northwest seeking

Page 13 of 31
Entries made at or near the time of the transactions  The sandiganbayan convicted petitioner for
to which they refer, by a person deceased, or unable the crimes charged against her except the
to testify, who was in a position to know the facts violation of sec 3 of ra 3019.
therein stated. Such exception may be received as
prima facie evidence, if such person made the  Petitioner files a petition on certitiorari to
entries in his professional capacity or in the the sc.
performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular
course of business or duty.

FACTS ISSUE

 Petition for certiorari assails the decision of Whether or not the witnesses presented by the
the sandiganbayan convicting petitioner prosecution have no personal knowledge as to the
Sylvia Binarao. execution of the receipts during trial.

 Petitioner was charged with estafa,

malversation of public funds, falsification of
pub docs and violation of sec. 3 of ra 3019 RULING

 Petitioner travelled to cdo to attened the No. Section 36 of the rules of court provides for the
seminar on barangay accounting and hearsay rule that a witness can testify only to those
auditing together with 6 barangay facts which he knows of his personal knowledge;
bookkeepers and a driver. that, is, which are derived from his own perception
except entries made at or near the time of the
 They stayed at the coa’s dorm transactions to which they refer, by a person
deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position
 Petitioner attended the quarterly meeting of to know the facts therein stated. Such exception
the phil league of local budget officers in may be received as prima facie evidence, if such
roxas city. Since there was no direct flight to person made the entries in his professional capacity
roxas, pet. Went to manila and stayed in first or in the performance of duty and in the ordinary or
hotel in binondo manila regular course of business or duty.

 Petitioner stayed in chery blossoms hotel in In this case, when the managers of first hotel and
manila while she was on official business cherry blossoms hotel testified to the execution of
the receipts even if they were not personally the
 The prosecution presented 7 witnesses to ones who made the entries therein, they are still
prove the element of the crime charged admissible based on the stated exception.
against the petitioner. Whereas the petitioner
presented 2 witnesses including herself.

 The manager of first hotel testified that first

hotel submitted a photocopy of or because  Security Bank v. Gan, G.R.
the duplicate original was destroyed by No. 150464, June 27, 2006
typhoon ondoy.
There is no question that
 While the manager of cherry blossoms hotel the entries in the ledgers
submitted the original or and it was found were made by one whose
out that the amount appearing on the receipt duty it was to record
attached to the disbursement voucher transactions in the
provided by the petitioner was altered. ordinary or regular course
of the business. But for the
 The petitioner, on the othe rhand, testified entries to be prima facie
that she refunded the amount which was the evidence of the facts
discrepancy between the amount in the recorded, the Rule
receipt issued by the coa and the amount in interpose[s] a very
the receipt she submitted. As to the hotels, important condition, one
she claimed that she does not remember the which we think is truly
amounts paid. indispensable to the
probative worth of the

Page 14 of 31
entries as an exception to failed to establish with
the hearsay rule, and that substantial evidence that the
is that the entrant must be respondent does owe them
“in a position to know the that sum of money. The CA
facts therein stated.” affirmed the lower court
Undeniably, Mr. Mercado decision upon the court hence
was in a position to know this petition.
the facts of the check
deposits and withdrawals. ISSUE:
But the transfers of funds
through the debit memos in Whether or not petitioner has
question? established substantial
evidence that respondent is
FACTS: liable for the overdraft on his
Respondent Gan opened a account.
current account to the
petitioner which he can draw RULING:
check from its fund. Under a
special agreement with the The court held that the ledger
petitioner manager Mr. Qui, presented is not competent
respondent is allowed to evidence to prove that the
transfer fund from his respondent consented to the
account to another person’s transaction made on his
account. His transaction of account. Petitioner invoked
transferring fund from his Section 43 of Rule 130:
account to another account is “Entries in the course of
covered by a debit memo. In business – Entries made at, or
December 14, 1982, he was near the time of the
reportedly to have incurred a transactions to which they
negative balance in the refer, by a person deceased, or
amount of P153,757.78. By unable to testify, who was in a
Sept. 15, 1990 his total position to know the facts
obligation to the petitioner therein stated, may be
allegedly amounted to received as prima facie
P297,060.01 inclusive of evidence, if such person made
interest. Petitioner filed a the entries in his professional
complaint to recover the sum capacity or in the performance
of money from the respondent of duty and in the ordinary or
after his refusal to pay regular course of business or
contending that the alleged duty.” Under this exception to
overdraft was made from the hearsay rule, the
transactions without his admission in evidence of
knowledge and consent. entries in corporate books
Petitioner presented its required the satisfaction of
bookkeeper, Patricio Mercado the following conditions: 1.
who handles the respondent’s the person who made the
account and transactions in a entry must be dead, or unable
ledger. Records show that a to testify; 2. the entries were
transfer of fund from the made at or near the time of
respondent’s account was the transactions to which they
made to another person’s refer; 3. the entrant was in a
account which was made with position to know the facts
authority from Qui which stated in the entries; 4. the
resulted to the overdraft of his entries were made in his
account. Respondent denied professional capacity or in the
to have authorized such performance of a duty,
transaction. The lower court whether legal, contractual,
dismissed the case on the moral or religious; and 5. the
ground that the petitioner entries were made in the
Page 15 of 31
 ordinary or regular course of confidences of private life even at the risk
business or duty. The ledger of an occational failure of justice, and which
entries did not meet the first rejects such evidence because its admission
and third requisites. Mercado
had no personal knowledge of would lead to domestic disunion and
the facts constituting the unhappiness
entries, particularly those - Lastly, because where a want of domestic
entries which resulted in the exists there is danger of punishing one
negative balance. He had no spouse through the hostile testimony of the
knowledge of the truth or
other.
falsity of these entries. We
agree entirely with the The exceptions to this rule of marital privilege or
following discussion of the disqualification is when a spouse commit s an
trial court which was affirmed offense that directly attacks, or directly and vitally
by the CA: The plaintiff impairs, the conjugal relation
submits that the ledger cards
constituted the best evidence
of the transactions made by
the defendant with the bank
FACTS
relative to his account,
This court resolves a petition for review on
pursuant to Section 3 of Rule
certiorari filed by Vivian sanchez assailing the
130 of the Revised Rules on
decision of the rtc which denied her petition for a
Evidence. There is no
writ of amparo.
question that the entries in
Sanchez learned that her estranged husband
the ledgers were made by one labinghasa was allegedly one of the members of the
whose duty it was to record new peoples army who were gunned down by the
transactions in the ordinary pnp in antique.
or regular course of the Due to constant police presence caused anxiety and
business. But for the entries threat after the death of his husband, sanchez filed
to be prima facie evidence of before the rtc a petition for writ of amparo against
the facts recorded, the Rule police officials alleging that the they constant
interpose[s] a very important surveillance of her and her family made them fear
condition, one which we think for their safety and prevented them from going out
is truly indispensable to the of their house. Such surveillance and monitoring
probative worth of the entries should have informed them beforehand.
as an exception to the hearsay The rtc issued a writ of amparo and a temporary
rule, and that is that the protection order.
entrant must be “in a position The police officers denied violation or threatening
to know the facts therein to violate sanchez and her family’s right to life,
stated.” Undeniably, Mr. liberty, and security. They stressed that sanchez’s
Mercado was in a position to allegations were grounded on baseless assumptions,
know the facts of the check hearsay, mistaken belief, speculations, impression
deposits and withdrawals. But and feelings.
the transfers of funds through Later, the rct dismissed the petition for a writ of
the debit memos in question? amparo. It was held that sanchez failed to
substantiate her assertion that she became a person
Disqualification of witnesses of interest to the police after she had identified her
   Sanchez v. Darroca, G.R. No. 242257, husband’s dead body. This was because she was
October 15, 2019 unable to specificaaly allege the police officer’s acts
or the acts they sanctioned which threatened her
security and liberty.
DOCTRINE
Thus, sanchez filed her petition for review on
certiorari contending that she was able to prove with
Under the law, the reasons behind marital
substantial evidence that she and her children were
disqualification are-
under constant police surveillance and monitoring,
- Identity if interest
which constitutes a clear violation of their right to
- The consequent danger of perjury life, liberty, and security. Moreover, the police
- The policy of the law which deems it officer’s unauthorized taking and distribution of her
necessary to guard the security and photo was likewise a violation of her right to
Page 16 of 31
privacy, which has caused her great fear and Section 25. Parental and filial privilege. — No
anxiety. person may be compelled to testify against his
parents, other direct ascendants, children or
other direct descendants

ISSUE Section 26. Admission of a party. — The act,

declaration or omission of a party as to a
Whether or not the petitioner and her children are relevant fact may be given in evidence against
disqualified as a witness against her husband by him.
reason of marriage.

i. Parental and filial privilege

RULING
 Lee v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
Yes. The state recognized and supports the marriage 177861, July 13, 2010
as an inviolable social institution acknowledging the
importance of unfettered communication between DOCTRINE
the spouses.
The reasons behind marital disqualification are- Filial privilege applies only to “direct” ascendants
- Identity of interest and descendants, a family tie connected by a
- The consequent danger of perjury common ancestry—a stepdaughter has no common
ancestry by her stepmother
- The policy of the law which deems it
necessary to guard the security and FACTS
confidences of private life even at the risk
of an occational failure of justice, and which  Lee and keh had 11 children. They were
rejects such evidence because its admission immigrants from china.
would lead to domestic disunion and  Lee bought from china a young woman
named tiu as their housemaid.
unhappiness
 Lee-keh children believe that tiu had a
- Lastly, because where a want of domestic relationship with lee.
exists there is danger of punishing one  Later, keh died. Their children learned that
spouse through the hostile testimony of the tiu’s children with lee claimed that they
other. were children of lee and keh.
 Consequently. Lee-keh children requested
The exception to this rule is when a spouse commits the nbi to investigate the matter in which the
an offense that directly attacks, or directly and nbi concluded that they were not keh’s
vitally impairs, the conjugal relation. However, children. There was a probability that they
none of the exceptions to marital privilege exist in were children of tiu. The nbi found out that
this case. based on the hospital records of the lee’s
Petitioner admits to being separated from her other children, keh declrared age did not
deceased husband for more than a decade. Yet, this coincide with her actual age when she
does not suffice as an exception, as separation is not supposedly gave birth of such children.
tantamount to strained marital relations. Further,
neither spouse committed an offense that impaired As a result, lee-keh children filed two separate
their conjugal union. Labinghisa’s supposed petitions. One is for the deletion form the from the
membership in the new peoples army is not an certificate of live birth of the petitioner Emma Lee,
offense envisioned by jurisprudence which would one of Lee’s other children, the name Keh and
create an exception to the general rule of marital replace the same with the name Tiu to indicate her
disqualification. true mother’s name.
Hence, responsdent’s surveillance of petitioner and
her husband as witting or unwitting witnesses  And the other one was an ex parte request
against her husband or his activities is correctible by for the issuance of a subpoena ad
a writ of amparo. testificandum to compel tiu to testify in the
case.
 Such request was granted by the rtc.
b. Testimonial Privilege (Sec. 25-  However the ca set aside the decision of the
26) rtc and ruled thatTiu’s advanced age alone
does not render her incapable of testifying.
Page 17 of 31
  Hence, this petition Artemio with his second common-law wife.
Elven testified that that sometime before
the end of the school year in 1996, while
he was sleeping in one room with his
father, Cynthia, and two other younger
brothers, he was awakened by Cynthia’s
ISSUE loud cries. Looking towards her, he saw
his father on top of Cynthia, doing a
Whether or not tiu can testify in the correction of pumping motion. After about two minutes,
entry case that respondent lee=keh children filed for his father put on his short pants. Elven
the correction of the certificate of birth of petitioner further testified that Artemio was a very
emma lee to show that she is not keh’s daughter. strict and cruel father and a drunkard. He
angrily prohibited Cynthia from
entertaining any of her suitors. The trial
court convicted Artemio for one count of
RULING rape. Artemio challenges the competency
and credibility of Elven as a witness. He
Yes. ; Filial privilege applies only to “direct” argues that Elven, as his son, should have
ascendants and descendants, a family tie connected been disqualified as a witness against him
by a common ancestry—a stepdaughter has no under pursuant to the rule on filial
common ancestry by her stepmother. here Tiu, who privilege.
invokes the filial privilege, claims that she is the
stepmother of petitioner Emma Lee. The privilege ISSUE:
cannot apply to them because the rule applies only
to “direct” ascendants and descendants, a family tie Whether or not Elven Invencion should be
connected by a common ancestry. A stepdaughter disqualified as a witness pursuant to the
has no common ancestry by her stepmother. rule on filial privilege?

RULING:

NO. The competency of Elven to testify is

not affected by Section 25, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court, otherwise known as the
rule on “filial privilege.” This rule is not
strictly a rule on disqualification because
a descendant is not incompetent or
disqualified to testify against an
ascendant. The rule refers to a privilege
 People v. Invencion y Soriano, not to testify, which can be invoked or
G.R. No. 131636, March 5, waived like other privileges. As correctly
2003 observed by the lower court, Elven was not
compelled to testify against his father; he
The filial privilege rule is not strictly a chose to waive that filial privilege when he
rule on disqualification because a voluntarily testified against Artemio. Elven
descendant is not incompetent or declared that he was testifying as a
disqualified to testify against an witness against his father of his own
ascendant. The rule refers to a accord and only “to tell the truth.” Hence,
privilege not to testify, which can be his testimony is entitled to full credence.
invoked or waived like other DEAN’S CI
privileges.

FACTS: b.Testimonial Privilege

Artemio Invencion was charged before the ii Trade Secrets
RTC of Tarlac with thirteen counts of rape
committed against his 16-year-old
daughter, Cynthia (his daughter with his AIRPHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner,
first common-law-wife, Gloria Pagala). vs.
During the trial, the prosecution PENNSWELL, INC. Respondent.
presented Elven Invencion, the son of
Page 18 of 31
FACTS: Petitioner Air Philippines Corporation  is  trade secret is defined as a plan or process, tool,
engaged in the business of air transportation mechanism or compound known only to its owner
services. On the other hand, respondent Pennswell, and those of his employees to whom it is necessary
Inc. was organized to engage in the business of to confide it.
manufacturing and selling industrial chemicals,
solvents, and special lubricants. What is clear from the factual findings of the RTC
and the Court of Appeals is that the chemical
-Respondent alleged that the petitioner failed to formulation of respondent’s products is not known
comply with its obligation contracts thus the to the general public and is unique only to it. Both
former filed a complaint for a sum of money. courts uniformly ruled that these ingredients are not
within the knowledge of the public.
- The petitioner alleged that it was defrauded in the
amount of ₱592,000.00 by respondent for its
previous sale of four items, covered by Purchase Since such factual findings are generally not
Order No. 6626. Said items were misrepresented by reviewable by this Court, it is not duty-bound to
respondent as belonging to a new line, but were in analyze and weigh all over again the evidence
truth and in fact, identical with products petitioner already considered in the proceedings below.47 We
had previously purchased from respondent. need not delve into the factual bases of such
findings as questions of fact are beyond the pale of
-Petitioner filed a Motion to Compel 10 respondent to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Factual findings of
give a detailed list of the ingredients and chemical the trial court when affirmed by the Court of
components of the following products, to wit: (a) Appeals, are binding and conclusive on the
Contact Grease and Connector Grease; (b) Supreme Court.
Thixohtropic Grease and Di-Electric Strength
Protective Coating; and (c) Dry Lubricant and Anti-
Seize Compound. c.Admissions and Confessions
i. Admission of a Party
-the RTC rendered an Order granting the  Uchuan v. Lozada, G.R. No.
petitioner’s motion 172671, April 16, 2009

-Respondent argued that what petitioner endeavored FACTS:         

to inquire upon constituted a trade secret which
respondent cannot be forced to divulge. Respondent  Sisters Anita Lozada
maintained that its products are specialized Slaughter and Peregrina
lubricants, and if their components were revealed, Lozada Saribay were the
its business competitors may easily imitate and registered co-owners of 2
market the same types of products, in violation of lots in Cebu City.
its proprietary rights and to its serious damage and  The sisters, who were based
prejudice. in the United States, sold the
lots to their nephew Antonio
-The RTC gave credence to respondent’s reasoning, J.P. Lozada  under a Deed of
and reversed itself. Sale. Armed with a Special
Power of Attorney from Anita,
-petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule
Peregrina went to the house
65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals,
of their brother, Dr. Antonio
which denied the Petition and affirmed the CA
Lozada (Dr. Lozada), Dr.
decision.
Lozada agreed to advance the
purchase price of
ISSUE: WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS
US$367,000 or P10,000,000
RULED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PREVAILING
for Antonio, his nephew. The
LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT
UPHELD THE RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT Deed of Sale was later
THAT THE CHEMICAL COMPONENTS OR notarized and authenticated
INGREDIENTS OF RESPONDENT’S at the Philippine Consul’s
PRODUCTS ARE TRADE SECRETS OR Office and new TCTs were
INDUSTRIAL SECRETS THAT ARE NOT issued in the name of
SUBJECT TO COMPULSORY DISCLOSURE. Antonio Lozada.
 Pending registration of the
HELD: NO. deed, petitioner Marissa R.
Unchuan caused the
Page 19 of 31
 annotation of an adverse
claim on the lots. Marissa ISSUES:
claimed that Anita donated
an undivided share in the 1.       Whether or not the
lots to her under an deed of donation executed in
unregistered Deed of favor of the petitioner is void.
DonationAntonio and Anita 2.       Whether or not
brought a case against videotaped statement is
Marissa for quieting of title hearsay.
with application for
preliminary injunction and RULING:
restraining order. Marissa
filed an action to declare the 1.NO. When the law requires
Deed of Sale void and to that a contract be in some
cancel the new TCTs. form in order that it may be
 At the trial, respondents valid or enforceable, or that a
presented a notarized and contract be proved in a
duly authenticated sworn certain way, that requirement
statement, and a videotape is absolute and
where Anita denied having indispensable. Pertinent to
donated land in favor of this, the Rules require a
Marissa. In a Decision dated party producing a document
June 9, 1997, RTC disposed as genuine which has been
of the consolidated cases, altered and appears to have
ruling among others that: been altered after its
 1. Plaintiff Antonio J.P. execution, in a part material
Lozada is declared the to the question in dispute, to
absolute owner of the account for the alteration. He
properties in question; may show that the alteration
 2. Defendant Marissa R. was made by another,
Unchuan is ordered to pay without his concurrence, or
Antonio J.P. Lozada and was made with the consent of
Anita Lozada damages. the parties affected by it, or
 On motion for was otherwise properly or
reconsideration by petitioner, innocently made, or that the
the RTC issued an Order alteration did not change the
dated April 5, 1999. Said meaning or language of the
order declared the Deed of instrument. If he fails to do
Sale void, ordered the that, the document shall, as
cancellation of the new TCTs in this case, not be
in Antonio’s name, and admissible in evidence.
directed Antonio to pay
Marissa damages, P100,000 2.NO. Evidence
attorney’s fees and P50,000 is hearsay when its probative
for expenses of litigation. force depends, in whole or in
 Respondents moved for part, on the competency and
reconsideration. On July 6, credibility of some persons
2000, Presiding Judge, the other than the witness by
RTC reinstated the Decision whom it is sought to be
dated June 9, 1997, but with produced. There are three
the modification that the reasons for excluding hearsay
award of damages, and evidence: (1) absence of
attorney’s were disallowed. cross-examination; (2)
 Petitioner appealed to the absence of demeanor
Court of Appeals. On evidence; and (3) absence of
February 23, 2006 the oath. It is a hornbook
appellate court affirmed with doctrine that an affidavit is
modification the July 6, 2000 merely hearsay evidence
Order of the RTC. where its maker did not take
Page 20 of 31
the witness stand. Verily, the statement of Anita. Even so,
sworn statement of Anita was this does not detract from
of this kind because she did our conclusion concerning
not appear in court to affirm petitioner’s failure to prove,
her averments therein. Yet, a by preponderant evidence,
more circumspect any right to the lands subject
examination of our rules of of this case.
exclusion will show that they
do not cover admissions of a ii. Admissibility of Offer of
party; the videotaped Compromise
statement of Anita appears to
belong to this class. Section
26 of Rule 130 provides that Trans-Pacific Industrial Supplies, Inc. vs. CA,
"the act, declaration or G.R. No. 109172, August 19, 1994
omission of a party as to a
relevant fact may be given in FACTS:
evidence against him. It has  Trans-Pacific applied for and was granted several
long been settled that these financial accommodations amounting to P1.3M
admissions are admissible byrespondent Associated Bank. The loans were
even if they are hearsay. evidenced and secured by 4 promissory notes, a real
Indeed, there is a vital estate mortgagecovering three parcels of land and a
distinction between chattel mo
admissions against interest rtgage over petitioner’s stock and inventories.
and declaration against  Unable to settle its obligation in full, petitioner
interest. Admissions against requested for, and was granted by the bank,
interest are those made by a a restructuring of theremaining indebtedness. To
party to a litigation or by one secure the restructured loan, 3 new promissory
in privity with or identified in notes were executed by Trans-Pacific.The
legal interest with such party, mortgaged parcels of land were substituted by
and are admissible whether another mortgage covering 2 other parcels of land
or not the declarant is and a chattel
available as a witness. mortgage on petitioner’s stock inventory. The
Declaration against interest released parcels of land were then sold and
the proceeds were turnedover to the bank and
are those made by a person
applied to TIS’ restructured loan. Subsequently, the
who is neither a party nor in
bank returned the duplicate original copies
privity with a party to the
of the 3 promissory notes to Trans-
suit, are secondary evidence
Pacific with the word “PAID” stamped thereon.
and constitute an exception
Despite the return of the notes, Associated Bank
to the hearsay rule. They are
demanded from Trans-Pacific payment of the
admissible only when the amount ofP492,100.00 representing accrued interest
declarant is unavailable as a because the promissory notes were erroneously
witness. Thus, a man’s acts, released. Initially, Trans-Pacific expressed its
conduct, and willingness to pay the amount demanded by
declaration, wherever made, respondent bank but later had a change of heart
if voluntary, are admissible and instead initiated an action before the RTC of
against him, for the reason Makati for specific performance and damages.
that it is fair to presume that ISSUE:
they correspond with the  Whether or not the appellate court is correct in
truth, and it is his fault if holding that the promissory notes which are copies
they do not. However, as a executed at the same time with the alleged original
further qualification, object are not considered original documents
evidence, such as the RULING: No.
videotape in this case, must  Applying the legal presumption provided by Art.
be authenticated by a special 1271 of the Civil Code, the trial court ruled that
testimony showing that it petitioner has fully discharged its obligation by
was a faithful virtue of its possession of the documents (stamped
reproduction. Lacking this, “PAID”) evidencing its indebtedness.
we are constrained to exclude
as evidence the videotaped
Page 21 of 31
Respondent court disagreed and held, among others, original rather than to the original duplicate of
that the documents found in possession of Trans- which the debtor would normally retain a copy. It
Pacific are would thus be absurd if Article 1271 were to be
mere duplicates and cannot be the basis of applied differently. To determine the admissibility
petitioner’s claim that its obligation has been fully or non-admissibility of an offer to compromise, the
paid. Accordingly, since the promissory notes circumstances of the case and the intent of the party
submitted by petitioner were duplicates and not the making the offer should be considered. Thus, if a
originals, the delivery thereof by respondent bank to party denies the existence of a debt but offers to pay
the petitioner does not merit the application of the same for the purpose of buying peace and
Article 1271 (1st par.) of the Civil Code. avoiding litigation, the offer of settlement is
“Art. 12 inadmissible. If in the course thereof, the party
71. The delivery of a private document evidencing a making the offer admits  the existence of an
credit, made voluntarily by the creditor to the indebtedness combined with a proposal to settle the
debtor, claim amicably, then, the admission is admissible to
implies the renunciation of the action which prove such indebtedness (Moran, Comments on the
the former had against the latter.” Rules of Court, Vol. 5, p. 233 [1980 ed.); Francisco,
 The provision must be construed to mean the Rules of Court, Vol. VII, p. 325 [1973 ed.] citing
original copy of the document evidencing the credit McNiel v. Holbrook, 12 Pac. (US) 84, 9 L.ed.
and not its duplicate. The pronouncement of 1009). Indeed, an offer of settlement is an effective
respondent court is manifestly groundless. It is admission of a borrower's loan balance (L.M.
undisputed that the documents presented were Handicraft Manufacturing Corp. v. Court of
duplicate originals and are therefore admissible as Appeals, 186 SCRA 640 [1990]). Exactly, this is
evidence. Further, it must be noted that respondent what petitioner did in the case before us for review.
bank itself did not bother to challenge the
authenticity of the duplicate copies submitted by  People v. Mangat, G.R. No.
petitioner. A duplicate copy of the original may be 131618, July 6, 1999
admitted in evidence when the original is in the
possession of the party against whom the evidence FACTS:
is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice, as in the case of respondent Accused Dominador Mangat y
bank. A duplicate copy of the original may be Palomata was charged with
admitted in evidence when the original is in the rape with homicide Upon
possession of the party against whom the evidence arraignment, the accused
is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after pleaded “not guilty.
reasonable notice (Sec. 2 [b], Rule 130),as in the
case of respondent bank. The presumption created Thirteen-year-old Kristal F.
by the Art. 1271 of the Civil Code is not conclusive Manasan lived with her family
but merely in Barangay Lusong, San
 prima facie. Agustin, Tablas Island,
If there be no evidence to the contrary, the Romblon.2 On July 10, 1995,
presumption stands. Conversely, the presumption Kristal went out of their house
loses its legal efficacy in the face ofproof or
to go to the shore, about 2 1/2
evidence to the contrary. In the case before us, we
kilometers away. To reach it,
find sufficient justification to overthrow the
she has to pass by Saguilpit
presumption ofpayment generated by the delivery
creek. Kristal failed to return
of the documents evidencing petitioners
home and could not be found
indebtedness.It may not be amiss to add that Article
for three days. Alarmed,
1271 of the Civil Code raises a presumption, not of
payment, but of therenunciation of the credit where Herminio Manasan, father of
more convincing evidence would be required than Kristal, reported the matter to
what normally would be called forto prove their barangay council. r
payment. The rationale for allowing the barangay council.3
presumption of renunciation in the delivery of a
 private instrument At four in the afternoon of July
isthat, unlike that of a public instrument, there could 13, 1995, SPO1 Fajutag
be just one copy of the evidence of credit. Where received information from Brgy.
several originalsare made out of a private document, Kagawad Ronnie Manao of
the intendment of the law would thus be to refer to Brgy. Lusong that a
the delivery only of theoriginal decomposing body was found
along Lusong River. Pacifico

Page 22 of 31
Magramo, a farmer and open court declaration. In
resident of Brgy. Lusong, was People v. Mayor Antonio L.
presented as prosecution Sanchez, et al., this Court held
witness. People vs. Mangat, that discrepancies between
sworn statements and
ISSUE: testimonies made at the
WON THE TRIAL COURT witness stand do not
ERRED IN GIVING THE necessarily discredit the
TESTIMONY OF PACIFICO witness. Sworn
MAGRAMO FULL WEIGHT AND statements/affidavits are
CREDENCE TO CONCLUDE generally subordinated in
BEYOND REASONABLE importance to open court
DOUBT THAT ACCUSED- declarations because the former
APPELLANT DOMINADOR are often executed when an
MANGAT (SIC) GUILTY OF THE affiant’s mental faculties are
HEINOUS CRIME OF RAPE not in such a state as to afford
WITH HOMICIDE. him a fair opportunity of
narrating in full the incident
RULING: which has transpired.
Testimonies given during trials
The accused contends that are much more exact and
with the above circumstances, elaborate. Thus testimonial
he could not have committed evidence carries more weight
the crime. Thus, the evidence than sworn
proffered by the prosecution is statements/affidavits.
“improbable, incredible and
inconsistent with normal
human experience.”22
Consequently, the prosecution iii. Admission by Privies
has miserably failed to prove  Technogas Philippines
his guilt beyond reasonable Manufacturing Corp. v. CA and
doubt. Uy, G.R. No. 108894, February
10, 1997
Circumstantial evidence is
sufficient for conviction if: (a) FACTS:
there is more than one
circumstance; (b) the facts from
which the inferences are Technogas purchased a parcel of land
derived are proven; (c) the from Pariz Industries, Inc. In the same
combination of all the year, Eduardo Uy purchased the land
circumstances is such as to adjacent to it. The following year, Uy
produce a conviction beyond bought another lot adjoining the lot of
reasonable doubt. No greater Technogas. It was discovered in a survey,
degree of certainty is required that a portion of a building of Technogas,
when the evidence is which was presumably constructed by
circumstantial than when it is its predecessor-in-interest, encroached on
direct. In either case, what is a portion of the lot owned by private
required is that there be proof respondent Edward Uy.
beyond reasonable doubt that
the crime was committed and
that the accused committed the Upon learning of the encroachment or
crime. occupation by its buildings and wall of a
portion of private respondent’s land, the
Even if there was an petitioner offered to buy from defendant
inconsistency between that particular portion of Uy’s
Pacifico’s affidavit and his land occupied by portions of its buildings
testimony in open court, it can and wall with an area of 770 sqm, more or
still be easily reconciled by less, but the latter, however, refused
affording greater weight to his the offer The parties entered into a private

Page 23 of 31
agreement before a certain Col. Rosales in encroaching structures in bad faith, the
Malacañang, wherein petitioner agreed to structures should be presumed to have
demolish the wall at the back portion been built in good faith. Good faith
of its land thus giving to the private consists in the belief of the builder that
respondent possession of a portion of his the land he is building on is his, and his
land previously enclosed by petitioner’s ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title.
wall. Furthermore, possession acquired in good
faith does not lose this character except in
Uy later filed a complaint before the office case and from the moment facts exist
of Municipal Engineer of Parañaque, which show that the possessor is not
Metro Manila as well as before the Office aware that he possesses the thing
of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal against improperly or wrongfully. The good faith
Technogas in connection with the ceases from the moment the defects in the
encroachment or occupation by plaintiff’s title are made known to the possessor, by
buildings and walls of a portion of its land extraneous evidence or by suit for recovery
but said complaint did not prosper; so Uy of the property of the true owner.
dug or caused to be dug a canal along
Technogas’ wall, a portion of which The private respondent’s insistence on
collapsed in June, 1980, and led to the the removal of the encroaching
filing by the petitioner of  the structures as the proper remedy,
supplemental complaint in the above- which respondent Court sustained in
entitled case and a separate criminal its assailed Decisions, is thus legally
complaint for malicious flawed. This is not one of the remedies
mischief against Uy and his wife which bestowed upon him by law. It would be
ultimately resulted into the conviction in available only if and when he chooses
court Uy’s wife for the crime of malicious. to compel the petitioner to buy the
mischief; land at a reasonable price but the
latter fails to pay such price. This has
ISSUES: not taken place. Hence, his options are
limited to: (1) appropriating the
encroaching portion of petitioner’s
building after payment of proper
Whether or not the respondent Court of
indemnity, or (2) obliging the latter to
Appeals erred in holding the petitioner a
buy the lot occupied by the structure.
builder in bad faith because it is
He cannot exercise a remedy of his
“presumed to know the metes and bounds
own liking.
of his property.”
iv. Confession
HELD:  People v. Dacanay, G.R. No.
216064, November 7, 2016

No. No one can determine the precise

extent or location of his property by
merely examining his paper title unless Facts:
one is versed in the science of surveying.
There is no question in that when (Norma), the wife of Antonio, was found
Technogas purchased the land from Pariz lifeless with several puncture wounds on
Industries, the buildings and other the bathroom floor of their home by their
structures were already in existence. son, Quinn, who was then coming home
Furthermore, it is not clear as to who from school. Quinn likewise observed that
actually built these structures but it can the rest of the house was in disarray, with
be assumed that the predecessor- the clothes and things of Norma scattered
ininterest of Technogas, Pariz Industries, on the floor, as if suggesting that a
did so. robbery had just taken place. At that time,
Antonio had already left for work after
Article 527 of the New Civil Code having allegedly left the house at around
presumes good faith. Since no proof exists six in the morning. Norma E. Dacanay
to show that the builder built the (Norma), the wife of Antonio, was found

Page 24 of 31
lifeless with several puncture wounds on absent any showing of undue influence
the bathroom floor of their home by their from the police authorities, is sufficient to
son, Quinn, who was then coming home sustain a conviction for the crime
from school. Quinn likewise observed that confessed to by the accused.
the rest of the house was in disarray, with
the clothes and things of Norma scattered Previous Conduct as Evidence
on the floor, as if suggesting that a i. Similar acts as evidence or
robbery had just taken place. At that time, res inter alios acta II
Antonio had already left for work after  People v. Losano, G.R. No.
having allegedly left the house at around 127122, July 20, 1999
six in the morning. Norma E. Dacanay
(Norma), the wife of Antonio, was found Facts:
lifeless with several puncture wounds on  Raul Oco (Appellant), PO2
the bathroom floor of their home by their Armandzo Lozano, Dave
son, Quinn, who was then coming home Samson, and Eustaquio
from school. Quinn likewise observed that Pacaa, Jr. were charged with
the rest of the house was in disarray, with the two informations of
the clothes and things of Norma scattered Murder and Frustrated
on the floor, as if suggesting that a murder before Branch 7 RTC
robbery had just taken place. At that time, of Cebu City.
Antonio had already left for work after  During the trial, the
having allegedly left the house at around prosecution presented twelve
six in the morning. (12) witnesses while the
defense presented thirty-one
Antonio was then interviewed by PO3 Jay (31) witnesses.
Santos (PO3 Santos), during which  Surviving victim
interview, Antonio informed PO3 Santos Herminigildo Damuag
that One Hundred Thousand Pesos testified that at around 9:30
(P100,000.00) in cash and pieces of p.m. of November 24, 1997,
jewelry were missing. Antonio alluded to a he was driving his motorcycle
certain “Miller” as an alleged “lover” of (referred to as the first
Norma who may have perpetrated the motorcycle in the Records)
crime.14 However, after further along V. Rama Avenue, Cebu
investigation, the identity of “Miller” was City with the late Alden
never ascertained, as none of Norma’s Abiabi riding with him at the
friends knew of any such person . After back. When they reached the
PO3 Santos’s inspection of the crime vicinity of Pica Lumber, a
scene, Antonio was invited to the precinct white Tamaraw FX AUV
to formalize his statement, to which the overtook their motorcycle (first
latter declined, as he still had to take care motorcycle) and blocked their
of the funeral arrangements of Norma. path, forcing him to slow
down. Another motorcycle
(second motorcycle), with two
Issue: (2) riders on it, appeared
behind the first motorcycle.
WON the confession before the reporter is From a distance of about two
valid. (2) to three (3) meters, one of
the riders of the second
motorcycle suddenly fired two
Ruling: (2) shots in close succession.
Damuag attempted to look at
Yes, A confession made before news the tires of his motorcycle,
reporters, absent any showing of undue thinking that they have
influence from the police authorities, is exploded. Suddenly, Abiabi
sufficient to sustain a conviction for the pushed him with his body.
crime confessed to by the accused.—Our Abiabi fell from the first
pronouncements in People v. Andan,), are motorcycle and slumped on
instructive. In said case, we held that a the pavement face down. The
confession made before news reporters, Tamaraw FX AUV sped away.
Page 25 of 31
 As Damuag was trying to Tenebroso. They were buying
control his motorcycle, he barbeque in a store across the
noticed another motorcycle cemetery when a blue colored
(third motorcycle) passed by motorcycle (first motorcycle)
from behind him. His driven by Herminigildo
motorcycle zigzagged towards Damuag, with Alden Abiabi as
the gutter. Damuag was a backrider, passed by them.
thrown off and hit the ground. Suddenly, a white Tamaraw
He stood up and realized that FX blocked the first
he was hit at the right side of motorcycle, causing it to
his body. He then heard a reduce its speed. Then, a
burst of gunfire from behind. black-colored motorcycle
 Damuag saw the third (second motorcycle) passed
motorcycle at about two (2) to from behind the first
three (3) meters. It was on a motorcycle, and its backrider
stop. Appellant was at the fired two shots at Abiabi.
back of the third motorcycle, Abiabi fell from the motorcycle
holding a short firearm in his while Damuag continued
right hand. Appellant fired his driving in a zigzag manner.
gun at him but missed. Damuag eventually fell to the
Although wounded, Damuag ground five (5) meters away
was able to run. However, the from Abiabi.
third motorcycle chased him.  Moments later, another
Upon reaching the vicinity of motorcycle (third motorcycle)
Five Brothers restaurant, arrived at the scene. The
Damuag stopped because he motorcycle stopped and its
could not pass anymore. From backrider stepped his right
a distance of about four (4) to foot on the ground. Without
five (5) meters, the appellant alighting from the third
again fired two (2) more shots motorcycle, the backrider,
at Damuag. whom Barellano recognized as
 Damuag testified that he did the appellant, fired three (3)
not recognize the driver and successive shots at Abiabi
the passenger of the second who was still sprawled on the
motorcycle and the driver of ground face down. Damuag
the third motorcycle because tried to get near Abiabi but
they were wearing their the appellant also fired at
helmets. He, however, him. Damuag ran away, but
recognized the appellant as the third motorcycle was able
one of the triggermen because to catch up with him near the
the appellant was not wearing Five Brothers Restaurant.
helmet at the time of the Appellant again shot Damuag
shooting incident. Instead, he twice. The third motorcycle
had a towel tied around his then sped away.
forehead. The appellant was  Barellano claimed that when
wearing a sleeveless the first shooting occurred, he
undershirt (sando) and maong and his companions walked
short pants. towards the fallen Abiabi and
 Ronald Barellano, a sixteen- stayed at a distance of around
year (16) old candle and flower four (4) to five (5) meters.
vendor, corroborated Thus, he had a good look at
Damuags identification of the the face of the appellant when
appellant as the second he arrived aboard the third
gunman. He testified that on motorcycle and shot Abiabi
the night of the shooting and Damuag. Furthermore,
incident, he was in the the place was illuminated by a
company of eight other (8) lamp post. He recalled that
children, including another the appellant had a towel
eyewitness, 14-year old Salem wrapped around his forehead.
Page 26 of 31
 He knew the appellant even denied that he was a drug
prior to the shooting incident. lord. He also said that he was
He used to accompany his not in good terms with his
friend, Salem Tenebroso, three co-accused, hence, there
whenever the latter would go was no basis for the alleged
to the residence of the conspiracy. The appellant also
appellant to feed the latters charged Magno Ybaez with
roosters. Barellano, however, bias as he was one of the
failed to recognize the three suspects in the killing of the
(3) other riders of the latters older brother. Lolita
motorcycles because they Mosqueda, Ernesto Herhuela
were wearing helmets. and Herminia Ferraren were
 Witnesses Magno Ybanez, presented to corroborate
Jr., and Virginia Gamboa appellants defense of alibi.
both testified that they saw  Accused Armando Lozano, on
appellant with before the the other hand, claimed he
shooting inident along was training fighting cocks in
V.Rama Avenue while the the cockpit arena from 9:00
three accused were not yet p.m. until 1:00 a.m. of the
wearing helmets. next day.
 The prosecution theorized  Accused Dave Samson
that the shooting incident was asserted that he was in
drug-related. The late Abiabi Larena, Siquijor on the night
was a known anti-drug of the incident.
advocate while the appellant  Accused Eutiquio Toking
was a suspected drug lord. Pacaa alleged that he was
The other accused, on the sleeping at his house at the
other hand, allegedly had time of the incident.
connections with the drugs  The defense also presented
trade. Salem Tenebroso, Jr., Patsy
 Appellant’s defense: Bolls, and PO1 Bienvenido
 The appellant and his co- Arlan, Jr. to prove that none
accused denied any of the alleged eyewitnesses
participation in the shooting recognized any of the
incident. perpetrators of the crime.
 The appellant, Raul Oco,  Tenebroso, 14-year old, is
testified that at the time of the one of Barellano’s companion.
shooting incident, he was Previously, he issued an
inside a chapel in Sambagan. Affidavit wherein he identified
The appellant proceeded home the appellant as one of the
and went to bed. His son and malefactors in the shooting
daughter soon arrived and incident. Thereafter, he
slept with him. A few minutes executed an Affidavit of
later, his wife, along with his Recantation, claiming that he
sister-in-law and some did not recognize any of the
neighbors, awakened him and perpetrators because all of
told him that his kumpadre them were wearing helmets.
and good friend, Alden Abiabi,  For her part, Patsy Bolls, a
was shot at V. Rama St. He reporter of Sunstar Super
was shocked upon learning Balita Daily, testified that she
the information because the interviewed Damuag at the
victim had no known enemy. Sacred Heart Hospital where
 The appellant was thus the latter was confined.
surprised when he learned During the course of the
that he was implicated in the interview, Damuag told her
shooting of Alden. He and that he did not see who shot
Abiabi were good neighbors him and Abiabi.
and friends and he had no
motive to kill the victim. He
Page 27 of 31
  PO1 Arlan, Jr. corroborated complaint must allege a specific time and
Bolls testimony. He told the place when and where the offense was
court that he was inside committed, the proof need not correspond
Damuags room during his to this allegation, unless the time and
interview. PO1 Arlan, Jr. place is material and of the essence of the
claims that he heard Damuag offense as a necessary ingredient in its
telling the reporter that he did description. Evidence so presented is
not recognize any of his admissible and sufficient if it shows 1)
assailants. that the crime was committed at any time
 Teresita Bunal and Eduardo within the period of the statute of
Nabua testified that limitations; and 2) before or after the time
prosecution witness Virgilia stated in the complaint or indictment and
Gamboa was not present before the action is commenced.
during the shooting incident.
Rosalia Ybanez Nadela and The date of commission is not an essential
Christy Labistre, on the element of the crime of rape, what is
other hand, contradicted material being the occurrence of the rape,
Magno Ybanezs claim that he not the time of commission thereof.—
was within the vicinity of the Unfortunately for accused-appellant, the
incident and saw the tragic date of commission is not an essential
event. element of the crime of rape, what is
 RTC’s decision: material being the occurrence of the rape,
 The trial court found the not the time of commission thereof. Hence,
appellant guilty of murder and proof as to the time of rape need not
frustrated murder. The trial correspond to the allegation in the
court disregarded Salem information. Likewise, the rape was
Tenebrosos Affidavit of committed within the period provided by
Recantation and gave full the statute of limitations. It may also be
credence to his previous observed that while the rape proven
Affidavit identifying the occurred after the time stated in the
appellant as one of the complaint, the action was commenced
gunmen. Further, the court after the rape incident had transpired.
doubted the credibility of
eyewitnesses Gamboa and
Ybanez, Jr. who claimed to Joel San Vicente vs People
have seen not only the face of
the appellant but of his three Facts: 1) Petitioner was charged with homicide for
(3) co-accused as well. Thus, the killing of one Dennis Wong y Chua. On June
the appellants co-accused 11, 1995, at around 5:30 p.m., petitioner fatally shot
were acquitted. the victim outside the Far East Bank along
Katipunan Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City
after the latter allegedly attempted to rob him of a
ISSUE: large amount of cash which he had just withdrawn
from the ATM.
1. Was appellant’s guilt proved
2) Policemen found the lifeless body of the victim
beyond reasonable doubt?
at the parking space in front of the FEBTC Branch
along Katipunan Road. Recovered at the scene were
five empty caliber .45 shells, two live caliber .45
bullets and an ATM card in the name of Violeta
RULING:
Sanvicente.
While the complaint must allege a specific 3) On June 13, 1995, police authorities located
time and place when and where the petitioner’s car in Nueva Ecija and took custody
offense was committed, the proof need not thereof.
correspond to this allegation, unless the
time and place is material and of the 4) Petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Valmonte, turned
essence of the offense as a necessary over to Police Station 9 petitioner’s .45 caliber
ingredient in its description.—As early as Mark IV pistol bearing Serial No. 5504095. He also
1903, this Court has ruled that while the
Page 28 of 31
wrote a letter addressed to P/Major Antonio Diaz, stating or acknowledging that he had committed or
Station Commander of PNP Station 9, CPDC, participated in the commission of a crime. The term
Anonas Road, Quezon City. According to the letter, admission, on the other hand, is usually applied in
the client (San Vicente) withdrew a large amount of criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused
cash from FEBTC Katipunan Branch. On his way which do not directly involve an acknowledgment
out of the bank, the victim attacked him to grab the of the guilt of the accused or of criminal intent to
money. San Vicente pulled out his gun (which he commit the offense with which he is charged.” In
was duly licensed to carry) and fired a warning shot short, in a confession, an accused acknowledges his
upwards. Still, the victim continued his attack and guilt; while there is no such acknowledgment of
grabbed his gun. After a brief struggle, San Vicente guilt in an admission. There is no question that the
was forced to shoot the deceased in the defense of letter dated June 14, 1995 is an admission, not a
his person and money. The letter also said that San confession, because of the unmistakable
Vicente will submit a formal statement if necessary. qualification in its last paragraph that – “For all
His Mercedes Benz is already under the custody of intense (sic) & purposes, this letter shall serve as a
the police. He has experienced severe depression voluntary surrender, without admission of guilt on
and has undergone medical treatment. Atty. the part of my client.” With the foregoing
Valmonte indicated that the letter serves as a distinctions in mind, the trial court correctly
voluntary surrender without admission of guilt. rejected the prosecution’s motion to have Exhibit
LL further identified “in the manner that it wanted,”
i.e., through the proposed testimony of petitioner’s
5) At the arraignment, San Vicente pleaded not counsel, Atty. Valmonte, who incidentally refused
guilty. During trial, prosecution presented Ballistics to testify. Aside from covering a subject which
Report No. B-046-95, stating that slugs recovered squarely falls within the scope of “privileged
from the crime scene and cartridge cases fired from communication”, it would, more importantly, be
petitioner’s caliber .45 Mark IV pistol, on the other tantamount to converting the admission into a
hand, were fired from the same firearm. The confession. It can not be denied that the contents of
Medico-Legal Officer who conducted the autopsy Exhibit LL, particularly with regard to the details of
on the deceased failed to appear at the trial. In order the shooting communicated by petitioner to Atty.
to dispense with her testimony, petitioner admitted Valmonte, is privileged because it is connected with
the due execution and genuineness of the medico- the business for which petitioner retained the
legal report. After trial, the prosecution filed its services of the latter. More specifically, said
Formal Offer of Exhibits which included the above- communication was relayed by petitioner to Atty.
quoted letter of petitioner’s counsel to P/Maj. Valmonte in order to seek his professional advice or
Antonio Diaz. The trial court admitted all the assistance in relation to the subject matter of the
prosecution’s exhibits in its Order dated August 27, employment, or to explain something in connection
1996 6) Petition filed a Motion to Dismiss with it, so as to enable him to better advice his
(Demurrer) based on (1) the lack of positive client or manage the litigation.
identification of the accused is a fatal omission
warranting dismissal; (2) prosecution’s evidence are
totally hearsay/incompetent, hence, inadmissible People v. Mangat y Palomata, G.R. No. 131618,
and the guilt of the accused was not proven by July 6, 1999
positive evidence beyond reasonable doubt. 7) The
trial court dismissed the case for insufficiency of FACTS: Thirteen-year-old Kristal F. Manasan
evidence. An MR was filed by the prosecution but lived with her family in Barangay Lusong, San
was denied on the ground of double jeopardy. A Agustin, Tablas Island, Romblon. On July 10, 1995,
petition for certiorari was filed with the CA. After Kristal went out of their house to go to the shore,
which, the order of dismissal was nullified. about 2 1/2 kilometers away. To reach it, she has to
Petitioner’s MR was denied. Hence, this petition. pass by Saguilpit creek. Kristal failed to return
Issue: Whether the letter of petitioner (Exhibit LL) home and could not be found for three days.
constituted a confession or admission Held: Alarmed, Herminio Manasan, father of Kristal,
ADMISSION. Ratio Decidendi: An admission is reported the matter to their barangay council. At
defined under Rule 130, Section 26 of the Rules of four in the afternoon of July 13, 1995, SPO1
Court as the act, declaration or omission of a party Fajutag received information from Brgy. Kagawad
as to a relevant fact. A confession, on the other Ronnie Manao of Brgy. Lusong that a decomposing
hand, under Rule 130, Section 33 is the declaration body was found along Lusong River. SPO1 Fajutag
of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the proceeded to Brgy. Lusong to verify the report.
offense charged or any offense necessarily included Upon reaching the place, he saw the dead body of a
therein. More particularly, a confession “is a girl lying on her belly. The victim was nude and the
declaration made at any time by a person, upper part of her body was placed inside an opening
voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement of a stone hole. The panties and shorts of the victim
Page 29 of 31
were also found on the riverside, along with a which fit the description given by prosecution
plastic bag containing a pitcher and a headband. witness Pacifico Magramo. Corollarily, the accused
The place where the body was found was a cave- asserted that the prosecution witnesses have an ill-
like structure on top of which was a foot-trail used motive in testifying against him as he did not vote
by local residents, and underneath water flowed to for their candidate in the last May 8, 1995 elections.
the lowlands. da The body was later identified to be
that of Kristal F. Manasan. Dr. Cynthia Baradon- ISSUE: WON the offer of the accused to settle
Mayor examined the cadaver and certified that amicably is an admission of guilt.
Kristal died of multiple hemorrhage due to multiple
fracture on the head. The victim also suffered
multiple hymenal and anal lacerations. Her bladder HELD: YES. The most damaging piece of
went out of the vaginal canal and her intestines evidence which points to the appellant's culpability
went out of the rectal vault. From all indications, is the affidavit executed by SPO1 Fajutag to the
Dr. Mayor concluded that the victim was brutally effect that the appellant and his father, Benedicto
raped and murdered. Pacifico Magramo, a farmer Mangat, offered to settle the case amicably.
and resident of Brgy. Lusong, was presented as
prosecution witness. He testified that at 2:30 p.m. of It is most telling for the defense not to have made
July 10, 1995, he was walking downhill along any effort whatsoever to dispute this. Said gesture
Saguilpit creek in Brgy. Lusong, carrying a sack of can only be taken to mean an admission of guilt. In
copra which he was bringing to the shore. He criminal cases, except those involving quasi-
chanced upon accused Dominador Mangat pushing offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by
the naked and lifeless body of thirteen-year-old law to be amicably settled or compromised, an offer
Kristal into a rock hole. Seeing him too, accused of compromise by the accused may be received in
warned him not to divulge to anyone what he saw or evidence as an implied admission of guilt. | It is
he would be next. Scared, Magramo continued true, as contended by the defense, that there is no
downhill while accused walked away followed by direct evidence linking the accused to the crime
his dog. He also testified that the accused was charged.
wearing a gray sando and white pair of shorts, and
was carrying a bolo in a sheath hanging on his left
shoulder by a string. Jaime Magramo and his wife There is to Our mind, however, ample
traversed the same pathway at two o'clock in the circumstantial evidence which tend to prove beyond
afternoon of July 10, 1995. They were going a reasonable doubt that the accused was the author
downhill with Jaime carrying a sack of copra on his of the offense. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient
shoulder. While passing along Saguilpit creek, for conviction if: (a) there is more than one
Jaime saw the accused conversing with his father circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
Benedicto Mangat. Jaime though could not hear inferences are derived are proven; (c) the
what they were talking about. On July 14, 1995, combination of all the circumstances is such as to
Jaime was informed by his son who was in Grade V produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. No
that the dead body of Kristal was found along greater degree of certainty is required when the
Lusong River. It was found exactly in the same spot evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct. In
where the accused was seen talking with his father either case, what is required is that there be proof
in the afternoon of July 10, 1995. With the recovery beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was
of the body of Kristal on July 14, 1995, there was committed and that the accused committed the
widespread speculation that the accused was the crime. In this case, not only was the accused-
culprit. On July 15, 1995, the police authorities appellant's presence at the crime scene established,
arrested the accused. Bothered by his conscience, there is also clear and convincing testimony that he
Pacifico Magramo eventually came out in the open was seen pushing the body of the victim into a cave-
and reported to the police what he had witnessed in like hole in the rock.
the afternoon of July 10, 1995. While at the police
station, the accused and his father offered to settle ·       Lee
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
the case amicably. SPO1 Fajutag executed an 177861, July 13, 2010
affidavit. The accused offered an alibi. He claimed
that on July 10, 1995, he was working with his wife Facts
at a farm located in the mountain of Lusong from
morning until lunch time, after which they went Spouses (Lee) and Keh entered the Philippines in
home to their house, located just 50 meters away, to the 1930sas immigrants from China. They had 11
eat lunch and rest. At 1:00 p.m., they returned to the children. In 1948, Leebrought from China a young
farm and continued their weeding until 4:30 p.m. woman (Tiu), as housemaid. Respondent Lee-Keh’s
This was corroborated by his wife, Alice Mangat. children believed that Tiu left the household and
The accused admitted, though, that he had a dog had a relation with him. Shortly after Keh died in
Page 30 of 31
1989, the Lee-Keh children learned that Tiu’s applies only to "direct" ascendants and descendants,
children with Lee (collectively, the Lee’s other a family tie connected by a common ancestry. A
children) claimed that they, too, were children of stepdaughter has no common ancestry by her
Lee and Keh. This prompted the Lee-Keh children stepmother . Relative thereto, Article 965 of the
to request the (NBI) to investigate the matter. After New Civil Code provides: “Thedirect line is either
conducting such an investigation, the NBI descending or ascending. The former unites the
concluded in its report it is not KEH SHIOK head of the family with those who descend from
CHENG, but a much younger woman, most him. The latter bindsa person with those from
probably TIU CHUAN. The NBI found, for whom he descends.” Consequently, Tiu can be
example, that in the hospital records Keh’s declared compelled to testify against petitioner Emma Lee.
age did not coincide with her actual age when she
supposedly gave birth to such other children,
numbering eight. On the basis of this report, the
respondent Lee-Keh children filed two separate
petitions, one of them before the (RTC) for the
deletion from the certificate of live birth of the
petitioner Emma Lee, one of Lee’s other children,
the name Keh and replace the same with the name
Tiu to indicate her true mother’s name. In April
2005 the Lee-Keh children filed with the RTC an ex
parte request for the issuance of a subpoena ad
testificandum to compel Tiu, Emma Lee’s
presumed mother, to testify in the case. However,
later on, the subpoena was quashed by the RTC as it
was oppressive and violated Section 25, Rule130 of
the Rules of Court, the rule on parental privilege,
she being Emma Lee’s stepmother. CA rendered a
decision setting aside the RTC’s Order on the
ground that only a subpoena duces tecum, not a
subpoena adtestificandum, may be quashed for
being oppressive or unreasonable under Section 4,
Rule 21 of the Rules of CivilProcedure. The CA
also held that Tiu’s advanced age alonedoes not
render her incapable of testifying. The party
seekingto quash the subpoena for that reason must
prove that shewould be unable to withstand the
rigors of trial, something thatpetitioner Emma Lee
failed to do.

ISSUE: Whether or not court may compel Tiu to

testify in the correction of entry case that
respondent Lee-Kehchildren filed for the correction
of the certificate of birth of petitioner Emma Lee to
show that she is not Keh’s daughter.

HELD: Yes. Under Section 25, Rule 130 of the

Rules of Evidence “No personmay be compelled to
testify against his parents, other directascendants,
children or other direct descendants.”The afore-
quoted rule is an adaptation from a similar provision
in Article 315 of the Civil Code that applies only in
criminal cases. But those who revised the Rules of
Civil Procedure chose to extend the prohibition to
all kinds of actions, whether civil, criminal, or
administrative, filed against parents and other direct
ascendantsor descendants. In Emma Lee vs. Court
of Appeals, the person (TIU) who invokes the filial
privilege, claims that she is the stepmother of
petitioner EmmaLee. The SC declared that the
privilege cannot apply to them because the rule
Page 31 of 31