Case No. 1 SCC CHEMICALS CORPORATION vs. CA et.

al

GR. No. 128538 February 28, 2001

Facts: On December 13, 1983, SCC Chemicals Corporation through its chairman, private respondent Danilo Arrieta and vice president, Pablo (Pablito) Bermundo obtained a loan from State Investment House Inc in the amount of P129,824.48. To secure the payment of the loan, Danilo Arrieta and private respondent Leopoldo Halili executed a Comprehensive Surety Agreement binding themselves jointly and severally to pay the obligation on the maturity date. SCC failed to pay the loan when it matured. SIHI then sent demand letters to SCC, Arrieta and Halili, but notwithstanding receipt thereof, no payment was made. SIHI filed Civil Case where the former presented one witness to prove its claim. The cross-examination of said witness was postponed several times due to one reason or another at the instance of either party. The case was calendared several times for hearing but each time, SCC or its counsel failed to appear despite notice. SCC was finally declared by the trial court to have waived its right to cross-examine the witness of SIHI and the case was deemed submitted for decision. 1. SCC argued that the lone witness presented by SIHI to prove its claim was insufficient as the competency of the witness was not established and there was no showing that he had personal knowledge of the transaction in violation of Sections 36 [3] and 48, [4] Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. 2. SCC further maintained that no proof was shown of the genuineness of the signatures in the documentary exhibits presented as evidence and that these signatures were neither marked nor offered in evidence by SIHI. (Section 2, [5] Rule 132 of the Rules of Court) 3. SCC pointed out that the original copies of the documents were not presented in court. (Section 34, [6] Rule 132 of the Rules of Court) Issue: Whether the allegation of SIHI is correct. Held: 1. SCC failed to appear several times on scheduled hearing dates despite due notice to it and counsel when the former is scheduled to cross-examine the lone witness. Petitioner now charges the appellate court with committing an error of law when it failed to disallow the admission in evidence of said testimony pursuant to the hearsay rule contained in As a rule, hearsay evidence is excluded and carries no probative value. [8] However, the rule does admit of an exception. Where a party failed to object to hearsay evidence, then the same is admissible. It is settled that it is the opportunity to cross-examine which negates the claim that the matters testified to by a witness are hearsay. The repeated failure of a party to cross-examine the witness is an implied waiver of such right. 2. The Court of Appeals correctly found that the witness of SIHI was a competent witness as he testified to facts, which he knew of his personal knowledge. Thus, the requirements of Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court as to the admissibility of his testimony were satisfied. 3. Respecting petitioners other submissions, the same are moot and academic. The admission having been made in a stipulation of facts at pre-trial by the parties, it must be treated as a

judicial admission. Under Section 4, [11] Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, a judicial admission requires no proof. Nor will petitioners reliance on the best evidence rule *12+ advance its cause. Respondent SIHI had no need to present the original of the documents as there was already a judicial admission by petitioner at pre-trial of the execution of the promissory note and receipt of the demand letter. It is now too late for petitioner to be questioning their authenticity. Case No. 2 People of the Philippines vs. Billy de Leon et. al GR. No. 129057 January 22, 2001

Facts: That on or about the 13th day of June 1996 in the afternoon in barangay Lomboy, Municipality of Binmaley, province of Pangasinan accused Billy, Leopoldo and Dominador de Leon killed Ignacio Jimenez by stabbing the latter. The crime was witnessed by his son Chito and Annaluz Hilarion whose mother inlaw is the second cousin of the of the wife of the victim corroborated the testimony of Chito Jimenez on some material points. Dr. Nicanor Arzadon, the doctor conducted the post mortem examination declared that a sharp bladed instrument caused the said wounds, and based on the sizes of the wounds, it is likely possible that two (2) or more kinds of weapons were used in hacking or stabbing the victim. On their part, both accused-appellants Leopoldo and Dominador invoked the defense of denial and alibi. They claimed that in the afternoon of June 13, 1996, they went to Manat, Binmaley upon the invitation of Modesto Reyes, to harvest fish in the latters fishpen. Mercedes de Leon, wife of Leopoldo, Dina de Leon, wife of Dominador and Modesto Reyes, owner of the fishpen where accused-appellants have allegedly harvested fish, tried to corroborate accused-appellants alibi. In an attempt to discredit the prosecution witnesses, accused-appellants contend that their testimonies are contradictory in that while Annaluz testified that accused-appellants Leopoldo and Dominador ran with Billy in chasing Chito, prosecution witness Chito, on the other hand, declared that Leopoldo and Dominador appeared only when his father, Ignacio, was being accosted by Billy. Issue: Whether or not the witnesses are credible because of the alleged inconsistencies and their relationship to the victim. Held: the inconsistencies, if any, in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses refer only to minor details and collateral matters which do not affect the substance, veracity, and weight of their testimony. They even tended to strengthen rather than weakened, the credibility of the witnesses as they negate any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. Furthermore, the court cannot and should not expect the testimonies of different witnesses to be completely identical. it is only natural that, in relating their impressions, they might disagree on some minor details. The credibility of the prosecution witnesses is not affected by their relationship with the deceased. The fact that witness Chito is the son of the victim while Annaluzs mother-in-law is the second cousin of the wife of the victim is of no consequence since mere relationship with the victim does not necessarily tarnish the testimony of a witness. When there is no showing of improper motive on the part of the witness in testifying against the accused, her relationship with the victim does not render her testimony less worthy of full faith and credence.

Case No. 3 People of the Philippines vs. Tomas Enriquez

GR. No. 129057 January 22, 2001

Facts: Tomas Enriquez is being accused of killing Jessie Conlu with Dr. Tito Doromal, Rene de la Pea and Romeo Ladrillo as witness for the prosecution. Dr. Tito Doromal, a Medico-Legal Officer testified that he examined the dead body of the victim and opined that the wound was inflicted by a sharp pointed, single bladed instrument, presumably a knife. The wound was fatal as it penetrated the heart of t he victim causing his instantaneous death. Rene testified that while he was working loading and unloading cargoes from the ships with his brother Christian dela Pena when he saw Enriquez walking towards Jessie who was also walking towards Enriquez. Immediately thereafter, ENRIQUEZ armed with a pointed instrument wrapped with a piece of cloth, ran slowly toward JESSIE and stabbed the latter. He also testified that ENRIQUEZ solicited Renes help to kill JESSIE because the latter was having an affair with ENRIQUEZs wife. Rene turned down the request. At a distance of four to five meters, Romeo saw JESSIE walking alongside the Coca-Cola plant. Likewise, Romeo noticed ENRIQUEZ moved near JESSIE and stabbed the latter on the chest with something in his hand covered by a white cloth. Romeo further declared that Rene de la Pea was also present at the scene and witnessed the incident. Romeo also corroborated the testimony of Rene regarding the plan of ENRIQUEZ to kill JESSIE. The defense presented as its witnesses Wilfredo Altamia, Christian de la Pea, and ENRIQUEZ. Wilfredo Altamia. At about 10:00 to 11:30 a.m. of that day, the members of the band consisting of about 15 members, including ENRIQUEZ, rode on a truck from Lapaz, Iloilo City for Maayon. They arrived in Maayon at about 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. of the same day. Their musical engagement in Maayon started at 8:00 p.m. of 13 October 1979, and they performed until 2:00 a.m. of the following day, 14 October 1979. Wilfredo asserted that ENRIQUEZ was with them from the time they left Iloilo City until the end of their performance in Maayon. [35] Thereafter, the group returned to Iloilo City and arrived thereat at around 8:00 a.m. of 14 October 1979. Lastly, Christian declared that he was not familiar with JESSIE not until 1 June 1998 when a certain Atty. Padojinog showed him a document proving that his brother-in-law Romeo and his brother Rene testified in court on the death of JESSIE. Enriquez denied having been acquainted with JESSIE and claimed that he became familiar with such name only in 1992 when a warrant of arrest was issued against him. ENRIQUEZ theorized that the present case was politically motivated. The trial courts judgment of conviction was primarily based on the testimonial account of Rene de la Pea and Romeo Ladrillo who both witnessed the commission of the crime from a distance of about four to five meters and positively identified ENRIQUEZ as the assailant. The trial court further observed that there was no showing of a personal hostility between ENRIQUEZ and the prosecution witnesses to raise doubt on the trustworthiness of the latters testimony. Issue: Whether the witness are credible. Held: He harps on the alleged material inconsistencies and contradictory statements of Rene and Romeo. On direct examination Rene declared that at the time of the stabbing incident he was hanging around near the premises of the old site of Coca-Cola plant when the stabbing incident happened because they went there after finishing their work as the ferry boat left. *46+ However, in the cross-examination, Rene was clear enough in saying that he was actually busy with his job putting the basket of tomatoes to the shoulder of his brother Christian de la Pea the one loading it to the ship, *47+ at the time of the incident. It was also incredible to believe that Rene would voluntarily testify because of an alleged guilty

conscience. Rene, who was not related to the victim, cannot be more interested than JESSIEs wife who had expressed disinterest in the prosecution of the instant case. Further eroding the truthfulness of Renes testimony were the following: (1) he failed to make an accurate account for the reaso n of the delay in the departure of the ship; (2) he had known Boyboy Cordera only on 11 June 1996, when in truth and in fact he had been visiting the residence of his parents in Molo, Iloilo City, which was also the place where Boyboy resided; (3) it was physically impossible for Rene to have observed the happening of the incident and at the same time witnessed the activity of ENRIQUEZ and of the victim; and (4) he was not consistent in his declaration that after the incident until July 1995 he had not met and talked with ENRIQUEZ. ENRIQUEZ further alleges that there were material inconsistencies between the testimonies of Rene and Romeo in that: (1) according to Romeo the crime happened by the side of the old Coca -Cola plant while Rene declared that it happened across the street of the old Coca-Cola plant *48+; (2) since Rene and Romeo were situated at different locations, it was not possible that they would witness the stabbing incident at the same distance; (3) they were unable to establish with certainty whether Christian de la Pea was present at the scene of the crime; (4) they differed in their testimony on the behavior of ENRIQUEZ after the stabbing incident; and (5) both gave a different version as to the exact number of policemen who arrived at the scene of the crime. ENRIQUEZ considers as improbable the similarity in the declaration of Rene and Romeo regarding the circumstances surrounding the incident. The similar pattern of describing the incident strongly suggests that they were rehearsed and were, therefore, unreliable witnesses. That the witnesses exhibited extraordinary mental ability for remembering every detail of the incident does not coincide with the reality taking into account their lowly position as mere porters. It was also unusual that Romeo and Rene did not reveal to anybody what they had witnessed on that fateful day.

Case No. 4 People of the Philippines vs. ISAGANI PARAISO y HUTALLA

GR. No. 131823 January 17, 2001

Facts: Respondent is being accused of raping and killing BBB, a 13 year old girl. The lone eye witness of the prosecution is Benny Reoveros who is related by affinity to accused-appellant, the latters wife being the sister of Bennys mother. However his credibility is questioned by the accused because of his failure to answer some questions, gave inconsistent statements, particularly when asked about distances and the four (4) cardinal directions. Issue: Whether or not the witness is credible? Held: The alleged inconsistencies and false averments of the principal prosecution witness are too trivial and inconsequential to merit consideration by the Court. Time-honored is the doctrine that discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the veracity of the witness declarations. In fact, they even indicate truthfulness and erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony, *xix+*19+ rather than impair the witness credibility. Moreover, the witness admittedly lacked formal education, not having been able to finish even the fourth elementary grade. Several times, he could not immediately answer questions propounded to him because he could not understand them. He was not even cognizant of the four cardinal directions.

Case No. 5 People of the Philippines vs. MARIETTA PATUNGAN y PULGA et. al

GR. No. 138045 March 14, 2001

Facts: Respondents is being accused of were charged with criminal case for killing Alejandro Patungan, the husband of Marietta Patungan, who is one of the accused. The criminal charge arise from the extra judicial confession of Elmerto Pulga linking his sister Marietta and his cousin Edgar Acebuche respectively as the master mind and the co-perpetrator of the crime. However, Elmerto contradicted his confession and alleged that he was not guilty and he was only forced to confess because of the physical violence the policemen inflicted on him in the open court. The respondents questions the validity of the decision of the lower court against them who relied entirely on the extrajudicial confession of Elmerto. They content that the confession was not voluntary and he was not assisted by counsel from the time he entered into custodial investigation rendering his confession inadmissible as evidence. Issue: Whether or not the extra-judicial confession of Elmerto is admissible as evidence? Held: An extra-judicial confession to be admissible in evidence must be express and voluntarily executed in writing with the assistance of an independent and competent counsel. Contrary to PO3 Villacortes assertion that Pulga was taken into custody on August 10, 1994, the police officer who actually took all three appellants into custody, SPO2 Orlando Gacute, testified that the appellants were all invited to the police station on August 9, 1994 and that they were all subjected to custodial investigation without counsel. Villacorte himself admitted that Pulga at first did not want to confess and pointed to another suspect as the perpetrator of the crime. This statement negates the polices claim of voluntary surrender and places in serious doubt the voluntariness of Pulgas extra-judicial confession. We also note from the above testimonies that it was only after appellant Pulga verbally confessed at the police precinct, without the assistance of counsel, when he was brought to the IBP office allegedly for the actual transcription of his confession in writing in the presence of a lawyer. Said lawyer admitted that he was working on an appeal in another case two to three meters away from the police investigator who was then taking Pulgas statement. He stated that he was not totally concentrated on the appealed case because he could still hear the investigation being conducted then. *28+ Villacorte testified that while he was taking Pulgas statement the IBP lawyer was working on something else using two other tables four meters apart. [29] The mere presence of a lawyer is not sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement of assistance of counsel. Assistance of counsel must be effective, vigilant and independent. [30] A counsel who could just hear the investigation going on while working on another case hardly satisfies the minimum requirements of effective assistance of counsel.

Case No. 6 CESAR BARRERA vs. People of the Philippines Facts:

GR. No. 134727 March 14, 2001

Petitioners in this case was accused of the crime murder of Mario Anacay. The accused allegedly stabbed Anacay once on the back after confronting the latter regarding him stabbing the the cousin of his co-accused Domingo Lazo. Fernandez, who was with Anacay that time fled to seek help from their other companions. At the hospital, police officer Malabanan interrogated the victim, Anacay, who declared that Cesar Dictado, Doming and Dolong were his attackers. The declaration of the victim was put down in writing which he thumbmarked with his own blood. Anacay also mentioned to prosecution witness, Lauro Ejeda, the same names of Cesar Dictado, Doming and Dolong as his attackers. Ejeda knew that Anacay was referring to Cesar Barrera, Celedonio Itape and Domingo Lazo whom he had known for a long time because they were engaged in the same business of beto -beto. Barrera denied the allegation and alleged that he was busy that time with his beto-beto business. The petitioner contends that there is doubt as to his identity as the perpetrator of the crime because the victim, Mario Anacay, himself identified his attackers as "Cesar Dictado, Doming and Dolong." Issue: Whether or not there is confussion as to the identification of the perpetrators? Held: Petitioner's contention is not impressed with merit. Prosecution eyewitness Jojo Fernandez positively identified the petitioner, Cesar Barrera, as the same person whom he saw stabbed Mario Anacay. Fernandez categorically declared on the witness stand that he was able to recognize petitioner Barrera for the reason that he (Fernandez) was with the victim, and the premises were well-lighted when the victim was stabbed by the petitioner. Regardless of whatever name Anacay may have known his attacker, the same is not sufficient to overturn the fact that petitioner Barrera was positively identified by prosecution eyewitness, Jojo Fernandez, as the perpetrator of the crime. Besides, another prosecution witness, Lauro Ejeda testified during the trial that he knew Cesar Dictado, who was referred to by Anacay in his dying declaration as his attacker, to be the same person as the herein petitioner, Cesar Barrera, whom he (Ejeda) had known for a long time. Consequently, the defense of denial by the petitioner pales in the light of the categorical identification made by the prosecution eyewitness, Jojo Fernandez. Positive identification where categorical and consistent and without any showing of illmotive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, as in the case at bar, prevails over alibi and denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.

Case No. 7 People of the Philippines vs. CESAR GIVERA

GR. No. 132159 January 18, 2001

Facts: Cesar Givera with Epefanio Gayon and Arturo Gayon is charged with a crime of murder of Eusebio Gardon separately. Epefanio and Arturo were already convicted. The prosecution presented he victims daughter Milagros Gardon and his niece Melinda Delfin as witnesses while only accused-appellant testified in his defense. The prosecution eye witness positively identified the accused and his coperpetrators as the killer of Eusebio while Cesar denied killing the victim contending that he was fetched by his cousin, Recto Gardon, because Maximo and the victim Eusebio Gardon were having an altercation. He went to pacify the protagonists and then led the victim to his house. Without his knowledge, however, Eusebio went back and again engaged Maximo in a fist fight, as a result of which the victim Eusebio was knocked down. Accused-appellant said he was going to help the victim get up, but he saw the victims son, Ronilo Gardon, coming with a bolo.

Issue: May the defense of the accused be given credit? Held: The prosecution presented evidence which shows beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant and his companions (Epifanio Gayon, Arturo Gayon, and Maximo Givera), all of whom were convicted of murder in another case, were responsible for the killing of Eusebio Gardon on May 2, 1993. Milagros Gardons testimony, an excerpt from which is quoted at the beginning of this opinion, is spontaneous, detailed, and consistent. The defense tried to discredit through cross examination, but, as shown earlier, the defense only succeeded in enabling her to give further details of her testimony in chief. Milagros testimony belies accused-appellants claim that he was merely trying to pacify the victim and Maximo Givera and that he ran away because the victims son, armed with a bolo, charged at him (accused-appellant). There was no reason for the victims son to want to attack accused-appellant, if the latter was merely trying to help the victim.

Case No. 8 People of the Philippines vs. HILARION TEVES Facts:

GR. No. 132159 April 2, 2001