EVIDENCE CASES:

TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCE TEST People vs. Timon FACTS: Piracy Victor Timon, Jose Sampiton, Claro Raya and Jesus Lagaras were charged of piracy of M/B Kali and homicide of PAQUITO RODRIGUEZ II, owner of the said M/B "Kali" During arraignment they pleaded not guilty Lagaras said he was just mistaken for his brother Boy Muslim. After examining their testimonies, the trial court rendered its decision finding the four appellants guilty of the "crime charge" but acquitting Timon All four accused appealed to the Supreme Court. Appellants Timon, Sampiton and Raya argue that their identification during the police investigation constituted a violation of their constitutional rights. Claiming that they were subjected to "malicious pinpointing," they maintain that the police line-up was improperly used against them This case hinges on (1) the admissibility and (2) the credibility of the evidence pointing to appellants' identification, but the Court will also rule on the (3) objections to the alleged illegal arrest, (4) appellants' alibi and (5) the proper penalty.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT OUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATION ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE. WHETHER OR NOT TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES TEST ARE BEING MET. RULING: The Court there ruled that out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. 1. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification. 2. It is done thru mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. 3. It is also done thru line-ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose. In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz: 1. the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime;

2. the witness' degree of attention at the time: 3. the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; 4. the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; 5. the length of time between the crime and the identification; and 6. the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. Applying this "totality of circumstances" test to the case at bar, the Court finds the out-of-court identification of appellants (which is a show-up) admissible and not in any way violative of their constitutional rights. Evidently, while the crew members were not able to name the pirates, they were able to identify them and to give their accurate descriptions. Appellant Timon's application for bail likewise constitutes a waiver of his right to question whatever irregularities and defects attended his arrest. To sustain alibi, the defense must prove that it was physically impossible for the accused-appellants to have been at the crime scene during its commission. DECISION OF RTC IS AFFIRMED. MORAL CERTAINTY TEST People vs. Ratunil FACTS: Arnold Ratunil was charged of rape of Jenelyn Garcenilla He pleaded not guilty to the charge. During the trial, Jenelyn declared firmly on cross-examination that accused was not [her] boyfriend. She told the court that she was still a virgin when Ratunil raped her. Arnold Ratunil denied the criminal accusation filed against him by Jenelyn, claiming that the sexual intercourse between the two of them was consensual. He further averred that they had been lovers since their high school days. The trial court gave credence to the testimony of the complainant, thereby rejecting the "sweethearts defense" propounded by the appellant. Appellant filed a petition before the Supreme Court. In the main, the present appeal questions the credibility of the complainant.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT GARCENILLA PASSED THE MORAL CERTAINTY TEST. RULING: In the review of rape cases, jurisprudence has laid down the following guiding principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove the charge; (b) considering that, in the nature of things, only two (2) persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. The Court underscored the significance of the behavior of the complainant after the alleged rape in the assessment of her credibility. The rule is subject to the conditio precedens that such testimony is credible, natural and convincing, and otherwise consistent with human nature and the course of things. In order to suffice for conviction, her testimony must be free of serious contradiction, and ring true throughout. In the assessment of the testimonial credit of the wronged woman, evidence of her conduct immediately after the alleged assault is of critical value. The Court finds it strange that a rape victim could still repose so much trust in her rapist, who had just violated her womanhood. Decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. RATUNIL IS ACQUITTED. EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE People vs. Ramilla FACTS: Ramilla was charged with the murder of William Santos During trial, Egay Santos, the lone witness of the prosecution testified that Ramilla stabbed William Santos. Ramillas defense was denial. He swore that on the night in question, he was asleep in his house. Arturo Esplago, testified that it was a stranger who stabbed

William to death. Demetrio Mata swore he saw the same incident and also insisted that the killer was a stranger. The defense appealed and contended that the defense failed to apply the equipoise rule and attacked the ruling of the court for giving credence to the testimony of the lone eyewitness for the prosecution as against the alibi of Ramilla and the testimonies of his own witnesses.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT EQUIPOSE RULE IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE AT BAR. HELD: The equipoise rule is applicable only where the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are so evenly balanced as to call for the tilting of the scales in favor of the accused who is presumed innocent under the Bill of Rights. The rule is not applicable here because there is no equipoise. The evidence of the prosecution is heavier than that of the defense and has overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the appellant. EXCLUSIONARY RULE People vs. Encinada FACTS: This is a case filed against Roel Encinada for violating RA 6425, as amended by BP 179. Upon his arraignment, appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. After the prosecution presented its evidence, the defense filed, with leave of court, a "Demurrer to Evidence" questioning the admissibility of the evidence which allegedly was illegally seized from him Appellant further claimed that he was merely an innocent passenger. The court denied the motion and contended that the accused was caught in flagrante delicto in actual possession of the marijuana. Hence, the warrantless search following his lawful arrest was valid and the marijuana obtained was admissible in evidence. He filed a petition before the Supreme Court and contended that his arrest falls under the doctrine of warrantless search. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT SEARCH AND SEIZURE WAS VALIDLY CONDUCTED.

RULING: A search and seizure must be validated by a previously secured warrant; otherwise, such search and seizure is subject to challenge. Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides for the right of the person against illegal searches and seizures. Any evidence obtained in violation of this provision is legally inadmissible in evidence as a "fruit of the poisonous tree." This principle is covered by this exclusionary rule: Sec. 3. . . . (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of . . . the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The right against warrantless searches, however, is subject to legal and judicial exceptions, as follows: (1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs searches, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable search and seizure. Rule 113, Section 5, discusses the instances when a warrantless arrest may be effected, as follows: Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In this case, appellant was not committing a crime in the presence of the Surigao City policemen. Moreover, the lawmen did not have personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested had committed an offense. The search cannot be said to be merely incidental to a lawful arrest. Raw intelligence information is not a sufficient ground for a

warrantless arrest. APPEAL IS HEREBY GRANTED BUY-BUST OPERATION People vs. Uy FACTS: Ramon Chua Uy was charged of a crime of illegal possession of illegal drugs (shabu) as a result of entrapment conducted by the police. SPO1 Alberto Nepomuceno, Jr. acted as poseur buyer When tried, Ramon pleaded not guilty and claimed his innocence and contended that it was a frame up. He further contended that that when arrested, he was just test-driving the car of a certain Arnold. He also attacked the existence and preparation of the buybust money and lack of prior surveillance. However, the trial court dismissed all his allegations and attacks. Findings of Loreto Bravo, the chemist, is hearsay because he was not presented in the trial. 1. In Criminal Case No. 16199-MN- guilty 2. In Criminal Case No. 16200-MN-guilty

3. In Criminal Case No. 16201-MN-ACQUITTED for lack of

sufficient evidence. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT EVIDENCES TAKEN FROM THE BUY-BUST OPERATION IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE. RULING: The court said prior surveillance are not indispensable to the conduct of a buy-bust operation, as long as the sale of the dangerous drugs is adequately proven. Ramon was caught in flagrante delicto, hence his warrantless arrest is valid Buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan; it is a procedure or operation sanctioned by law and which has consistently proved itself to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, and unless there is a clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimony on the operation

deserved full faith and credit. Defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. RAMON did not object to the admission of Bravos Preliminary Report Bravo is a public officer, and his report carries the presumption of regularity in the performance of his function and duty. Besides, by virtue of Section 44, Rule 130, entries in official records made in the performance of office duty, as in the case of the reports of Bravo, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. ALIBI WHEN IT WILL PROSPER? People vs. Ballesteros FACTS: FELIPE BALLESTEROS, CESAR GALO and ALVIN BULUSAN were charged with the crime of double murder with multiple frustrated murder. All pleaded not guilty. Paraffin tests conducted on Galo and Ballesteros produced positive results. Bulusan was not tested for nitrates. ALIBI: On the night of May 28, 1991, Galo and Bulusan attended the dance at the barangay hall. After the dance, they went their separate ways but remained within the barangay. Galo lingered in the premises. Bulusan slept over at the house of Michael Viloria, which was within walking distance from the dance hall. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE ALIBI OF THE ACCUSED ADMISSIBLE IN THE COURT. RULING: As consistently enunciated by this Court, the established doctrine is that, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove, not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. The defense of alibi must be established by positive, clear and satisfactorily evidence, the reason being that it is easily manufactured and usually so unreliable that it can rarely be given credence. This is especially true in case of positive identification of the culprit by reliable witnesses, which renders their alibis worthless. Positive identification prevails over denials and alibis. An alibi must be supported by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses, and where such defense is not corroborated,

it is fatal to the accused. DECISION OF RTC IS AFFIRMED. ALIBI WHEN WEAK AND UNRELIABLE? People vs. Paragas FACTS: Automatic review Sixto Paragas and Amado Paragas guilty of murder of Ferdinand Gutierrez The accused said that they were not in the vicinity when the crime was committed. The RTC rejected appellants' alibi, which had failed to show that it was physically impossible for the two to be at the scene of the crime at the time of the stabbing incident. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT ALIBIS OF THE ACCUSED ABLE TO MEET THE REQUISITES FOR A VALID DEFENSE. RULING: Basic is the rule that alibi is always viewed with suspicion, because it is inherently weak and unreliable. Like denial, it amounts to nothing more than negative and selfserving evidence undeserving of any weight in law. Alibi assumes significance or strength only when it is amply corroborated by a credible witness. For it to prosper, the accused must be able to prove (a) that they were in another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense, and (b) that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time it happened. In the case at bar, the alibis of appellants fail to meet the requisites for a valid defense.While their presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense was tried to be established by the defense witnesses, the latter failed to raise any scintilla of doubt about the physical impossibility of the former's presence at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the incident. CONVICTED WITH HOMICIDE People vs. Crisanto FACTS: JONATHAN CRISANTO was charged of murder of RODOLFO AMPUAN The victim was having a drinking session with his friends. Then, all of a sudden, the appellant, came into the room and

without saying anything, stabbed Ampuan, hitting the latter on the chest. Crisanto pleaded not guilty of the crime charged. Accused testified that he went home because he had a fever and was not feeling well. After hearing, the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua. Accused then filed a petition before the Supreme Court. Appellant contends that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He cites several inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly those of Daga and Ajero.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT ALIBIS OF THE ACCUSED ABLE TO MEET THE REQUISITES FOR A VALID DEFENSE. RULING: For its part, the State contends that appellants denial that he committed the crime cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses. If there were inconsistencies in the latters testimonies, the same are only minor ones. On the defense of alibi, the State asserts that appellant failed to demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. In any criminal prosecution, the only requisite is that the prosecution proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof that, excluding the possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. From the evidence presented by the prosecution, we are convinced that such quantum of evidence has been satisfied. Time and again, we rule that the inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses when referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony, slight contradictions in fact even serve to strengthen the sincerity of a witness and prove that his testimony is not rehearsed. Inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds for acquittal. DECISION OF THE RTC IS AFFIRMED

RES IPSA LOQUITOR Batiquin vs. CA

FACTS: This is a case of malpractice against DR. VICTORIA L. BATIQUIN. She performed a simple caesarean section on Mrs. Villegas Soon after leaving the Hospital Mrs. Villegas began to suffer abdominal pains and complained of being feverish. When the pains became unbearable and she was rapidly losing weight she consulted Dr. Ma. Salud Kho When Dr. Kho opened the abdomen of Mrs. Villegas and found a "foreign body" that looked like a piece of a "rubber glove" The piece of rubber allegedly found near Villegas's uterus was not presented in court. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT A FACT NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE. RULING: Dr. Kho was assessed to be a credible witness, her positive testimony [that a piece of rubber was indeed found in private respondent Villega's abdomen] prevails over the negative testimony in favor of the petitioners. As such, the rule of res ipsa loquitur comes to fore. This Court has had occasion to delve into the nature and operation of this doctrine: This doctrine [res ipsa loquitur] is stated thus: "Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen in those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care." Black's Law Dictionary puts it: Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. Rebuctable presumption or inference that defendant was negligent, which arises upon proof that [the] instrumentality causing injury was in defendant's exclusive control, and that the accident was one which ordinary does not happen in absence of negligence. Res ipsa loquitur is [a] rule of evidence whereby negligence of [the] alleged wrongdoer may be inferred from [the] mere fact that [the] accident happened provided [the] character of [the] accident and circumstances attending it lead reasonably to belief that in [the] absence of negligence it would not have occurred and that thing which caused injury is shown to have been under [the] management and control of [the] alleged wrongdoer. . . . Under [this] doctrine . . . the happening of an injury permits an inference of negligence where plaintiff produces substantial evidence that [the] injury was

caused by an agency or instrumentality under [the] exclusive control and management of defendant, and that the occurrence [ sic] was such that in the ordinary course of things would not happen if reasonable care had been used. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as a rule of evidence is peculiar to the law of negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence . The doctrine is not a rule of substantive law, but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience. The rule, when applicable to the facts and circumstances of a particular case, is not intended to and does not dispense with the requirement of proof of culpable negligence on the party charged. It merely determines and regulates what shall be prima facie evidence thereof and facilitates the burden of plaintiff of proving a breach of the duty of due care. The doctrine can be invoked when and only when, under the circumstances involved, direct evidence is absent and not readily available. HUMAN BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE People vs. Plazo FACTS: EDISON PLAZO was charged with murder for killing Romeo Fabula On arraignment appellant pleaded not guilty. He argued that he did the act as self-defense. The two grappled with the small bolo and suddenly, the bolo was already imbedded in the chest of the victim. However, after examining the testimonies, the trial court convicted him of murder. Plazo appealed before the Supreme Court In his brief, appellant assails the credibility of the testimony of Leonor Fabula and her actions after seeing her son dead and getting a policeman instead of comforting him was contrary to normal human conduct. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTIONS OF THE WITNESS CONFORMS WITH THE NORMAL HUMAN CONDUCT. RULING: Different persons have different impressions and recollections of the same incident. Likewise, we find nothing extraordinary or unusual about a mother seeking help from the authorities first before rushing to help her son. As repeatedly stressed, there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling, or frightful experience. Witnessing a crime is an

unusual experience that elicits different reactions from the witnesses, and for which no clear-cut standard form of behavior can be drawn. The mere fact that she is the mother of the victim does not impair her credibility. Blood relationship between a witness and victim does not, by itself, impair the credibility of the witness. On the contrary, relationship strengthens credibility, for it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than the actual culprit. The earnest desire to seek justice for a dead kin is not served should the witness abandon his conscience and prudence and blame one who is innocent of the crime. DECISION OF THE RTC IS AFFIRMED People vs. Lilo FACTS: Carlos Lilo was found guilty of incestuous rape of his daughter Carol Lilo. Carol Lilo was raped numerous times by him but could only remember four of those instances. After examining the testimonies and evidence, the RTC convicted the accused The accused filed a petition before the Supreme Court. Lilo disputes the finding that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and assails the reliance by the trial court on the testimony of Carol who was merely motivated by resentment in filing the complaint due to the fact that he often maltreated her. He also focuses on Carols behavior after the alleged rape incidents as running counter to human nature. He cites Carols casually leaving the place and continuing to work in the farm with him as if nothing happened. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTIONS OF THE WITNESS CONFORM TO THE NORMAL HUMAN CONDUCT. RULING: The behavior or reaction of every person to a certain event cannot, however, be predicted with accuracy, and may be dealt with in any way by the victim whose testimony may be given full credence so long as her credibility is not tainted by any modicum of doubt. People vs. Bates FACTS: MARCELO BATES and MARCELO BATES, JR. were convicted for killing JOSE BOHOLST

Concepcion Boholst saw the incident while her husband was being hacked by Bates and his son. She pleaded for them to stop but they did not listen. She did not see Carlito. She went home fearing for her life, thinking that Marcelo and his son might turn their ire on her. Upholding the prosecution evidence, the trial court rendered its Judgment Bates appealed and claimed self-defense. Further, appellant claims that the testimony of Concepcion Boholst should not be given credence. He argues that if Concepcion really witnessed the killing of her husband, she should have seen the body of Carlito Bates who was then lying dead on the ground at the place where her husband was allegedly being hacked and stabbed.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTION OF THE CONCEPTION BOHOLST CONFORMS TO THE NORMAL HUMAN CONDUCT. RULING: The Court ruled that it was natural for Concepcion to fail to notice the body of Carlito when she was faced with the shocking scene of her husband being hacked and stabbed to death by appellant and his son. The Supreme Court has long recognized that different people react differently to a given type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience. In the present case, it is perfectly normal for Concepcion to be oblivious of the persons who were present at the crime scene at that time because of the frightening sight that confronted her. FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMNIBUS People vs. Ducay FACTS: Santos Ducay and Edgardo Ducay, father and son, were charged with the complex crime of double murder of Pacita Labos and Manuel Labos, and multiple frustrated murder of Lina Labos-Mojica, Edwin Labos and Ma. Cristina Labos During examination, Edwin and Lina Labos were asked whether they recognized their assailants and both answered that they did not. However, with other evidences attendant in the crime, the RTC convicted the two accused. Ducay appealed before the Supreme Court. The appellant attacks the credibility of prosecution witnesses Lina and Edwin Labos and alleges that their identification of

the appellant is vague and highly dubious. The appellant further claims that since the trial court did not believe Lina and Edwin's testimonies that they positively identified Edgardo Ducay, then following the maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus."

ISSUE: RULING: Court stated that the maxim is not a mandatory rule of evidence, but rather a permissible inference that the court may or may not draw. It is perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a witness with respect to some facts and disbelieve it with respect to other facts. And it has been aptly said that even when witnesses are found to have deliberately falsified in some material particulars, it is not required that the whole of their uncorroborated testimony be rejected but such portions thereof deemed worthy of belief may be credited. Professor Wigmore gives the following enlightening commentary: It may be said, once for all, that the maxim is in itself A. Worthless 1. in point of validity - because in one form it merely contains in loose fashion a kernel of truth which no one needs to be told, and in the others it is absolutely false as a maxim of life; anD 2. in point of utility - because it merely tells the jury what they may do in any event, not what they must do or must not do, and therefore it is a superfluous form of words. B. Pernicious 1. because there is frequently a misunderstanding of its proper force 2. because it has become in the hands of many counsel a mere instrument for obtaining new trials upon points wholly unimportant in themselves. RES GESTAE The rule on spontaneous statements as part of the res gestae is stated in Section 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court: "statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the

circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. . . . ." There are three requisites for the admission of spontaneous statements as evidence of the res gestae: 1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence; 2) that the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and 3) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. The rationale for the exception lies in the fact that a statement made under the stress of an exciting event or condition tends to ensure that the statement is spontaneous and, therefore, trustworthy; and the likely proximity in time between the event or condition and the statement minimizes the possibility of a memory problem. DECISION OF THE RTC IS AFFIRMED