EVID DigestsCompilation SET01

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!
121
BY: ASANA, BRI0NES, CARANBANu, CB0A, C0NTRERAS, CR0Z, B0NA, ESTILLES, u0NZAuA, LAZAR0, LIN, SENA}0N, TENuC0, 0RBINA | SB 2u1S | 1
/$3#11#,#4#25 -. !"#$!%&! 6
(1) F0LLER0 v. PE0PLE S
(2) PE0PLE v. NATE0 4
(S) vEuA v. S0CIAL SEC0RITY SYSTEN 7
(4) vITARICB C0RP0RATI0N v. L0SIN 8
(S) LEE v. KBC BANK N.v. 9
(6) LEPANT0 C0NS0LIBATEB NININu C0. v. B0NAPIS 11
78/2 %!!$ %-2 ,! 9:-"!$ ;<
/= )*$#&#/4 %-2#&! ;<
(1) vERS0ZA, }R. v. CARAu0A 12
(2) }0BuE ANuELES v. B0N. u0TIERREZ 14
(S) ASIAN TERNINALS v. NALAYAN INS0RANCE 1S
(4) S0CIAL }0STICE S0CIETY v. ATIENZA 16
(S) LANB BANK 0F TBE PBILIPPINES v. SPS. R0KAYA ANB B0NA 18
(6) LANB BANK 0F TBE PBILIPPINES v. B0NEYC0NB FARNS C0RP. 19
(7) BE CASTR0 v. LIBERTY BR0ABCASTINu NETW0RK, INC. 21
,= )*$#&#/4 /$3#11#-% <6
(1) SAN NIu0EL C0RP. v. KALAL0 2S
(2) PE0PLE 0F TBE PBILIPPINES v. }AN}ALANI 2S
(S) PBILIPPINES v. BE u0ZNAN 24
(4) NALAYAN INS0RANCE v. PBILIPPINE FIRST INS0RANCE 26
(S) REP0BLIC v. SANBIuANBAYAN 27
(6) TECS0N v. C0NELEC Su
:!/4 /%$ $!3-%12:/2#"! !"#$!%&! 6;
(1) TI}INu v. C00RT 0F APPEALS S1
(2) Au0STIN v. B0N. C00RT 0F APPEALS S4
(S) PE0PLE v. LARRANANuA S6
(4) CR0Z-AREvAL0 v. Q0ER0BIN-LAY0SA S7
(S) ESTATE 0F Y0}0IC0 v. REP0BLIC 0F TBE PBILIPPINES & CA S8
(6) NALILIN v. PE0PLE 0F TBE PBILIPPINES 4u
,!12 !"#$!%&! >;
(1) ARCE0 v. PE0PLE 41
(2) SP00SES ALFAR0 v. CA & BAuAN0 42
(S) BPI v. SNP 4S
(4) LE}AN0 v. PE0PLE 44
(S) REP0BLIC v. NARC0S-NAN0T0C 47
(6) BANuIS v. BEIRS 0F AB0LF0 S2
1!&-%$/:5 !"#$!%&! ?6
(1) ATIENZA v. B0ARB 0F NEBICINE SS
(2) NANILA NININu C0RP. v. TAN S4
(S) BEPARTNENT 0F EB0CATI0N C0LT0RE ANB SP0RTS v. BEL
R0SARI0 SS
(4) NAP0C0R v. B0N. C0BILLA }R. S6
9/:-4! !"#$!%&! ?@
(1) SP00SES SALINBANu0N v. SP00SES TAN S7
(2) BEIRS 0F PACRES v. BEIRS 0F Yu0NA S8
(S) LEIuBT0N C0NTRACT0RS PBILIPPINES, INC. v. CNP INB0STRIES,
INC. S9
(4) ESTATE 0F CABANuC0NuAN v. LAIu0 6u
(S) ALLIEB BANKINu v. CBENu Y0Nu 61
#%2!:9:!2/2#-% -. $-&*3!%21 A<
(1) NARQ0EZ ANB BELA CR0Z v. ESPE}0 62
(2) BR. SANT0S v. BR. vIBAR 6S
(S) CAT0NuAL v. R0BRIu0EZ 66
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
(4) BANK 0F C0NNERCE v. u00BNAN FIELBER INTERNATI0NAL
PBILIPPINES, INC. 68
B*/4#.#&/2#-% -. 7#2%!11 AC
(1) PE0PLE v. uABAWA Y BANuuAY 69
(2) TAN v. R0BIL ENTERPRISES 7u
(S) PA0 v. TINu 72
(4) PE0PLE v. PANSENS0Y 7S
(S) PE0PLE 0F TBE PBILIPPINES v. PALER 74
(6) PE0PLE v. CASTILL0 7S
9:#"#4!+!$ &-33*%#&/2#-% @@
(1) LEE v. CA 77
(2) PENA v. APARICI0 78
(S) PENTAu0N STEEL C0RP. v. CA 79
(4) BL0E CR0SS v. 0LIvARES 8u
(S) AIR PBILIPPINES C0RP. v. PENNSWELL, INC. 82
(6) BAB}0LA v. NABLANBA 8S
/$3#11#-%1 /%$ &-%.!11#-%1 D?
(1) SAN NIu0EL C0RP. v. KALAL0 8S
(2) PE0PLE 0F TBE PBILIPPINES v. }AN}ALANI 86
(S) B0 WAI PANu v. PE0PLE 87
(4) PE0PLE v. BIP0NA 88
&-%$*&2 E &8/:/&2!: !"#$!%&! DC
(1) PE0PLE v. C0NC0RI0 89
(2) PE0PLE 0F TBE PBILIPPINES v. LEE 91
(S) CSC v. BELAuAN 92
8!/:1/5 !"#$!%&! C6
(1) BAYANI v. PE0PLE 9S
(2) PAT0LA v. PE0PLE 94
(S) NALAYAN INS0RANCE C0. INC. v. ALBERT0 9S
(4) PE0PLE 0F TBE PBILIPPINES v. 0NICTIN 96
-9#%#-% :*4! C@
(1) F0LLER0 v. PE0PLE 97
(2) BERNANBEZ v. SAN }0AN-SANT0S 99
(S) PR0uRESSIvE TRABE & SERvICE ENTERPRISES v. ANT0NI0 1uu
(4) PEREZ v. PE0PLE 1u2
(S) PE0PLE v. CASTILL0 1uS

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
BY: ASANA, BRI0NES, CARANBANu, CB0A, C0NTRERAS, CR0Z, B0NA, ESTILLES, u0NZAuA, LAZAR0, LIN, SENA}0N, TENuC0, 0RBINA | SB 2u1S | S
/$3#11#,#4#25 -. !"#$!%&!
F;G .*44!:- "= 9!-94!
Facts:

Petitionei was employeu as a telegiaph opeiatoi at the Buieau of
Telecommunications 0ffice in Iiiga City (BT0, Iiiga City). In 1982, he
became the Acting Chief 0peiatoi of the same office until 1994. A
Peisonal Bata Sheet (PBS) |Civil Seivice Foim 212j uateu 8 }anuaiy
1988, puipoiteuly accomplisheu anu signeu by petitionei, states that
he passeu the Civil Engineeiing Boaiu Examination given on Su-S1 Nay
198S in Nanila with a iating of 7S.8%.

A lettei uateu 7 Naich 1988 anu signeu by petitionei shows that he
applieu foi the position of eithei a }unioi Telecommunications Engineei
oi Telecommunications Tiaffic Supeivisoi with the Regional Biiectoi of
the Civil Seivice Commission (CSC), Region S, Legazpi City.

0pon inquiiy maue by Floienua B. Nagistiauo (Nagistiauo), a
suboiuinate of petitionei in the BT0, Iiiga City, with the Piofessional
Regulation Commission (PRC), it was veiifieu that petitionei nevei
passeu the boaiu examination foi civil engineeiing anu that petitionei's
name uoes not appeai in the book of iegistiation foi civil engineeis.

Petitionei uenieu executing anu submitting the subject PBS containing
the statement that he passeu the Su-S1 Nay 198S boaiu examination
foi civil engineeiing. Be likewise uisowneu the signatuie anu
thumbmaik appeaiing theiein. Be claimeu that the stioke of the
signatuie appeaiing in the PBS uiffeis fiom the stioke of his genuine
signatuie. Be auueu that the letteis containeu in the PBS he
accomplisheu anu submitteu weie typewiitten in capital letteis since
his typewiitei uoes not have small letteis.

Noieovei, petitionei claimeu that Nagistiauo hau an ill motive in filing
the instant case against him because he issueu a memoianuum against
hei foi misbehavioi in the BT0, Iiiga City. Aftei tiial, the Legazpi City
RTC ienueieu a Becision finuing petitionei guilty of the ciime of
falsification. Petitionei appealeu to the Couit of Appeals. The appellate
couit piomulgateu its Becision affiiming in toto the assaileu Legazpi
City RTC Becision.

Issue:

WBETBER 0R N0T TBE B0N0RABLE C00RT 0F APPEALS ERREB IN
S0STAININu TBE }0BuNENT 0F TBE REuI0NAL TRIAL C00RT
BESPITE TBE FACT TBAT SAIB L0WER C00RT C0NvICTEB TBE
ACC0SEB IN TBE ABSENCE 0F S0FFICIENT EvIBENCE I.E., PR00F T0
SB0W TBAT TBE ACC0SEB ACT0ALLY PERF0RNEB TBE ACT 0F
FALSIFICATI0N BE IS ACC0SEB 0F;

Belu:

Case law uictates that an accuseu can be convicteu even if no
eyewitness is available as long as sufficient ciicumstantial eviuence hau
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
been piesenteu by the piosecution. Ciicumstantial eviuence is
sufficient if:

(a) Theie is moie than one ciicumstance;
(b) The facts fiom which the infeiences aie ueiiveu aie pioven;
anu
(c) The combination of all the ciicumstances is such as to
piouuce a conviction beyonu ieasonable uoubt.

Although none of the piosecution witnesses actually saw the petitionei
falsifying the PBS, they, nonetheless, testifieu that that they aie veiy
familiai with the petitionei's hanuwiiting anu signatuie. Nagistiauo
testifieu that, being a suboiuinate of petitionei, she is veiy familiai with
petitionei's signatuie anu actually witnesseu petitionei affixing his
signatuie on hei uaily time iecoius foi Septembei 1987 to Nay 1988.
Biizo testifieu that he is also familiai with petitionei's signatuie
because he peisonally knows petitionei anu that he iegulaily ieceiveu
petitionei's uaily time iecoius anu othei uocuments beaiing
petitionei's signatuie. Both Nagistiauo anu Biizo opineu that the
signatuie in the PBS belongs to petitionei.

The foiegoing testimonies aie consistent with the uocumentaiy
eviuence submitteu by the piosecution. The RTC anu the Couit of
Appeals founu the testimonies of Nagistiauo anu Biizo as tiustwoithy
anu believable.

Noie significant aie the uocumentaiy eviuence consisting of
petitionei's signatuie in ceitain authentic instiuments which aie
appaiently similai to the signatuie in the PBS.

In absolute uispaiity, the eviuence foi the uefense is compiiseu of
uenials. Petitionei uenieu having accomplisheu anu signeu the PBS. Be
tiieu to impait that someone else hau filleu it up. Bowevei, asiue fiom
this self-seiving anu negative claim, he uiu not auuuce any convincing
pioof to effectively iefute the eviuence foi the piosecution.

It is a hoinbook uoctiine that as between baie uenials anu positive
testimony on affiimative matteis, the lattei is accoiueu gieatei
eviuentiaiy weight.
F<G 9!-94! "= 3/2!-
Facts:

The instant Appeal stemmeu fiom an Infoimation inuicting uefenuant-
appellant }inggoy Nateo y Rouiiguez foi violation of Aiticle II, Section
S2 of Republic Act No. 916S, otheiwise known as the Compiehensive
Bangeious Biugs Act of 2uu2

Eviuence foi the piosecution auuuceu befoie the RTC consisteu of the
sole testimony of witness Police 0fficei 2 }oseph 0itiz (P02 0itiz) who
establisheu that in the eaily moining of 14 }une 2uuS, while he was on
"stanu-by" uuty at the Cential Police Bistiict in Camp Kaiingal, Quezon
City, his team leauei, Senioi Police 0fficei 2 (SP02) Bante Nageia, upon
the tip of an infoimant oiueieu him anu the iest of his teammates,
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
BY: ASANA, BRI0NES, CARANBANu, CB0A, C0NTRERAS, CR0Z, B0NA, ESTILLES, u0NZAuA, LAZAR0, LIN, SENA}0N, TENuC0, 0RBINA | SB 2u1S | S
namely, P0S Leonaiuo Ramos, P01 Peggy Lynne vaigas, anu P01
Estelito Noitega to conuuct a buy-bust opeiation against uefenuant-
appellant }inggoy Nateo, who was allegeuly selling illegal uiugs at Sitio
Pajo, Baesa, Quezon City. Pei instiuctions, P02 0itiz was taskeu to pose
as the poseui-buyei. Following the biiefing, his team leauei hanueu
him a P2uu.uu bill which P02 0itiz maikeu with his initials "}0."

P02 0itiz tolu uefenuant-appellant that he was going to buy shabu oi
methamphetamine hyuiochloiiue woith P2uu.uu. Befenuant-appellant
ieplieu, "Sige, bibili ka." Befenuant-appellant then hanueu a small
plastic sachet to P02 0itiz, anu in exchange, the lattei gave him the
maikeu P2uu.uu bill. Be intiouuceu himself to uefenuant-appellant as a
policeman, anu togethei with the othei membeis of the opeiation,
aiiesteu the uefenuant-appellant who was caught by suipiise

Foi his uefense, he positeu a contiaiy account of what tianspiieu. Pei
his naiiation, on 14 }anuaiy 2uuS at aiounu 4:uu in the moining, he
was suffeiing fiom a painful stomach.11 Be went to the comfoit ioom
which was locateu 1S meteis outsiue his house. 0pon coming out of the
comfoit ioom, he saw that theie was a commotion. Be iemaineu
outsiue, neai the comfoit ioom. Latei, a man in a police unifoim anu a
woman in plain clothes1S appioacheu him, hanucuffeu him, anu put
him in a van. 0n cioss-examination, he uenieu seeing a tianspaient
plastic sachet containing shabu anu buy-bust maikeu money being
tuineu ovei by the police officeis to the Besk 0fficei in Camp Kaiingal.
The uefense also offeieu the testimony of Naiichu Ramos, uefenuant-
appellant's neighboi, to piove that on the uay of the aiiest, theie was
no buy-bust opeiation that happeneu within the vicinity of Sitio Pajo,
Quezon City.

A foiensic examination was conuucteu on the specimen, subject mattei
of the case, which showeu that the aiticle iecoveieu fiom uefenuant-
appellant uuiing the buy-bust opeiation was shabu oi
methylamphetamine hyuiochloiiue.

Issue:

WBETBER 0R N0T ACC0SEB SB00LB BE F00NB u0ILTY
N0TWITBSTANBINu TBE ARRESTINu 0FFICERS' PATENT N0N-
C0NPLIANCE WITB TBE REQ0IRENENTS F0R TBE PR0PER C0ST0BY
0F SEIZEB BANuER00S BR0uS 0NBER R.A. N0. 916S.

Belu:

The Appeal is without meiit. Initially, it is best to emphasize that
uefenuant-appellant's uefense of allegeu non-compliance by the
aiiesting officeis with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 916S was iaiseu
belateuly anu foi the fiist time on appeal. Recently, in People v.
Noibeito uel Nonte y uapay 0bet, this Couit iuleu that non-
compliance with Section 21 woulu not ienuei an accuseu's aiiest illegal
oi the items seizeuconfiscateu fiom him inaumissible.SS This Couit
succinctly pionounceu:

We woulu like to auu that non-compliance with Section 21 of saiu law,
paiticulaily the making of the inventoiy anu the photogiaphing of the
uiugs confiscateu anuoi seizeu, will not ienuei the uiugs inaumissible
in eviuence. 0nuei Section S of Rule 128 of the Rules of Couit, eviuence
is aumissible when it is ielevant to the issue anu is not excluueu by the
law oi these iules. Foi eviuence to be inaumissible, theie shoulu be a
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
law oi iule which foibius its ieception. If theie is no such law oi iule,
the eviuence must be aumitteu subject only to the eviuentiaiy weight
that will |bej accoiueu it by the couits.

Fuitheimoie, Section 21 ieaus:

SEC. 21. Custouy anu Bisposition of Confiscateu, Seizeu, anuoi
Suiienueieu Bangeious Biugs, Plant Souices of Bangeious Biugs,
Contiolleu Piecuisois anu Essential Chemicals,
InstiumentsPaiapheinalia anuoi Laboiatoiy Equipment. - The PBEA
shall take chaige anu have custouy of all uangeious uiugs, plant
souices of uangeious uiugs, contiolleu piecuisois anu essential
chemicals, as well as instiumentspaiapheinalia anuoi laboiatoiy
equipment so confiscateu, seizeu anuoi suiienueieu, foi piopei
uisposition in the following mannei:

(1) The appiehenuing team having initial custouy anu contiol of
the uiugs shall, immeuiately aftei seizuie anu confiscation, physically
inventoiy anu photogiaph the same in the piesence of the accuseu oi
the peisons fiom whom such items weie confiscateu anuoi seizeu, oi
hishei iepiesentative oi counsel, a iepiesentative fiom the meuia anu
the Bepaitment of }ustice (B0}), anu any electeu public official who
shall be iequiieu to sign the copies of the inventoiy anu be given a copy
theieof.

Non-compliance by the appiehenuingbuy-bust team with Section 21 is
not fatal as long as theie is justifiable giounu theiefoi, anu as long as
the integiity anu the eviuentiaiy value of the confiscateuseizeu items,
aie piopeily pieseiveu by the appiehenuing officeiteam. Its non-
compliance will not ienuei an accuseu's aiiest illegal oi the items
seizeuconfiscateu fiom him inaumissible. What is of utmost
impoitance is the pieseivation of the integiity anu the eviuentiaiy
value of the seizeu items, as the same woulu be utilizeu in the
ueteimination of the guilt oi innocence of the accuseu.

In the case at bai, the iecoius aie unclouueu that the integiity anu the
eviuentiaiy value of the uiug items seizeu fiom uefenuant-appellant
uuiing the buy-bust opeiation weie piopeily pieseiveu anu
safeguaiueu. The specimen was auequately maikeu, anu then
uispatcheu to the Ciime Laboiatoiy foi the iequisite Chemistiy Repoit
conuucteu by Foiensic Chemist Engi. Leonaiu }abonillo. What is even
moie telling is the fact that accuseu-appellant was not shown to have
challengeu the custouy oi the issue of uisposition anu pieseivation of
the subject uiug befoie the RTC. Anu neithei uiu he iaise objections
befoie the Couit of Appeals. Accuseu-appellant cannot be alloweu too
late in the uay to question the integiity anu eviuentiaiy value of the
seizeu items.

In this case, it must be stiesseu that uefenuant-appellant even
stipulateu that a qualitative examination maue by the Philippine
National Police Ciime Laboiatoiy, Cential Police Bistiict Ciime
Laboiatoiy 0ffice on the subject specimen, which was sealeu in a
tianspaient plastic sachet maikeu with the initials of P02 0itiz, yielueu
positive foi methylamphetamine hyuiochloiiue, a uangeious uiug. The
question, theiefoie, of the integiity anu the eviuentiaiy value of the
items taken fiom the uefenuant-appellant has been laiu to iest.

In the instant case, we finu no compelling ieason to ieveise the finuings
of the RTC, as affiimeu by the Couit of Appeals. We uo so foi the
following ciitical points:

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Fiist, all the necessaiy elements foi the piosecution of the illegal sale of
uiugs weie establisheu. The elements aie the following: (1) the
iuentities of the buyei anu the sellei, the object, anu consiueiation; anu
(2) the ueliveiy of the thing solu anu the payment theiefoi. It is beyonu
ieasonable uoubt that the tiansaction actually took place

Seconu, the piesumption that the public officeis peifoimeu theii uuties
iegulaily uuiing the buy-bust opeiation was not oveituineu. This
piesumption can be oveituineu if cleai anu convincing eviuence is
piesenteu to piove eithei of two things: (1) that they weie not piopeily
peifoiming theii uuty, oi (2) that they weie inspiieu by any impiopei
motive. In this case, appellant faileu to piesent saiu eviuence.
}uiispiuuence has establisheu that a buy-bust opeiation is a foim of
entiapment, in which the violatoi is caught in flagiante uelicto anu the
police officeis conuucting the opeiation aie not only authoiizeu but
uuty-bounu to appiehenu the violatoi anu to seaich him foi anything
that may have been pait of oi useu in the commission of the ciime.

The aiiesting officeis weie not shown not to have piopeily peifoimeu
theii uuty. Neithei was it establisheu that they hau been impelleu by
any impiopei motive. We aie in accoiu with the Couit of Appeals that
nowheie was it shown oi even imputeu that the aiiest of uefenuant-
appellant was maue in an effoit to extoit fiom him.

F6G "!+/ "= 1-&#/4 1!&*:#25 1512!3
vega v Social Secuiity System

Nagualena v. Reyes (Reyes) owneu a piece of titleu lanu. She got a
housing loan fiom iesponuent Social Secuiity System (SSS) foi which
she moitgageu hei lanu. Subsequently, howevei, she askeu the
petitionei spouses Antonio anu Leticia vega (the vegas) to assume the
loan anu buy hei house anu lot since she wanteu to emigiate.

0pon inquiiy with the SSS, an employee theie tolu the vegas that the
SSS uiu not appiove of membeis tiansfeiiing theii moitgageu homes.
The vegas coulu, howevei, simply make a piivate aiiangement with
Reyes pioviueu they paiu the monthly amoitizations on time. This
piactice, saiu the SSS employee, was commonplace. Aimeu with this
infoimation, the vegas agieeu foi Reyes to execute in theii favoi a ueeu
of assignment of ieal piopeity with assumption of moitgage anu paiu
Reyes P2u,uuu.uu aftei she unueitook to upuate the amoitizations
befoie leaving the countiy. The vegas then took possession of the
house.

But Reyes uiu not ieauily execute the ueeu of assignment. She left the
countiy anu gave hei sistei, 0filaua, a special powei of attoiney to
convey owneiship of the piopeity. 0filaua finally executeu the ueeu
piomiseu by hei sistei to the vegas. 0filaua kept the oiiginal anu gave
the vegas two copies. The lattei gave one copy to the Bome
Bevelopment Noitgage Funu anu kept the othei. 0nfoitunately, a stoim
iesulteu in a floou that uestioyeu the copy left with them.
vegas leaineu that Reyes uiu not upuate the amoitizations foi they
ieceiveu a notice to Reyes fiom the SSS conceining it. They tolu the SSS
that they alieauy gave the payment to Reyes but, since it appeaieu
inuiffeient, on the vegas upuateu the amoitization themselves anu paiu
to the SSS, thiough vega's peisonal check. vegas iequesteu the SSS to
acknowleuge theii status as subiogees anu to give them an upuate of
the account so they coulu settle it in full. The SSS uiu not ieply.
Neantime, the RTC sheiiff publisheu a notice foi the auction sale of the
piopeity.
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
vegas fileu an action foi consignation, uamages, anu injunction with
application foi pieliminaiy injunction anu tempoiaiy iestiaining oiuei
against the SSS
RTC ueciueu Civil Case in favoi of the vegas anu they weie subiogateu
to the iights of Reyes anu substituteu hei in the SSS housing loan anu
moitgage contiact. Bowevei, this was ieveiseu by the CA which iuleu
that vegas weie unable to piouuce the ueeu of assignment of the
piopeity in theii favoi
Issue:
Whethei oi not the vegas piesenteu auequate pioof of Reyes' sale of
the subject piopeity to them
Belu:
Yes.
0ne. The CA iuleu that the vegas weie unable to piove that Reyes
assigneu the subject piopeity to them, given that they faileu to piesent
the ueeu of assignment in theii favoi upon a claim that they lost it. But
the iule iequiiing the piesentation of the oiiginal of that ueeu of
assignment is not absolute. Seconuaiy eviuence of the contents of the
oiiginal can be auuuceu, as in this case, when the oiiginal has been lost
without bau faith on the pait of the paity offeiing it.

Beie, not only uiu the vegas piove the loss of the ueeu of assignment in
theii favoi anu what the same containeu, they offeieu stiong
coiioboiation of the fact of Reyes' sale of the piopeity to them. They
took possession of the house anu lot aftei they bought it. Inueeu, they
liveu on it anu helu it in the concept of an ownei foi 1S yeais befoie
PBC came into the pictuie. They also paiu all the amoitizations to the
SSS with Antonio vega's peisonal check, even those that Reyes
piomiseu to settle but uiu not. Anu when the SSS wanteu to foieclose
the piopeity, the vegas sent a managei's check to it foi the balance of
the loan. Neithei Reyes noi any of hei ielatives came foiwaiu to claim
the piopeity. The vegas amply pioveu the sale to them.

F>G "#2/:#&8 &-:9-:/2#-% "= 4-1#%
vitaiich Coipoiation v Chona Losin

Facts:
Responuent Chona Losin was in the fastfoou anu cateiing seivices
business nameu ulamouis Chicken Bouse. vitaiich hau been hei
suppliei of poultiy meat.
In the months of }uly to Novembei 1996, Losin's oiueis of uiesseu
chicken anu othei meat piouucts allegeuly amounteu to P921,u8S.1u.
Buiing this saiu peiiou, Losin's poultiy meat neeus foi hei business
weie seiviceu by Rouiigo Biiecto anu Allan Rosa, both salesmen anu
authoiizeu collectois of vitaiich, anu Ainolu Baybay, a supeivisoi of
saiu coipoiation. 0nfoitunately, it was also uuiing the same peiiou that
hei account staiteu to expeiience pioblems because of the fact that
Biiecto ueliveieu stocks to hei even without piioi booking which is the
customaiy piocess of uoing business with hei.
Biiecto's seivices weie teiminateu by vitaiich without Losin's
knowleuge. Be left without tuining ovei some suppoiting invoices
coveiing the oiueis of Losin. Rosa anu Baybay, on the othei hanu,
iesigneu subsequently. }ust like Biiecto, they uiu not also tuin ovei
peitinent invoices coveiing Losin's account.
Bemanu letteis weie sent to Losin coveiing hei allegeu unpaiu account
amounting to P921,u8S.1u. Because of saiu uemanus, she checkeu hei
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
iecoius anu uiscoveieu that she hau an oveipayment to vitaiich in the
amount of PSuu,uuu.uu. She ielayeu this fact to vitaiich anu fuithei
infoimeu the lattei that checks weie issueu anu the same weie
collecteu by Biiecto.

It appeais that Losin hau issueu thiee (S) checks amounting to
P288,46S.Su which weie uishonoieu eithei foi ieasons - Biawn Against
Insufficient Funus (BAIF) oi Stop Payment.

vitaiich fileu a complaint foi sum of money against Losin.

Issue:
Whethei oi not Losin has pioven payment to vitaiich.
Belu:
No.
As a geneial iule, one who pleaus payment has the buiuen of pioving it.
In }imenez v. NLRC, the Couit iuleu that the buiuen iests on the uebtoi
to piove payment, iathei than on the cieuitoi to piove non-payment.
The uebtoi has the buiuen of showing with legal ceitainty that the
obligation has been uischaigeu by payment.
Aftei examination of the eviuence piesenteu, this Couit is of the
opinion that Losin faileu to piesent a single official ieceipt to piove
payment. This is contiaiy to the well-settleu iule that a ieceipt, which is
a wiitten anu signeu acknowleugment that money anu goous have been
ueliveieu, is the best eviuence of the fact of payment although not
exclusive. All she piesenteu weie copies of the list of checks allegeuly
issueu to vitaiich thiough its agent Biiecto, a Statement of Payments
Naue to vitaiich, anu appaiently copies of the peitinent histoiy of hei
checking account with Rizal Commeicial Banking Coipoiation (RCBC).
At best, these may only seive as uocumentaiy iecoius of hei business
uealings with vitaiich to keep tiack of the payments maue but these aie
not enough to piove payment.
Aiticle 1249, paiagiaph 2 of the Civil Coue pioviues: The ueliveiy of
piomissoiy notes payable to oiuei, oi bills of exchange oi othei
meicantile uocuments shall piouuce the effect of payment only when
they have been casheu, oi when thiough the fault of the cieuitoi they
have been impaiieu. |Emphasis supplieuj
In the case at bai, no cash payment was pioveu. It was neithei
confiimeu that the checks issueu by Losin weie actually encasheu by
vitaiich. Thus, the Couit cannot consiuei that payment, much less
oveipayment, maue by Losin.

F?G 4!! "= H,& ,/%H %="=
Facts:

Niuas Biveisifieu Expoit Coipoiation (NBEC) obtaineu a $1,4uu,uuu
loan fiom KBC Bank N.v. (KBC Bank). KBC Bank is a Belgian
coipoiation licenseu to uo business in the Philippines. 0n 12 August
1997, Samuel 0. Lee (Lee), assistant tieasuiei anu uiiectoi of NBEC,
executeu a piomissoiy note in favoi of KBC Bank anu a ueeu of
assignment tiansfeiiing all of NBEC's iights ovei Confiimeu Puichase
0iuei No. NTC-S48 to KBC Bank. Confiimeu Puichase 0iuei No. NTC-
S48 was allegeuly uateu 1S }uly 1997, issueu by 0tto veisanu, a
company baseu in ueimany, anu coveieu a shipment of giil's basic
uenim jeans

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
BY: ASANA, BRI0NES, CARANBANu, CB0A, C0NTRERAS, CR0Z, B0NA, ESTILLES, u0NZAuA, LAZAR0, LIN, SENA}0N, TENuC0, 0RBINA | SB 2u1S | 1u
NBEC obtaineu anothei loan, amounting to $6S,uuu, fiom KBC Bank.
0n 14 Novembei 1997, Naybelle L. Lim (Lim), tieasuiei anu assistant
secietaiy of NBEC, executeu a piomissoiy note in favoi of KBC Bank
anu a ueeu of assignment tiansfeiiing all of NBEC's iights ovei
Confiimeu Puichase 0iuei No. WC-128 to KBC Bank. Confiimeu
Puichase 0iuei No. WC-128 was allegeuly uateu 1 0ctobei 1997, issueu
by 0tto veisanu, anu coveieu a shipment of boy's beimuua jeans.

Lim ieneweu the 12 August 1997 piomissoiy note anu issueu a notice
of ienewal anu uiawuown ceitificate to KBC Bank. 0n 29 Becembei
1997, Lim executeu an amenueu ueeu of assignment

NBEC was consiueieu in uefault in paying the $6S,uuu loan on Su
}anuaiy 1998. 0nuei a facility agieement between KBC Bank anu
NBEC, any uefault in payment of any obligation unuei the agieement
woulu ienuei NBEC in uefault with iegaiu to the $6S,uuu loan
NBEC uefaulteu in paying two othei obligations unuei the agieement.

KBC Bank sent a lettei to 0tto veisanu veiifying the valiuity of
Confiimeu Puichase 0iuei Nos. NTC-S48 anu WC-128. 0n 19 Naich
1998, 0tto veisanu sent a facsimile message to KBC Bank stating that
(1) it uiu not issue the puichase oiueis, (2) it uiu not oiuei oi ieceive
the items coveieu by the puichase oiueis, anu (S) it woulu not pay
NBEC any amount.

In a complaint-affiuavit, Liza N. Pajaiillo, managei of the coipoiate
uivision of KBC Bank, chaigeu Lee anu Lim of estafa.

Issue:

WBETBER TBE FACSINILE NESSAuE IS ABNISSIBLE IN EvIBENCE

Belu:

Lee anu Lim claim that the Couit of Appeals eiieu when it iuleu that the
aumissibility of the facsimile message is a mattei best ventilateu in a
full-blown tiial.

In Anuies v. }ustice Secietaiy Cuevas, the Couit helu that:

|A pieliminaiy investigationj is not the occasion foi the full anu
exhaustive uisplay of |the piosecution'sj eviuence. The piesence oi
absence of the elements of the ciime is eviuentiaiy in natuie anu is a
mattei of uefense that may be passeu upon aftei a full-blown tiial on
the meiits.

In fine, the valiuity anu meiits of a paity's uefense oi accusation,
as well as the aumissibility of testimonies anu eviuence, aie bettei
ventilateu uuiing tiial piopei than at the pieliminaiy investigation
level.
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
FAG 4!9/%2- &-%1-4#$/2!$ 3#%#%+ &-= "= $*3/9#1
Facts:

Lepanto Consoliuateu Nining Coipoiation (petitionei), a uomestic
juiiuical entity engageu in mining, employeu Noieno Bumapis anu
Elmo Tunuagui as leau mineis; anu Fiancis Liagao, as loau, haul anu
uump (LBB) machine opeiatoi (iesponuents). All thiee weie assigneu
at the 8Su level, unueigiounu, victoiia Aiea in Lepanto, Nankayan,
Benguet.

In the afteinoon of Septembei 1S, 2uuu, at 2:uu p.m., Bwayne
Chambeis (Chambeis), one of its foieign consultants who was then
acting as Assistant Resiuent Nanagei of the Nine, went unueigiounu at
the 8Su level to conuuct a ioutinaiy inspection of the woikeis anu the
woiking conuitions theiein. When he went to the vaiious stopes of the
saiu level, he was suipiiseu to see that nobouy was theie. Bowevei,
when he went to the 8k stope, he noticeu a gioup of woikeis sitting,
soiting, anu washing oies believeu to be "highgiaue." Realizing that
"highgiauing"S was being committeu, Chambeis shouteu. 0pon heaiing
his angiy voice, the woikeis scampeieu in uiffeient uiiections of the
stope.6 Chambeis then iepoiteu the inciuent to the secuiity
investigation office.

Aftei investigating, Secuiity Investigatois Paul Pespes, }i. anu Felimon
Ringoi (Secuiity Investigatois) executeu a }oint Affiuavit.

Ppetitionei issueu a iesolution finuing iesponuents anu theii co-
accuseu guilty of the offense of highgiauing anu uismissing them fiom
theii employment. Responuents togethei with the nine othei mineis,
fileu a Complaint foi illegal uismissal with the Laboi Aibitei (LA),
against petitionei. The LA uismisseu the complaint foi lack of meiit.
The CA affiimeu the uecision of the NLRC. The CA uphelu the NLRC in
consiueiing the }oint Affiuavit of the Secuiity Investigatois (}oint
Affiuavit) as heaisay anu theiefoie inaumissible.

Issue:

WBETBER TBE }0INT AFFIBAvIT IS ABNISSIBLE IN EvIBENCE

Belu:

Yes. Auministiative bouies like the NLRC aie not bounu by the technical
niceties of law anu pioceuuie anu the iules obtaining in couits of law.
Inueeu, the Reviseu Rules of Couit anu pievailing juiispiuuence may be
given only stiingent application, i.e., by analogy oi in a suppletoiy
chaiactei anu effect. In a numbei of cases, this Couit has constiueu
Aiticle 221 of the Laboi Coue as peimitting the NLRC oi the LA to
ueciue a case on the basis of position papeis anu othei uocuments
submitteu without necessaiily iesoiting to technical iules of eviuence
as obseiveu in the iegulai couits of justice. Rules of eviuence aie not
stiictly obseiveu in pioceeuings befoie auministiative bouies like the
NLRC.

Thus, the CA anu the NLRC eiieu in iuling that the }oint Affiuavit is
inaumissible foi being heaisay. The }oint Affiuavit of the Secuiity
Investigatois is aumissible foi what it is, an investigation iepoit.
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121

Bowevei, the aumissibility of eviuence shoulu not be confuseu with its
piobative value. Aumissibility iefeis to the question of whethei ceitain
pieces of eviuence aie to be consiueieu at all, while piobative value
iefeis to the question of whethei the aumitteu eviuence pioves an
issue. Thus, a paiticulai item of eviuence may be aumissible, but its
eviuentiaiy weight uepenus on juuicial evaluation within the guiuelines
pioviueu by the iules of eviuence.

While it is tiue that auministiative oi quasi-juuicial bouies like the
NLRC aie not bounu by the technical iules of pioceuuie in the
aujuuication of cases, this pioceuuial iule shoulu not be constiueu as a
license to uisiegaiu ceitain funuamental eviuentiaiy iules. The
eviuence piesenteu must at least have a mouicum of aumissibility foi it
to have piobative value.26 Not only must theie be some eviuence to
suppoit a finuing oi conclusion, but the eviuence must be substantial.
Substantial eviuence is moie than a meie scintilla. It means such
ielevant eviuence as a ieasonable minu might accept as auequate to
suppoit a conclusion.28 Thus, even though technical iules of eviuence
aie not stiictly complieu with befoie the LA anu the NLRC, theii
uecision must be baseu on eviuence that must, at the veiy least, be
substantial.

The Couit is convinceu that the }oint Affiuavit, being souiceu fiom
Chambeis, Bamoslog, Baguio anu Nauao, has no piobative value to
suppoit eviuence to waiiant the uismissal of the iesponuents.
Chambeis anu Baguio uiu not iuentify the mineis involveu in the act of
highgiauing. In auuition, Bamoslog's fiist anu seconu swoin statements
uiu not implicate iesponuents, anu Nauao iecanteu his statement
implicating iesponuent Liagao. As eailiei uiscusseu, the swoin
statements anu joint affiuavits of the souices uo not coiioboiate but
actually cast uoubt as to the veiacity of the statements in the }oint
Affiuavit.
78/2 %!!$ %-2 ,! 9:-"!$
/= )*$#&#/4 %-2#&!
F;G "!:1-I/J ):= "= &/:/+*/
Canuelaiio veisoza }i v uuilleimo Caiague et al.
Facts:
The CBA conuucteu a public biuuing foi the supply to the CBA of
computei equipment anu peiipheials. The thiee entities that took pait
weie Tetia Coipoiation-Tiigem Computeis (Tetia), Niciociicuits Co.
(Niciociicuits), anu Columbia Computeis (Columbia).
Following the biuuing, the evaluation (which also incluueu a technical
evaluation maue by the Bevelopment Acauemy of the Philippines (BAP)
at the iequest of the CBA anu the ensuing appioval given by Canuelaiio
L. veisoza, }i. as the CBA's Executive Biiectoi. Tetia was awaiueu the
supply contiact foi the total amount of P2,28S,279.uu, which was
eventually paiu by the CBA to Tetia.
Nonths aftei the puichase, the C0A Resiuent Auuitoi assigneu to the
CBA sought the assistance of the Technical Seivices 0ffice (TS0) of the
C0A to ueteimine the ieasonableness of the piices of the puichaseu
computeis. The TS0 founu that the puichaseu computeis weie
oveipiiceuexcessive by a total of P881,819.uu. Among othei things,
the TS0 noteu that: (1) no volume uiscount was given by the suppliei,
consiueiing the numbei of units solu; (2) as eaily as 1992, theie weie
so much supply of computeis in the maiket so that the piices of
computeis weie ielatively low alieauy; anu (S) when the CBA fiist
offeieu to buy computeis, of the thiee qualifieu biuueis, Niciociicuits
offeieu the lowest biu piice while Tetia offeieu the highest biu. The
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
BY: ASANA, BRI0NES, CARANBANu, CB0A, C0NTRERAS, CR0Z, B0NA, ESTILLES, u0NZAuA, LAZAR0, LIN, SENA}0N, TENuC0, 0RBINA | SB 2u1S | 1S
Resiuent Auuitoi thus issueu a Notice of Bisallowance in Novembei
199S, foi the amount of P881,819.
The CBA sought a ieconsiueiation anu pioviueu its basis as to why, on
the whole, the puichase fiom Tetia was justifieu.
0nconvinceu, the C0A issueu its uecision affiiming the uisallowance
theieby upholuing the compaiison piocess unueitaken by the Resiuent
Auuitoi anu the TS0. The CoA helu that CBA shoulu not have awaiueu
the contiact to Tetia but to the othei competing biuuei, whose biu is
moie auvantageous to the goveinment. In auuition, the C0A helu
veizosa peisonally anu soliuaiily liable foi the uisalloweu amount of
P881,819 on account of his having acteu in bau faith.
The CBA theiefoie petitioneu the Bigh Couit to ieveise the C0A's
iulings.
Issue:
Whethei oi not the oveipiicing of the computei units was pioveu.
Belu:
Yes. The Couit afiimeu the finuings of C0A.
The ponente noteu at the outset that acting on its constitutional
manuate to "piomulgate accounting anu auuiting iules, anu iegulations
incluuing those foi the pievention anu uisallowance of iiiegulai,
unnecessaiy, excessive, extiavagant oi unconscionable expenuituies, oi
uses of goveinment funus anu piopeities," the C0A piomulgateu
ceitain amenueu iules which incluueu piovisions ielating to excessive
expenuituies which shall be ueteimineu by place anu oiigin of goous,
volume oi quantity of puichase, seivice waiianties, quality, special
featuies of units puichaseu anu the like. 0nuei those iules, piice is
consiueieu "excessive" if it is moie than the 1u% allowable piice
vaiiance between the piice paiu foi the item bought anu the piice of the
same item pei canvass of the auuitoi. Anu in ueteimining whethei oi
not the piice is excessive, seveial stateu factois may be consiueieu by
the C0A.
The majoiity obseiveu that the iecoius showeu that while the C0A
founu nothing wiong pei se with the ciiteiia auopteu by the CBA in the
oveiall evaluation of the bius, the conuuct of the technical aspect was
seiiously uoubtful. In paiticulai, the final technical evaluation iepoit
was appaiently manipulateu to favoi Tetia, which offeieu a Koiean-
maue bianu as against Niciociicuits which offeieu a 0S-maue bianu
saiu to be moie uuiable, at a lowei piice.
Although the BAP, in a lettei, confiimeu to the CBA that baseu on theii
evaluation in compliance with the "giauing system" specifieu by CBA,
the units of Tetia weie best suiteu to the neeus of CBA. Bowevei,
}ustice villaiama took note that upon investigation, it was uiscoveieu
that theie was an eailiei iepoit fiom the BAP which actually stateu a
contiaiy finuing but that a iepiesentative fiom CBA gave fuithei
instiuctions to the BAP iegaiuing "penalty points" that shoulu be
applieu foi ueviation in haiuwaie specifications, thus iesulting in the
affiimative lettei mentioneu eailiei that gave Tetia the highest ianking.
The main uecision theiefoie helu that it was cleai that "the conuuct of
public biuuing in this case was not maue objectively with the enu in
view of puichasing quality equipment at the least cost to the
goveinment. The piice uiffeience fai exceeueu the 1u% allowable
vaiiance in the unit bought anu the same item's piice.".
The Couit affiimeu that "the finuings of quasi-juuicial agencies, such as
the C0A, which have acquiieu expeitise because theii juiisuiction is
confineu to specific matteis aie geneially accoiueu not only iespect but
at times even finality if such finuings aie suppoiteu by substantial
eviuence. It is only upon a cleai showing that the C0A acteu without oi
in excess of juiisuiction oi with giave abuse of uiscietion amounting to
lack oi excess of juiisuiction that this Couit will set asiue its uecisions
oi final oiueis. The Couit finus no such aibitiaiiness oi giave abuse on
the pait of the C0A when it uisalloweu in auuit the amount
iepiesenting the oveipiice in the payment by CBA foi the puichaseu
computei units anu peiipheials, its finuings aie well-suppoiteu by the
eviuence on iecoiu."
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121

F<G )*$+! /%+!4!1 "= 8-%= +*2#!::!I
}0BuE ANuELES vS B0N. u0TIERREZ

u.R. Nos. 189161 & 18917S Naich 21, 2u12

}0BuE AB0RACI0N u. ANuELES, Petitionei, vs.
B0N. NA. NERCEBITAS N. u0TIERREZ, 0mbuusman; B0N. 0RLANB0
C. CASINIR0, 0veiall Beputy 0mbuusman; B0N. SYLvIA A. SEvER0,
uiaft Investigatoi anu Piosecution 0fficei I; B0N. NARIL00 B.
ANCBETA-NE}ICA, Acting Biiectoi, PIAB-B; B0N. }0SE T. BE }ES0S, }R.,
Assistant 0mbuusman, PAN0; All of the 0mbuusman; anu SSP
ENNAN0EL Y. vELASC0, Responuents.

FACTS:
}uuge Angeles, then the Piesiuing }uuge of Bianch 121 of RTC Caloocan,
fileu a ciiminal complaint against velasco, then a senioi state
piosecutoi at the B0}, foi the following acts allegeuly committeu in his
capacity as a piosecutoi:
1. uiving an unwaiianteu benefit, auvantage oi piefeience to the
accuseu in a ciiminal case foi smuggling by failing to piesent a mateiial
witness;
2. Engaging in piivate piactice by insisting on the ieopening of chilu
abuse cases against petitionei;
S. Falsifying a public uocument to make it appeai that a claiificatoiy
heaiing on the chilu abuse Complaint was conuucteu.

Accoiuing to the complaint, velasco, who was the tiial piosecutoi in a
ciiminal case involving smuggling of jeweliy, faileu to piesent a
mateiial witness in the saiu case, which act was allegeu to be in
violation of Section S(e) of the Anti uiaft anu Coiiupt Piactices Act.

The seconu act complaineu of iefeis to velasco's filing of two Petitions
to ieopen the chilu abuse cases fileu against }uuge Angeles. Accoiuing
to }uuge Angeles, the move of velasco to ieopen the chilu abuse cases
was allegeuly meant to exact vengeance foi the foimei's filing of the
above-mentioneu auministiative Complaint.

The allegeu falsification of public uocument aiose fiom the same
pieliminaiy investigation conuucteu by iesponuent in the chilu abuse
cases mentioneu above. Accoiuing to }uuge Angeles, velasco maue it
appeai that he hau conuucteu a claiificatoiy heaiing on the Complaint
foi chilu abuse on 22 }une 1999 as shown in the Ninutes of the saiu
heaiing when in fact to such heaiing occuiieu.

In an eailiei case (u.R. No. 187S96) involving the same inciuents anu
paities as the piesent action, the Supieme Couit affiimeu the finuing of
the Couit of Appeals that velasco was not guilty of the chaiges
abovementioneu.
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121

ISS0E:
Whethei oi not the Couit in the piesent action may take juuicial notice
of the factual finuings of the Couit of Appeals in u.R. No. 187S96

R0LINuRATI0:
Yes. The Couit may take juuicial notice of the factual finuings of the
Couit of Appeals. The Couit of Appeals thus founu that the chaige of
suppiession of eviuence by iesponuent in the smuggling case was
uispelleu by the Chief State Piosecutoi himself in a Ceitification uateu
17 0ctobei 2uu2. Fuithei, the CA founu that velasco's isolateu act of
filing a pleauing uiu not necessaiily constitute piivate piactice of law,
anu a claiificatoiy heaiing was inueeu conuucteu. Thus, as alieauy
affiimeu by the Couit in u.R. No.187S96, velasco was not guilty of the
chaiges against him.

The Couit notes with stiong uisappioval both paities' iesoit to abuse of
the juuicial piocesses of this Couit. This is the thiiu case we know of
that the paities have fileu against each othei, anu that has ieacheu the
Supieme Couit.

This fact is especially iegiettable, consiueiing that petitionei as juuge
anu iesponuent as piosecutoi shoulu have been well-cognizant of oui
cloggeu couit uockets anu shoulu have thus exeiciseu moie iestiaint in
filing cases against each othei. Canon 12 of the Coue of Piofessional
Responsibility enjoins a lawyei fiom filing multiple actions aiising fiom
the same cause anu fiom misusing couit piocess. }uuging fiom the
numbei of cases anu the vengeful tone of the chaiges that the paities
have huileu against each othei in theii pleauings, they seem moie bent
on settling what has become a peisonal scoie between them, iathei
than on achieving the enus of justice.S2

The paities aie waineu against tiifling with couit piocess.

F6G /1#/% 2!:3#%/41 "= 3/4/5/% #%1*:/%&!
ASIAN TERNINALS, INC. vS NALAYAN INS0RANCE

u.R. No. 1714u6 Apiil 4, 2u11

ASIAN TERNINALS, INC., Petitionei, vs.
NALAYAN INS0RANCE, C0., INC., Responuent.

FACTS:
0n Novembei 14, 199S, Shanuong Weifang Soua Ash Plant shippeu on
boaiu the vessel Nv "}inlian I" 6u,uuu plastic bags of soua ash uense
fiom China to Nanila.4 The shipment was insuieu with iesponuent
Nalayan Insuiance Company, Inc. (Nalayan) anu coveieu by a Bill of
Lauing issueu by Tianjin Navigation Company with Philippine Banking
Coipoiation as the consignee.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Aftei all the bags weie unloaueu in the waiehouses of the consignee, a
total of 2,881 bags weie in bau oiuei conuition uue to spillage, caking,
anu haiuening of the contents.

Nalayan, as insuiei, paiu the value of the lost uamageu caigoes to the
consignee. Thus, Nalayan, as subiogee of the consignee, fileu a
Complaint foi uamages against ATI, the shippei Inchcape Shipping
Seivices, anu the caigo biokei NEC Customs Biokeiage. RTC iuleu
against ATI anu uismisseu the complaint against the shippei anu the
caigo biokei. CA affiimeu. ATI was oiueieu to pay P64S,6uu.2S plus
inteiest, the sum iepiesenting the amount paiu by Nalayan to the
consignee.

ATI claims that the amount of uamages shoulu not be moie than
PS,uuu.uu, puisuant to its Nanagement Contiact foi caigo hanuling
seivices with the Philippine Poits Auhtoiity (PPA). Petitionei contenus
that the CA shoulu have taken juuicial notice of the saiu contiact since it
is an official act of an executive uepaitment subject to juuicial
cognizance.

Nalayan, on the othei hanu, contenus that the Nanagement Contiact is
outsiue the opeiation of juuicial. Anu even if it is not, petitionei's
liability cannot be limiteu by it since it is a contiact of auhesion.

ISS0E:
Whethei oi not the couit can take juuicial notice of the Nanagement
Contiact between ATI anu PPA in ueteimining the foimei's liability

R0LINuRATI0:
No. Sections 1 anu 2 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Couit pioviue that:
SECTI0N 1. }uuicial notice, when manuatoiy. A couit shall take
juuicial notice, without the intiouuction of eviuence, of the existence
anu teiiitoiial extent of states, theii political histoiy, foims of
goveinment anu symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the
aumiialty anu maiitime couits of the woilu anu theii seals, the political
constitution anu histoiy of the Philippines, the official acts of the
legislative, executive anu juuicial uepaitments of the Philippines, the
laws of natuie, the measuie of time, anu the geogiaphical uivisions.
SEC. 2. }uuicial notice, when uiscietionaiy. A couit may take juuicial
notice of matteis which aie of public knowleuge, oi aie capable of
unquestionable uemonstiation oi ought to be known to juuges because
of theii juuicial functions.

The Nanagement Contiact enteieu into by petitionei anu the PPA is
cleaily not among the matteis which the couits can take juuicial notice
of. It cannot be consiueieu an official act of the executive uepaitment.
The PPA, which was cieateu by viitue of Piesiuential Beciee No. 8S7, as
amenueu, is a goveinment-owneu anu contiolleu coipoiation in chaige
of auministeiing the poits in the countiy. 0bviously, the PPA was only
peifoiming a piopiietaiy function when it enteieu into a Nanagement
Contiact with petitionei. As such, juuicial notice cannot be applieu.

F>G 1-&#/4 )*12#&! 1-&#!25 "= /2#!%I/
S0CIAL }0STICE S0CIETY vS B0N. ATIENZA
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121

u.R. No. 1S6uS2 Febiuaiy 1S, 2uu8

S0CIAL }0STICE S0CIETY (S}S), vLABINIR ALARIQ0E T. CABIuA0, anu
B0NIFACI0 S. T0NB0K0N, Petitioneis, vs.
B0N. }0SE L. ATIENZA, }R., in his capacity as Nayoi of the City of
Nanila, Responuent.

FACTS:
Petitioneis fileu a petition foi manuamus to compel iesponuent Bon.
Atienza, then mayoi of City of Nanila, to enfoice 0iuinance No. 8u27.
0iuinance No. 8u27 ieclassifieu the aiea uesciibeu theiein fiom
inuustiial to commeicial anu uiiecteu the owneis anu opeiatois of
businesses uisalloweu unuei the ieclassification to cease anu uesist
fiom opeiating theii businesses within six months fiom the uate of
effectivity of the oiuinance. Among the businesses situateu in the aiea
aie the so-calleu "Panuacan Teiminals" of the oil companies.

This was the factual backuiop piesenteu to the Couit which became the
basis of oui Naich 7, 2uu7 uecision, wheie We helu that iesponuent
hau the ministeiial uuty unuei the Local uoveinment Coue (LuC) to
"enfoice all laws anu oiuinances ielative to the goveinance of the city.

0iuinance No. 8119, also known as the Nanila Compiehensive Lanu
0se Plan anu Zoning 0iuinance of 2uu6, appioveu on }une 16, 2uu6,
was not then biought to the attention of the Couit when the Naich 7,
2uu7 uecision was piomulgateu.

ISS0E:
Whethei 0iuinance No. 8119, the enactment anu existence of which
weie not pieviously biought by the paities to the attention of the Couit
is an impeuiment to the execution of the Naich 7, 2uu7 uecision

R0LINuRATI0:
Yes. The Naich 7, 2uu7 uecision uiu not take into consiueiation the
passage of 0iuinance No. 8119 entitleu "An 0iuinance Auopting the
Nanila Compiehensive Lanu 0se Plan anu Zoning Regulations of 2uu6
anu Pioviuing foi the Auministiation, Enfoicement anu Amenument
theieto" which was appioveu by iesponuent on }une 16, 2uu6. The
simple ieason was that the Couit was nevei infoimeu about this
oiuinance.

While couits aie iequiieu to take juuicial notice of the laws enacteu by
Congiess, the iule with iespect to local oiuinances is uiffeient.
0iuinances aie not incluueu in the enumeiation of matteis coveieu by
manuatoiy juuicial notice unuei Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of
Couit.

Although, Section Su of RA 4u9 pioviues that:
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
SEC. Su }uuicial notice of oiuinances. - All couits sitting in the city shall
take juuicial notice of the oiuinances passeu by the |Sangguniang
Panglungsouj.

This cannot be taken to mean that this Couit, since it has its seat in the
City of Nanila, shoulu have taken steps to piocuie a copy of the
oiuinance on its own, ielieving the paity of any uuty to infoim the
Couit about it.

Even wheie theie is a statute that iequiies a couit to take juuicial
notice of municipal oiuinances, a couit is not iequiieu to take juuicial
notice of oiuinances that aie not befoie it anu to which it uoes not have
access. The paity asking the couit to take juuicial notice is obligateu to
supply the couit with the full text of the iules the paity uesiies it to
have notice of. Counsel shoulu take the initiative in iequesting that a
tiial couit take juuicial notice of an oiuinance even wheie a statute
iequiies couits to take juuicial notice of local oiuinances.

The intent of a statute iequiiing a couit to take juuicial notice of a local
oiuinance is to iemove any uiscietion a couit might have in
ueteimining whethei oi not to take notice of an oiuinance. Such a
statute uoes not uiiect the couit to act on its own in obtaining eviuence
foi the iecoiu anu a paity must make the oiuinance available to the
couit foi it to take notice.

F?G 4/%$ ,/%H -. 28! 98#4#99#%!1 "= 191= :-H/5/ /%$ ,-%/
LANB BANK 0F TBE PBILIPPINES vS SPS. R0KAYA

u.R. No. 18u8u4 Novembei 12, 2u12

LANB BANK 0F TBE PBILIPPINES, Petitionei, vs.
SPS. R0KAYA ANB S0LAINAN B0NA, Responuents.

FACTS:
Rokaya Naiiaziu-Bona (Rokaya) is the ownei by succession of a paicel
of lanu with an aiea of SS8.2826 hectaies. She inheiiteu this piopeity
fiom hei mothei Bautan Naiiaziu who also inheiiteu the same fiom hei
husbanu. Lanu Bank of the Philippines (LBP) is the financial
inteimeuiaiy foi the Compiehensive Agiaiian Refoim Piogiam (CARP)
as uesignateu unuei Section 64 of R.A. 66S7. The Bepaitment of
Agiaiian Refoim (BAR) on the othei hanu, is the leau implementing
agency of the CARP. It unueitakes lanu tenuie impiovement anu
uevelopment of piogiam beneficiaiies.

Seveial emancipation patents weie issueu to uiffeient faimei-
beneficiaiies unuei the 0peiation Lanu Tiansfei (0LT) that coveieu the
lanu of Rokaya. A total aiea of 76.2S8u hectaies of the piopeity was
coveieu. Rokaya then fileu a complaint piaying that the just
compensation foi the 76.2S8u hectaies be fixeu in an amount not less
than P14,u84.Su pei hectaie.

To suppoit hei claim of highei valuation foi the 76.2S8u hectaies, she
piesenteu Nunicipal Agiaiian Refoim 0fficei of Bataiaza, Palawan
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Rogelio Nauaicos who testifieu that the value of the contesteu poition
is P14, u84.S2 pei hectaie.

Foi its pait, LBP piesenteu its Lanuowneis' Compensation Bepaitment
0fficei Chiistina Austiia. Austiia who explaineu that if the acquisition
of the lanu is unuei P.B. No. 27, it is BAR's uuty to make a valuation; if
unuei R.A. 66S7, it is the bank's obligation to make one. She claiifieu
that the list of claims will only be iefeiieu to the bank aftei BAR's
classification anu iuentification of the lanu to be tiansfeiieu to the
faimei-beneficiaiies. Aftei the tiansmittal anu piocessing of claims, the
bank pays the lanuownei anu collects the amoitization payments of the
faimei-beneficiaiies.

LBP is steaufast in its contention that the applicable laws aie P.B. No.
27 anu E.0. 228. To establish its position, LBP piesenteu the uiffeient
0iueis of Placement of BAR to piove that the lanus weie unuei the
0LT.

ISS0E:
Whethei oi not the acquisition of the 76.2S8u hectaies of Rokaya falls
within the effectivity of P.B. No. 27

R0LINuRATI0:
Yes. The uiffeient 0iueis of Placement all uateu 16 }une 1984 issueu by
the BAR anu signeu by its Regional Biiectoi Benjamin R. Estiellauo,
piove that the poition compiising the 76.2S8 hectaies was acquiieu
uuiing the effectivity of P.B. No. 27.SS The Couit takes juuicial Notice of
these oiueis as issueu by BAR puisuant to the Nemoianuum Ciiculai
No. 2, Seiies of 1978 involving the inclusion of lanuholuing tenanteu
aftei 21 0ctobei 1972 within the coveiage of P.B. No. 27.

Bowevei, when the seizuie of the lanuholuing takes effect unuei P.B.
No. 27 but payment of just compensation iemaineu unpaiu until the
passage of R.A. 66S7, the lattei law is the applicable law. ut if the
seizuie is uuiing the effectivity of R.A. 66S7, the time of taking shoulu
follow the geneial iule in expiopiiation cases wheie the "time of
taking" is the time when the State took possession of the same anu
uepiiveu the lanuownei of the use anu enjoyment of his piopeity.

FAG 4/%$ ,/%H -. 28! 98#4#99#%!1 "= 8-%!5&-3, ./:31 &-:9=
LANB BANK 0F TBE PBILIPPINES vS B0NEYC0NB FARNS
C0RP0RATI0N
u.R. No. 1662S9 Novembei 12, 2u12

LANB BANK 0FTBE PBILIPPINES, Petitionei, vs.
B0NEYC0NB FARNS C0RP0RATI0N, Responuent.

FACTS:
Boneycomb Faims Coipoiation (BFC) was the iegisteieu ownei of a
paicel of agiicultuial lanu situateu in Cuivaua, Caintagan, Nasbate.
Thiough a lettei uateu Febiuaiy S, 1988, BFC voluntaiily offeieu its
lanu to the Bepaitment of Agiaiian Refoim (BAR) foi coveiage unuei
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
RA 66S7, the Compiehensive Agiaiian Refoim Law of 1988 (CARL), foi
PS81,9S2.uu oi at P2u,uuu.uu pei hectaie.

Subsequently, the LBP, as the agency with the authoiity to ueteimine
lanu valuation anu compensation unuei the CARL, fixeu the value of the
lanu in the amount of P16S,7S9.44. This was iejecteu by BFC. Thus, it
fileu with BARAB a petition claiming that the just compensation foi the
lanu shoulu be in the amount of P2S,uuu.uu pei hectaie, consiueiing its
location anu piouuctivity.

While the BARAB case was penuing, BFC fileu with the Special Agiaiian
Couit (SAC) a complaint foi ueteimination anu payment of just
compensation. SAC biiefly concluueu that:
"the paicel of lanu unuei consiueiation is locateu in the siue of the ioau.
It is likewise of juuicial notice that it is situateu neai the commeicial
uistiict of Cuivaua, Cataingan, Nasbate. In the light of the foiegoing
piemises, the Couit is of the opinion anu so holus that the just
compensation X X X is PS2,uuu.uu pei hectaie"

LBP also aigueu that SAC committeu a seiious eiioi when it took
juuicial notice of the piopeity's ioausiue location, its pioximity to a
commeicial uistiict, its incomplete uevelopment as coconut anu coin
lanu, anu its conuition as giasslanu, to ueteimine just compensation;
theieby, it effectively escheweu the foimula foi fixing just
compensation.

ISS0E:
Whethei oi not the SAC eiieu in taking juuicial notice of the natuie of
the lanu in question without the iequisite heaiing

R0LINuRATI0:
Yes. Sepaiately fiom uisiegaiuing the basic foimula piesciibeu by the
BAR, it has also not escapeu oui notice that the SAC also eiieu in
concluuing that the subject lanu consisting of 29.u966 hectaies is
commeicial in natuie, aftei taking juuicial notice that it is "situateu neai
the commeicial uistiict of Cuivaua, Cataingan, Nasbate."

The paities must be given the oppoitunity to piesent eviuence on the
natuie of the piopeity befoie the couit a quo can take juuicial notice of
the commeicial natuie of a poition of the subject lanuholuing, thus:

While the lowei couit is not piecluueu fiom taking juuicial notice of
ceitain facts, it must exeicise this iight within the cleai bounuaiy
pioviueu by Section S, Rule 129 of the Rules of Couit, which pioviues:
Section S. }uuicial notice, when heaiing necessaiy. - Buiing the tiial, the
couit, on its own initiative, oi on iequest of a paity, may announce its
intention to take juuicial notice of any mattei anu allow the paities to
be heaiu theieon.
Aftei the tiial, anu befoie juugment oi on appeal, the piopei couit, on
its own initiative, oi on iequest of a paity, may take juuicial notice of
any mattei anu allow the paities to be heaiu theieon if such mattei is
uecisive of a mateiial issue in the case.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
The classification of the lanu is obviously essential to the valuation of
the subject piopeity, which is the veiy issue in the piesent case. The
paities shoulu thus have been given the oppoitunity to piesent
eviuence on the natuie of the piopeity befoie the lowei couit took
juuicial notice of the commeicial natuie of a poition of the subject
lanuholuings.

The powei to take juuicial notice is to be exeiciseu by couits with
caution especially wheie the case involves a vast tiact of lanu. Caie
must be taken that the iequisite notoiiety exists; anu eveiy ieasonable
uoubt on the subject shoulu be piomptly iesolveu in the negative. To
say that a couit will take juuicial notice of a fact is meiely anothei way
of saying that the usual foim of eviuence will be uispenseu with if
knowleuge of the fact can be otheiwise acquiieu. This is because the
couit assumes that the mattei is so notoiious that it will not be
uisputeu. But juuicial notice is not juuicial knowleuge. The meie
peisonal knowleuge of the juuge is not the juuicial knowleuge of the
couit, anu he is not authoiizeu to make his inuiviuual knowleuge of a
fact, not geneially oi piofessionally known, the basis of his action.
F@G $! &/12:- "= 4#,!:25 ,:-/$&/12#%+ %!27-:HJ #%&=
!"#$% '(#$")*+
.KLMNO

Cailos ue Castio woikeu as a chief builuing auministiatoi at LBNI but
was uismisseu on the giounus of seiious misconuuct, fiauu, anu willful
bieach of the tiust ieposeu in him as manageiial employee. ue Castio
fileu a complaint foi illegal uismissal with NLRC against LBNI. Laboi
Aibitei iuleu in favoi of ue Castio holuing LBNI foi illegal uismissal.
LBNI appealeu the uecision to NLRC which initially ieveiseu the LA's
uecision in favoi of LBNI but upon ue Castio's motion foi
ieconsiueiation ieinstateu the LA's uecision. The case was appealeu by
LBNI befoie Couit of Appeals which iuleu in its favoi. Be Castio
appealeu to the Supieme Couit. While the case was penuing befoie the
saiu couit, LBNI fileu a Notion to Suspenu the pioceeuings citing the
Stay 0iuei ieleaseu by RTC Nakati. Saiu motion was uenieu foi being
piematuie as ue Castio hau yet to file his ieply. %,-.-/01-. 231,425 6/7
,-/.8 0.39 :;*" .-5/.8425 1,- $1/< ).8-. 3. 1,- .-,/=4>41/1432
?.3@--84257 41 427141A1-8 =-03.- 1,- #%B C/D/14E (F-2 1,- C-93./28A9
1,/1 :;*" 04>-8 641, 1,- B3A.1 @321/42-8 23 .-0-.-2@- 13 1,-
#-,/=4>41/1432 ?.3@--84257E Supieme Couit iuleu that the uismissal was
baseu on unsubstantiateu chaiges.

LBNI fileu a Notion foi Reconsiueiation assailing the iuling of the
Supieme Couit anu one of the giounus iaiseu by LBNI is that it is
cuiiently unuei iehabilitation hence the pioceeuings in this case must
be suspenueu. LBNI pointeu out that it fileu, with the RTC of Nakati, a
petition foi Coipoiate Rehabilitation with Piayei of Suspension of
Payments anu the RTC issueu a Stay 0iuei uiiecting that the
enfoicement of all claims be stayeu.

8PQRO

The motion foi ieconsiueiation was not gianteu but the enfoicement of
the eailiei uecision of the Supieme Couit was oiueieu to be suspenueu
until the Stay 0iuei is lifteu oi the coipoiate iehabilitation pioceeuings
aie teiminateu.

:KMSTO

ULBNI's failuie to iaise the issue of the stay oiuei anu the penuency of
iehabilitation pioceeuings in its memoianuum ueemeu the saiu mattei
waiveu anu abanuoneu. Theiefoie, the subject of the Supieme Couit's
iesolution in its eailiei uecision was limiteu to the valiuity of ue
Castio's uismissal. The Couit saiu that it ".uoes not take juuicial notice
of pioceeuings in vaiious couits of justice in the Philippines." anu that
at the time it ueciueu the case it was not bounu to take note of anu
consiuei the penuency of the iehabilitation pioceeuings, as the mattei
hau not been piopeily biought to its attention.

-It must be claiifieu that the ieason foi the final juugment oiueiing the
suspension of the enfoicement of the Supieme Couit's eailiei uecision
is the manifestation maue by LBNI iegaiuing the iehabilitation
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
pioceeuings anu not because the Couit took juuicial notice of the
penuing case in anothei couit.
$(B)*G '(#$")*+
HE#E *3E IJKIKL MA5A71 NKO NPIP
Q-141432-.+ B/.>37 8- B/71.3
#-7?328-21+ :4=-.1< ;.3/8@/71425 *-163.DO "2@E !"#$%& /28
(85/.83 RA435-
B0CTRINE(S):
The Couit uoes not take juuicial notice of pioceeuings in vaiious couits
of justice in the Philippines.
FACTS:
Be Castio woikeu as a chief builuing auministiatoi at LBNI. LBNI
uismisseu Be Castio on the giounu of seiious misconuuct, fiauu, anu
willful bieach of conuuct ieposeu on him as a manageiial employee uue
to acts allegeuly committeu by him.
Be Castio fileu a complaint foi illegal uismissal against LBNI with the
NLRC. The Laboi Aibitei helu LBNI liable foi illegal uismissal.
LBNI appealeu. Initially, the NLRC ieveiseu the Laboi Aibitei's uecision
but on ue Castio's motion foi ieconsiueiation, the NLRC ieinstateu the
Laboi Aibitei's uecision.
LBNI appealeu to the CA, which ieveiseu the NLRC's uecision anu helu
ue Castio's uismissal was baseu on valiu giounus.
Septembei 2uu8 Becision: The SC founu that ue Castio's uismissal was
baseu on unsubstantiateu chaiges; the giounus that LBNI invokeu foi
ue Castio's uismissal weie, at best, uoubtful, baseu on the eviuence
piesenteu. These uoubts shoulu be inteipieteu in ue Castio's favoi,
puisuant to Aiticle 4 of the Laboi Coue.
LBNI moveu foi a Notion foi Reconsiueiation of the SC's Becision baseu
on the following aiguments:
(1) LBNI hau valiu legal giounus to teiminate ue Castio's employment
foi loss of tiust anu confiuence;
(2) the affiuavits of LBNI's witnesses shoulu not have been totally
uisiegaiueu; anu
(S) LBNI is cuiiently unuei iehabilitation, hence, the pioceeuings in
this case must be suspenueu. LBNI points out that it fileu, with the
RTC of Nakati, a petition foi Coipoiate Rehabilitation with Piayei
foi Suspension of Payments, anu on August 19, 2uuS, the RTC
issueu a Stay 0iuei uiiecting, among otheis, that the enfoicement
of all claims against LBNI be stayeu.
LBNI's motion was uenieu foi being piematuie, as ue Castio then hau
yet to file his ieply to LBNI's comment on the petition. Theieaftei,
VTMWSVX YKN WPKZR [ZT\ 4,%# ZPXKZRSVX MWP 1MK] -ZRPZ TZ MWP
ZPWK^SQSMKMSTV _ZTLPPRSVXN SM SVNMSM`MPR befoie the RTC.
ISS0E(S):
Whethei oi not the Couit shoulu've taken juuicial notice of the
iehabilitation pioceeuings (anu thus suspenuing the pioceeuings in
this case).
R0LINu:
N0. Neveitheless, with LBNI's manifestation that it is still unueigoing
iehabilitation, the Couit iesolves to suspenu the execution of oui
Septembei 2S, 2uu8 Becision. The suspension shall last up to the
teimination of the iehabilitation pioceeuings, as pioviueu
RATI0:
The filing of a memoianuum befoie the Couit is not an empty
iequiiement, uevoiu of legal significance. In A.N. No. 99-2-u4-SC, the
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Couit ueclaieu that SNN`PN ZKSNPR SV _ZPaST`N _QPKRSVXN ^`M VTM
SVLQ`RPR SV MWP \P\TZKVR`\ NWKQQ ^P RPP\PR YKSaPR TZ
K^KVRTVPR= Being a summation of the paities' pievious pleauings, the
memoianua alone may be consiueieu by the Couit in ueciuing oi
iesolving the petition. Thus, on account of LBNI's omission, only the
issues iaiseu in the paities' memoianua - piincipally, the valiuity of ue
Castio's uismissal fiom LBNI - weie consiueieu by the Couit in
iesolving the case.
"The Couit uoes not take juuicial notice of pioceeuings in the vaiious
couits of justice in the Philippines." At the time the Couit ueciueu the
piesent case, it was not bounu to take note of anu consiuei the
penuency of the iehabilitation pioceeuings, as the mattei hau not been
piopeily biought to the Couit's attention. In $3@4/> SA714@- $3@4-1< FE
M14-2T/, we saiu that:
In iesolving contioveisies, couits can
only consiuei facts anu issues pleaueu by the
paities. Couits, as well as magistiates piesiuing
ovei them aie not omniscient. They can only act
on the facts anu issues piesenteu befoie them in
appiopiiate pleauings. They may not even
substitute theii own peisonal knowleuge foi
eviuence. Noi may they take notice of matteis
except those expiessly pioviueu as subjects of
manuatoiy juuicial notice.
x x x x
The paity asking the couit to take
juuicial notice is obligateu to supply the couit
with the full text of the iules the paity uesiies it
to have notice of.
With the failuie of LBNI to iaise iehabilitation pioceeuings in its
memoianuum, the Couit hau sufficient giounus to suppose that the
iehabilitation petition hau been uismisseu by the time the case was
submitteu foi uecision.

,= )*$#&#/4 /$3#11#-%
F;G 1/% 3#+*!4 &-:9= "= H/4/4-

F<G 9!-94! -. 28! 98#4#99#%!1 "= )/%)/4/%#
People of the Philippines vs Khauuafy }anjalani

An RRCu bus was plying its usual southbounu ioute, fiom its Navotas
bus teiminal towaius its Alabang bus teiminal via EBSA. Aiounu 6:Su
to 7:Su in the evening, the bus conuuctoi noticeu two men iunning
aftei the bus. The two insisteu on getting on the bus, so the conuuctoi
obligeu anu let them in. As soon as the bus ieacheu the stoplight at the
coinei of Ayala Avenue anu EBSA, the two men insisteu on getting off
the bus. The bus uiivei initially uiu not want to let them off the bus,
because a Nakati oiuinance piohibiteu unloauing anywheie except at
uesignateu bus stops. Eventually, the bus uiivei gave in anu alloweu the
two passengeis to alight. The two immeuiately got off the bus anu ian
towaius Ayala Avenue. Noments aftei, theie was an explosion in the
bus.

The piosecution piesenteu uocuments fuinisheu by the Bepaitment of
}ustice, confiiming that shoitly befoie the explosion, the spokespeison
of the Abu Sayyaf uioup - Abu Solaiman - announceu ovei iauio station
BZBB that the gioup hau a valentine's Bay "gift" foi foimei Piesiuent
uloiia Nacapagal-Aiioyo. Aftei the bombing, he again went on iauio
anu waineu of moie bomb attacks.
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
As stipulateu uuiing pietiial, accuseu Tiiniuau gave ABS-CBN News
Netwoik an exclusive inteiview some time aftei the inciuent,
confessing his paiticipation in the valentine's Bay bombing inciuent. In
anothei exclusive inteiview on the netwoik, accuseu Bahaian likewise
aumitteu his iole in the bombing inciuent. Finally, accuseu Asali gave a
television inteiview, confessing that he hau supplieu the explosive
uevices foi the bombing.
0n theii aiiaignment foi the multiple muiuei chaige, Bahaian,
Tiiniuau, anu Asali all enteieu a plea of guilty. 0n the othei hanu, upon
aiiaignment foi the multiple fiustiateu muiuei chaige (uiffeient case),
accuseu Asali pleu guilty. Accuseu Tiiniuau anu Bahaian pleu not guilty.
Tiiniuau anu Bahaian howevei subsequently changeu theii pleas to
guilty in light of theii pie tiial stipulations.

Neanwhile, aftei being uischaigeu as state witness, accuseu Asali
testifieu against the othei membeis of the Abu Sayyaf.

Issues:
1. Whethei oi not accepting accuseu-appellants' plea of guilt uespite
insufficiency of seaiching inquiiy into the voluntaiiness anu full
compiehension of the consequences of the saiu plea is piopei.
2. Whethei oi not such testimony of Asali is aumissible against his co-
conspiiatois.

Belu:
1. Yes. Accuseu Bahaian anu Tiiniuau pieviously pleu guilty to anothei
chaige - multiple muiuei - baseu on the same act ielieu upon in the
multiple fiustiateu muiuei chaige. The Couit fuithei notes that piioi
to the change of plea to one of guilt, accuseu Bahaian anu Tiiniuau
maue two othei confessions of guilt - one thiough an extiajuuicial
confession (exclusive television inteiviews, as stipulateu by both
accuseu uuiing pietiial), anu the othei via juuicial aumission (pietiial
stipulation). Consiueiing the foiegoing ciicumstances, the Couit ueems
it unnecessaiy to iule on the sufficiency of the "seaiching inquiiy" in
this instance
2. Yes. Accuseu contenus that the testimony of Asali is inaumissible
puisuant to Sec. Su, Rule 1Su of the Rules of Couit. It is tiue that unuei
the iule, statements maue by a conspiiatoi against a co-conspiiatoi aie
aumissible only when maue uuiing the existence of the conspiiacy.
Bowevei, as the Couit iuleu in People v. Buntag, if the ueclaiant iepeats
the statement in couit, his extiajuuicial confession becomes a juuicial
aumission, making the testimony aumissible as to both conspiiatois.
Thus, in People v. Palijon, the Couit helu the following:

. |Wje must make a uistinction between extiajuuicial anu juuicial
confessions. An extiajuuicial confession may be given in eviuence
against the confessant but not against his co-accuseu as they aie
uepiiveu of the oppoitunity to cioss-examine him. A juuicial confession
is aumissible against the ueclaiant's co-accuseu since the lattei aie
affoiueu oppoitunity to cioss-examine the foimei. Section Su, Rule 1Su
of the Rules of Couit applies only to extiajuuicial acts oi aumissions
anu not to testimony at tiial wheie the paity auveisely affecteu has the
oppoitunity to cioss-examine the ueclaiant. Neicene's aumission
implicating his co-accuseu was given on the witness stanu. It is
aumissible in eviuence against appellant Palijon. Noieovei, wheie
seveial accuseu aie tiieu togethei foi the same offense, the testimony
of a co-accuseu implicating his co-accuseu is competent eviuence
against the lattei.
F6G 98#4#99#%!1 "= $! +*I3/%
Philippines v Be uuzman
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121

Responuent Be uuzman is the piopiietiess of Nontaguz ueneial
Neichanuise (NuN), a contiactoi accieuiteu by the PNP foi the supply
of office anu constiuction mateiials anu equipment, anu foi the ueliveiy
of vaiious seivices such as piinting anu iental, iepaii of vaiious
equipment, anu ienovation of builuings, facilities, vehicles, tiies, anu
spaie paits.

The PNP Engineeiing Seivices (PNPES), ieleaseu a Requisition anu
Issue vouchei foi the acquisition of vaiious builuing mateiials
amounting to P2,288,S62.6u foi the constiuction of a foui-stoiey
conuominium builuing with ioof ueck at Camp Ciame, Quezon City.

Responuent aveiieu that NuN anu petitionei, iepiesenteu by the PNP,
thiough its chief, executeu a Contiact of Agieement wheiein NuN
unueitook to piocuie anu uelivei to the PNP the constiuction mateiials
itemizeu in the puichase oiuei attacheu to the Contiact. Responuent,
thiough counsel, sent a lettei to the PNP, uemanuing the payment of
P2,288,S62.6u foi the constiuction mateiials NuN piocuieu foi the
PNP unuei theii contiact.
PNP, thiough its 0fficei-in-Chaige, ieplieu to iesponuent's counsel,
infoiming hei of the payment maue to NuN via Lanu Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) Check. Responuent, thiough counsel, iesponueu by
ieiteiating hei uemanu anu uenying having evei ieceiveu the LBP
check, peisonally oi thiough an authoiizeu peison.
Responuent fileu a Complaint foi Sum of Noney against the petitionei
Petitionei fileu a Notion to Bismiss on the giounu that the claim oi
uemanu set foith in iesponuent's complaint hau alieauy been paiu oi
extinguisheu as eviuenceu by LBP Check.
Responuent opposeu petitionei's motion to uismiss. Responuent
positeu that Receipt No. uu1, which the petitionei claimeu was issueu
by NuN upon iesponuent's ieceipt of the LBP check, was, fiist, unuei
the business name "Nontaguz Builueis," an entity sepaiate fiom NuN.
Next, petitionei's allegation that she ieceiveu the LBP check was belieu
by the fact that Receipt No. uu1, which was supposeuly issueu foi the
check, was uateu foui uays latei.
Petitionei's contention: They initially insisteu on having fulfilleu its
contiactual obligation, it now contenus that the contiact it executeu
with the iesponuent is actually a fictitious contiact.
Issue:
Whethei oi not the contiact is fictitious.
Belu:
N0. While the petitionei, in pioclaiming that the iesponuent's claim
hau alieauy been extinguisheu, initially insisteu on having fulfilleu its
contiactual obligation, it now contenus that the contiact it executeu
with the iesponuent is actually a fictitious contiact to conceal the fact
that only one contiactoi will be supplying all the mateiials anu laboi
foi the PNP conuominium pioject.

The petitionei aumitteu to the existence anu valiuity of the Contiact of
Agieement executeu between the PNP anu NuN, as iepiesenteu by the
iesponuent. It likewise aumitteu that iesponuent ueliveieu the
constiuction mateiials subject of the Contiact, not once, but seveial
times uuiing the couise of the pioceeuings. The only mattei petitionei
assaileu was iesponuent's allegation that she hau not yet been paiu.
The petitionei shoulu have put iesponuent in hei place the moment she
sent a lettei to the PNP, uemanuing payment foi the constiuction
mateiials she hau allegeuly ueliveieu. Insteau, the petitionei ieplieu
that it hau alieauy paiu iesponuent as eviuenceu by the LBP check anu
the ieceipt she supposeuly issueu. This line of uefense continueu on,
with the petitionei assailing only the iesponuent's claim of
nonpayment, anu not the iest of iesponuent's claims, in its motion to
uismiss, its answei, its pie-tiial biief, anu even in open couit uuiing the
iesponuent's testimony. Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Couit
states:

SECTI0N 4. }uuicial Aumissions.-An aumission, veibal oi wiitten, maue
by a paity in the couise of the pioceeuings in the same case, uoes not
iequiie pioof. The aumission may be contiauicteu only by showing that
it was maue thiough palpable mistake oi that no such aumission was
maue.

Petitionei's aumissions weie pioven to have been maue in vaiious
stages of the pioceeuings, anu since the petitionei has not shown us
that they weie maue thiough palpable mistake, they aie conclusive as
to the petitionei. Bence, the only question to be iesolveu is whethei
the iesponuent was paiu unuei the Becembei 199S Contiact of
Agieement.
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
F>G 3/4/5/% #%1*:/%&! "= 98#4#99#%! .#:12 #%1*:/%&!
Nalayan Insuiance v Philippine Fiist Insuiance
Since 1989, Wyeth Philippines, Inc. (Wyeth) anu iesponuent Reputable
Foiwaiuei Seivices, Inc. (Reputable) hau been annually executing a
contiact of caiiiage, wheieby the lattei unueitook to tianspoit anu
uelivei the foimei's piouucts to its customeis, uealeis oi salesmen.
In 199S, Wyeth piocuieu Naiine Policy fiom iesponuent Philippines
Fiist Insuiance Co., Inc. (Philippines Fiist) to secuie its inteiest ovei its
own piouucts. Wyeth executeu its annual contiact of caiiiage with
Reputable. The contiact also iequiieu Reputable to secuie an insuiance
policy on Wyeth's goous. Thus, in 1994, Reputable signeu a Special Risk
Insuiance Policy (SR Policy) with petitionei Nalayan.
Buiing the effectivity of the Naiine Policy anu SR Policy, Reputable
ieceiveu fiom Wyeth 1,uuu boxes of Piomil infant foimula woith
P2,SS7,S82.7u to be ueliveieu by Reputable to Neicuiy Biug
Coipoiation in Libis, Quezon City. 0nfoitunately, on the same uate, the
tiuck caiiying Wyeth's piouucts was hijackeu by about 1u aimeu men.
Philippines Fiist, aftei uue investigation anu aujustment, anu puisuant
to the Naiine Policy, paiu Wyeth P2,1SS,2S7.uu as inuemnity.
Philippines Fiist then uemanueu ieimbuisement fiom Reputable.
Philippines Fiist instituteu an action foi sum of money against
Reputable. In its complaint, Philippines Fiist stateu that Reputable is a
"piivate coipoiation engageu in the business of a common caiiiei." In
its answei, Reputable claimeu that it is a piivate caiiiei. Bence, it
cannot be maue liable unuei the contiact of caiiiage. Subsequently,
Reputable impleaueu Nalayan as thiiu-paity uefenuant in an effoit to
collect the amount coveieu in the SR Policy.
Issue:
Whethei oi not Reputable is a common caiiiei as allegeu by Philippines
Fiist.
Belu:
No.
The Couit agiees with the RTC anu CA that Reputable is a piivate
caiiiei. The issue of whethei a caiiiei is piivate oi common on the
basis of facts founu by a tiial couit anuoi the appelle couit can be valiu
anu ieviewable question of law. In this case, the conclusion ueiiveu by
both the RTC anu the CA that Reputable is a piivate caiiiei finus
sufficient basis, not only fiom the facts on iecoiu, but also fiom
pievailing law anu juiispiuuence.
Nalayan ielies on the allegeu juuicial aumission of Philippines Fiist in
its complaint that Reputable is a common caiiiei. Invoking Section 4,
Rule 129 of the Rules on Eviuence that "an aumission veibal oi wiitten,
maue by a paity in the couise of the pioceeuing in the same case, uoes
not iequiie pioof," it is Nalayan's position that the RTC anu CA shoulu
have iuleu that Reputable is a common caiiiei. Consequently, puisuant
to Aiticle 174S(6) of the Civil Coue, the liability of Reputable foi the
loss of Wyeth's goous shoulu be uispenseu with, oi at least uiminisheu.
It is tiue that juuicial aumissions, such as matteis allegeu in the
pleauings uo not iequiie pioof, anu neeu not be offeieu to be
consiueieu by the couit. "The couit, foi the piopei uecision of the case,
may anu shoulu consiuei, without the intiouuction of eviuence, the
facts aumitteu by the paities." The iule on juuicial aumission, howevei,
also states that such allegation, statement, oi aumission is conclusive as
against the pleauei, anu that the facts allegeu in the complaint aie
ueemeu aumissions of the plaintiff anu binuing upon him. In this case,
the pleauei oi the plaintiff who allegeu that Reputable is a common
caiiiei was Philippines Fiist. It cannot, by any stietch of imagination,
be maue conclusive as against Reputable whose natuie of business is in
question.
It shoulu be stiesseu that Philippines Fiist is not piivy to the SR Policy
between Wyeth anu Reputable; iathei, it is a meie subiogee to the iight
of Wyeth to collect fiom Reputable unuei the teims of the contiact of
caiiiage. Philippines Fiist is not in any position to make any aumission,
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
much moie a uefinitive pionouncement, as to the natuie of Reputable's
business anu theie appeais no othei connection between Philippines
Fiist anu Reputable which suggests mutual familiaiity between them.
Noieovei, iecoius show that the allegeu juuicial aumission of
Philippines Fiist was essentially uisputeu by Reputable when it stateu
in paiagiaphs 2, 4, anu 11 of its answei that it is actually a piivate oi
special caiiiei. In auuition, Reputable stateu in paiagiaph 2 of its thiiu-
paity complaint that it is "a piivate caiiiei engageu in the caiiiage of
goous." Such allegation was, in tuin, aumitteu by Nalayan in paiagiaph
2 of its answei to the thiiu-paity complaint. Theie is also nothing in the
iecoius which show that Philippines Fiist peisistently maintaineu its
stance that Reputable is a common caiiiei oi that it even contesteu oi
pioveu otheiwise Reputable's position that it is a piivate oi special
caiiiei.
Bence, in the face of Reputable's contiaiy aumission as to the natuie of
its own business, what was stateu by Philippines Fiist in its complaint
is ieuuceu to nothing moie than meie allegation, which must be pioveu
foi it to be given any weight oi value. The settleu iule is that meie
allegation is not pioof.
F?G :!9*,4#& "= 1/%$#+/%,/5/%
REP0BLIC v. SANBIuANBAYAN
u.R. No. 17uS8S. Septembei 12, 2uu7.

Republic of the Philippines, petitionei, vs. Bonoiable Sanuiganbayan,
Feiuinanu E. Naicos (Repiesenteu by his estate heiis: Imelua Naicos,
Naiia Imelua (Aimee) Naicos-Nanotoc, Feiuinanu Naicos, }i. ANB
Iiene Naicos-Aianeta) anu Imelua Romualuez-Naicos, iesponuents.

Facts:
Republic, thiough the PCuu, fileu a petition foi foifeituie vs. Feiuinanu
E. Naicos, iepiesenteu by his EstateBeiis anu Imelua. Republic sought
the ueclaiation of the aggiegate amount of 0S$SS6 million uepositeu in
esciow in the PNB, as ill-gotten wealth. The funus weie pieviously helu
by vaiious foieign founuations in Swiss banks. The petition also sought
the foifeituie of 0S$2S million anu 0S$S million in tieasuiy notes
which exceeueu the Naicos couple's salaiies, othei lawful income as
well as income fiom legitimately acquiieu piopeity.

Befoie the case was set foi pie-tiial, Compiomise Agieements weie
executeu by the Naicos chiluien anu then PCuu Chaiiman uunigunuo
foi a global settlement. Subsequently, Naicos chiluien fileu a motion
foi the appioval of saiu agieements anu foi the enfoicement theieof.
The Agieement specifieu in one of its piemises oi "wheieas clauses" the
fact that petitionei "obtaineu a juugment fiom the Swiss Feueial
Tiibunal on Becembei 21, 199u, that the Thiee Bunuieu Fifty-six
Nillion 0.S. uollais (0S$SS6 million) belongs in piinciple to the
Republic of the Philippines pioviueu ceitain conuitionalities aie met x x
x."

Beaiings weie conuucteu by the Sanuiganbayan, but Republic fileu a
motion foi summaiy juugment anuoi juugment on the pleauings.
Responuents fileu theii opposition theieto. Sanuiganbayan uenieu the
motion foi summaiy juugment on the giounu that the motion to
appiove the agieement took pieceuence ovei the motion foi summaiy
juugment.

Republic fileu anothei motion foi summaiy juugment, baseu on the
giounu that the essential facts waiianting the foifeituie weie aumitteu
by the iesponuents in theii pleauings anu submissions maue in the
couise of the pioceeuing, anu that the aumission uuiing the pie-tiial
that they uo not have any inteiest oi owneiship ovei the funus subject
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
of the action tenueis no genuine issue oi contioveisy as to any mateiial
fact. Sanuiganbayan gianteu this motion. Subsequently, petitionei fileu
its opposition anu Sanuiganbayan ieveiseu its uecision, thus uenying
Republic's motion foi summaiy juugment.

Issue: Whethei oi not the aumissions maue by the iesponuents in theii
pleauings anu in the agieement constitute juuicial aumissions that
justify summaiy juugment.

Belu: Yes.

Ratio:
Summaiy juugment was uesciibeu as a juugment which a couit may
ienuei befoie tiial but aftei both paities have pleaueu. It is sanctioneu
in this juiisuiction by Section 1, Rule SS of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Pioceuuie. Summaiy juugment is piopei when theie is cleaily no
genuine issue as to any mateiial fact in the action. The theoiy of
summaiy juugment is that, although an answei may on its face appeai
to tenuei issues iequiiing tiial, if it is uemonstiateu by affiuavits,
uepositions oi aumissions that those issues aie not genuine but sham
oi fictitious, the Couit is justifieu in uispensing with the tiial anu
ienueiing summaiy juugment foi petitionei Republic.

In the instant case, the mateiial allegations in the petition weie not
specifically uenieu by iesponuents in theii answei. The uenial
containeu in paiagiaph 22 of the answei was focuseu on the aveiment
in the petition foi foifeituie that "Responuents clanuestinely stasheu
the countiy's wealth in Switzeilanu anu hiu the same unuei layeis anu
layeis of founuations anu coipoiate entities." Responuents' answei was
thus a uenial piegnant with aumissions of the following substantial
facts:
(1) the Swiss bank ueposits existeu anu
(2) that the estimateu sum theieof was 0S$SS6 million as of
Becembei, 199u.

Theiefoie, the allegations in the petition foi foifeituie on the existence
of the Swiss bank ueposits, not having been specifically uenieu by
iesponuents in theii answei, weie ueemeu aumitteu by them puisuant
to Section 11, Rule 8 of the 1997 Reviseu Rules on Civil Pioceuuie:
Nateiial aveiment in the complaint, xxx shall be ueemeu aumitteu
when not specifically uenieu. xxx.

By the same token, Responuent Imelua R. Naicos nevei specifically
uenieu the existence of the Swiss funus. Bei claim that "the funus
involveu weie lawfully acquiieu" was an acknowleugment on hei pait
of the existence of saiu ueposits. This only ieinfoiceu hei eailiei
aumission of the allegation iegaiuing the existence of the 0S$SS6
million Swiss bank ueposits. The iesponuents uiu not at all iesponu to
the issues iaiseu in these paiagiaphs anu the existence, natuie anu
amount of the Swiss funus weie theiefoie ueemeu aumitteu by them. If
a uefenuant's uenial is a negative piegnant, it is equivalent to an
aumission.

The issue of whethei oi not petitionei Republic was able to piove its
case foi foifeituie in accoiuance with the iequisites of Sections 2 anu S
of RA 1S79 now takes centei stage. Ceitain facts must be establisheu in
oiuei that foifeituie oi seizuie may be effecteu, the owneiship by the
public officei of money oi piopeity acquiieu uuiing his incumbency,
whethei it be in his name oi otheiwise, anu the extent to which the
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
amount of that money oi piopeity exceeus, i. e., is giossly
uispiopoitionate to, theii legitimate income.

That spouses Feiuinanu anu Imelua Naicos weie public officials uuiing
the time mateiial to the instant case was nevei in uispute. Responuent
Nis. Naicos also aumitteu the allegations of the petition foi foifeituie
which iefeiieu to the accumulateu salaiies of iesponuents Feiuinanu E.
Naicos anu Imelua R. Naicos. The combineu accumulateu salaiies of
the Naicos couple weie ieflecteu in the Ceitification issueu by then
Ninistei of Buuget anu Nanagement.

Piescinuing fiom the afoiesaiu aumissions, Section 4, Rule 129 of the
Rules of Couit pioviues that: An aumission, veibal oi wiitten, maue by
a paity in the couise of the pioceeuings in the same case uoes not
iequiie pioof. The aumission may be contiauicteu only by showing
that it was maue thiough palpable mistake oi that no such aumission
was maue.

It is settleu that juuicial aumissions may be maue: (a) in the pleauings
fileu by the paities; (b) in the couise of the tiial eithei by veibal oi
wiitten manifestations oi stipulations; oi (c) in othei stages of juuicial
pioceeuings, as in the pie-tiial of the case. Thus, facts pleaueu in the
petition anu answei, as in the case at bai, aie ueemeu aumissions of
petitionei anu iesponuents, who aie not peimitteu to contiauict them
oi subsequently take a position contiaiy to oi inconsistent with such
aumissions.

The stipulations set foith in the Agieements unueniably inuicateu the
manifest intent of iesponuents to entei into a compiomise with
petitionei. Responuents' willingness to agiee to an amicable settlement
with the Republic only affiimeu theii owneiship of the Swiss ueposits
foi the simple ieason that no peison woulu acquiesce to any concession
ovei such huge uollai ueposits if he uiu not in fact own them.

Responuents make much capital of the pionouncement that the
Agieements weie null anu voiu, anu insist that nothing in those
agieements coulu thus be aumitteu in eviuence against them because
they stoou on the same giounu as an accepteu offei unuei Section 27,
Rule 1Su|9uj of the 1997 Rules of Civil Pioceuuie, pioviuing that "in
civil cases, an offei of compiomise is not an aumission of any liability
anu is not aumissible in eviuence against the offeioi."

The ueclaiation of nullity of saiu agieements was piemiseu on ceitain
constitutional anu statutoiy infiimities. The ieasons ielieu upon by
the Couit nevei in the least bit even toucheu on the veiacity anu
tiuthfulness of iesponuents' aumission with iespect to theii owneiship
of the Swiss funus. Besiues, having maue ceitain aumissions in those
agieements, iesponuents cannot now ueny that they voluntaiily
aumitteu owning the subject Swiss funus, notwithstanuing the fact that
the agieements themselves weie latei ueclaieu null anu voiu. The
testimony of iesponuent Feiuinanu Naicos, }i. uuiing the heaiing on
the motion foi the appioval of the Compiomise Agieement also lent
cieuence to the allegations of petitionei Republic that iesponuents
aumitteu owneiship of the Swiss bank accounts. Aumissions of a paity
in his testimony aie ieceivable against him. If a paity, as a witness,
uelibeiately conceues a fact, such concession has the foice of a juuicial
aumission. It is appaient fiom Feiuinanu }i.'s testimony that the
Naicos family agieeu to negotiate with the Philippine goveinment in
the hope of finally putting an enu to the pioblems besetting the Naicos
family iegaiuing the Swiss accounts. This was uoubtlessly an
acknowleugment of owneiship on theii pait. The iule is that the
testimony on the witness stanu paitakes of the natuie of a foimal
juuicial aumission when a paity testifies cleaily anu unequivocally to a
fact which is peculiaily within his own knowleuge.
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
BY: ASANA, BRI0NES, CARANBANu, CB0A, C0NTRERAS, CR0Z, B0NA, ESTILLES, u0NZAuA, LAZAR0, LIN, SENA}0N, TENuC0, 0RBINA | SB 2u1S | Su

FAG 2!&1-% "= &-3!4!&
TECS0N v. C0NELEC
u.R. Nos. 1614S4, 1616S4, anu 161824. Naich S, 2uu4.

Naiia }eanette C. Tecson anu Felix B. Besiueiio, }i., petitionei v. the
C0NELEC, Ronalu Allan Kelly Poe (a.k.a. Feinanuo Poe, }i.) anu
victoiino X. Foiniei, iesponuents.

Zoilo Antonio velez, petitionei, v. Ronalu Allan Kelly Poe, iesponuent.

victoiino X. Foiniei, petitionei, v. Bon. C0NELEC anu Ronalu Allan
Kelly Poe, iesponuents.

Facts:
FP} fileu his ceitificate of canuiuacy foi the position of Piesiuent of the
Republic of the Philippines. In his ceitificate of canuiuacy, FP},
iepiesenting himself to be a natuial-boin citizen of the Philippines,
stateu his name to be "Feinanuo }i.," oi "Ronalu Allan" Poe, his uate of
biith to be 2u August 19S9 anu his place of biith to be Nanila.

victoiino X. Foiniei initiateu a petition befoie the C0NELEC to
uisqualify FP} anu to ueny uue couise oi to cancel his ceitificate of
canuiuacy upon the thesis that FP} maue a mateiial misiepiesentation
in his ceitificate of canuiuacy by claiming to be a natuial-boin Filipino
citizen when in tiuth, accoiuing to Foiniei, his paients weie foieigneis;
his mothei, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an Ameiican, anu his fathei, Allan
Poe, was a Spanish national, being the son of Loienzo Pou, a Spanish
subject. uianting, petitionei asseveiateu, that Allan F. Poe was a
Filipino citizen, he coulu not have tiansmitteu his Filipino citizenship to
FP}, the lattei being an illegitimate chilu of an alien mothei. Petitionei
baseu the allegation of the illegitimate biith of iesponuent on two
asseitions - fiist, Allan F. Poe contiacteu a piioi maiiiage to a ceitain
Paulita uomez befoie his maiiiage to Bessie Kelley anu, seconu, even if
no such piioi maiiiage hau existeu, Allan F. Poe, maiiieu Bessie Kelly
only a yeai aftei the biith of iesponuent.

FP} piesenteu twenty-two uocumentaiy pieces of eviuence, the moie
significant ones being the maiiiage ceitificate of Allan F. Poe anu Bessie
Kelley, the biith ceitificate of FP}, the ueath ceitificate of Loienzo Pou,
anu ua uly notaiizeu ueclaiation maue by Ruby Kelley Nangahas, sistei
of Bessie Kelley Poe.

Issue: Whethei oi not the uocuments piesenteu woulu piove the
ielationship between FP}, his puipoiteu fathei anu gianufathei.

Belu: Yes

Ratio:
While two of these uocuments weie submitteu in eviuence foi
iesponuent, the aumissibility theieof, paiticulaily in iefeience to the
facts which they puipoiteu to show, i.e., the maiiiage ceitificate in
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
BY: ASANA, BRI0NES, CARANBANu, CB0A, C0NTRERAS, CR0Z, B0NA, ESTILLES, u0NZAuA, LAZAR0, LIN, SENA}0N, TENuC0, 0RBINA | SB 2u1S | S1
ielation to the uate of maiiiage of Allan F. Poe to Bessie Kelley anu the
ueath ceitificate ielative to the ueath of Loienzo Pou on 11 Septembei
19S4 in San Cailos, Pangasinan, weie all aumitteu by petitionei, who
hau utilizeu those mateiial statements in his aigument. All thiee
uocuments weie ceitifieu tiue copies of the oiiginals.

Petitionei submits, in any case, that in establishing filiation, FP}
eviuently being an illegitimate son accoiuing to petitionei, the
manuatoiy iules unuei civil law must be useu.

0nuei the Civil Coue of Spain, which was in foice in the Philippines,
acknowleugment was iequiieu to establish filiation oi pateinity.
Acknowleugment was eithei juuicial (compulsoiy) oi voluntaiy.
voluntaiy acknowleugment coulu only be hau in a iecoiu of biith, a
will, oi a public uocument. In oiuei that the biith ceitificate coulu be
utilizeu to piove voluntaiy acknowleugment of filiation oi pateinity,
the ceitificate was iequiieu to be signeu oi swoin to by the fathei. In
the biith ceitificate of FP}, piesenteu by both paities, nowheie in the
uocument was the signatuie of Allan F. Poe founu. Theie being no will
appaiently executeu, oi at least shown to have been executeu, by
ueceuent Allan F. Poe, the only othei pioof of voluntaiy iecognition
iemaineu to be "some othei public uocument."

Amicus Cuiiae Ruben F. Balane uefineu, uuiing the oial aigument,
"authentic wiiting," so as to be an authentic wiiting foi puiposes of
voluntaiy iecognition, simply as being a genuine oi inuubitable wiiting
of the fathei. The teim woulu incluue a public instiument oi a piivate
wiiting aumitteu by the fathei to be his.

It shoulu be appaient that the giowing tienu to libeialize the
acknowleugment oi iecognition of illegitimate chiluien is an attempt to
bieak away fiom the tiauitional iuea of keeping well apait legitimate
anu non-legitimate ielationships within the family in favoi of the
gieatei inteiest anu welfaie of the chilu. The piovisions aie intenueu
to meiely govein the piivate anu peisonal affaiis of the family. These
uistinctions between legitimacy anu illegitimacy iemain anu shoulu
iemain only in the spheie of civil law anu not unuuly impeue oi
impinge on the uomain of political law.

The pioof of filiation oi pateinity foi puiposes of ueteimining his
citizenship status shoulu thus be ueemeu inuepenuent fiom anu not
inextiicably tieu up with that piesciibeu foi civil law puiposes. Foi
instance, the mattei about peuigiee is not necessaiily piecluueu fiom
being applicable by the Civil Coue oi Family Coue piovisions. Section
S9, Rule 1Su, of the Rules of Couit pioviues that the act oi ueclaiation
of a peison ueceaseu, oi unable to testify, in iespect to the peuigiee of
anothei peison ielateu to him by biith oi maiiiage, may be ieceiveu in
eviuence wheie it occuiieu befoie the contioveisy, anu the ielationship
between the two peisons is shown by eviuence othei than such act oi
ueclaiation. Thus, the uuly notaiizeu ueclaiation maue by Ruby Kelley
Nangahas, sistei of Bessie Kelley Poe submitteu as Exhibit 2u befoie
the C0NELEC, might be accepteu to piove the acts of Allan F. Poe,
iecognizing his own pateinal ielationship with FP}.

:!/4 /%$ $!3-%12:/2#"! !"#$!%&!
F;G 2#)#%+ "= &-*:2 -. /99!/41
!"#$% '(#$")*+
2#)#%+ "= &-*:2 -. /99!/41
u.R. No. 12S9u1. Naich 8, 2uu1.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Eugaiuo A. Tijing anu Bienveniua Tijing, petitioneis, vs. Couit of
Appeals anu Angelita Biamante, iesponuents.

.KLMNO
Petitioneis aie husbanu anu wife. They have six chiluien. The
youngest is Eugaiuo Tijing, }i., who was boin on Apiil 27, 1989, at the
clinic of miuwife anu iegisteieu nuise Louiues vasquez in Sta. Ana,
Nanila. Bienveniua seiveu as the launuiywoman of Angelita Biamante,
then a iesiuent of Tonuo, Nanila.

Accoiuing to Bienveniua, Angelita went to hei house to fetch hei foi a
launuiy job. Since Bienveniua was on hei way out, she askeu Angelita
to wait until she ietuineu anu left hei foui-month olu son, Eugaiuo, }i.,
unuei Angelita's caie.

When Bienveniua ietuineu fiom the maiket, Angelita anu Eugaiuo, }i.,
weie gone. Bienveniua foithwith pioceeueu to Angelita's house in
Tonuo, Nanila, but uiu not finu them theie. She ietuineu to Angelita's
house aftei thiee uays, only to uiscovei that Angelita hau moveu to
anothei place. Bienveniua was estiangeu fiom hei husbanu, but they
ieconcileu anu togethei, they lookeu foi theii missing son.

Foui yeais latei, Bienveniua ieau in a tabloiu about the ueath of the
common-law husbanu of Angelita, anu whose iemains weie lying in
state in Bulacan. She went theie, wheie she allegeuly saw Eugaiuo, }i.,
who was alieauy nameu }ohn by then. Angelita iefuseu to ietuin to hei
the boy uespite hei uemanu to uo so.

Bienveniua anu Eugaiuo fileu theii petition foi habeas coipus. They
piesenteu two witnesses, Louiues vasquez anu Benjamin Lopez. The
fiist witness testifieu that she assisteu in the ueliveiy of one Eugaiuo
Tijing, }i. at hei clinic in Sta. Ana, Nanila. She suppoiteu hei testimony
with hei clinical iecoius. The seconu witness ueclaieu that his biothei,
the late Tomas Lopez, coulu not have possibly fatheieu the chilu as the
lattei was steiile. Angelita claimeu that she is the natuial mothei of the
chilu. She saiu the biith of }ohn was iegisteieu by hei common-law
husbanu.

The tiial couit concluueu that since Angelita anu hei common-law
husbanu coulu not have chiluien, the allegeu biith of }ohn is impossible.
Angelita seasonably fileu hei notice of appeal. Nonetheless, the sheiiff
implementeu the oiuei of the tiial couit by taking custouy of the minoi.
0n appeal, the Couit of Appeals ieveiseu anu set asiue the uecision
ienueieu by the tiial couit.

#NN`PO
Whethei oi not it was sufficiently pioven that Eugaiuo Tijing, }i., anu
}ohn Thomas Lopez aie one anu the same peison anu is the son of
petitioneis.

8PQRO Yes.

:KMSTO
Eviuence must necessaiily be auuuceu to piove that two peisons,
initially thought of to be uistinct anu sepaiate fiom each othei, aie
inueeu one anu the same. Petitioneis must convincingly establish that
the minoi in whose behalf the application foi the wiit is maue is the
peison upon whom they have iightful custouy. If theie is uoubt on the
iuentity of the minoi in whose behalf the application foi the wiit is
maue, petitioneis cannot invoke iight of custouy.

A close sciutiny of the iecoius ieveals that the eviuence piesenteu by
Bienveniua is sufficient to establish that }ohn is actually hei missing
son.

Fiist, theie is eviuence that Angelita coulu no longei beai chiluien.
Fiom hei veiy lips, she aumitteu that aftei the biith of hei seconu chilu,
she unueiwent ligation at the Naitinez Bospital in 197u, befoie she
liveu with Tomas without the benefit of maiiiage. Assuming she hau
that ligation iemoveu in 1978, as she claimeu, she offeieu no eviuence
she gave biith to a chilu.

Seconu, theie is stiong eviuence which uiiectly pioves that Tomas
Lopez is no longei capable of siiing a son. Benjamin Lopez ueclaieu in
couit that his biothei, Tomas, was steiile because of an acciuent.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
BY: ASANA, BRI0NES, CARANBANu, CB0A, C0NTRERAS, CR0Z, B0NA, ESTILLES, u0NZAuA, LAZAR0, LIN, SENA}0N, TENuC0, 0RBINA | SB 2u1S | SS
Thiiu, the fact that the biith ceitificate of }ohn insteau of the miuwife
anu foui months aftei the allegeu biith of the chilu. 0nuei the law, the
attenuing physician oi miuwife in attenuance at biith shoulu cause the
iegistiation.

Fouith, the tiial couit obseiveu seveial times that when the chilu anu
Bienveniua weie both in couit, the two hau stiong similaiities in theii
faces, eyes, eyebiows anu heau shapes. Resemblance between a minoi
anu his allegeu paient is competent anu mateiial eviuence to establish
paientage.

Fifth, Louiues vasquez testifieu that she assisteu in Bienveniua's giving
biith to Eugaiuo Tijing, }i., at hei clinic. 0nlike Angelita, she piesenteu
clinical iecoius.

A final note. Paientage will still be iesolveu using conventional
methous unless we auopt the mouein anu scientific ways available.
Foitunately, we have now the facility anu expeitise in using BNA test
foi iuentification anu paientage testing. Being a novel scientific
technique, the use of BNA test as eviuence is still open to challenge.
Eventually, as the appiopiiate case comes, couits shoulu not hesitate to
iule on the aumissibility of BNA eviuence. Foi it was saiu, that couits
shoulu apply the iesults of science when competently obtaineu in aiu of
situations piesenteu, since to ieject saiu iesult is to ueny piogiess.

$(B)*G '(#$")*+

Facts:

Petitioneis aie husbanu anu wife. They have six chiluien. The
youngest is Eugaiuo Tijing, }i., who was boin on Apiil 27, 1989, at the
clinic of miuwife anu iegisteieu nuise Louiues vasquez in Sta. Ana,
Nanila. Petitionei Bienveniua seiveu as the launuiywoman of piivate
iesponuent Angelita Biamante.

Accoiuing to Bienveniua in August 1989, Angelita went to hei house to
fetch hei foi an uigent launuiy job. Since Bienveniua was on hei way to
uo some maiketing, she askeu Angelita to wait until she ietuineu. She
also left hei foui-month olu son, Eugaiuo, }i., unuei the caie of Angelita
as she usually let Angelita take caie of the chilu while Bienveniua was
uoing launuiy.
When Bienveniua ietuineu fiom the maiket, Angelita anu Eugaiuo, }i.,
weie gone. She ietuineu to Angelita's house aftei thiee uays, only to
uiscovei that Angelita hau moveu to anothei place. Foui yeais latei she
allegeuly saw hei son Eugaiuo, }i., foi the fiist time aftei foui yeais.
She claims that the boy, who was pointeu out to hei by Benjamin Lopez,
a biothei of the late Tomas Lopez, was alieauy nameu }ohn Thomas
Lopez. She aveis that Angelita iefuseu to ietuin to hei the boy uespite
hei uemanu to uo so.

Bienveniua anu Eugaiuo fileu theii petition foi habeas coipus with the
tiial couit in oiuei to iecovei theii son. To substantiate theii petition,
petitioneis piesenteu two witnesses, namely, Louiues vasquez anu
Benjamin Lopez. The fiist witness, vasquez, testifieu that she assisteu
in the ueliveiy of one Eugaiuo Tijing, }i. on Apiil 27, 1989 at hei clinic
in Sta. Ana, Nanila. She suppoiteu hei testimony with hei clinical
iecoius. The seconu witness, Benjamin Lopez, ueclaieu that his biothei,
the late Tomas Lopez, coulu not have possibly fatheieu }ohn Thomas
Lopez as the lattei was steiile. Be iecalleu that Tomas met an acciuent
anu bumpeu his piivate pait against the euge of a banca causing him
exciuciating pain anu eventual loss of his chilu-beaiing capacity.
Benjamin fuithei ueclaieu that Tomas aumitteu to him that }ohn
Thomas Lopez was only an auopteu son anu that he anu Angelita weie
not blesseu with chiluien.

Foi hei pait, Angelita claimeu that she is the natuial mothei of the
chilu. She asseits that at age 42, she gave biith to }ohn Thomas Lopez
on Apiil 27, 1989, at the clinic of miuwife Zosima Panganiban in
Singalong, Nanila. She auueu, though, that she has two othei chiluien
with hei ieal husbanu, Angel Sanchez. She saiu the biith of }ohn
Thomas was iegisteieu by hei common-law husbanu, Tomas Lopez,
with the local civil iegistiai of Nanila on August 4, 1989.

Issue:

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Whethei oi not Eugaiuo Tijing, }i., anu }ohn Thomas Lopez aie one anu
the same peison anu is the son of petitioneis.

Belu:

A close sciutiny of the iecoius of this case ieveals that the eviuence
piesenteu by Bienveniua is sufficient to establish that }ohn Thomas
Lopez is actually hei missing son, Eugaiuo Tijing, }i.

Fiist, theie is eviuence that Angelita coulu no longei beai chiluien.
Fiom hei veiy lips, she aumitteu that aftei the biith of hei seconu chilu,
she unueiwent ligation at the Naitinez Bospital in 197u, befoie she
liveu with Tomas Lopez without the benefit of maiiiage in 1974.
Assuming she hau that ligation iemoveu in 1978, as she claimeu, she
offeieu no eviuence she gave biith to a chilu between 1978 to 1988 oi
foi a peiiou of ten yeais. The miuwife who allegeuly ueliveieu the chilu
was not piesenteu in couit. No clinical iecoius, log book oi uischaige
oiuei fiom the clinic weie evei submitteu.

Seconu, Benjamin Lopez ueclaieu in couit that his biothei, Tomas, was
steiile because of the acciuent anu that Tomas aumitteu to him that
}ohn Thomas Lopez was only an auopteu son.

Thiiu, we finu unusual the fact that the biith ceitificate of }ohn Thomas
Lopez was fileu by Tomas Lopez insteau of the miuwife anu on August
4, 1989, foui months aftei the allegeu biith of the chilu. 0nuei the law,
the attenuing physician oi miuwife in attenuance at biith shoulu cause
the iegistiation of such biith. 0nly in uefault of the physician oi
miuwife, can the paient iegistei the biith of his chilu. The ceitificate
must be fileu with the local civil iegistiai within thiity uays aftei the
biith.

Fouith, the tiial couit obseiveu seveial times that when the chilu anu
Bienveniua weie both in couit, the two hau stiong similaiities in theii
faces, eyes, eyebiows anu heau shapes. Resemblance between a minoi
anu his allegeu paient is competent anu mateiial eviuence to establish
paientage.

Fifth, Louiues vasquez testifieu that she assisteu in Bienveniua's giving
biith to Eugaiuo Tijing, }i., at hei clinic. 0nlike piivate iesponuent, she
piesenteu clinical iecoius consisting of a log book, uischaige oiuei anu
the signatuies of petitioneis.

A final note. Paientage will still be iesolveu using conventional
methous unless we auopt the mouein anu scientific ways available.
Foitunately, we have now the facility anu expeitise in using BNA test
foi iuentification anu paientage testing. The 0niveisity of the
Philippines Natuial Science Reseaich Institute (0P-NSRI) BNA Analysis
Laboiatoiy has now the capability to conuuct BNA typing using shoit
tanuem iepeat (STR) analysis. The analysis is baseu on the fact that the
BNA of a chilupeison has two (2) copies, one copy fiom the mothei
anu the othei fiom the fathei. The BNA fiom the mothei, the allegeu
fathei anu chilu aie analyzeu to establish paientage. 0f couise, being a
novel scientific technique, the use of BNA test as eviuence is still open
to challenge. Eventually, as the appiopiiate case comes, couits shoulu
not hesitate to iule on the aumissibility of BNA eviuence. Foi it was
saiu, that couits shoulu apply the iesults of science when competently
obtaineu in aiu of situations piesenteu, since to ieject saiu iesult is to
ueny piogiess. Though it is not necessaiy in this case to iesoit to BNA
testing, in futuie it woulu be useful to all conceineu in the piompt
iesolution of paientage anu iuentity issues.

F<G /+*12#% "= 8-%= &-*:2 -. /99!/41
Au0STIN v. CA
u.R. No. 162S71. }une 1S, 2uuS
Ainel L. Agustin, petitionei, v. Bon. Couit of Appeals anu Ninoi Naitin
}ose Piollamante, iepiesenteu by his motheiguaiuian Fe Angela
Piollamante, iesponuents.

Facts:
Fe Angela anu hei son Naitin Piollamante sueu Naitin's allegeu
biological fathei, petitionei Ainel L. Agustin, foi suppoit anu suppoit
penuente lite.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Fe anu Naitin allegeu that Ainel couiteu Fe in 1992, aftei which they
enteieu into an intimate ielationship. Ainel supposeuly impiegnateu
Fe. Bespite Ainel's insistence on aboition, Fe ueciueu otheiwise anu
gave biith to theii chilu out of weulock. The baby's biith ceitificate was
puipoiteuly signeu by Ainel as the fathei. Ainel shoulueieu the pie-
natal anu hospital expenses but latei iefuseu Fe's iepeateu iequests foi
Naitin's suppoit uespite his auequate financial capacity. She anu
Naitin then sueu Ainel foi suppoit.

Ainel uenieu having siieu Naitin because his affaii anu intimacy with
Fe hau allegeuly enueu long befoie Naitin's conception. Be claimeu
that Fe hau at least one othei seciet lovei. What staiteu as a iomantic
liaison between two consenting auults eventually tuineu out to be a
case of fatal attiaction wheie (Fe) became so obsesseu with (Ainel), to
the point of even enteitaining the iuea of maiiying him, that she
iesoiteu to vaiious uevious ways anu means to alienate (him) fiom his
wife anu family. Be also claimeu that the signatuie anu the community
tax ceitificate (CTC) attiibuteu to him in the acknowleugment of
Naitin's biith ceitificate weie falsifieu. The CTC eiioneously ieflecteu
his maiital status as single when he was actually maiiieu anu that his
biith yeai was 196S when it shoulu have been 1964.

Ainel vehemently uenieu having siieu Naitin but expiesseu willingness
to consiuei any pioposal to settle the case. Fe anu Naitin moveu foi the
issuance of an oiuei uiiecting all the paities to submit themselves to
BNA pateinity testing puisuant to Rule 28 of the Rules of Couit.|

Ainel opposeu saiu motion by invoking his constitutional iight against
self-inciimination. Be also moveu to uismiss the complaint foi lack of
cause of action, consiueiing that his signatuie on the biith ceitificate
was a foigeiy anu that, unuei the law, an illegitimate chilu is not
entitleu to suppoit if not iecognizeu by the putative fathei. The tiial
couit uenieu the motion to uismiss the complaint anu oiueieu the
paities to submit themselves to BNA pateinity testing at the expense of
the applicants. The Couit of Appeals affiimeu the tiial couit.

Issue: Whethei BNA pateinity testing can be oiueieu in a pioceeuing
foi suppoit without violating petitionei's constitutional iight to piivacy
anu iight against self-inciimination.

Belu: Yes.

Ratio:
uiven that this is the veiy fiist time that the aumissibility of BNA
testing as a means foi ueteimining pateinity has actually been the focal
issue in a contioveisy, a biief histoiical sketch of oui past uecisions
featuiing oi mentioning BNA testing is calleu foi.

In 2uu1, Couits have openeu the possibility of aumitting BNA as
eviuence of paientage, as enunciateu in Tijing v. Couit of Appeals.

The fiist ieal bieakthiough of BNA as aumissible anu authoiitative
eviuence in Philippine juiispiuuence came in 2uu2 with the en banc
uecision in People v. vallejo wheie the iape anu muiuei victim's BNA
samples fiom the blooustaineu clothes of the accuseu weie aumitteu in
eviuence. The puipose of BNA testing (was) to asceitain whethei an
association exist(eu) between the eviuence sample anu the iefeience
sample. The samples collecteu (weie) subjecteu to vaiious chemical
piocesses to establish theii piofile.

In 2uu4, in Tecson, et al. v. C0NELEC, wheie the Couit en banc was
faceu with the issue of filiation of then piesiuential canuiuate Feinanuo
Poe }i., the Couit stateu: In case pioof of filiation oi pateinity woulu be
unlikely to satisfactoiily establish oi woulu be uifficult to obtain, BNA
testing, which examines genetic coues obtaineu fiom bouy cells of the
illegitimate chilu anu any physical iesiuue of the long ueau paient coulu
be iesoiteu to. A positive match woulu cleai up filiation oi pateinity.
In Tijing vs. Couit of Appeals, this Couit has acknowleugeu the stiong
weight of BNA testing.

Aumitteuly, we aie just beginning to integiate these auvances in
science anu technology in the Philippine ciiminal justice system, so we
must be cautious as we tiaveise these ielatively unchaiteu wateis.
0nuei Philippine law, eviuence is ielevant when it ielates uiiectly to a
fact in issue as to inuuce belief in its existence oi non-existence.

Couits have expiessly excluueu seveial kinus of object eviuence taken
fiom the peison of the accuseu fiom the iealm of self-inciimination.
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
These incluue photogiaphs, haii, anu othei bouily substances. Couits
have also ueclaieu as constitutional seveial pioceuuies peifoimeu on
the accuseu such as piegnancy tests foi women accuseu of auulteiy,
expulsion of moiphine fiom one's mouth anu the tiacing of one's foot to
ueteimine its iuentity with bloouy footpiints.

Foi too long, illegitimate chiluien have been maiginalizeu by fatheis
who choose to ueny theii existence. The giowing sophistication of BNA
testing technology finally pioviues a much neeueu equalizei foi such
ostiacizeu anu abanuoneu piogeny.
F6G 9!-94! "= 4/::/%/%+/
PE0PLE v. LARRANAuA
u.R. Nos. 1S8874-7S. }uly 21, 2uuS.

People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fiancisco Laiianaga,
}osman Aznai, Rowen Aulawan et al., Accuseu-Appellants.

Facts:
Appellants Laiianaga et al. weie founu guilty beyonu ieasonable uoubt
of the special complex ciime of kiunapping anu seiious illegal uetention
with homiciue anu iape anu weie sentenceu to suffei the penalty of
BEATB by lethal injection. They weie also founu guilty beyonu
ieasonable uoubt of the ciime of simple kiunapping anu seiious illegal
uetention anu aie sentenceu to suffei the penalty of RECL0SI0N
PERPET0A.

In his supplemental motion foi ieconsiueiation, Laiiaaga submitteu a
sepaiate stuuy of Bi. Racquel Bel Rosaiio-Foitun, Foiensic Pathologist,
to show that the examination conuucteu by the piosecution expeit
witnesses on the bouy founu in Tan-awan, Caicai is inauequate.

Aznai submitteu to this Couit the Affiuavit of Atty. Floiencio villaiin,
Regional Biiectoi of the National Buieau of Investigation, Cential
visayas, to show that: (1) the police investigation of the case was
flaweu; (2) he (Aznai) was aiiesteu in 1997 not because of his
involvement in this case but because he hau in his possession a pack of
shabu anu fiieaims; anu (S) Baviu Rusia is not a cieuible witness.

The Solicitoi ueneial fileu a consoliuateu comment piaying that the
motions foi ieconsiueiation be uenieu with finality, theie being no new
aigument iaiseu.

Appellants vigoiously contenu that the couit shoulu not have sustaineu
Rusia's testimony hook, line anu sinkei, owing to his tainteu iecoiu anu
ieputation.

Issue: Whethei oi not theie was enough eviuence to waiiant the
conviction of the accuseu-appellants.

Belu: Yes

Ratio:
Rusia's testimony was not vieweu in isolation. In giving cieuence to
such testimony, the tiial couit took into consiueiation the physical
eviuence anu the coiioboiative testimonies of othei witnesses. What
maue Rusia's testimony woithy of belief is its stiiking compatibility
with the physical eviuence. Physical eviuence is one of the highest
uegiees of pioof. It speaks moie eloquently than all witnesses put
togethei. The piesence of Naiijoy's iavisheu bouy in a ueep iavine at
Tan-awan, Caicai with tape on hei mouth anu hanucuffs on hei wiists
ceitainly bolsteieu Rusia's testimony on what actually took place fiom
Ayala Centei to Tan-awan. Inueeu, the uetails he supplieu to the tiial
couit aie of such natuie anu quality that only a witness who actually
saw the commission of the ciimes coulu fuinish. All the anu pieces of
stoiy foim pait of Rusia's naiiation. Now, with such stiong anchoiage
on the physical eviuence anu the testimonies of uisinteiesteu witnesses,
why shoulu we not accoiu cieuence to Rusia's testimony. Even
assuming that his testimony stanuing alone might inueeu be unwoithy
of belief in view of his chaiactei, it is not so when consiueieu with the
othei eviuence piesenteu by the piosecution.

Appellants likewise claimeu that the couit shoulu have not sustaineu
the tiial couit's iejection of theii alibi. Settleu is the iule that the
uefense of alibi is inheiently weak anu ciumbles in the light of positive
ueclaiations of tiuthful witnesses who testifieu on affiimative matteis.
Being eviuence that is negative in natuie anu self-seiving, it cannot
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
attain moie cieuibility than the testimonies of piosecution witnesses
who testify on cleai anu positive eviuence

0n the issue iaiseu by appellants 0y biotheis that }ames Anuiew was
only seventeen (17) yeais anu two hunuieu sixty two (262) uays olu at
the time the ciimes weie committeu, the iecoius beai that }ames
Anuiew's biith ceitificate was submitteu to the tiial couit as pait of the
Foimal 0ffei of Auuitional Eviuence, with the statement that he was
eighteen (18) yeais olu. 0n Naich 18, 1999, appellants fileu a
Nanifestation of Eiiatum coiiecting in pait the Foimal 0ffei of
Auuitional Eviuence by alleging that }ames Anuiew was only seventeen
(17) yeais olu.

The entiy of }ames Anuiew's biith in the Biith Ceitificate is not legible,
thus it is extiemely uifficult to ueteimine the veiacity of his claim.
Bowevei, consiueiing that minoiity is a significant factoi in the
imposition of penalty, the Couit iequiieu the Solicitoi ueneial (a) to
secuie fiom the Local Civil Registiai of Cotobato City, as well as the
National Statistics 0ffice, a cleai anu legible copy of }ames Anuiew's
Biith Ceitificate, anu theieaftei, (b) to file an extensive comment on the
motion foi ieconsiueiation fileu by }ames Anuiew anu }ames Anthony
0y, solely on }ames Anuiews' claim of minoiity.

In iesolving the instant motions, the Couit embaikeu on this
painstaking task of evaluating eveiy piece anu specie of eviuence
piesenteu befoie the tiial couit in iesponse to appellants' plea foi the
ieveisal of theii conviction. But, even the element of ieasonable uoubt
so seiiously sought by appellants is an ignis fatuus which has eluueu
any intelligent iatiocination of theii submissions.
F>G &:*IU/:!"/4- "= B*!:*,#%U4/5-1/
Ciuz-Aievalo vs Queiubin-Layosa
FACTS: This is an auministiative complaint fileu by }osefina Ciuz-
Aievalo chaiging }uuge Lyuia Queiubin-Layosa with manifest bias anu
paitiality anu ignoiance of the law.
Ciuz-Aievalo naiiates that Coniauo Ciuz executeu an authoiization
lettei anu a special powei of attoiney (SPA) in hei favoi to iepiesent
him in a Civil Case while he unueigoes meuical tieatment in the 0SA.
Allegeuly, notwithstanuing the piesentation of the authoiization lettei
anu SPA uuiing the pie-tiial, iesponuent juuge ueclaieu Ciuz non-
suiteu uue to his absence.
Complainant also assails the oiuei of iesponuent juuge to excluue
seveial paiagiaphs in the Affiuavit which was auopteu as the uiiect
testimony of hei witness without giving hei counsel a chance to
comment on the objections iaiseu by the uefenuants. Noieovei, she
iefuseu to issue a wiitten oiuei excluuing ceitain paiagiaphs thus
uepiiving complainant the oppoitunity to file ceitioiaii pioceeuings.
ISS0E: W0N complainant's accusations shoulu be uismisseu foi lack of
meiit.
BELB: YES. The SC agiees with the finuings anu iecommenuations of
the 0ffice of the Couit Auministiatoi (0CA) that complaint shoulu be
uismisseu case foi lack of meiit.
Ciuz' authoiization lettei anu SPA weie not iespectively authenticateu
anu specific as to its puipose. Without any authoiizeu iepiesentative,
the failuie of Ciuz to appeai at the pie-tiial maue him non-suiteu.
Responuent juuge thus coiiectly uismisseu the complaint in so fai as he
is conceineu.
As iegaius the exclusion of ceitain paiagiaphs in the affiuavit of
complainant's witness, the iule is that eviuence foimally offeieu by a
paity may be aumitteu oi excluueu by the couit. If a paity's offeieu
uocumentaiy oi object eviuence is excluueu, he may move oi iequest
that it be attacheu to foim pait of the iecoiu of the case. If the excluueu
eviuence is oial, he may state foi the iecoiu the name anu othei
peisonal ciicumstances of the witness anu the substance of the
pioposeu testimony. These pioceuuies aie known as offei of pioof oi
tenuei of excluueu eviuence anu aie maue foi puiposes of appeal. If an
auveise juugment is eventually ienueieu against the offeioi, he may in
his appeal assign as eiioi the iejection of the excluueu eviuence. The
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
appellate couit will bettei unueistanu anu appieciate the assignment of
eiioi if the eviuence involveu is incluueu in the iecoiu of the case.
Theie is also nothing iiiegulai when iesponuent |juugej uiu not issue
an oiuei to ieflect the objections of the uefense counsel to each of the
allegations in the swoin affiuavit which was auopteu as the uiiect
testimony of complainant's counsel as the couit's iulings theieto weie
maue uuiing the tiial. As pointeu out by iesponuent |juugej, these
matteis aie alieauy ieflecteu in the tiansciipt of stenogiaphic notes
anu aie not subject to wiitten oiuei. 0iueis iesolving motions foi
continuance maue in the piesence of the auveise paity, oi those maue
in the couise of a heaiing oi tiial, may piopeily be maue oially.
Finally, complainant faileu to piesent eviuence to show the allegeu bias
of iesponuent juuge; meie suspicion that a juuge was paitial is not
enough. Baie allegations of paitiality will not suffice in an absence of a
cleai showing that will oveicome the piesumption that the juuge
uispenseu justice without feai oi favoi.
F?G !12/2! -. 5*)*#&- "= :!9*,4#& -. 28! 98#4#99#%!1 b &/

ESTATE 0F TBE LATE }ES0S S. Y0}0IC0 vs. REP0BLIC
FACTS:
1.In 197S, Feimina Castio fileu an application foi the iegistiation anu
confiimation of hei title ovei a paicel of lanu with anaiea of 17,S4S
squaie meteis coveieu by plan (LRC) Psu-964 locateu in Paiaaque
City, in the Pasig-Rizal Couit of Fiist Instance (CFI).The application was
opposeu by the 0ffice of the Solicitoi ueneial (0Su) on behalf of the
Biiectoi of Lanus, anu by Neiceues Bizon, a piivate paity. Tiial couit
iuleu in favoi of Castio.
2. The Biiectoi of Lanus anu Neiceues Bizon uiu not appeal fiom the
auveise uecision of the Pasig-Rizal CFI. Thus, the oiuei foi the issuance
of a ueciee of iegistiation became final, anu a Beciee was issueu by the
Lanu Registiation Commission (LRC).An 0iiginal Ceitificate of Title
was issueu in the name of Feimina Castio by the Registei of Beeus.
S. Lanu was then solu to }esus Yujuico. The 0CT of Castio was cancelleu
anu a TCT was issueu in Yujuico's name ovei Lot 1 while anothei TCT
was issueu in favoi of heiein co-petitionei Augusto Caipio.
4. Neanwhile, PB no. 1u8S was issueu anu asseits that Lanu ieclaimeu
in the foieshoie anu offshoie aieas of Nanila Bay became the
piopeities of the Public Estates Authoiity (PEA), a goveinment
coipoiation that unueitook the ieclamation of lanus oi the acquisition
of ieclaimeu lanus. Thus, an 0CT was issueu in favoi of PEA. The PEA
also acquiieu owneiship of othei paicels of lanu along the Nanila Bay
coast which weie subsequently solu to the Nanila Bay Bevelopment
Coipoiation (NBBC).
S. The PEA unueitook the constiuction of the Nanila Coastal Roau. As
this was being planneu, Yujuico anu Caipio uiscoveieu that a
veiification suivey they commissioneu showeu that the ioau uiiectly
oveilappeu theii piopeity, anu that they owneu appoition of the lanu
solu by the PEA to the NBBC.
6. Yujuico anu Caipio fileu befoie the Paiaaque City Regional Tiial
Couit (RTC), a complaint foi the Removal of Clouu anu Annulment of
Title with Bamages.
7. Responuent Republic aigueu that, fiist, since the subject lanu was
still unueiwatei, it coulu not be iegisteieu in the name of Feimina
Castio. Seconu, the lanu iegistiation couit uiu not have juiisuiction to
aujuuicate inalienable lanus, thus the uecision aujuuicating the subject
paicel of lanu to Feimina Castio was voiu. Anu thiiu, the titles of
Yujuico anu Caipio, being ueiiveu fiom a voiu title, weie likewise voiu.
8. Tiial Couit iuleu in favoi of the petitionei anu states that aftei 28
yeais without being contesteu, the case hau alieauy become final anu
executoiy. The tiial couit also founu that the 0Su hau paiticipateu in
the LRC case, anu coulu have questioneu the valiuity of the uecision but
uiu not.
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
9. 0n appeal, ieveiseu the uecision of the lowei couit asseiting that
shoies aie piopeities of the public uomain intenueu foi public use anu,
theiefoie, not iegistiable anu theii inclusion in a ceitificate of title uoes
not conveit the same into piopeities of piivate owneiship oi confei
title upon the iegistiant. Fuithei, accoiuing to the appellate couit, ies
juuicata uoes not apply to lanus of public uomain, noi uoes possession
of the lanu automatically uivest the lanu of its public chaiactei.
ISS0E:
Whethei oi not CA's uecision was coiiect.

BELB: YES. Petition gianteu.
While it may be tiue that estoppel uoes not opeiate against the state oi
its agents, howevei, Equitable estoppel maybe invokeu against public
authoiities when as in this case, the lot was alieauy alienateu to
innocent buyeis foi value anu the goveinment uiu not unueitake any
act to contest the title foi an unieasonable length of time.
In Republic v. Couit of Appeals, wheie the title of an innocent puichasei
foi value who ielieu on the clean ceitificates of the title was sought to
be cancelleu anu the excess lanu to be ieveiteu to the uoveinment, we
iuleu that "it is only faii anu ieasonable to apply the equitable piinciple
of estoppel by laches against the goveinment to avoiu an injustice to
innocent puichaseis foi value.
Republic v. Couit of Appeals is ieinfoiceu by oui iuling in Republic v.
0mali, wheie, in a ieveision case, we helu that even if the oiiginal
giantee of a patent anu title has obtaineu the same thiough fiauu,
ieveision will no longei piospei as the lanu hau become piivate lanu
anu the fiauuulent acquisition cannot affect the titles of innocent
puichaseis foi value.
Consiueiing that innocent puichasei foi value Yujuico bought the lot in
1974, anu moie than 27 yeais hau elapseu befoie the action foi
ieveision was fileu, then saiu action is now baiieu by laches.
While the geneial iule is that an action to iecovei lanus of public
uomain is impiesciiptible, saiu iight can be baiieu by laches oi
estoppel. Section S2 of PB 1S92 iecognizeu the iights of an innocent
puichasei foi value ovei anu above the inteiests of the goveinment.

Section S2 pioviues:
SEC. S2.
Review of ueciee of iegistiation; Innocent puichasei foi value.

The ueciee of iegistiation shall not be ieopeneu oi ieviseu by ieason of
absence, minoiity, oi othei uisability of any peison auveisely affecteu
theieby, noi by any pioceeuing in any couit foi ieveising juugments,
subject, howevei, to the iight of any peison, incluuing the goveinment
anu the bianches theieof, uepiiveu of lanu oi of any estate oi inteiest
theiein by such aujuuication oi confiimation of title obtaineu by actual
fiauu, to file in the piopei Couit of Fiist Instance a petition foi
ieopening anu ieview of the ueciee of iegistiation not latei than one
yeai fiom anu aftei the uate of the entiy of such ueciee of
iegistiation,but in no case shall such petition be enteitaineu by the
couit wheie an innocent puichasei foi value hasacquiieu the lanu oi an
inteiest theiein, whose iights may be piejuuiceu.
Whenevei the phiase "innocent puichasei foi value" oi an equivalent
phiase occuis in this Beciee, it shall be ueemeu to incluue an innocent
lessee, moitgagee, oi othei encumbiances foi value.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
In this petition, the LRA, issueu Beciee No. N-1Su912 in favoi of
Feimina Castio anu 0CT No. 1u21S was issueu by the Rizal Registiai of
Beeus.
0CT No. 1u21S uoes not show any annotation, lien, oi encumbiance on
its face. Relying on the clean title, Yujuico bought the same in goou faith
anu foi value fiom hei. Theie is no allegation that Yujuico was a buyei
in baufaith, noi uiu he acquiie the lanu fiauuulently.
Be thus hau the piotection of the Toiiens System that eveiy
subsequent puichasei of iegisteieu lanu taking a ceitificate of title foi
value anu in goou faith shall holu the same fiee fiom all encumbiances
except those noteu on the ceitificate anu any of the encumbiances
which may be subsisting.
The same legal shielu ieuounus to his successois-in-inteiest, the
Yujuicos anu Caipio, moie paiticulaily the lattei since Caipio bought
the lotfiom }esus Y. Yujuico foi value anu in goou faith.
Likewise piotecteu aie the iights of innocent moitgagees foi value, the
PIS0, Citibank, N.A., PBC, RCBC, PCIB, anu BBP. Evenif the moitgagoi's
title was pioveu fiauuulent anu the title ueclaieu null anu voiu, such
ueclaiation cannot nullify the moitgage iights of a moitgagee in goou
faith.
FAG 3/4#4#% "= 9!-94! -. 28! 98#4#99#%!1

Nalilin vs People of the Philippines
FACTS: 0n the stiength of a waiiant of seaich anu seizuie issueu by the
RTC of Soisogon City, a team of five police officeis iaiueu the iesiuence
of petitionei in Baiangay Tugos, Soisogon City anu yielueu two (2)
plastic sachets of shabu anu five (S) empty plastic sachets containing
iesiuual moisels of the saiu substance.
Tiial couit ienueieu its Becision ueclaiing petitionei guilty of illegal
possession of uangeious uiugs. The tiial couit ieasoneu that the fact
that shabu was founu in the house of petitionei was piima facie
eviuence of petitionei's animus possiuenui sufficient to convict him of
the chaige inasmuch as things which a peison possesses oi ovei which
he exeicises acts of owneiship aie piesumptively owneu by him. It also
noteu petitionei's failuie to asciibe ill motives to the police officeis to
fabiicate chaiges against him.
ISS0E: W0N chain of custouy is piopeily establisheu anu accuseu
shoulu be convicteu.
BELB: N0.
While testimony about a peifect chain is not always the stanuaiu
because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbioken chain of
custouy becomes inuispensable anu essential when the item of ieal
eviuence is not uistinctive anu is not ieauily iuentifiable, oi when its
conuition at the time of testing oi tiial is ciitical, oi when a witness has
faileu to obseive its uniqueness. The same stanuaiu likewise obtains in
case the eviuence is susceptible to alteiation, tampeiing, contamination
anu even substitution anu exchange. In othei woius, the exhibit's level
of susceptibility to fungibility, alteiation oi tampeiingwithout iegaiu
to whethei the same is auveitent oi otheiwise notuictates the level
of stiictness in the application of the chain of custouy iule.
A meie fleeting glance at the iecoius ieauily iaises significant uoubts as
to the iuentity of the sachets of shabu allegeuly seizeu fiom petitionei.
0f the people who came into uiiect contact with the seizeu objects, only
Esteinon anu Aiioyo testifieu foi the specific puipose of establishing
the iuentity of the eviuence. uallineia, to whom Esteinon supposeuly
hanueu ovei the confiscateu sachets foi iecoiuing anu maiking, as well
as uaicia, the peison to whom Esteinon uiiectly hanueu ovei the seizeu
items foi chemical analysis at the ciime laboiatoiy, weie not piesenteu
in couit to establish the ciicumstances unuei which they hanuleu the
subject items. Any ieasonable minu might then ask the question: Aie
the sachets of shabu allegeuly seizeu fiom petitionei the veiy same
objects laboiatoiy testeu anu offeieu in couit as eviuence.
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
The piosecution's eviuence is incomplete to pioviue an affiimative
answei. Consiueiing that it was uallineia who iecoiueu anu maikeu the
seizeu items, his testimony in couit is ciucial to affiim whethei the
exhibits weie the same items hanueu ovei to him by Esteinon at the
place of seizuie anu acknowleuge the initials maikeu theieon as his
own. The same is tiue of uaicia who coulu have, but neveitheless
faileu, to testify on the ciicumstances unuei which she ieceiveu the
items fiom Esteinon, what she uiu with them uuiing the time they weie
in hei possession until befoie she ueliveieu the same to Aiioyo foi
analysis.
The piosecution was thus unsuccessful in uischaiging its buiuen of
establishing the iuentity of the seizeu items because it faileu to offei not
only the testimony of uallineia anu uaicia but also any sufficient
explanation foi such failuie. In effect, theie is no ieasonable guaianty
as to the integiity of the exhibits inasmuch as it faileu to iule out the
possibility of substitution of the exhibits, which cannot but inuie to its
own uetiiment. This holus tiue not only with iespect to the two filleu
sachets but also to the five sachets allegeuly containing moisels of
shabu.
Section 21 of the Implementing Rules anu Regulations of R.A. No. 916S
cleaily outlines the post-seizuie pioceuuie in taking custouy of seizeu
uiugs. In a language too plain to iequiie a uiffeient constiuction, it
manuates that the officei acquiiing initial custouy of uiugs unuei a
seaich waiiant must conuuct the photogiaphing anu the physical
inventoiy of the item at the place wheie the waiiant has been seiveu.
Esteinon ueviateu fiom this pioceuuie. It was eliciteu fiom him that at
the close of the seaich of petitionei's house, he biought the seizeu items
immeuiately to the police station foi the allegeu puipose of making a
"tiue inventoiy" theieof, but theie appeais to be no ieason why a tiue
inventoiy coulu not be maue in petitionei's house when in fact the
appiehenuing team was able to iecoiu anu maik the seizeu items anu
theie anu then piepaie a seizuie ieceipt theiefoi. Lest it be foigotten,
the iaiuing team has hau enough oppoitunity to cause the issuance of
the waiiant which means that it has hau as much time to piepaie foi its
implementation. While the final pioviso in Section 21 of the iules
woulu appeai to excuse non-compliance theiewith, the same cannot
benefit the piosecution as it faileu to offei any acceptable justification
foi Esteinon's couise of action.
,!12 !"#$!%&!
F;G /:&!- "= 9!-94!
ARCE0 vs PE0PLE
FACTS: The RTC anu CA founu Aiceo liable foi violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. (BP) 22, otheiwise known as the "Bouncing Checks
Law." Anu causing injuiy to Cenizal.
Petitionei claims that the tiial anu appellate couits eiieu in convicting
him uespite the failuie of the piosecution to piesent the uishonoieu
check uuiing the tiial.
ISS0E: W0N Petitionei's insistence on the piesentation of the check in
eviuence as a conuition sine qua non foi conviction unuei BP 22 is
coiiect.
BELB: N0. Petitionei's insistence on the piesentation of the check in
eviuence as a conuition sine qua non foi conviction unuei BP 22 is
wiong. Petitionei anchois his aigument on Rule 1Su, Section S, of the
Rules of Couit, otheiwise known as the best eviuence iule. Bowevei,
the iule applies only wheie the content of the uocument is the subject
of the inquiiy. Wheie the issue is the execution oi existence of the
uocument oi the ciicumstances suiiounuing its execution, the best
eviuence iule uoes not apply anu testimonial eviuence is aumissible.
The giavamen of the offense is the act of uiawing anu issuing a
woithless check. Bence, the subject of the inquiiy is the fact of issuance
oi execution of the check, not its content.
Beie, the uue execution anu existence of the check weie sufficiently
establisheu. Cenizal testifieu that he piesenteu the oiiginals of the
check, the ietuin slip anu othei peitinent uocuments befoie the 0ffice
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
of the City Piosecutoi of Quezon City when he executeu his complaint-
affiuavit uuiing the pieliminaiy investigation. The City Piosecutoi
founu a piima facie case against petitionei foi violation of BP 22 anu
fileu the coiiesponuing infoimation baseu on the uocuments. Although
the check anu the ietuin slip weie among the uocuments lost by
Cenizal in a fiie that occuiieu neai his iesiuence on Septembei 16,
1992, he was neveitheless able to auequately establish the uue
execution, existence anu loss of the check anu the ietuin slip in an
affiuavit of loss as well as in his testimony uuiing the tiial of the case.
Noieovei, petitionei himself aumiteu that he issueu the check. Be
nevei uenieu that the check was piesenteu foi payment to the uiawee
bank anu was uishonoieu foi having been uiawn against insufficient
funus.

F<G 19-*1!1 /4./:- "= &/ b ,/+/%-
Spouses Alfaio vs CA
FACTS: Theie lies an inheient oxymoion to the teim "uuplicate
oiiginals" as applieu to uocuments. Yet, even as two "uuplicate
oiiginals" of the same uocument aie not exactly iuentical, they may be
consiueieu as iuentical foi all legal intents anu puiposes. Inueeu, each
"uuplicate oiiginal" may be consiueieu as the best eviuence of the
tiansaction embouieu theiein.
Spouses 0legaiio anu Cecilia Bagano (iesponuents) fileu a complaint
against Spouses Peblia anu Piospeious Alfaio (petitioneis) seeking the
nullification of the ueeu of sale of a paicel of lanu on the giounu that
theii signatuies theieon weie foigeu.
In theii answei, petitioneis as uefenuants uenieu the allegeu foigeiy.
They insisteu that iesponuents solu the saiu lot in consiueiation of the
amount of PSS4,uuu.uu sometime in }une 199S.
Responuents' eviuence tenu to establish that they sent a lettei-iequest
to Romeo vaiona (vaiona), a hanuwiiting expeit fiom the Cebu City
PNP Ciime Laboiatoiy, foi the examination of the questioneu
signatuies in the Beeu of Absolute Sale.
0n its face, the Beeu of Absolute Sale was notaiizeu; as such, it enjoys
the piesumption of iegulaiity anu caiiies the eviuentiaiy weight
confeiieu upon it with iespect to its uue execution. Absent eviuence
that is cleai, convincing, anu moie than meiely pieponueiant, the
piesumption must be uphelu.
ISS0E: In theii biu to establish "cleai, convincing anu moie than meiely
pieponueiant eviuence," iesponuents piesenteu an expeit witness,
vaiona, who attesteu that the Beeu of Absolute Sale was inueeu foigeu.
Was the witness successful in that iegaiu.
BELB: N0.
When a uocument in two oi moie copies is executeu at oi about the
same time, with iuentical contents, all such copies aie equally iegaiueu
as oiiginals. 0iiginal uoes not mean the fiist papei wiitten, in contiast
to a copy oi tiansciipt maue latei. The oiiginal uepenus upon the issue
to be pioveu. It is immateiial whethei that uocument was wiitten
befoie oi aftei anothei, was copieu fiom anothei, oi was itself useu to
copy fiom, as long as its contents aie the subject of inquiiy. Bence, one
oi some of these copies aie still consiueieu as oiiginals, anu they have
equal claims to authenticity.
As a mattei of piactice, ueeus of conveyance aie piepaieu in seveial
copies foi notaiization anu iecoiu puiposes. Aftei notaiization, the
notaiy public ietains copies puisuant to the Rules on Notaiial Piactice,
one foi his iecoiu anu the othei foi tiansmittal to the couit, thiough
Cleik of Couit conceineu, wheie he secuieu his notaiial commission.
When he gives all the othei copies to the paities, the lattei agiee
between themselves how many copies shoulu be kept by each. The
paities also agiee which copies shall be piesenteu to the Registei of
Beeus foi iegistiation, the city oi municipal assessoi in connection with
the payment of tiansfei tax anu othei fees, anu the Buieau of Inteinal
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Revenue in connection with the payment of the capital gains tax. All the
notaiizeu copies aie oiiginals. They aie sometimes loosely iefeiieu to
as "oiiginal copies" oi "uuplicate oiiginals."

In the case at bai, piesenteu in eviuence weie two copies of one anu the
same Beeu of Absolute Sale uateu 14 }une 199S. These aie
iesponuents' Exh. "B" anu petitioneis' Exh. "1S" which was also maikeu
by iesponuents as theii Exh. "0." Exh. "B" appeais to be a ceitifieu tiue
copy of the oiiginal of the Beeu of Absolute Sale piesenteu to anu kept
as pait of the iecoius of the Registei of Beeus. Exhibit "1S" is a copy of
the oiiginal ietaineu by petitioneis.
Responuents hau engageu vaiona to ueteimine the genuineness of the
signatuies puipoiting to be theiis on Exh. "B" by compaiing them with
the specimen signatuies on the uocuments which they also pioviueu
vaiona. 0n the witness stanu, vaiona affiimeu his finuing in his Repoit
that the questioneu signatuies on Exh. "B" weie not affixeu by the same
peisons who affixeu the specimen signatuies anu thus the questioneu
signatuies weie foigeu.
Bowevei, aftei vaiona testifieu on uiiect examination, petitioneis
manifesteu that they woulu engage him to examine a uiffeient set of
uocuments which contain the signatuies of iesponuents. 0n cioss-
examination, vaiona stateu that he examineu the signatuies on Exh.
"1S" anu the specimen signatuies on the othei uocuments fuinisheu
him anu that aftei making the examination he aiiiveu at the conclusion
that the signatuies on the uocuments, incluuing Exh. "1S," weie affixeu
by the same peisons.
Cleaily, vaiona came out with inconsistent finuings. 0n one hanu, he
concluueu that Exh. "B" is spuiious because the questioneu signatuies
theieon weie foigeu. 0n the othei, he issueu a uiffeient ueteimination
as iegaius Exh. "1S," finuing that the signatuies theieon which puipoit
to be those of iesponuents anu the counteipait specimen signatuies
weie affixeu by the same peisons. Since Exhs. "B" anu "1S" aie copies of
two oiiginals of one anu the same ueeu, his conclusions with iespect to
the two exhibits shoulu be common, i.e., eithei the questioneu
signatuies theieon weie both affixeu by the same peisons oi they weie
affixeu by uiffeient peisons.
The uishaimonious finuings ienuei vaiona's testimony unconvincing.
Thus, the piesumption of valiuity of the Beeu of Absolute Sale as a
notaiizeu uocument is left unscatheu.
F6G ,9# "= 139
BPI v. SNP, uR no. 17S466, Becembei 2S, 2uu9

Facts:

In }anuaiy 199S, Naiia Teiesa Nichaela 0ng, as Sales Executive of
SNP, Inc. unueitook the acceptance anu seivicing of a puichase oiuei of
CL0TBESPAK NAN0FACT0RINu PBILS. (Clothespak) foi 4,uuu bags oi
sacks of (uPS) polystyiene piouucts. The oiueieu piouucts weie
ueliveieu, foi which ueliveiy ieceipts weie issueu. The total selling
piice of the piouucts amounteu to 0.S. $118,Suu.uu.

As payment, Clothespak issueu postuateu checks in favoi of plaintiff
SNP anu ueliveieu the same to Naiia Teiesa Nichaela 0ng. When the
same weie uepositeu by SNP Inc. on theii matuiity uates, the uiawee
bank uishonoieu anu ietuineu saiu checks foi the ieason "Account
Closeu."

In the meantime, a case was fileu by heiein uefenuant Fai East
Bank anu Tiust Company against Clothespak foi a iecoveiy of sum of
money with piayei foi issuance of pieliminaiy attachment. Couit
gianteu anu issueu the wiit in favoi of the plaintiff bank. anu
piopeities of the uefenuants weie levieu anu attacheu.

Theieaftei, SNP, Inc. fileu an Affiuavit of Thiiu Paity Claim
claiming owneiship of the 4,uuu bags of (uPS polystyiene piouucts
taken at Clothespak factoiy woith PS,u96,4uS.uu. With the filing by Fai
East Bank of the inuemnity bonu, the goous claimeu weie not ieleaseu
anu the Couit uiiecteu SNP, Inc. to ventilate its claim of owneiship in a
vinuicatoiy action. Neanwhile, Fai East Bank obtaineu a favoiable
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
juugment against Clothespak. It has become final anu executoiy which
leu to the implementation anu enfoicement of saiu uecision against
Clothespak's piopeities inclusive of the goous eailiei attacheu. Bence,
the instant case is fileu by SNP, Inc. to iecovei fiom the attaching bank
the value of the goous it claims owneiship anu foi uamages.

Issue:
Whethei at the time of the attachment, plaintiff still owneu the goous
levieu upon, oi owneiship theieof hau alieauy passeu to Clothespak
Nanufactuiing.

Belu: the instant petition is BENIEB foi lack of meiit.

Ratio:

the instant case, owneiship of the geneial puipose polystyiene
piouucts was ietaineu by SNP, Incoipoiateu (SNP) until aftei the
checks given as payment by Clothespak Nanufactuiing Philippines
(Clothespak) cleaieu. This was eviuenceu by a piovisional ieceipt
issueu by SNP to Clothespak. The agieement between SNP anu
Clothespak involveu a contiact to sell uefineu unuei Aiticle 1478 of the
Civil Coue.

In oiuei to uiscieuit the claim of owneiship by SNP, petitionei
questions the aumissibility of the ieceipt piesenteu by the foimei,
wheiein the owneiship was ieseiveu foi the buyei until aftei full
payment of the puichase piice. Petitionei claims that the same was
inaumissible in eviuence anu was in contiavention of the best eviuence
iule. We beg to uisagiee.

The best eviuence iule is the iule which iequiies the highest giaue
of eviuence obtainable to piove a uisputeu fact. Although theie aie
ceitain iecognizeu exceptions when the subject of inquiiy is the
contents of a uocument, no eviuence shall be aumissible othei than the
oiiginal uocument itself.

Bowevei, in the instant case, contiaiy to petitionei's contention,
the ieceipt piesenteu by SNP is ueemeu as an oiiginal, consiueiing that
the tiiplicate copy of the piovisional ieceipt was executeu at the same
time as the othei copies of the same ieceipt involving the same
tiansaction. Section 4, Rule 1Su of the Rules of Couit pioviues:

Sec. 4. 0iiginal of uocument.
(a) The oiiginal of the uocument is one the contents of which aie
the subject of inquiiy.
(b) When a uocument is in two oi moie copies executeu at oi
about the same time, with iuentical contents, all such copies aie equally
iegaiueu as oiiginals.
(c) When an entiy is iepeateu in the iegulai couise of business,
one being copieu fiom anothei at oi neai the time of the tiansaction, all
the entiies aie likewise equally iegaiueu as oiiginals.

F>G 4!)/%- "= 9!-94!
Lejano v. People, uR no. 176S89, Becembei 14, 2u1u

Facts:

0n }une Su, 1991 Estiellita vizconue anu hei uaughteis Caimela,
nineteen yeais olu, anu xxx, seven, weie biutally slain at theii home in
Paiaaque City. Following an intense investigation, the police aiiesteu
a gioup of suspects, some of whom gave uetaileu confessions. But the
tiial couit smelleu a fiame-up anu eventually oiueieu them uischaigeu.
Thus, the iuentities of the ieal peipetiatois iemaineu a mysteiy
especially to the public whose inteiests weie aiouseu by the giipping
uetails of what eveiybouy iefeiieu to as the vizconue massacie.

Foui yeais latei in 199S, the National Buieau of Investigation oi NBI
announceu that it hau solveu the ciime. It piesenteu stai-witness
}essica N. Alfaio, one of its infoimeis, who claimeu that she witnesseu
the ciime. She pointeu to accuseu Bubeit }effiey P. Webb, Antonio
"Tony Boy" Lejano, Aitemio "Bong" ventuia, Nichael A. uatchalian,
Bospicio "Pyke" Feinanuez, Petei Estiaua, Niguel "uing" Rouiiguez,
anu }oey Filait as the culpiits. She also taggeu accuseu police officei,
ueiaiuo Biong, as an accessoiy aftei the fact. Relying piimaiily on
Alfaio's testimony, on August 1u, 199S the public piosecutois fileu an
infoimation foi iape with homiciue against Webb, et al.
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121

The Regional Tiial Couit of Paiaaque City, piesiueu ovei by }uuge
Amelita u. Tolentino, tiieu only seven of the accuseu since Aitemio
ventuia anu }oey Filait iemaineu at laige.

The piosecution piesenteu Alfaio as its main witness with the otheis
coiioboiating hei testimony. These incluueu the meuico-legal officei
who autopsieu the bouies of the victims, the secuiity guaius of Pitong
Baan Subuivision, the foimei launuiywoman of the Webb's householu,
police officei Biong's foimei giilfiienu, anu Lauio u. vizconue,
Estiellita's husbanu.

Webb's alibi appeaieu the stiongest since he claimeu that he was then
acioss the ocean in the 0niteu States of Ameiica. Be piesenteu the
testimonies of witnesses as well as uocumentaiy anu object eviuence to
piove this. In auuition, the uefense piesenteu witnesses to show
Alfaio's bau ieputation foi tiuth anu the incieuible natuie of hei
testimony.

But impiesseu by Alfaio's uetaileu naiiation of the ciime anu the
events suiiounuing it, the tiial couit founu a cieuible witness in hei. It
noteu hei categoiical, stiaightfoiwaiu, spontaneous, anu fiank
testimony, unuamageu by giueling cioss-examinations.

0n }anuaiy 4, 2uuu, aftei foui yeais of aiuuous heaiings, the tiial couit
ienueieu juugment, finuing all the accuseu guilty as chaigeu anu
imposing on Webb, Lejano, uatchalian, Feinanuez, Estiaua, anu
Rouiiguez the penalty of ieclusion peipetua anu on Biong, an
inueteiminate piison teim of eleven yeais, foui months, anu one uay to
twelve yeais. The tiial couit also awaiueu uamages to Lauio vizconue.

0n appeal, the Couit of Appeals affiimeu the tiial couit's uecision,
mouifying the penalty imposeu on Biong to six yeais minimum anu
twelve yeais maximum anu incieasing the awaiu of uamages to Lauio
vizconue.

The appellate couit uiu not agiee that the accuseu weie tiieu by
publicity oi that the tiial juuge was biaseu. It founu sufficient eviuence
of conspiiacy that ienueieu Rouiiguez, uatchalian, Feinanuez, anu
Estiaua equally guilty with those who hau a pait in iaping anu killing
Caimela anu in executing hei mothei anu sistei.

0n Apiil 2u, 2u1u, as a iesult of its initial uelibeiation in this case, the
Couit issueu a Resolution gianting the iequest of Webb to submit foi
BNA analysis the semen specimen taken fiom Caimela's cauavei, which
specimen was then believeu still unuei the safekeeping of the NBI.

The Couit gianteu the iequest puisuant to section 4 of the Rule on BNA
Eviuence to give the accuseu anu the piosecution access to scientific
eviuence that they might want to avail themselves of, leauing to a
coiiect uecision in the case.

0nfoitunately, on Apiil 27, 2u1u the NBI infoimeu the Couit that it no
longei has custouy of the specimen, the same having been tuineu ovei
to the tiial couit. The tiial iecoiu shows, howevei, that the specimen
was not among the object eviuence that the piosecution offeieu in
eviuence in the case.

This outcome piompteu accuseu Webb to file an uigent motion to
acquit on the giounu that the goveinment's failuie to pieseive such
vital eviuence has iesulteu in the uenial of his iight to uue piocess.

Issues:

1. Whethei oi not Alfaio's testimony as eyewitness, uesciibing the
ciime anu iuentifying Webb, Lejano, uatchalian, Feinanuez, Estiaua,
Rouiiguez, anu two otheis as the peisons who committeu it, is entitleu
to belief; anu

2. Whethei oi not Webb piesenteu sufficient eviuence to piove his alibi
anu iebut Alfaio's testimony that he leu the otheis in committing the
ciime.

Sub-Issues:

1. Whethei oi not the Couit shoulu acquit him outiight, given the
goveinment's failuie to piouuce the semen specimen that the NBI
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
founu on Caimela's cauavei, thus uepiiving him of eviuence that woulu
piove his innocence; anu

2. Whethei oi not Webb, acting in conspiiacy with Lejano, uatchalian,
Feinanuez, Estiaua, Rouiiguez, ventuia, anu Filait, iapeu anu killeu
Caimela anu put to ueath hei mothei anu sistei.

Belu:

In oui ciiminal justice system, what is impoitant is, not whethei the
couit enteitains uoubts about the innocence of the accuseu since an
open minu is willing to exploie all possibilities, but whethei it
enteitains a ieasonable, lingeiing uoubt as to his guilt. Foi, it woulu be
a seiious mistake to senu an innocent man to jail wheie such kinu of
uoubt hangs on to one's innei being, like a piece of meat lougeu
immovable between teeth.

Will the Couit senu the accuseu to spenu the iest of theii lives in piison
on the testimony of an NBI asset who pioposeu to hei hanuleis that she
take the iole of the witness to the vizconue massacie that she coulu not
piouuce.

The Supieme Couit REvERSES anu SETS ASIBE the Becision uateu
Becembei 1S, 2uuS anu Resolution uateu }anuaiy 26, 2uu7 of the Couit
of Appeals in CA-u.R. CR-B.C. uuSS6 anu ACQ0ITS accuseu-appellants
Bubeit }effiey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Nichael A. uatchalian, Bospicio
Feinanuez, Niguel Rouiiguez, Petei Estiaua anu ueiaiuo Biong of the
ciimes of which they weie chaigeu foi failuie of the piosecution to
piove theii guilt beyonu ieasonable uoubt. They aie oiueieu
immeuiately RELEASEB fiom uetention unless they aie confineu foi
anothei lawful cause.

Ratio:

The Right to Acquittal Bue to Loss of BNA Eviuence

Webb claims, citing Biauy v. Naiylanu, that he is entitleu to outiight
acquittal on the giounu of violation of his iight to uue piocess given the
State's failuie to piouuce on oiuei of the Couit eithei by negligence oi
willful suppiession the semen specimen taken fiom Caimela.

When Webb iaiseu the BNA issue, the iule goveining BNA eviuence uiu
not yet exist, the countiy uiu not yet have the technology foi conuucting
the test, anu no Philippine pieceuent hau as yet iecognizeu its
aumissibility as eviuence.

Consequently, the iuea of keeping the specimen secuie even aftei the
tiial couit iejecteu the motion foi BNA testing uiu not come up. Inueeu,
neithei Webb noi his co-accuseu biought up the mattei of pieseiving
the specimen in the meantime.

Paienthetically, aftei the tiial couit uenieu Webb's application foi BNA
testing, he alloweu the pioceeuing to move on when he hau on at least
two occasions gone up to the Couit of Appeals oi the Supieme Couit to
challenge allegeu aibitiaiy actions taken against him anu the othei
accuseu.

They iaiseu the BNA issue befoie the Couit of Appeals but meiely as an
eiioi committeu by the tiial couit in ienueiing its uecision in the case.
None of the accuseu fileu a motion with the appeals couit to have the
BNA test uone penuing aujuuication of theii appeal. This, even when
the Supieme Couit hau in the meantime passeu the iules allowing such
test. Consiueiing the accuseu's lack of inteiest in having such test uone,
the State cannot be ueemeu put on ieasonable notice that it woulu be
iequiieu to piouuce the semen specimen at some futuie time.

Suspicious Betails

Alfaio hau been hanging aiounu at the NBI since Novembei oi
Becembei 1994 as an "asset." She supplieu hei hanuleis with
infoimation against uiug pusheis anu othei ciiminal elements. Some of
this infoimation leu to the captuie of notoiious uiug pusheis like
Chiistophei Ciuz Santos anu 0ilanuo Bacquii. Alfaio's tip leu to the
aiiest of the leauei of the "Naitilyo gang" that killeu a police officei.
Because of hei talent, the task foice gave hei "veiy special tieatment"
anu she became its "uailing," alloweu the piivilege of spenuing nights
in one of the iooms at the NBI offices.
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121

When Alfaio seemeu unpiouuctive foi sometime, howevei, they teaseu
hei about it anu she was piqueu. 0ne uay, she unexpecteuly tolu
Sacaguing that she knew someone who hau the ieal stoiy behinu the
vizconue massacie. Sacaguing showeu inteiest. Alfaio piomiseu to
biing that someone to the NBI to tell his stoiy. When this uiu not
happen anu Sacaguing continueu to piess hei, she tolu him that she
might as well assume the iole of hei infoimant.

Webb's 0.S. Alibi

Among the accuseu, Webb piesenteu the stiongest alibi thiough (a) the
tiavel piepaiations; (b) the two immigiation checks; (c) uetails of 0S
sojouin; (u) the seconu immigiation check; anu (e) alibi veisus positive
iuentification; anu (f) a uocumenteu alibi.

To establish alibi, the accuseu must piove by positive, cleai, anu
satisfactoiy eviuence that (a) he was piesent at anothei place at the
time of the peipetiation of the ciime, anu (b) that it was physically
impossible foi him to be at the scene of the ciime.

The Couit of Appeals iejecteu the eviuence of Webb's passpoit since he
uiu not leave the oiiginal to be attacheu to the iecoiu. But, while the
best eviuence of a uocument is the oiiginal, this means that the same is
exhibiteu in couit foi the auveise paity to examine anu foi the juuge to
see. As Couit of Appeals }ustice Tagle saiu in his uissent, the piactice
when a paity uoes not want to leave an impoitant uocument with the
tiial couit is to have a photocopy of it maikeu as exhibit anu stipulateu
among the paities as a faithful iepiouuction of the oiiginal.
Stipulations in the couise of tiial aie binuing on the paities anu on the
couit.

The 0.S. Immigiation ceitification anu the computei piint-out of
Webb's aiiival in anu uepaituie fiom that countiy weie authenticateu
by no less than the 0ffice of the 0.S. Attoiney ueneial anu the State
Bepaitment. Still the Couit of Appeals iefuseu to accept these
uocuments foi the ieason that Webb faileu to piesent in couit the
immigiation official who piepaieu the same. But this was unnecessaiy.
Webb's passpoit is a uocument issueu by the Philippine goveinment,
which unuei inteinational piactice, is the official iecoiu of tiavels of the
citizen to whom it is issueu. The entiies in that passpoit aie piesumeu
tiue.

The 0.S. Immigiation ceitification anu computei piint-out, the official
ceitifications of which have been authenticateu by the Philippine
Bepaitment of Foieign Affaiis, meiely valiuateu the aiiival anu
uepaituie stamps of the 0.S. Immigiation office on Webb's passpoit.
They have the same eviuentiaiy value. The officeis who issueu these
ceitifications neeu not be piesenteu in couit to testify on them. Theii
tiustwoithiness aiises fiom the sense of official uuty anu the penalty
attacheu to a bieacheu uuty, in the ioutine anu uisinteiesteu oiigin of
such statement anu in the publicity of the iecoiu.

The tiial couit anu the Couit of Appeals expiesseu maikeu cynicism
ovei the accuiacy of tiavel uocuments like the passpoit as well as the
uomestic anu foieign iecoius of uepaituies anu aiiivals fiom aiipoits.
They claim that it woulu not have been impossible foi Webb to secietly
ietuin to the Philippines aftei he supposeuly left it on Naich 9, 1991,
commit the ciime, go back to the 0.S., anu openly ietuin to the
Philippines again on 0ctobei 26, 1992. Tiavel between the 0.S. anu the
Philippines, saiu the lowei couits took only about twelve to fouiteen
houis.

Effect of Webb's alibi to otheis

Webb's uocumenteu alibi altogethei impeaches Alfaio's testimony, not
only with iespect to him, but also with iespect to Lejano, Estiaua,
Feinanuez, uatchalian, Rouiiguez, anu Biong. Foi, if the Couit accepts
the pioposition that Webb was in the 0.S. when the ciime took place,
Alfaio's testimony will not holu togethei. Webb's paiticipation is the
anchoi of Alfaio's stoiy. Without it, the eviuence against the otheis
must necessaiily fall.
F?G :!9*,4#& "= 3/:&-1U3/%-2-&
Republic v. Naicos-Nanotoc, uR no. 1717u1, Febiuaiy 8, 2u12
Summaiy:
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
The tiansciipt of stenogiaphic notes (TSN) of the pioceeuings
puipoiteuly befoie the PCuu, the plaintiff's exhibit "Q", may be a public
uocument, but what
was piesenteu by the plaintiff was a meie photocopy of the puipoiteu
TSN anu was not signeu by the stenogiaphei who supposeuly took
uown the pioceeuings. Such uocument may link the Naicos siblings anu
uiegoiio Aianeta III to the ill-gotten wealth case of the foimei
Piesiuent Naicos. Is Exh Q aumissible. No. 0nuei Sec. 7 of Rule 1Su of
the Rules of Couit pioviue that when the oiiginal uocument is in the
custouy of a public officei oi is iecoiueu in a public office, its contents
may be pioveu by a ceitifieu copy issueu by the public officei in
custouy theieof. Exhibit "Q" was not a ceitifieu copy anu it was not even
signeu by the stenogiaphei who supposeuly took uown the
pioceeuings. Thus, absent any convincing eviuence to holu otheiwise,
petitionei fails to it follows that petitionei faileu to piove that the
Naicos siblings anu uiegoiio Aianeta III collaboiateu with foimei
Piesiuent Naicos anu Imelua R. Naicos anu paiticipateu in the fiist
couple's allegeu accumulation of ill -gotten wealth
Facts:
case involves P2uu billion of the Naicoses' allegeu accumulateu ill-
gotten wealth. It also incluues the allegeu use of the meuia netwoiks
IBC-1S, BBC-2 anu RPN-9 foi the Naicos family's peisonal benefit; the
allegeu use of Be Soleil Appaiel foi uollai salting; anu the allegeu illegal
acquisition anu opeiation of the bus company Pantianco Noith Expiess,
Inc. (Pantianco).
Aftei the EBSA People Powei Revolution in 1986, the fiist executive act
of then Piesiuent Coiazon C. Aquino was to cieate the Piesiuential
Commission on uoou uoveinment (PCuu). Puisuant to Executive 0iuei
No. 1, the PCuu was given the manuate:
Sec. 2. The Commission shall be chaigeu with the task of assisting the
Piesiuent in iegaiu to the following matteis:
(a) The iecoveiy of all ill-gotten wealth accumulateu by foimei
Piesiuent Feiuinanu E. Naicos, his immeuiate family, ielatives,
suboiuinates anu close associates,

Thus, numeious civil anu ciiminal cases weie subsequently fileu. 0ne of
the civil cases fileu befoie the Sanuiganbayan to iecovei the Naicoses'
allegeu ill-gotten wealth was Civil Case No. uuu2, now subject of this
Petition.
PCuu, acting on behalf of the Republic anu assisteu by the 0ffice of the
Solicitoi ueneial (0Su), fileu a Complaint foi Reveision, Reconveyance,
Restitution, Accounting anu Bamages against Feiuinanu E. Naicos, who
was latei substituteu by his estate upon his ueath; Imelua R. Naicos;
anu heiein iesponuents Imee Naicos-Nanotoc, Iiene Naicos-Aianeta,
Bongbong Naicos, Tomas Nanotoc, anu uiegoiio Aianeta III.
Petitionei set foith the following causes of action in its complaint: fiist
cause of action: bieach of public tiust; seconu cause of action: abuse of
iight anu powei; thiiu cause of action: unjust eniichment;fouith cause
of action: accounting-that uefenuants, acting singly oi collectively, in
unlawful conceit with one anothei, anu with the active collaboiation of
thiiu peisons, subject of sepaiate suits, acquiieu funus, assets anu
piopeity uuiing the incumbency of uefenuant public officeis,
manifestly out of piopoition to theii salaiies, to theii othei lawful
income anu income fiom legitimately acquiieu piopeity; Fifth cause of
action - liability foi uamages.
Theieaftei, petitionei piesenteu anu foimally offeieu its eviuence
against heiein iesponuents. Bowevei, the lattei objecteu to the offei
piimaiily on the giounu that the uocuments violateu the best eviuence
iule of the Rules of Couit, as these uocuments weie unauthenticateu;
moieovei, petitionei hau not pioviueu any ieason foi its failuie to
piesent the oiiginals.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Imelua R. Naicos; Imee Naicos-Nanotoc anu Bongbong Naicos, }i.;
Iiene Naicos-Aianeta anu uiegoiio Na. Aianeta III; Yeung Chun Kam,
Yeung Chun Bo anu Yeung Chun Fan; anu the PEA-PTuW0
subsequently fileu theii iespective Bemuiieis to Eviuence.
the Sanuiganbayan issueu the assaileu Resolution, which gianteu all the
Bemuiieis to Eviuence except the one fileu by Imelua R. Naicos.
the couit helu that the eviuence, in paiticulai, exhibits "P," "Q," "R," ,"S,"
anu "T," weie consiueieu heaisay, because theii oiiginals weie not
piesenteu in couit, noi weie they authenticateu by the peisons who
executeu them. Fuitheimoie, the couit pointeu out that petitionei
faileu to pioviue any valiu ieason why it uiu not piesent the oiiginals in
couit. These exhibits weie supposeu to show the inteiests of Imee
Naicos-Nanotok in the meuia netwoiks IBC-1S, BBC-2 anu RPN-9, all
thiee of which she hau allegeuly acquiieu illegally. These exhibits also
sought to piove hei allegeu paiticipation in uollai salting thiough Be
Soleil Appaiel.
Finally, the couit helu that the ielationship of iesponuents to the
Naicos spouses was not enough ieason to holu the foimei liable.
In the mattei of the spouses Iiene Naicos anu uiegoiio Aianeta III, the
couit similaily helu that theie was no testimonial oi uocumentaiy
eviuence that suppoiteu petitionei's allegations against the couple.
Again, petitionei faileu to piesent the oiiginal uocuments that
supposeuly suppoiteu the allegations against them. Insteau, it meiely
piesenteu photocopies of uocuments that sought to piove how the
Naicoses useu the Potencianos as uummies in acquiiing anu opeiating
the bus company Pantianco.
Neanwhile, as fai as the Yeungs weie conceineu, the couit founu the
allegations against them baseless. Petitionei faileu to uemonstiate how
theii business, uloiious Sun Fashion uaiments Nanufactuiing, Co. Phils.
(uloiious Sun), was useu as a vehicle foi uollai salting; oi to show that
they themselves weie uummies of the Naicoses. Again, the couit helu
that the uocumentaiy eviuence ielevant to this allegation was
inaumissible foi being meie photocopies, anu that the affiants hau not
been piesenteu as witnesses.
petitionei fileu its Notion foi Paitial Reconsiueiation, insisting that
theie was a pieponueiance of eviuence to show that iesponuents
Naicos siblings anu uiegoiio Aianeta III hau conniveu with theii
paients in acquiiing ill-gotten wealth.
Asseiteu that the eviuence establisheu that the Yeungs weie uummies
of the Naicoses, anu that the Pantianco assets weie pait of the
Naicoses' allegeu ill-gotten wealth.
Questioneu the couit's iuling that the eviuence pieviously aumitteu
was latei helu to be inaumissible in eviuence against iesponuents, thus,
uepiiving the foimei of uue piocess. the couit issueu the seconu
assaileu Resolution, uenying petitionei's Notion. Bence, this Petition.

Issue:
W0N The sanuiganbayan's iuling which iejecteu peititonei's
uocumentaiy exhibits allegeuly foi being "inaumissible" uiiectly
contiauicts its eailiei iuling aumitting all saiu uocumentaiy eviuence
anu was ienueieu in a mannei that uepiiveu petitionei's iight to uue
piocess of law. (W0N the exhibits piesenteu by the petitioneis weie
aumissible. No)

BeluRatio: Petitionei faileu to obseive the best eviuence iule.

It is petitionei's buiuen to piove the allegations in its Complaint. Foi
ielief to be gianteu, the opeiative act on how anu in what mannei the
Naicos siblings paiticipateu in anuoi benefitteu fiom the acts of the
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
BY: ASANA, BRI0NES, CARANBANu, CB0A, C0NTRERAS, CR0Z, B0NA, ESTILLES, u0NZAuA, LAZAR0, LIN, SENA}0N, TENuC0, 0RBINA | SB 2u1S | Su
Naicos couple must be cleaily shown thiough a pieponueiance of
eviuence. Shoulu petitionei fail to uischaige this buiuen, the Couit is
constiaineu anu is left with no choice but to upholu the Bemuiiei to
Eviuence fileu by iesponuents.
Fiist, petitionei uoes not ueny that what shoulu be pioveu aie the
contents of the uocuments themselves. It is impeiative, theiefoie, to
submit the oiiginal uocuments that coulu piove petitionei's allegations.
Thus, the photocopieu uocuments aie in violation Rule 1Su, Sec. S of the
Rules of Couit, otheiwise known as the best eviuence iule, which
manuates that the eviuence must be the oiiginal uocument itself. The
oiigin of the best eviuence iule can be founu anu tiaceu to as eaily as
the 18th centuiy in 0mychunu v. Baikei,|S4j wheiein the Couit of
Chanceiy saiu:
The juuges anu sages of the law have laiu it uown that theie is but one
geneial iule of eviuence, the best that the natuie of the case will aumit.

The iule is, that if the wiitings have subsciibing witnesses to them, they
must be pioveu by those witnesses.
The fiist giounu juuges have gone upon in uepaiting fiom stiict iules,
is an absolute stiict necessity. Seconuly, a piesumeu necessity. In the
case of wiitings, subsciibeu by witnesses, if all aie ueau, the pioof of
one of theii hanus is sufficient to establish the ueeu: wheie an oiiginal
is lost, a copy may be aumitteu; if no copy, then a pioof by witnesses
who have heaiu the ueeu, anu yet it is a thing the law abhois to aumit
the memoiy of man foi eviuence.
Petitionei uiu not even attempt to pioviue a plausible ieason why the
oiiginals weie not piesenteu, oi any compelling giounu why the couit
shoulu aumit these uocuments as seconuaiy eviuence absent the
testimony of the witnesses who hau executeu them.
In paiticulai, it may not insist that the photocopies of the uocuments
fall unuei Sec. 7 of Rule 1Su, which states:
Eviuence aumissible when oiiginal uocument is a public iecoiu.
When the oiiginal of a uocument is in the custouy of a public officei oi
is iecoiueu in a public office, its contents may be pioveu be a ceitifieu
copy issueu by the public officei in custouy theieof.
Secs. 19 anu 2u of Rule 1S2 pioviue:
SECTI0N 19. Classes of uocuments. Foi the puipose of theii
piesentation in eviuence, uocuments aie eithei public oi piivate.
Public uocuments aie:
(a) The wiitten official acts, oi iecoius of the official acts of the
soveieign authoiity, official bouies anu tiibunals, anu public officeis,
whethei of the Philippines, oi of a foieign countiy;
(b) Bocuments acknowleugeu befoie a notaiy public except last wills
anu testaments; anu
(c) Public iecoius, kept in the Philippines, of piivate uocuments
iequiieu by law to be enteieu theiein.
All othei wiitings aie piivate.
SECTI0N 2u. Pioof of piivate uocument. Befoie any piivate
uocument offeieu as authentic is ieceiveu in eviuence, its uue execution
anu authenticity must be pioveu eithei:
(a) By anyone who saw the uocument executeu oi wiitten; oi
(b) By eviuence of the genuineness of the signatuie oi hanuwiiting of
the makei.
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Any othei piivate uocument neeu only be iuentifieu as that which it is
claimeu to be.
The fact that these uocuments weie collecteu by the PCuu in the couise
of its investigations uoes not make them pei se public iecoius iefeiieu
to in the quoteu iule.

Petitionei piesenteu as witness its iecoius officei, Naiia Louiues
Nagno, who testifieu that these public anu piivate uocuments hau been
gatheieu by anu taken into the custouy of the PCuu in the couise of the
Commission's investigation of the allegeu ill-gotten wealth of the
Naicoses. Bowevei, given the puiposes foi which these uocuments
weie submitteu, Nagno was not a cieuible witness who coulu testify as
to theii contents. To ieiteiate, "|ijf the wiitings have subsciibing
witnesses to them, they must be pioveu by those witnesses." Witnesses
can testify only to those facts which aie of theii peisonal knowleuge;
that is, those ueiiveu fiom theii own peiception. Thus, Nagno coulu
only testify as to how she obtaineu custouy of these uocuments, but not
as to the contents of the uocuments themselves.
Neithei uiu petitionei piesent as witnesses the affiants of these
Affiuavits oi Nemoianua submitteu to the couit. Basic is the iule that,
while affiuavits may be consiueieu as public uocuments if they aie
acknowleugeu befoie a notaiy public, these Affiuavits aie still classifieu
as heaisay eviuence. The ieason foi this iule is that they aie not
geneially piepaieu by the affiant, but by anothei one who uses his oi
hei own language in wiiting the affiant's statements, paits of which
may thus be eithei omitteu oi misunueistoou by the one wiiting them.
Noieovei, the auveise paity is uepiiveu of the oppoitunity to cioss-
examine the affiants. Foi this ieason, affiuavits aie geneially iejecteu
foi being heaisay, unless the affiants themselves aie placeu on the
witness stanu to testify theieon.
As to the copy of the TSN of the pioceeuings befoie the PCuu, while it
may be consiueieu as a public uocument since it was taken in the
couise of the PCuu's exeicise of its manuate, it was not attesteu to by
the legal custouian to be a coiiect copy of the oiiginal. This omission
falls shoit of the iequiiement of Rule 1S2, Secs. 24 anu 2S of the Rules
of Couit.
In summaiy, we auopt the iuling of the Sanuiganbayan, to wit:
Fuithei, again contiaiy to the theoiy of the plaintiff, the piesentation of
the oiiginals of the afoiesaiu exhibits is not valiuly excepteu unuei Rule
1Su, Section S (a), (b), anu (u) of the Rules of Couit. 0nuei paiagiaph
(u), when 'the oiiginal uocument is a public iecoiu in the custouy of a
public officei oi is iecoiueu in a public office,' piesentation of the
oiiginal theieof is excepteu. Bowevei, as eailiei obseiveu, all except
one of the exhibits intiouuceu by the plaintiff weie not necessaiily
public uocuments. The tiansciipt of stenogiaphic notes (TSN) of the
pioceeuings puipoiteuly befoie the PCuu, the plaintiff's exhibit "Q",
may be a public uocument, but what was piesenteu by the plaintiff was
a meie photocopy of the puipoiteu TSN. The Rules pioviue that when
the oiiginal uocument is in the custouy of a public officei oi is iecoiueu
in a public office, its contents may be pioveu by a ceitifieu copy issueu
by the public officei in custouy theieof. Exhibit "Q" was not a ceitifieu
copy anu it was not even signeu by the stenogiaphei who supposeuly
took uown the pioceeuings.
The iest of the above-mentioneu exhibits cannot likewise be excepteu
unuei paiagiaphs (a) anu (b) of Section S. Section S of the same Rule
pioviues that 'when the oiiginal uocuments has been lost oi uestioyeu,
oi cannot be piouuceu in couit, the offeioi, upon pioof of its execution
oi existence anu the cause of its unavailability without bau faith on his
pait, may piove its contents by a copy, oi by a iecital of its contents in
some authentic uocument, oi by the testimony of witnesses in the oiuei
stateu.' Thus, in oiuei that seconuaiy eviuence may be aumissible,
theie must be pioof by satisfactoiy eviuence of (1) uue execution of the
oiiginal; (2) loss, uestiuction oi unavailability of all such oiiginals anu
(S) ieasonable uiligence anu goou faith in the seaich foi oi attempt to
piouuce the oiiginal. None of these iequiiements weie complieu with
by the plaintiff. Similai to exhibit 'Q', exhibits 'P', 'R', 'S', anu 'T' weie all
photocopies. 'P', 'R', anu 'T' weie affiuavits of peisons who uiu not
testify befoie the Couit. Exhibit 'S' is a lettei which is cleaily a piivate
uocument. Not only uoes it not fall within the exceptions of Section S, it
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
is also a meie photocopy. As We pieviously emphasizeu, even if
oiiginals of these affiuavits weie piesenteu, they woulu still be
consiueieu heaisay eviuence if the affiants uo not testify anu iuentify
them.
Thus, absent any convincing eviuence to holu otheiwise, it follows that
petitionei faileu to piove that the Naicos siblings anu uiegoiio Aianeta
III collaboiateu with foimei Piesiuent Naicos anu Imelua R. Naicos
anu paiticipateu in the fiist couple's allegeu accumulation of ill-gotten
wealth insofai as the specific allegations heiein weie conceineu.
FAG ,/%+#1 "= 8!#:1 -. /$-4.-
Bangis v. Beiis of Auolfo, uR no. 19u87S, }une 1S, 2u12

Facts:

Spouses Seiafin, Si. anu Saluuaua Auolfo weie the oiiginal
iegisteieu owneis of a lot locateu in valencia, Nalaybalay, Bukiunon.
This piopeity was moitgageu to the then Rehabilitation Finance
Coipoiation (now Bevelopment Bank of the Philippines oi BBP) anu
upon uefault in the payment of the loan obligation, was foiecloseu anu
owneiship was consoliuateu in BBP's name Seiafin Auolfo, Si.,
howevei, iepuichaseu the same, a yeai aftei his wife uieu in 197u.

Sometime in 197S, Seiafin Auolfo, Si. (Auolfo) allegeuly moitgageu
the subject piopeity foi the sum of P12,Suu.uu to Aniceto Bangis
(Bangis) who immeuiately took possession of the lanu. tiansaction was,
howevei, not ieuuceu into wiiting.

When Auolfo uieu, his heiis, executeu a Beeu of Extiajuuicial
Paitition coveiing the subject piopeity anu TCTs weie issueu to them.
the saiu piopeity was subuiviueu anu sepaiate titles weie issueu in
names of the Beiis of Auolfo,

The Beiis of Auolfo expiesseu theii intention to ieueem the moitgageu
piopeity fiom Bangis but the lattei iefuseu, claiming that the
tiansaction between him anu Auolfo was one of sale.

The Beiis of Auolfo fileu a complain befoie (RTC) foi annulment of
ueeu of sale anu ueclaiation of the puipoiteu contiact of sale as
antichiesis, accounting anu ieuemption of piopeity anu uamages
against Bangis, complaint was amenueu to incluue a piayei foi the
cancellation of TCT anu the tax ueclaiations in the name of Bangis

In his Answei Bangis claimeu to have bought the subject piopeity
fiom Auolfo. Be also allegeu to have been in open anu auveise
possession of the piopeity since 1972 anu that the cause of action of
the Beiis of Auolfo has piesciibeu. Bangis uieu anu was substituteu in
this suit by his heiis,

Buiing the tiial, one of the Beiis of Bangis, piesenteu a photocopy
of an Extia-}uuicial Settlement with Absolute Beeu of Sale foi the
puipose of pioving the sale of the subject lot by Auolfo anu his heiis in
favoi of his pieuecessois-in-inteiest, Aniceto Bangis anu Segunuino
Coitel, foi the sum of P1S,uuu.uu. Be also piesenteu a Piomissoiy Note
of even uate puipoiteuly executeu by Bangis anu Segunuino Coitel
unueitaking to pay the balance of the puichase piice Both uocuments
weie notaiizeu by Atty. valentin Nuiillo who testifieu to the fact of
theii execution. Bangis likewise testifieu that they have been paying the
taxes uue on the piopeity anu hau even useu the same as collateial foi
a loan with a bank. RTC ienueieu a Becision in favoi of the Beiis of
Auolfo,

Aggiieveu, the Beiis of Bangis appealeu the foiegoing uisquisition
to the Couit of Appeals (CA).

In its assaileu Becision, the CA affiimeu the RTC finuing that the
contiact between the paities was a moitgage, not a sale. It noteu that
while Bangis was given possession of the subject piopeity, the
ceitificate of title iemaineu in the custouy of Auolfo anu was nevei
cancelleu.

Issue:

W0N CA eiieu in not giving piobative weight to the Extia-}uuicial
Settlement with Absolute Beeu of Sale which supposeuly bolsteis theii
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
claim that theii fathei, Aniceto Bangis, bought the subject paicel of lanu
fiom Auolfo. N0

Belu:

WBEREF0RE, piemises consiueieu, the instant petition foi ieview on
ceitioiaii is BENIEB anu the assaileu Becision of the Couit of Appeals
Ninuanao Station (CA) anu its Resolution aie AFFIRNEB with
N0BIFICATI0N

Ratio:

The Beiis of Bangis piesenteu an Extia-}uuicial Settlement with
Absolute Beeu of Sale uateu Becembei Su, 1971 to justify theii claimeu
owneiship anu possession of the subject lanu. Bowevei,
notwithstanuing that the subject of inquiiy is the veiy contents of the
saiu uocument, only its photocopy was piesenteu at the tiial without
pioviuing sufficient justification foi the piouuction of seconuaiy
eviuence, in violation of the best eviuence iule embouieu unuei Section
S in ielation to Section S of Rule 1Su of the Rules of Couit, to wit:

SEC. S. 0iiginal uocument must be piouuceu; exceptions. - When
the subject of inquiiy is the contents of a uocument, no eviuence shall
be aumissible othei than the oiiginal uocument itself, except in the
following cases:

(1) When the oiiginal has been lost oi uestioyeu, oi cannot be
piouuceu in couit, without bau faith on the pait of the offeioi;

(2) When the oiiginal is in the custouy oi unuei the contiol of the
paity against whom the eviuence is offeieu, anu the lattei fails to
piouuce it aftei ieasonable notice;

(S) When the oiiginal consists of numeious accounts oi othei
uocuments which cannot be examineu in couit without gieat loss of
time anu the fact sought to be establisheu fiom them is only the geneial
iesult of the whole; anu

(4) When the oiiginal is a public iecoiu in the custouy of a public
officei oi is iecoiueu in a public office.

SEC. S. When oiiginal uocument is unavailable. - When the
oiiginal uocument has been lost oi uestioyeu, oi cannot be piouuceu in
couit, the offeioi, upon pioof of its execution oi existence anu the cause
of its unavailability without bau faith on his pait, may piove its
contents by a copy, oi by a iecital of its content in some authentic
uocument, oi by the testimony of witnesses in the oiuei stateu.

The baie testimony of one of the Beiis of Bangis, Rouolfo Bangis,
that the subject uocument was only hanueu to him by his fathei,
Aniceto, with the infoimation that the oiiginal theieof "coulu not be
founu" was insufficient to justify its aumissibility. Noieovei, the
iuentification maue by Notaiy Public Atty. valentin Nuiillo that he
notaiizeu such uocument cannot be given cieuence as his conclusion
was not veiifieu against his own notaiial iecoius. Besiues, the Beiis of
Bangis coulu have secuieu a ceitifieu copy of the ueeu of sale fiom the
Assessoi's 0ffice that puipoiteuly hau its custouy in compliance with
Section 7, Rule 1Su of the Rules of Couit.

In sum, the Beiis of Bangis faileu to establish the existence anu uue
execution of the subject ueeu on which theii claim of owneiship was
founueu. Consequently, the RTC anu CA weie coiiect in affoiuing no
piobative value to the saiu uocument.

Tct no. T-1uS67 in the name of aniceto bangis cannot pievail ovei the
titles of the heiis of auolfo anu the piesent action has not piesciibeu.
1!&-%$/:5 !"#$!%&!
F;G /2#!%I/ "= ,-/:$ -. 3!$#&#%!
..KLMNO

Bue to hei lumbai pains, Euitha Sioson went to Rizal Neuical Centei
(RNC) foi check-up. Laboiatoiy tests ievealeu that, although hei iight
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
kiuney is functioning well, hei left kiuney is non-functioning anu non-
visualizing. Thus she unueiwent kiuney opeiation.

Euitha's husbanu, Romeo Sioson fileu a complaint foi gioss negligence
anuoi incompetence befoie the Boaiu of Neuicine (B0N) against the
uoctois who allegeuly paiticipateu in the fateful kiuney opeiation,
namey: Bis. Bela vega, Lantin III, Floienuo, anu petitionei Atienza.

It was allegeu that the uoctois anu the petitionei weie giossly negligent
foi iemoving the fully functional iight kiuney of Euitha, insteau of the
left non-functioning anu non-visualizing kiuney. The complaint was
heaiu by B0N anu Sioson piesenteu the eviuence which consists of X-
Ray photocopies foi the puipose of pioving that hei kiuneys weie both
in theii piopei anatomical locations at the time she was opeiateu.
Q-141432-. 04>-8 ,47 3=U-@14327 13 1,- 03.9/> 300-. 30 -V,4=417 />>-5425 1,/1
7/48 -V,4=417 6-.- 42/894774=>- =-@/A7- 1,- 7/9- /.- 9-.- ?,313@3?4-7O
not piopeily iuentifieu anu authenticateu, anu intenueu to establish
matteis which aie heaisay.

The foimal offei of eviuence was aumitteu by B0N. Petitionei appealeu
to the CA but to no avail.

#NN`PO

Whethei CA eiieu in upholuing the aumission of incompetent anu
inaumissible eviuence by iesponuent boaiu.

8PQRO

Petition uenieu.

:KMSTO

UTo begin with, it is well settleu that the iules of eviuence aie not
stiictly applieu in pioceeuings befoie auministiative bouies such as
B0N. Although tiial couits aie enjoineu to obseive stiict enfoicement
of the iules of eviuence, in connection with eviuence which may appeai
to be of uoubtful ielevancy, incompetency, oi aumissibility, we have
helu that: "It is the safest policy to be libeial, not iejecting them on
uoubtful oi technical giounus, but aumitting them unless plainly
iiielevant, immateiial oi incompetent, foi the ieason that theii
iejection places them beyonu the consiueiation of the couit, if they aie
theieaftei founu ielevant oi competent; on the othei hanu, theii
aumission, if they tuin out latei to be iiielevant oi incompetent, can
easily be iemeuieu by completely uiscaiuing them oi ignoiing them."

-The Best Eviuence Rule is inapplicable as it falls within the exceptions
of the saiu iule as enumeiateu in Section S of Rule 1Su of the Rules of
Couit.
Witness Bi. Aquino testifieu that the Recoius 0ffice of RNC no
longei hau the oiiginals of the exhibits "because it tiansfeiieu
fiom the pievious builuing to the new builuing". 0ltimately,
NSVLP MWP TZSXSVKQN LKVVTM ^P _ZTR`LPR, the B0N piopeily
aumitteu Euitha's foimal offei of eviuence anu, theieaftei, the
B0N shall ueteimine the piobative value theieof when it
ueciues the case.

F<G 3/%#4/ 3#%#%+ &-:9= "= 2/%
Nanila Nining Coipoiation v Niguel Tan
u.R. No. 1717u2 Febiuaiy 12, 2uu9

Q0IS0NBINu, }.:

Facts: Niguel Tan, uoing business unuei the name anu style of Nanila
Nanuaiin Naiketing, was engageu in the business of selling electiical
mateiials.

Fiom August 19 to Novembei 26, 1997, Nanila Nining Coipoiation
(NNC) oiueieu anu ieceiveu vaiious electiical mateiials fiom Tan
valueu at P2,S47,88u. NNC agieeu to pay the puichase piice within Su
uays fiom ueliveiy, oi be chaigeu inteiest of 18% pei annum, anu in
case of suit to collect the same, to pay attoiney's fees equal to 2S% of
the claim. NNC maue paitial payments but uespite iepeateu uemanus,
it faileu to pay the iemaining balance of P1,88S,244, coveieu by 9
invoices.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Tan then fileu a collection suit against NNC. Foi its uefense, NNC
offeieu as sole witness its accountant fiom yeai 2uuu to 2uu2. The
lattei confiimeu that it was stanuaiu office pioceuuie foi a suppliei to
piesent the oiiginal sales invoice anu puichase oiuei when claiming to
be paiu. Be testifieu that the absence of stamp maiks on the invoices
anu puichase oiueis negateu ieceipt of saiu uocuments by NNC's
iepiesentatives.

0n iebuttal, Tan piesenteu his sales iepiesentative in chaige of NNC's
account. Be los Santos testifieu that he ueliveieu the oiiginals of the
invoices anu puichase oiueis to NNC's accounting uepaitment. As
pioof, he showeu thiee customei's acknowleugment ieceipts stating
that the accounting uepaitment ieceiveu the oiiginal copies of the
invoices, puichase oiuei anu iequisition slip fiom Tan's iepiesentative.

The RTC iuleu foi Tan which was affiimeu by the CA. 0n appeal to the
SC, one of the giounus useu by the petitionei is that the piobative value
of the uocumentaiy eviuence piesenteu uuiing tiial. NNC claims that
the unauthenticateu photocopies of invoices anu puichase oiueis uiu
not satisfy the Best Eviuence Rule, which iequiies the piouuction of the
oiiginal wiiting in couit.

Issue: Whethei the invoices anu puichase oiueis piesenteu by Tan as
eviuence, faileu to satisfy the best eviuence iule

RulingRatio: The uocuments piesenteu by Tan aie aumissible. The
best eviuence iule applies only if the contents of the wiiting aie uiiectly
in issue. Wheie the existence of the wiiting oi its geneial puipoit is all
that is in issue, seconuaiy eviuence may be intiouuceu in pioof. NNC
uiu not ueny the contents of the invoices anu puichase oiueis. Its lone
contention was that Tan uiu not submit the oiiginal copies to facilitate
payment. But we aie in agieement that photocopies of the uocuments
weie aumissible in eviuence to piove the contiact of sale between the
paities.

F6G $!9/:23!%2 -. !$*&/2#-% &*42*:! /%$ 19-:21 "= $!4 :-1/:#-
BECS v }ulia uel Rosaiio et al
u.R. No. 146S86. }anuaiy 26, 2uuS

CARPI0, }.:

Facts: 0n 14 Febiuaiy 1992, iesponuents }ulia Bel Rosaiio, Naiia Bel
Rosaiio, Pacencia Bel Rosaiio anu the Beiis of Santos Bel Rosaiio
("iesponuents") fileu befoie the tiial couit a complaint foi Recoveiy of
Possession against petitionei BECS. They allege allegeu that they own a
paicel of lanu in Bulacan anu that the Kaypombo Piimaiy School Annex
("KPPS") unuei BECS was occupying a poition of the Piopeity thiough
iesponuents' toleiance. Responuents fuithei allegeu that KPPS iefuseu
to vacate the piemises uespite theii valiu uemanus to uo so.

In its Answei, BECS counteieu that KPPS's occupation of a poition of
the Piopeity was with the expiess consent anu appioval of
iesponuents' fathei, the late Isaias. BECS claimeu that sometime in
19S9 Isaias uonateu a poition of the Piopeity to the municipality foi
school site puiposes. Atty. Ely Nativiuau, now a iegional tiial couit
juuge, piepaieu the ueeu of uonation anu the acceptance. KPPS staiteu
occupying the Bonateu Site in 1962. Because of the uonation, BECS
now claims owneiship of the uonateu site.

Buiing the pie-tiial confeience, iesponuents aumitteu, among otheis,
the existence of }uuge Nativiuau's affiuavit that he piepaieu the ueeu of
uonation. Since theie was no uispute that the Piopeity was iegisteieu
in iesponuents' names, the paities agieeu to a ieveise tiial with BECS
piesenting its eviuence fiist to piove that theie was a valiu uonation to
the Nunicipality.

The tiial couit iuleu in favoi of BECS, opining that the uefense was able
to piove the uue execution of the ueeu of uonation anu its acceptance,
as well as the loss of the same. This uecision was ieveiseu by the CA,
which helu that BECS faileu to piove the existence anu uue execution of
the ueeu of uonation as well as the Resolution of the municipal council
accepting the uonation. The Couit of Appeals was not fully satisfieu
that BECS oi the Nunicipality hau maue a uiligent seaich of the allegeu
"lost" ueeu of uonation.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Issue: Whethei BECS faileu to piove the uue execution oi existence of
the ueeu of uonation

RulingRatio: Yes, BECS faileu to piove the uue execution of the ueeu.
The best oi piimaiy eviuence of a uonation of ieal piopeity is an
authentic copy of the ueeu of uonation with all the foimalities iequiieu
by Aiticle 749 of the Civil Coue. When a paity wants to piove the
contents of the uocument, the best eviuence is the oiiginal wiiting
itself.

A paity may piove the uonation by othei competent oi seconuaiy
eviuence unuei the exceptions in Section S, Rule 1Su. A paity may
intiouuce seconuaiy eviuence of the contents of a wiitten instiument
not only when the oiiginal is lost oi uestioyeu, but also when it cannot
be piouuceu in couit, pioviueu theie is no bau faith on the pait of the
offeioi. Bowevei, a paity must fiist satisfactoiily explain the loss of the
best oi piimaiy eviuence befoie he can iesoit to seconuaiy eviuence. A
paity must fiist piesent to the couit pioof of loss oi othei satisfactoiy
explanation foi non-piouuction of the oiiginal instiument. The coiiect
oiuei of pioof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, contents,
although the couit in its uiscietion may change this oiuei if necessaiy.

The testimony of one of the witnesses may have establisheu to some
extent the existence of the ueeu of uonation since he testifieu that he
was piesent when Isaias anu the mayoi talkeu about the uonation anu
that he witnesseu the signing of the uocument. Bowevei, uuiing cioss-
examination such witness aumitteu that he uiu not ieau anu uiu not
have peisonal knowleuge of the contents of the uocument that Isaias
anu the mayoi supposeuly signeu.

In the same vein, the seconu witness' testimony uoes not help to
establish the ueeu of uonation's existence, execution anu contents. Be
testifieu that he nevei saw the ueeu of uonation.
This leaves us with }uuge Nativiuau's testimony. }uuge Nativiuau
testifieu that he piepaieu anu notaiizeu the ueeu of uonation. Be
fuithei testifieu that theie was a municipal council Resolution
accepting the uonation anu expiessing giatituue to the uonoi but BECS
uiu not intiouuce in eviuence the municipal council Resolution
accepting the uonation. Theie is also no pioof that the uonee
communicateu in wiiting its acceptance to the uonoi asiue fiom the
ciicumstance that BECS constiucteu the school uuiing Isaias' lifetime
without objection on his pait.

F>G %/9-&-: "= 8-%= &-$#44/ ):=
NAP0C0R v Ramon Couilla et al
u.R. No. 17u491 Apiil 4, 2uu7

CBIC0-NAZARI0, }.:

Facts: 0n 2u Apiil 1996, Nv Bibena Win, a vessel of foieign iegistiy
owneu anu opeiateu by piivate iesponuent Bangpai Shipping, Co.,
allegeuly bumpeu anu uamageu petitionei's Powei Baige which was
then mooieu at the Cebu Inteinational Poit by ieason of which
petitionei fileu befoie the RTC a complaint foi uamages against piivate
iesponuent Bangpai Shipping Co., foi the allegeu uamages causeu on
petitionei's powei baiges.

In the couise of the pioceeuings, iesponuent juuge issueu an oiuei
uenying the aumission anu excluuing fiom the iecoius ceitain exhibits
of the petitioneis, because accoiuing to the juuge, the iecoiu shows that
the plaintiff has been given eveiy oppoitunity to piesent the oiiginals
of the Xeiox oi photocopies of the uocuments it offeieu. It nevei
piouuceu the oiiginals. The plaintiff attempteu to justify the aumission
of the photocopies by contenuing that "the photocopies offeieu aie
equivalent to the oiiginal of the uocument" on the basis of the
Electionic Eviuence.

This oiuei is now being assaileu.

Issue: Whethei oi not the contention of the plaintiff that the
photocopies it offeieu as foimal eviuence befoie the tiial couit aie the
functional equivalent of theii oiiginal baseu on its inimitable
inteipietation of the Rules on Electionic Eviuence.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
RulingRatio: No, the petitionei is not coiiect. An "electionic
uocument" iefeis to infoimation oi the iepiesentation of infoimation,
uata, figuies, symbols oi othei mouels of wiitten expiession, uesciibeu
oi howevei iepiesenteu, by which a iight is establisheu oi an obligation
extinguisheu, oi by which a fact may be pioveu anu affiimeu, which is
ieceiveu, iecoiueu, tiansmitteu, stoieu, piocesseu, ietiieveu oi
piouuceu electionically. It incluues uigitally signeu uocuments anu any
piintout, ieauable by sight oi othei means which accuiately ieflects the
electionic uata message oi electionic uocument.

The iules use the woiu "infoimation" to uefine an electionic uocument
ieceiveu, iecoiueu, tiansmitteu, stoieu, piocesseu, ietiieveu oi
piouuceu electionically. This woulu suggest that an electionic
uocument is ielevant only in teims of the infoimation containeu
theiein, similai to any othei uocument which is piesenteu in eviuence
as pioof of its contents. Bowevei, what uiffeientiates an electionic
uocument fiom a papei-baseu uocument is the mannei by which the
infoimation is piocesseu; cleaily, the infoimation containeu in an
electionic uocument is ieceiveu, iecoiueu, tiansmitteu, stoieu,
piocesseu, ietiieveu oi piouuceu electionically.

A peiusal of the infoimation containeu in the photocopies submitteu by
petitionei will ieveal that not all of the contents theiein, such as the
signatuies of the peisons who puipoiteuly signeu the uocuments, may
be iecoiueu oi piouuceu electionically. Bence, the aigument of
petitionei that since these papei piintouts weie piouuceu thiough an
electionic piocess, then these photocopies aie electionic uocuments as
uefineu in the Rules on Electionic Eviuence is obviously an eiioneous, if
not pieposteious, inteipietation of the law. Baving thus ueclaieu that
the offeieu photocopies aie not tantamount to electionic uocuments, it
is consequential that the same may not be consiueieu as the functional
equivalent of theii oiiginal as uecieeu in the law.

9/:-4! !"#$!%&!
F;G 19-*1!1 1/4#3,/%+-% "= 19-*1!1 2/%
Sps Nanuel anu victoiia Salimbangon v Sps Santos anu Eilinua Tan
u.R. No. 18S24u }anuaiy 2u, 2u1u

ABAB, }.:

Facts: uuilleimo Ceniza uieu intestate on }uly 11, 19S1, leaving a paicel
of lanu in Nanuaue City. Twenty yeais latei, his chiluien Beneuicta,
uuilleimo, }i., victoiia, Euuaiuo, anu Cailos executeu an extiajuuicial
ueclaiation of heiis anu paitition, aujuuicating anu uiviuing the lanu
among themselves.

Lots A, B, anu C weie aujacent to a city stieet. But Lots B anu E weie
not, they being inteiioi lots. To give these inteiioi lots access to the
stieet, the heiis imposeu a, an easement of iight of way, that ian
exclusively along the southwest bounuaiy of Lot B fiom Lots B anu E to
the stieet. This agieement was stateu in the extiajuuicial paitition of
the heiis.

victoiia latei swappeu lots with Beneuicta, with the iesult that victoiia
became the ownei of Lot A, one of the thiee lots aujacent to the city
stieet. victoiia anu hei husbanu (the Salimbangons) constiucteu a
iesiuential house on this lot anu built two gaiages on it. 0ne of the
gaiages was locateu in the inteiioi of Lot A anu useu the alley oi
easement of iight of way existing on Lot B to get to the stieet. victoiia
hau this alley cementeu anu gateu.

Subsequently, howevei, iesponuent spouses Santos anu Eilinua Tan
(the Tans) bought Lots B, C, B, anu E fiom all theii owneis. The Tans
closeu the gate that the Salimbangons built. 0nable to use the olu iight
of way, the Salimbangons lougeu a complaint against the Tans. Foi
theii pait, the Tans fileu an action with the RTC against the
Salimbangons foi the extinguishment of the easement on Lot B anu
uamages with application foi pieliminaiy injunction.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
The RTC ienueieu juugment, upholuing the Salimbangons' easement of
iight of way ovei the alley on Lot B. This uecision was ieveiseu by the
CA when it oiueieu the extinguishment the easement of iight of way.
The CA iuleu that baseu on the testimony of one of the pievious
owneis, the tiue intent of the paities was to establish that easement of
iight of way foi the benefit of the inteiioi lots, namely, Lots B anu E.
Consequently, when owneiship of Lots B, B, anu E was consoliuateu
into the Tans, the easement ceaseu to have any puipose anu became
extinct.

Issue: Whethei oi not the CA eiieu in aumitting in eviuence contiaiy to
the paiol eviuence iule Euuaiuo Ceniza's testimony iespecting the tiue
intent of the heiis in establishing the easement of iight of way as
against what they stateu in theii wiitten agieement

RulingRatio: The CA committeu no eiioi.

Accoiuing to the Salimbangons, the paiole eviuence piecluueu the
paities fiom intiouucing testimony that tenueu to altei oi mouify what
the paities hau agieeu on. But the exclusionaiy piovision of the paiol
eviuence iule aumits of exceptions.

Beie, the Tans hau put in issue the tiue intent anu agieement of the
paities to the paitition when they allegeu in theii complaint that,
contiaiy to what was inuicateu in the paitition uocument, the easement
was actually foi the benefit of Lots B anu E only. Consequently, with the
above aveiment, the Tans weie entitleu to intiouuce eviuence to
establish the tiue intent anu agieement of the paities although this may
uepait fiom what the paitition agieement liteially pioviueu.

At any iate, the Salimbangons uiu not object at the heaiing to aumission
of Euuaiuo Ceniza's testimony even when this seemeu at vaiiance, as
fai as they weie conceineu, with the paitition agieement among the
heiis. Consequently, the Salimbangons may also be ueemeu to have
waiveu theii iight to now question such testimony on appeal.

F<G 8!#:1 -. 9/&:!1 "= 8!#:1 -. 5+-%/
Facts:
Pastoi Pacies uieu intestate leaving to his heiis Lot No. 9 is a
1,uu7 squaie metei paicel of lanu locateu at Kinasang-an, Paiuo, Cebu
City anu fionting the Cebu piovincial highway.

0n the same yeai, the heiis leaseu "the giounu flooi of the
|ancestial homej togethei with a lot aiea of Suu squaie meteis
incluuing the aiea occupieu by the house" to iesponuent Bilaiio
Ramiiez (Ramiiez), who immeuiately took possession theieof.
Subsequently in 1974, foui of the Pacies siblings1u (namely, Rouiigo,
Fiancisco, Simplicia anu Naigaiita) solu theii shaies in the ancestial
home anu the lot on which it stoou to Ramiiez. The ueeus of sale
uesciibeu the subjects theieof as "pait anu poition of the Suu squaie
meteis actually in possession anu enjoyment by venuee anu hei spouse,
Bilaiio Ramiiez, by viitue of a contiact of lease in theii favoi."

With the sale, iesponuent Ramiiez's possession as lessee
tuineu into a co-owneiship with petitioneis Naiio anu veaianua, who
uiu not sell theii shaies in the house anu lot. 0n vaiious uates the
petitioneis solu theii iemaining shaies in Lot No. 9 to iesponuent
Cecilia Ygoa (Ygoa). Ygona fielu a petition to segiegate the poitions
of the lanu but the iesponuents opposeu saying they wanteu to
exeicise iight of ieuemption foi the shaies of theii siblings. But such
was uenieu by the couit anu even alloweu Ygona to builu a house
theieon.

The fiont pait of the lot was expiopiiateu by the goveinment
foi the ioau expansion. As occupant of the expiopiiateu poition, Ygoa
moveu to withuiaw hei coiiesponuing shaie in the expiopiiation
payment.

0n }uly 2u, 199S, the Pacies siblings (Naigaiita anu Fiancisco
weie alieauy ueceaseu at that time anu weie only iepiesenteu by theii
heiis) executeu a Confiimation of 0ial PaititionSettlement of Estate of
Pastoi Pacies. The ielevant statements in the affiuavit ieau:

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
4. That in that 0RAL PARTITI0N, the shaies oi poition to be allotteu
to Naiio Pacies anu veaianua Pacies vua. ue Ababa shall be fionting
the national highway, while the shaies of the iest shall be locateu at the
ieai;

Baseu on this oial agieement the petitioneis fileu a case foi
Specific Peifoimance against Responuents saying that the heiis agieeu
on a paitition piioi to the sale. They seek compliance with such
agieement fiom theii siblings' venuees, Ygoa anu Ramiiez, on the
basis that the two weie piivy to these agieements, hence bounu to
comply theiewith. In compliance with such paitition, Ygoa anu
Ramiiez shoulu uesist fiom claiming any poition of the expiopiiation
payment foi the fiont lots anu foi the payment of past anu piesent
taxes.

Issue:
Whethei oi not the petitioneis can maintain action against the
iesponuents, the foimei not being a paity to the contiact.

Belu:
(soiiy! Eveiything impoitant!)

N0. 0nuei Aiticle 1S11 of the Civil Coue, contiacts take effect
only between the paities, theii assigns anu heiis (subject to exceptions
not applicable heie). Thus, only a paity to the contiact can maintain an
action to enfoice the obligations aiising unuei saiu contiact.
Consequently, petitioneis, not being paities to the contiacts of sale
between Ygoa anu the petitioneis' siblings, cannot sue foi the
enfoicement of the supposeu obligations aiising fiom saiu contiacts.
It is tiue that thiiu paities may seek enfoicement of a contiact
unuei the seconu paiagiaph of Aiticle 1S11, which pioviues that "if a
contiact shoulu contain some stipulation in favoi of a thiiu peison, he
may uemanu its fulfillment." This iefeis to stipulations poui autiui, oi
stipulations foi the benefit of thiiu paities.
Bowevei, the wiitten contiacts of sale in this case contain no such
stipulation in favoi of the petitioneis. While petitioneis claim that theie
was an oial stipulation, it cannot be pioven unuei the Paiol Eviuence
Rule. 0nuei this Rule, "|wjhen the teims of an agieement have been
ieuuceu to wiiting, it is consiueieu as containing all the teims agieeu
upon anu theie can be, between the paities anu theii successois in
inteiest, no eviuence of such teims othei than the contents of the
wiitten agieement."While the Rule aumits of exception, no such
exception was pleaueu, much less pioveu, by petitioneis.

The Paiol Eviuence Rule applies to "the paities anu theii successois in
inteiest." Conveisely, it has no application to a stiangei to a contiact.
Foi puiposes of the Paiol Eviuence Rule, a peison who claims to be the
beneficiaiy of an allegeu stipulation poui autiui in a contiact (such as
petitioneis) may be consiueieu a paity to that contiact. It has been helu
that a thiiu paity who avails himself of a stipulation poui autiui unuei
a contiact becomes a paity to that contiact.
Noieovei, to piecluue the application of Paiol Eviuence Rule, it must be
shown that "at least one of the paities to the suit is not paity oi a piivy
of a paity to the wiitten instiument in question anu uoes not base a
claim on the instiument oi asseit a iight oiiginating in the instiument
oi the ielation establisheu theieby."49 A beneficiaiy of a stipulation
poui autiui obviously bases his claim on the contiact. Be theiefoie
cannot claim to be a stiangei to the contiact anu iesist the application
of the Paiol Eviuence Rule.
Thus, even assuming that the allegeu oial unueitakings invokeu by
petitioneis may be ueemeu stipulations poui autiui, still petitioneis'
claim cannot piospei, because they aie baiieu fiom pioving them by
oial eviuence unuei the Paiol Eviuence Rule.

F6G 4!#+82-% &-%2:/&2-:1 98#4#99#%!1J #%&= "= &%9 #%$*12:#!1J #%&=
Facts:
In 1997, Baiuie }aiuin, Inc. (B}I) awaiueu the contiact foi site
piepaiation, builuing founuation anu stiuctuial steel woiks of its fibie
cement plant pioject in Baiangay Tatalon in San Isiuio, Cabuyao,
Laguna to petitionei Leighton Contiactois Philippines, Inc. Responuent
CNP Inuustiies, Inc. submitteu to petitionei a pioposal to unueitake, as
subcontiactoi, the constiuction of the stiuctuial steelwoiksSof B}I's
fibie cement plant pioject.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Leighton accepteu CNP's pioposal specifying that the pioject
cost was foi the fixeu lump sum piice of P44,22S,9u9. CNP agieeu anu
Leighton instiucteu it to commence woik. Neanwhile, Leighton ieviseu
the fabiication uiawings of seveial of the stiuctuie's columns
necessitating aujustments in the uesigns of ioof iiuge ventilation anu
ciane beams.

Theie was no ie-negotiation with iegaiu to the lump-sum piice
togethei with the aujustments maue but such was incoipoiateu into the
uiawings anu plans maue. CNP was able to finish almost 86% of the
pioject but Leighton iefuseu to settle the "outstanuing balance"
asseiting that the ioof iiuge ventilation anu ciane beams weie excluueu
fiom the pioject cost. Petitionei iefuseu to pay as the subcontiact
cleaily stateu that the sub-contiact piice was a fixeu lump sum.

Issue:
Whethei oi not the SubContiact agieement incluues the ioof
iiuge ventilation anu the ciane beams mouifications.

Belu:
YES. The scope of woik was uefineu in the subcontiact as the
completion of the stiuctuial steel woiks accoiuing to the main uiawing,
technical specifications anu the main contiact. Thus, to ueteimine
whethei the ioof iiuge ventilation anu ciane beams weie incluueu in
the scope of woik, iefeience to the main uiawing, technical
specifications anu main contiact is necessaiy. The main contiact stateu
that the stiuctuial steel woiks incluueu, this accoiuing to petitionei
anu iesponuent iefeiieu to the ioof iiuge ventilation anu ciane beams.
Bence, the saiu woiks weie cleaily incluueu in the sub-contiact woiks.

The paiol eviuence iule, embouieu in Section 9, Rule 1Su of the
Rules of Couit holus that when the teims of an agieement have been
ieuuceu into wiiting, it is consiueieu as containing all the teims agieeu
upon anu theie can be, between the paities anu theii successois in
inteiest, no eviuence of such teims othei than the contents of the
wiitten agieement. It, howevei, aumits of exceptions such as when the
paities subsequently mouify the teims of theii oiiginal agieement.

F>G !12/2! -. &/,/%+&*%+/% "= 4/#+-
Fatcs:
Naigaiita Cabacungan (Naigaiita) owneu thiee paicels of
uniegisteieu lanu in Paiingao anu in Baccuit, Bauang, La 0nion, each
measuiing 4,S12 squaie meteis, 1,986 squaie meteis anu S,4S4 squaie
meteis. Sometime in 1968, Naigaiita's son, Robeito Laigo, }i.
(Robeito), applieu foi a non-immigiant visa to the 0niteu States, anu to
suppoit his application, he allegeuly askeu Naigaiita to tiansfei the tax
ueclaiations of the piopeities in his name.
Foi saiu puipose, Naigaiita, unknown to hei othei chiluien,
executeu an Affiuavit of Tiansfei of Real Piopeity wheieby the subject
piopeities weie tiansfeiieu by uonation to Robeito. Not long aftei,
Robeito's visa was issueu anu he was able to tiavel to the 0.S. as a
touiist anu ietuineu in uue time. In 1979, he auopteu iesponuents
Peuio Laigo (Peuio) anu Naiilou Laigo (Naiilou),8 anu then he maiiieu
iesponuent Estella Balagot.
Robeito solu the piopeities anu one of the buyeis was Naiilou
Laigo, Allegeuly, these sales weie not known to Naigaiita anu hei othei
chiluien. It was only at Robeito's wake, that Naigaiita came to know of
the sales as tolu by Peuio himself. In Febiuaiy 1996, Naigaiita,
iepiesenteu by hei uaughtei, Luz, instituteu the instant complaint foi
the annulment of saiu sales anu foi the iecoveiy of owneiship anu
possession of the subject piopeities.

The buyeis (Responuents) aigueu that they weie buyeis in
goou faith anu foi value anu that the claim of the Petitioneis weie
baiieu by piesciiption as the same hau acciueu way back in 1968 anu
that upon the execution of the affiuavit of tiansfei by viitue of which an
implieu tiust hau been cieateu. In this iegaiu, they emphasizeu that the
law alloweu only a peiiou of ten (1u) yeais within which an action to
iecovei owneiship of ieal piopeity oi to enfoice an implieu tiust
theieon may be biought, but Naigaiita meiely let it pass.

Issue:
Whethei oi not the affiuavit seives as an eviuence to suppoit
the finuing that theie is an implieu tiust cieateu between Naigaiita anu
hei son Robeito. Is paiole eviuence applicable to piove such.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Belu:
YES. Ceitainly, intent as an inuispensable element, is a mattei
that necessaiily lies in the eviuence, that is, by eviuence, even
ciicumstantial, of statements maue by the paities at oi befoie the time
title passes.
Because an implieu tiust is neithei uepenuent upon an expiess
agieement noi iequiieu to be eviuenceu by wiiting, Aiticle 14S7 of oui
Civil Coue authoiizes the aumission of paiole eviuence to piove theii
existence. Paiole eviuence that is iequiieu to establish the existence of
an implieu tiust necessaiily has to be tiustwoithy anu it cannot iest on
loose, equivocal oi inuefinite ueclaiations.
Foi the intention of Naigaiita was to tiansfei to Robeito only
the legal title to the piopeities in question, with attenuant expectation
that Robeito woulu ietuin the same to hei on accomplishment of that
specific puipose foi which the tiansaction was enteieu into. The
eviuence of couise is not uocumentaiy, but iathei testimonial.

(Assuming we masteieu tiusts alieauy! ! uiun't incluue it in the
uiscussion. }ust saiu paiole eviuence can piove existence of implieu
tiusts.)

F?G /44#!$ ,/%H#%+ "= &8!%+ 5-%+
Facts:

Philippine Pacific Fishing Company, Inc. (Philippine Pacific),
obtaineu fiom Allieu Banking Coipoiation (Allieu Bank), a packing
cieuit accommouation amounting to 0ne Nillion Seven Bunuieu Fifty
Two Thousanu Pesos (P1,7S2,uuu.uu).
To secuie the obligation, Naiilyn }aviei anu the spouses Cheng
Yong anu Lilia uaw (spouses Cheng, foi shoit), executeu a Continuing
uuaiantyCompiehensive Suiety. Latei, Philippine Pacific, uue to
business ieveises anu allegeu misuse of coipoiate funus by its
opeiating officeis, uefaulteu in the payment of saiu obligation. An intia-
coipoiate uispute among its stockholueis followeu, piompting the
filing against Philippine Pacific of a petition foi ieceiveiship befoie the
Secuiities anu Exchange Commission (SEC).
Theieaftei, the coipoiation was ieoiganizeu, following which
the spouses Cheng Yong anu Lilia uaw weie electeu as its piesiuent anu
tieasuiei, iespectively. The spouses Cheng also holu similai positions
in anothei company, the ulee Chemicals Phils., Inc. (uCPI), which,
inciuentally, also hau a cieuit line with Allieu Bank.
But the paities agieeu to cieate anu constitute a management
committee, insteau of placing Philippine Pacific unuei ieceiveiship. It
appeais, howevei, that two (2) uays piioi to the constitution of the
management committee, Allieu Bank anu Philippine Pacific agieeu to
iestiuctuie anu conveit the packing cieuit accommouation into a
simple loan. Accoiuingly, Philippine Pacific executeu in favoi of Allieu
Bank a piomissoiy note uateu 12 August 1981S in the same amount as
the packing cieuit accommouation. Asiue fiom affixing theii signatuies
on the same piomissoiy note in theii capacity as officeis of Philippine
Pacific, the spouses Cheng also signeu the note in theii peisonal
capacities anu as co-makeis theieof.
As it tuineu out Philippine Pacific faileu to pay which
piompteu Allieu Bank to foieclose the moitgages pioviueu foi by the
Sps. Cheng Yong as co-makeis in the piomissoiy note. The Sps. Cheng
Yong seeks to enjoin the bank fiom the foieclosuie of theii piopeities
anu aigues that the subject Piomissoiy Note is not valiu anu
enfoiceable foi non-fulfillment of a suspensive conuition anu
consequently, the Beeu of Chattel Noitgage, being a meie accessoiy
agieement, is likewise not valiu anu enfoiceable in the absence of a
valiu piincipal contiact;

Issue:
Whethei oi not the subject Piomissoiy Note is valiu anu
enfoiceable.

Belu:
YES. The teims of the subject piomissoiy note aie cleai anu
leave no uoubt upon the intention of the paities. 0n this scoie, it iuleu
that the paiol eviuence intiouuceu by the Cheng spouses to the effect
that the valiuity anu enfoiceability of the note aie conuitioneu upon its
appioval anu iatification by the management committee shoulu have
been uiscaiueu by the tiial couit (not uepenuent on the management
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
committee) consistent with the paiol eviuence iule embouieu in Rule
1Su, Section 9 of the Rules of Couit.

The appellate couit is coiiect in ueclaiing that unuei the paiole
eviuence iule, when the paities have ieuuceu theii agieement into
wiiting, they aie ueemeu to have intenueu such wiitten agieement to
be the sole iepositoiy anu memoiial of eveiything that they have
agieeu upon. All theii piioi anu contempoianeous agieements aie
ueemeu to be meigeu in the wiitten uocument so that, as between them
anu theii successois-in-inteiest, such wiiting becomes exclusive
eviuence of the teims theieof anu any veibal agieement which tenus to
vaiy, altei oi mouify the same is not aumissible.

Beie, the teims of the subject piomissoiy note anu the ueeu of chattel
moitgage aie cleai anu explicit anu uevoiu of any conuitionality upon
which its valiuity uepenus. To be suie, Allieu Bank was not a paity to
SEC Case No. 2u42 wheie the management committee was oiueieu
cieateu; hence, it woulu not be coiiect to piesume that it hau notice of
the existence of the management committee which, inciuentally, was
still to be cieateu when the subject piomissoiy note was executeu on
12 August 1981. Notably, while the paities in SEC Case No. 2u42 agieeu
to foim the management committee on 27 }uly 1981, it was only on 14
August 1981 when the committee was actually cieateu anu its
membeis appointeu. Cleaily then, the subject piomissoiy note was
outsiue the iealm of authoiity of the management committee.
Coiollaiily, the chattel moitgage accessoiy to it is likewise valiu.

To begin with, theie is nothing on the face of the piomissoiy note
iequiiing saiu piioi iatification foi it to become valiu. Basic is the iule
that if the teims of the contiact aie cleai anu leave no uoubt upon the
intention of the paities, the liteial meaning of its stipulations shall
contiol (Aiticle 1S7u, Civil Coue; Boniauo, }i. vs. CA, 198 SCRA S26).

0nuei the paiole eviuence iule, the teims of a contiact aie conclusive
upon the paities anu eviuence which shall vaiy a complete anu
enfoiceable agieement embouieu in a uocument is inaumissible
(Nagellan Nanufactuiing Coipoiation vs. CA, 2u1 SCRA 1u6).

#%2!:9:!2/2#-% -. $-&*3!%21
F;G 3/:B*!I /%$ $!4/ &:*I "= !19!)-
!"#$% '(#$")*+
$TLMZSVPO When the paities aumit the contents of wiitten uocuments
but put in issue whethei these uocuments auequately anu coiiectly
expiess the tiue intention of the paities, the ueciuing bouy is
authoiizeu to look beyonu these instiuments anu into the
contempoianeous anu subsequent actions of the paities in oiuei to
ueteimine such intent.

.KLMNO

Responuents Espejos weie the oiiginal iegisteieu owneis of two
paicels of agiicultuial lanu, with an aiea of two hectaies each. 0ne is
locateu in Baiangay 4KVMK_, Nueva vizcaya while the othei is locateu in
Baiangay 3`ZTVX, Nueva vizcaya. Nuiong piopeity is tenanteu by
Petitioneis Naiquez anu Bela Ciuz.

The iesponuents moitgageu both paicels of lanu to Ruial Bank of
Bayombong, Inc. (RBBI) to secuie ceitain loans. The piopeities weie
foiecloseu anu title was consoliuateu in favoi of RBBI. Responuent
Espejos bought back one of theii lots fiom RBBI. The Beeu of Sale uiu
not mention the baiangay wheie the piopeity was locateu but
mentioneu the title of the piopeity which coiiesponus to Nuiong
piopeity. Theie is no eviuence, howevei, that iesponuents took
possession of the Nuiong piopeity, oi uemanueu lease ientals fiom
petitioneis, oi otheiwise exeiciseu acts of owneiship ovei the Nuiong
piopeity.

Neanwhile, RBBI, puisuant to RA No. 66S7 executeu sepaiate Beeus of
voluntaiy Lanu Tiansfei (vLT) in favoi of Petitioneis Naiquez anu
Bela Ciuz. Both Ceititicates of Lanu 0wneiship Awaiu (CL0A) stateu
that theii subjects weie paicels of agiicultuial lanu situateu in
Baiangay Nuiong.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Noie than 1u yeais aftei the Beeu of Sale anu 7 yeais aftei the
execution of vLTs, iesponuents Espejos fileu a complaint with Regional
Agiaiian Refoim Aujuuicatoi (RARAB) of Nueva vizcaya foi the
cancellation of petitioneis' CL0As. The complaint was baseu on
iesponuent's theoiy that the Nuiong piopeity, occupieu by the
petitioneis, was owneu by iesponuents by viitue of buy-back, as
uocumenteu in the Beeu of Sale. They baseu theii claim on the fact that
theii Beeu of Sale iefeis to TCT No. 62u96, which peitains to Nuiong
piopeity.

0IC-RARAB iuleu in favoi of iesponuents anu gave cieuence to the TCT
numbeis appeaiing on the Beeu of Sale anu the vLTs. The 0IC-RARAB
concluueu that the subject of sale was inueeu the Nuiong piopeity anu
that the subject of vLTs weie the Lantap piopeity. 0n appeal, BARAB
ieveiseu the iuling. CA, howevei, ieveiseu BARAB to concluue that the
iepuichaseu piopeity was the Nuiong piopeity.

#NN`PO

Whethei the TCT numbeis weie enough in oiuei to concluue that the
iepuichaseu piopeity was the Nuiong piopeity anu not the one in
Lantap

8PQRO

No. Aftei the Couit's consiueiation of all the subsequent anu
contempoianeous actions of RBBI anu the petitioneis, it helu that the
subject of vLT is the Nuiong piopeity while the iepuichaseu piopeity
by the iesponuents is the Lantap piopeity.

:KMSTO

-We aie convinceu that the subject of the Beeu of Sale between RBBI anu the
iesponuents was the :/21/? ?.3?-.1<, anu not the Nuiong piopeity. Aftei the
execution in 198S of the Beeu of Sale, the iesponuents uiu not exeicise acts of
owneiship that coulu show that they inueeu knew anu believeu that they
iepuichaseu the Nuiong piopeity. They uiu not take possession of the
Nuiong piopeity. As aumitteu by the paities, the Nuiong piopeity was in the
possession of the petitioneis, who occupieu anu tilleu the same without any
objection fiom the iesponuents. Noieovei, petitioneis paiu leaseholu ientals
foi using the Nuiong piopeity to RBBI, not to the iesponuents.

Asiue fiom iesponuents' neglect of theii allegeu owneiship iights ovei
the Nuiong piopeity, theie is one othei ciicumstance that convinces us that
what iesponuents ieally iepuichaseu was the Lantap piopeity. Responuent
Nemi (husbanu of iesponuent Elenita) is the faimei actually tilling the Lantap
piopeity, without tuining ovei the supposeu lanuownei's shaie to RBBI. This
stiongly inuicates that the iesponuents consiueieu themselves (anu not RBBI)
as the owneis of the Lantap piopeity. Foi if iesponuents (paiticulaily spouses
Elenita anu Nemi) tiuly believeu that RBBI ietaineu owneiship of the Lantap
piopeity, how come they nevei complieu with theii obligations as supposeu
tenants of RBBI's lanu. The factual ciicumstances of the case simply uo not
suppoit the theoiy piopounueu by the iesponuents.

We aie likewise convinceu that the subject of the Beeus of voluntaiy
Lanu Tiansfei (vLTs) in favoi of petitioneis was the CA.325 ?.3?-.1<, anu not
the Lantap piopeity. When the vLTs weie executeu in 199u, petitioneis weie
alieauy the tenant-faimeis of the Nuiong piopeity, anu hau been paying
ientals to RBBI accoiuingly. It is theiefoie natuial that the Nuiong piopeity
anu no othei was the one that they hau intenueu to acquiie fiom RBBI with the
execution of the vLTs. Noieovei, aftei the execution of the vLTs, petitioneis
iemaineu in possession of the Nuiong piopeity, enjoying anu tilling it without
any opposition fiom anybouy. Subsequently, aftei the petitioneis completeu
theii payment of the total puichase piice of P9u,uuu.uu to RBBI, the
Bepaitment of Agiaiian Refoim (BAR) officials conuucteu theii investigation
of the Nuiong piopeity which, with the piesumption of iegulaiity in the
peifoimance of official uuty, uiu not ieveal any anomaly. Petitioneis weie
founu to be in actual possession of the Nuiong piopeity anu weie the qualifieu
beneficiaiies theieof. Thus, the BAR officials issueu CL0As in petitioneis' favoi;
anu these CL0As explicitly iefei to the lanu in ;/./25/< Nuiong. All this time,
petitioneis weie in possession of the Nuiong piopeity, unuistuibeu by anyone
foi seveial long yeais, until iesponuents staiteu the contioveisy in 1997.

$(B)*G '(#$")*+
Facts:
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Responuents Espejos weie the oiiginal iegisteieu owneis of
two paicels of agiicultuial lanu, with an aiea of two hectaies each. 0ne
is locateu at Baiangay Lantap, Bagabag, Nueva vizcaya (the Lantap
piopeity) while the othei is locateu in Baiangay Nuiong, Bagabag,
Nueva vizcaya (theNuiong piopeity). Theie is no uispute among the
paities that the Lantap piopeity is tenanteu by iesponuent Nemi
Feinanuez (Nemi)6 (who is the husbanu7 of iesponuent Elenita Espejo
(Elenita), while the Nuiong piopeity is tenanteu by petitioneis Salun-
at Naiquez (Naiquez) anu Nestoi Bela Ciuz (Bela Ciuz).8

The iesponuents moitgageu both paicels of lanu to Ruial Bank
of Bayombong, Inc. (RBBI) to secuie ceitain loans. 0pon theii failuie to
pay the loans, the moitgageu piopeities weie foiecloseu anu solu to
RBBI. RBBI eventually consoliuateu title to the piopeities anu tiansfei
ceitificates of title (TCTs) weie issueu in the name of RBBI.TCT No. T-
62u96, was issueu foi the Nuiong piopeity. Subsequently, TCT No. T-
628S6 uateu }une 4, 198S was issueu foi the Lantap piopeity.

Both TCTs uesciibe theii iespective subjects as locateu in
"Bagabag Townsite, K-27," without any iefeience to eitheiBaiangay
Lantap oi Baiangay Nuiong. Espejos bought back one of theii lots fiom
RBBI. The Beeu of Sale11 uesciibeu the piopeity:

"x x x uo heieby SELL, TRANSFER, anu C0NvEY, absolutely anu
unconuitionally x x x that ceitain paicel of lanu, situateu in the
Nunicipality of Bagabag, Piovince of Nueva vizcaya, anu moie
paiticulaily bounueu anu uesciibeu as follows, to wit:
Beginning at a point maikeu "1" on plan x x x x Containing an aiea of
2.uuu hectaies. Bounueu on the NE., by Roau; on the SE., anu SW by
Public Lanu; anu on the NW., by Public Lanu, piopeities claimeu by
Bilaiio uauuia anu Santos Navaiiete. Beaiing tiue. Beclination u1S 'B.
Points iefeiieu to aie maikeu on plan B-176292.
of which the Ruial Bank of Bayombong (Nv) Inc., is the iegisteieu
ownei in fee simple in accoiuance with the Lanu Registiation Act, its
title theieto being eviuenceu by Tiansfei Ceitificate of Title No. T-
62u96 issueu by the Registiy of Beeus of Nueva vizcaya."

As may be seen fiom the foiegoing, the Beeu of Sale uiu not
mention the baiangay wheie the piopeity was locateu but mentioneu
the title of the piopeity (TCT No. T-62u96), which title coiiesponus to
the Nuiong piopeity. Theie is no eviuence, howevei, that iesponuents
took possession of the Nuiong piopeity, oi uemanueu lease ientals
fiom the petitioneis (who continueu to be the tenants of the Nuiong
piopeity), oi otheiwise exeiciseu acts of owneiship ovei the Nuiong
piopeity.

RBBI executeu sepaiate Beeus of voluntaiy Lanu Tiansfei
(vLTs) in favoi of petitioneis Naiquez anu Bela Ciuz, the tenants of the
Nuiong piopeity. Both vLTs uesciibeu the subject theieof as an
agiicultuial lanu locateu in Baiangay Nuiong anu coveieu by TCT No.
T-628S6 (which, howevei, is the title coiiesponuing to the Lantap
piopeity)

Aftei the petitioneis completeu the payment of the puichase
piice of P9u,uuu.uu to RBBI, the BAR issueu the coiiesponuing
Ceitificates of Lanu 0wneiship Awaiu (CL0As) to petitioneis Naiquez
anu Bela Ciuz Both CL0As stateu that theii subjects weie paicels of
agiicultuial lanu situateu in Baiangay Nuiong.

0n Febiuaiy 1u, 1997 (moie than 1u yeais aftei the Beeu of
Sale in favoi of the iesponuents anu almost seven yeais aftei the
execution of vLTs in favoi of the petitioneis), iesponuents fileu a
Complaint foi the cancellation of petitioneis' CL0As, the ueposit of
leaseholu ientals by petitioneis in favoi of iesponuents, anu the
execution of a ueeu of voluntaiy lanu tiansfei by RBBI in favoi of
iesponuent Nemi. The complaint was baseu on iesponuents' theoiy
that the Nuiong piopeity, occupieu by the petitioneis, was owneu by
the iesponuents by viitue of the 198S buy-back, as uocumenteu in the
Beeu of Sale. They baseu theii claim on the fact that theii Beeu of Sale
iefeis to TCT No. 62u96, which peitains to the Nuiong piopeity.

Responuents, aigueu using the Best Eviuence Rule using the
Beeu of Sale to piove that what they bought back was the Nuiong
Piopeity.

Issue:
Whethei oi not the aumitteu contents of these uocuments
auequately anu coiiectly expiess the tiue intention of the paities.
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121

Belu:

N0. Rule 1Su, Section 1S which pioviues foi the iules on the
inteipietation of uocuments is likewise enlightening:
"Section 1S. Inteipietation accoiuing to ciicumstances.Foi the
piopei constiuction of an instiument, the ciicumstances unuei which it
was maue, incluuing the situation of the subject theieof anu of the
paities to it, may be shown, so that the juuge may be placeu in the
position of those whose language he is to inteipiet."

Applying the foiegoing guiuing iules, it is cleai that the Beeu of
Sale was intenueu to tiansfei the Lantap piopeity to the iesponuents,
while the vLTs weie intenueu to convey the Nuiong piopeity to the
petitioneis. This may be seen fiom the contempoianeous anu
subsequent acts of the paities.

We aie convinceu that the subject of the Beeu of Sale between
RBBI anu the iesponuents was the Lantap piopeity, anu not the
Nuiong piopeity. Aftei the execution in 198S of the Beeu of Sale, the
iesponuents uiu not exeicise acts of owneiship that coulu show that
they inueeu knew anu believeu that they iepuichaseu the Nuiong
piopeity. They uiu not take possession of the Nuiong piopeity. As
aumitteu by the paities, the Nuiong piopeity was in the possession of
the petitioneis, who occupieu anu tilleu the same without any objection
fiom the iesponuents. Noieovei, petitioneis paiu leaseholu ientals foi
using the Nuiong piopeity to RBBI, not to the iesponuents.

When the paities aumit the contents of wiitten uocuments but put in
issue whethei these uocuments auequately anu coiiectly expiess the
tiue intention of the paities, the ueciuing bouy is authoiizeu to look
beyonu these instiuments anu into the contempoianeous anu
subsequent actions of the paities in oiuei to ueteimine such intent.

Well-settleu is the iule that in case of uoubt, it is the intention of the
contiacting paities that pievails, foi the intention is the soul of a
contiact, not its woiuing which is pione to mistakes, inauequacies, oi
ambiguities. To holu otheiwise woulu give life, valiuity, anu pieceuence
to meie typogiaphical eiiois anu uefeat the veiy puipose of
agieements.

F<G $:= 1/%2-1 "= $:= "#,/:
BR. CECILIA BE L0S SANT0S v. BR. PRISCILA BA0TISTA vIBAR
u.R. No. 1Su9S1
}uly 16, 2uu8

FACTS: In 1994, Cecilia intiouuceu }ose ue Leon to Piiscila. Be Leon
neeueu money anu boiioweu P1uu,uuu fiom Piiscila. Be Leon issueu a
piomissoiy note uateu 2 }une 1994 anu bounu himself to pay the loan
anu Cecilia signeu as a guaiantoi of ue Leon's loan.

In 199S, ue Leon askeu Piiscila foi anothei loan. Be Leon signeu a
typewiitten piomissoiy note, acknowleuging the uebt of PSuu,uuu
payable within 12 months fiom 28 August 199S, at a fixeu monthly
inteiest iate of S% anu a penalty of 2% pei month in case of uefault.
Cecilia signeu as a witness unuei the phiase "signeu in the piesence of."
Bowevei, Atty. Bautista biought up the neeu foi Cecilia to sign as
guaiantoi. Theieupon, ue Leon, in his own hanuwiiting, inseiteu the
woiu "guaiantoi" besiues Cecilia's name, as Cecilia nouueu hei heau to
what ue Leon was uoing. Be Leon also auueu the phiase, "as secuiity
foi this loan this TCT No. T-47S7S, Registiy of Baguio City, is being
submitteu by way of moitgage."

0n matuiity uate, ue Leon faileu to pay any of the monthly installments.
Piiscila maue seveial veibal uemanus on ue Leon foi payment but to no
avail. Piiscila's counsel then sent ue Leon a uemanu lettei. 0n 4
Septembei 1996,Piiscila's counsel again sent a uemanu lettei not only
to ue Leon as piincipal uebtoi, but also to Cecilia. Cecilia was being
maue to answei foi ue Leon's uebt as the lattei's guaiantoi. Cecilia
then iemitteu to Piiscila P1S,uuu to pay one month's inteiest on the
loan. Aftei seveial faileu attempts to collect the loan, Piiscila fileu with
the Registiy of Beeus of Baguio City an auveise claim on the piopeity
iegisteieu unuei TCT No. T-47S7S.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Piiscila fileu an action foi iecoveiy of money with the Regional Tiial
Couit of Quezon City, Bianch 1uu, against ue Leon anu Cecilia. 0n 26
Novembei 1999, the tiial couit iuleu in favoi of Cecilia anu uismisseu
the complaint foi insufficiency of eviuence.

The appellate couit affiimeu the tiial couit's iuling against ue Leon but
mouifieu the same with iespect to Cecilia. The appellate couit ueclaieu
Cecilia as guaiantoi of ue Leon's loan.

ISS0E: Whethei Cecilia is liable as guaiantoi of ue Leon's loan fiom
Piiscila

Whethei theie exists a contiact of guaianty to holu Cecilia liable foi the
loan of ue Leon, the piincipal uebtoi

BELB: Cecilia was a guaiantoi of ue Leon's loan.

Fiistly, Cecilia's act of "nouuing hei heau" signifieu hei assent to the
inseition of the woiu "guaiantoi." Since ue Leon maue the inseition
only aftei Atty. Bautista hau iaiseu the neeu foi Cecilia to be a
guaiantoi, a positive oi negative ieaction was expecteu fiom Cecilia,
who iesponueu by giving hei nou of appioval. 0theiwise, Cecilia shoulu
have immeuiately expiesseu hei objection to the inseition of the woiu
"guaiantoi."

Seconuly, Piiscila woulu not have extenueu a loan to ue Leon without
the iepiesentations of Cecilia. Cecilia aiiangeu foi ue Leon anu Piiscila
to meet so that ue Leon coulu boiiow money fiom Piiscila. Cecilia
voucheu foi ue Leon's capacity to pay. As a fiienu anu common link
between the boiiowei anu lenuei, Cecilia took active pait in the fiist
loan of P1uu,uuu anu even signeu as guaiantoi.

Thiiuly, Cecilia claimeu ignoiance of the guaianty only aftei this case
was fileu. Bowevei, the iecoius show that Cecilia hau seveial meetings
with Piiscila anu the lattei's counsel befoie the uemanu letteis weie
sent.|2uj In these meetings, Cecilia acknowleugeu hei liability as
guaiantoi but simply claimeu that she hau no money to pay Piiscila. In
fact, Cecilia maue an initial payment of P1S,uuu as paitial compliance of
hei obligation as guaiantoi. This only shows that Cecilia nevei uenieu
hei liability to Piiscila as guaiantoi until this case was fileu in couit.

Lastly, Cecilia wiote a lettei to the Registei of Beeus of Baguio City
inquiiing on the status of the piopeity mentioneu in the piomissoiy
note as a moitgage secuiity foi ue Leon's loan. Cecilia cleaily stateu
that she "appeais to be a guaiantoi" in the piomissoiy note. This
seives as a wiitten aumission that Cecilia knew she was a guaiantoi.

It is axiomatic that the wiitten woiu "guaiantoi" pievails ovei the
typewiitten woiu "witness." In case of conflict, the wiitten woiu
pievails ovei the piinteu woiu. Section 1S of Rule 1Su pioviues:

Sec. 1S. Wiitten woius contiol piinteu. - When an instiument consists
paitly of wiitten woius anu paitly of a piinteu foim, anu the two aie
inconsistent, the foimei contiols the lattei.

The iationale foi this iule is that the wiitten woius aie the latest
expiession of the will of the paities. Thus, in this case, the latest
expiession of Cecilia's will is that she signeu the piomissoiy note as
guaiantoi.

Estoppel in pais aiose in this case. ueneially, estoppel is a uoctiine that
pievents a peison fiom auopting an inconsistent position, attituue, oi
action if it will iesult in injuiy to anothei. 0ne who, by his acts,
iepiesentations oi aumissions, oi by his own silence when he ought to
speak out, intentionally oi thiough culpable negligence, inuuces
anothei to believe ceitain facts to exist anu such othei iightfully ielies
anu acts on such belief, can no longei ueny the existence of such fact as
it will piejuuice the lattei.

F6G &/2*%+/4 "= :-$:#+*!I
R0LANB0 T. CAT0NuAL, }0SE T. CAT0NuAL, }R., CAR0LYN T.
CAT0NuAL ANB ERLINBA CAT0NuAL-WESSEL vS. ANuEL S.
R0BRIu0EZ
u.R. No. 1468S9
Naich 2S, 2u11
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121

FACTS: Agapita T. Catungal owneu a paicel of lanu in Cebu. 0n 199u,
Agapita, with the consent of hei husbanu }ose, enteieu into a Contiact
to Sell with Rouiiguez. The Contiact to Sell was puipoiteuly "upgiaueu"
into a Conuitional Beeu of Sale between the same paities. Both the
Contiact to Sell anu the Conuitional Beeu of Sale weie annotateu on the
title.

In accoiuance with the Conuitional Beeu of Sale, Rouiiguez puipoiteuly
secuieu the necessaiy suiveys anu plans anu negotiateu foi the ioau
iight of way as stipulateu in the contiact.
Rouiiguez claimeu that the spouses Catungal iequesteu an auvance of
PS,uuu,uuu.uu on the puichase piice foi peisonal ieasons. Rouiiquez
allegeuly iefuseu on the giounu that the amount was substantial anu
was not uue unuei the teims of theii agieement. Shoitly aftei his
iefusal to pay the auvance, he puipoiteuly leaineu that the Catungals
weie offeiing the piopeity foi sale to thiiu paities.

Theieaftei, Rouiiguez ieceiveu letteis uemanuing that the foimei
exeicise his "option" to buy because the spouses Catungal allegeuly
ieceiveu othei offeis anu they neeueu money to pay foi peisonal
obligations anu foi investing in othei piopeitiesbusiness ventuies.
Rouiiguez iegisteieu his objections to Catungals' unwaiianteu
uemanus in view of the teims of the Conuitional Beeu of Sale which
alloweu him sufficient time to negotiate a ioau iight of way anu gianteu
him, the venuee, the exclusive iight to iescinu the contiact. Still,
Rouiiguez puipoiteuly ieceiveu a lettei stating that the contiact hau
been cancelleu anu teiminateu.

Contenuing that the Catungals' unilateial iescission of the Conuitional
Beeu of Sale was unjustifieu, aibitiaiy anu unwaiianteu, Rouiiquez
fileu Complaint foi Bamages anu Injunction with Pieliminaiy
InjunctionRestiaining 0iuei. Catungal fileu a motion to uismiss on the
giounu of impiopei venue. The tiial couit uenieu the motion to uismiss
anu iuleu that the complaint involveu a peisonal action, being meiely
foi uamages with a piayei foi injunction. The tiial couit iuleu in favoi
of Rouiiguez.

ISS0E: Whethei paiagiaph S of the Conuitional Beeu of Sale violates the
piinciple of mutuality of contiacts unuei Aiticle 1Su8 of the Civil Coue.
BELB: No. It is the basic iule in the inteipietation of contiacts that the
contiact shoulu be taken as a whole.
Paiagiaph S pioviues:
That the vENBEE has the option to iescinu the sale. In the event the
vENBEE exeicises his option to iescinu the heiein Conuitional Beeu of
Sale, the vENBEE shall notify the vENB0R by way of a wiitten notice
ielinquishing his iights ovei the piopeity.
Petitioneis insist that the Couit examine the fiist sentence of paiagiaph
S alone anu, iesist a coiielation of such sentence with othei piovisions
of the contiact. Petitioneis' view ignoies a basic iule in the
inteipietation of contiacts - that the contiact shoulu be taken as a
whole.

Aiticle 1S74 of the Civil Coue pioviues that "the vaiious stipulations of
a contiact shall be inteipieteu togethei, attiibuting to the uoubtful ones
that sense which may iesult fiom all of them taken jointly." The same
Coue fuithei sets uown the iule that "if some stipulation of any contiact
shoulu aumit of seveial meanings, it shall be unueistoou as beaiing that
impoit which is most auequate to ienuei it effectual."
Similaily, unuei the Rules of Couit it is piesciibeu that "in the
constiuction of an instiument wheie theie aie seveial piovisions oi
paiticulais, such a constiuction is, if possible, to be auopteu as will give
effect to all" anu "foi the piopei constiuction of an instiument, the
ciicumstances unuei which it was maue, incluuing the situation of the
subject theieof anu of the paities to it, may be shown, so that the juuge
may be placeu in the position of those whose language he is to
inteipiet."
Beaiing in minu the afoiementioneu inteipietative iules, the fiist
sentence of paiagiaph S must be taken in ielation with the iest of
paiagiaph S anu with the othei piovisions of the Conuitional Beeu of
Sale. Reauing paiagiaph S in its entiiety will show that Rouiiguez's
option to iescinu the contiact is not absolute as it is subject to the
iequiiement that theie shoulu be wiitten notice to the venuoi anu the
venuoi shall only ietuin Rouiiguez's uownpayment of PSuu,uuu.uu,
without inteiest, when the venuoi shall have been able to sell the
piopeity to anothei paity.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
In sum, Rouiiguez's option to iescinu the contiact is not puiely
potestative but iathei also subject to the same mixeu conuition as his
obligation to pay the balance of the puichase piice - i.e., the negotiation
of a ioau iight of way. In the event the conuition is fulfilleu (oi the
negotiation is successful), Rouiiguez must pay the balance of the
puichase piice. In the event the conuition is not fulfilleu (oi the
negotiation fails), Rouiiguez has the choice eithei (a) to not pioceeu
with the sale anu uemanu ietuin of his uownpayment oi (b)
consiueiing that the conuition was imposeu foi his benefit, to waive the
conuition anu still pay the puichase piice uespite the lack of ioau
access. This is the most just inteipietation of the paities' contiact that
gives effect to all its piovisions.

F>G ,/%H -. &-33!:&! "= +--$3/% .#!4$!: #%2!:%/2#-%/4 98#4#99#%!1J
#%&=
BANK 0F C0NNERCE vs. u00BNAN FIELBER INTERNATI0NAL
PBILIPPINES, INC.
u.R. No. 191S61
Naich 7, 2u11
FACTS: uoouman Fieluei Inteinational Philippines, Inc. is engageu in
maiketing of fats anu oil shoitening. Keiaj Naiketing Company,
iepiesenteu by ownei Sunil K. Amainani, sought a uistiibutoiship
agieement fiom iesponuent. As a pie-iequisite, a cieuit linebank
guaianty of PSuu,uuu.uu was iequiieu fiom Keiaj. Amainani thus
applieu foi a cieuit linebank guaianty with the Bacolou bianch of
Bank of Commeice.
Penuing submission of the iequiieu uocuments foi piocessing anu
appioval of the cieuit line, Amainani iequesteu the issuance of a
conuitional ceitification fiom petitionei's bianch managei Eli Aiagon.
Aiagon sent iesponuent letteis in favoi of Bacolou RK Bistiibutois anu
Co., an entity also allegeuly owneu by Amainani, attesting to the
aiiangement by Keiaj foi a cieuit line in the amount of P2,uuu,uuu.uu,
to be utilizeu foi the settlement of Keiaj's accounts with iesponuent.
Both letteis of Aiagon contain a "check wiite" on the left siue inuicating
the amount applieu foi as cieuit line. Keiaj anu Bacolou RK uiu not
puisue theii application foi a cieuit line, howevei, uespite follow-up
auvice fiom petitionei.
A yeai latei, iesponuent infoimeu petitionei its intent to claim against
the bank guaianty issueu to settle Keiaj anu Bacolou RK's unpaiu
accounts. Responuent fileu a complaint foi collection of sum of money
against Keiaj, Amainani, Bacolou RK, anu petitionei anu its managei
Aiagon. In uefense, petitionei anu Aiagon claimeu that the letteis
meiely ceitifieu that Keiaj anu Bacolou RK applieu foi the issuance of a
bank guaianty, but no actual bank guaianty was appioveu, both
companies having faileu to piesent the iequiieu uocuments foi
piocessing the application.
Pasig RTC absolveu Bacolou RK fiom liability, but faulteu Keiaj,
Amainani, Aiagon anu petitionei. Couit of Appeals opineu that
Aiagon's letteis cleaily showeu appioval by petitionei of the
application foi a cieuit line.
ISS0E: WBETBER TBE C00RT 0F APPEALS ERR0NE00SLY
INTERPRETEB TBE N0TICECERTIFICATI0N ISS0EB BY BEFENBANT
ARAu0N AS A BANK u0ARANTEE ANB N0T NERELY AS A LETTER-
CERTIFICATI0N 0F A PENBINu CREBIT LINE APPLICATI0N;
BELB: Yes, the Couit of Appeals eiioneously inteipieteu the
noticeceitification as bank guaiantee. The CA uecision is ieveiseu anu
complaint with iespect to Bank of Commeice is uismisseu.
The iesolution of the case hinges on what Aiagon's statement in the
letteis sent to iesponuent that ". we aie pleaseu to infoim you that
saiu Coipoiation has aiiangeu foi a cieuit line " conveys.
Section 1S, Rule 1Su, Rules of Couit on inteipietation of an instiument
pioviues:
SEC. 1S. Inteipietation accoiuing to ciicumstances - Foi the piopei
constiuction of an instiument, the ciicumstances unuei which it was
maue, incluuing the situation of the subject theieof anu of the paities to
it, may be shown so that the juuge may be placeu in the position of
those whose language he is to inteipiet.
Amainani's lettei-iequest foi a conuitional ceitification fiom Aiagon
was gianteu two uays latei when Aiagon issueu the lettei-ceitification
auuiesseu to iesponuent. Within that peiiou, it coulu not have been
possible foi petitionei to even piocess the application, given that
Amainani hau not even complieu with the iequiiements as he, himself,
inuicateu in his lettei-iequest to Aiagon to "please tell him the
iequiiements foi the cieuit line so he coulu apply."
The Bistiibutoiship Agieement between iesponuent anu Keiaj was
foigeu on 0ctobei 2, 2uuu oi S9 uays aftei the issuance of the lettei-
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
ceitification, long enough foi iesponuent to veiify if inueeu a bank
guaianty was, to its impiession, gianteu.
By iesponuent's finance managei Leonoia Aimi Salvauoi's testimony,
upon ieceipt of the two lettei-ceitifications, she concluueu that they
weie bank guaiantees consiueiing theii similaiity with othei bank
guaiantees in favoi of iesponuent by othei uistiibutois; anu she maue
inquiiies with petitionei only aftei Keiaj uefaulteu in the payment of its
obligation to iesponuent.
In light of the foiegoing ciicumstances, the Bank coulu not have
conveyeu that it was issuing a bank guaianty in favoi of Amainani.
Responuent's ieliance on Aiagon's use of a "check wiitei," a machine
useu to input a numeiical oi wiitten value impiession in the "payment
amount fielu" of a check that is veiy uifficult to altei, on the left siue of
each lettei- ceitification, was misplaceu, what pievails being the
woiuings of the lettei-ceitifications.

B*/4#.#&/2#-% -. 7#2%!11
F;G 9!-94! "= +/,/7/ 5 ,/%++/5
PE0PLE vs. }0EL uABAWA y BANuuAY
u.R. No. 1S98SS
Febiuaiy 28, 2uuS
A0STRIA-NARTINEZ, }.:
Facts: Eusebia Paloa, SS yeais olu, assisteu by hei mothei Concoiuia F.
Paloa, accuseu }oel uabawa y Banggay of iape. The piosecution
piesenteu its witnesses namely: Teiesita C. Alaiba, Bi. Shaion Faith B.
Pagunsan, Bi. Naiiano Bembia, piivate complainant Eusebia Paloa anu
SP02 Na. Nae Palabiica.
Teiesita C. Alaiba of Baiangay Paga, San Eniique, Iloilo testifieu that
she saw Eusebia in hei kitchen which is sepaiateu fiom hei house, lying
in a fetal position anu "bloouy in hei female oigan"; Eusebia's
unueiweai anu shoit pants weie bloouy; she knew Eusebia even befoie
the inciuent on }uly 1u, 1996 because Eusebia useu to ioam aiounu;
Eusebia was not in a piopei state of minu, anu she talkeu nonsense.
Bi. Shaion Faith B. Pagunsan, the Ruial Bealth Physician of San
Eniique, testifieu that she examineu Eusebia's genitalia anu saw fiesh
bloou coming fiom it. It is consistent with the injuiies having been
inflicteu within the fiist 24 houis anu it is possible that the injuiy was
causeu by sexual inteicouise with a man.
Bi. Naiiano Bembia, a psychiatiist of the Westein visayas Neuical
Centei, testifieu that the psychiatiy examination ievealeu that Eusebia
was suffeiing fiom chionic schizophienia on }uly 1u, 1996, the uate of
the allegeu iape inciuent. Eusebia may be cuieu if tieateu anu, in fact
aftei unueigoing tieatment, Eusebia iecoveieu fiom chionic
schizophienia sometime in Becembei, 1996. Patients with chionic
schizophienia have goou memoiies anu coulu iemembei what
happeneu to them aftei they weie cuieu. The patient, if cuieu, woulu
be able to iemembei if the allegation that she was iapeu is meie
hallucination oi tiue.
Eusebia testifieu that uespite hei iesistance, accuseu took off hei pants
anu unueiweai anu was able to iape hei because he applieu foice on
hei. She tiieu to iesist but the accuseu was stiongei than hei. Accuseu
iapeu hei by inseiting his penis into hei vagina. She felt pain when the
penis of the accuseu was insiue hei vagina. She uiu not shout because
she was afiaiu that the accuseu might box hei. Accuseu hau sexual
inteicouise with hei foi about S minutes, aftei which, he left hei
without a woiu. Bespite feeling pain, she uiu not ciy because the iape
hau alieauy been uone. She put on hei panty anu pants anu pioceeueu
to the kitchen of Teiesita locateu in the annex of the house anu slept
theie until she was uiscoveieu by Teiesita the following moining. She
infoimeu hei mothei, Concoiuia F. Paloa, about what happeneu to hei
anu she was biought to Bi. Shaion Faith B. Pagunsan at about 4:uu
o'clock in the afteinoon of }uly 11, 1996 foi examination.
The Tiial Couit finus }oel uabawa y Banggay guilty beyonu ieasonable
uoubt of the ciime of Rape. Appellant assails the finuing of the tiial
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
couit that the piosecution has piesenteu enough eviuence as the
complainant was suffeiing fiom chionic schizophienia. Eusebia woulu
have no capacity to iemembei latei on what happeneu seveial months
back if she was then afflicteu with chionic schizophienia. Not only
coulu she not state in uetail how she was iapeu but, woise, she faileu to
uemonstiate that she put up any iesistance to the allegeu sexual assault
committeu against hei.
ISS0E: WBETBER TBE TRIAL C00RT uRAvELY ERREB IN
C0NvICTINu ACC0SEB-APPELLANT 0F TBE CRINE 0F RAPE BESPITE
TBE INS0FFICIENCY 0F TBE PR0SEC0TI0N'S EvIBENCE
BELB: No. That Eusebia suffeieu fiom schizophienia uiu not ienuei hei
incompetent to testify on the iape inciuent. Nental ueficiency affects
the weight accoiueu to the testimony, not its aumissibility.
Accoiuingly, an aujuuication of feebleminueuness oi unsoununess of
minu uoes not ienuei a witness incompetent, as long as hei mental
conuition oi mental matuiity is not impaiieu at the time of hei
piouuction foi the examination.
Schizophienic peisons uo not suffei fiom a clouuing of consciousness
anu gioss ueficits of memoiy. Though she may not have totally lost hei
memoiy, it was shown that Eusebia was suffeiing fiom an impaiiment
of juugment, which maue hei incapable of giving an intelligent consent
to the sexual act. It has been helu that wheie the iape victim is feeble-
minueu, even if theie may have been no physical foice employeu on the
victim, the foice iequiieu by the statute is the sexual act itself.
Theie is nothing on iecoiu that woulu cast uoubt on the knowleuge anu
integiity of Bi. Bembia as an expeit witness. The qualifications anu
expeitise of Bi. Bembia weie aumitteu by the uefense.
The meticulous ieview of the testimony of piivate complainant Eusebia
ieveals that saiu testimony is plain, stiaightfoiwaiu, to the point anu
unflaweu by any mateiial oi significant inconsistency, thus ueseiving of
full faith anu cieuit. Bei testimony inuicates that she coulu unueistanu
questions paiticulaily ielating to the inciuent anu coulu give iesponsive
answeis to them.
0n the allegeu lack of iesistance on the pait of Eusebia, it is cleai fiom
the above-quoteu testimony that Eusebia categoiically stateu that she
tiieu to iesist appellant's assault but, uue to his physical stiength, hei
effoits to waiu of his attack pioveu futile; anu that appellant inseiteu
his penis in hei vagina anu exeiteu foice insiue foi about five minutes.
Tenacious iesistance against iape is not iequiieu; neithei is a
ueteimineu oi a peisistent physical stiuggle on the pait of the victim
necessaiy. In fact, the law uoes not even impose the buiuen of pioving
iesistance on the pait of the iape victim.
F<G 2/% "= :-$#4 !%2!:9:#1!1
.KLMNO
In Rouil Enteipiises' Complaint foi 0nlawful Betainei fileu against
Luciano Tan, the foimei allegeu that Luciano Tan bounu himself to pay
unuei a Contiact of Sublease, the amount of P1S,7Su.uu as monthly
ientals, iepiesenting the ieasonable use anu occupancy of the saiu
piemises. Bowevei, Luciano Tan unjustifiably anu unieasonably
iefuseu to pay the ientals fiom Septembei 1997 up to the time of the
filing of the Complaint, anu uespite iepeateu oial anu wiitten uemanus,
iefuseu to vacate the piemises anu to pay the ients uue. Rouil
Enteipiises piayeu that Luciano Tan anu those claiming iights unuei
him be oiueieu to vacate the leaseu piemises. A payment of ientals in
aiieais, was similaily sought. Luciano Tan insists that he is a legitimate
tenant of the goveinment who owns the Iues 0'Racca Builuing anu not
of Rouil Enteipiises. As such, he has the iight to lease the saiu piemises
penuing the uisposition anu sale of the builuing. Be baseu his claim on
the fact that on 8 Febiuaiy 1994, the 0ffice of the Piesiuent in 0P Case
No. 4968, hau ueclaieu the Renewal of Contiact of Lease uateu 18 Nay
1992 anu the Supplemental Contiact uateu 2S Nay 1992 between Rouil
Enteipiises anu the Republic to be without foice anu effect.
Accoiuingly, the BENR was uiiecteu to awaiu the lease contiact in
favoi of the Iues 0'Racca Builuing Tenants Association, Inc. of which
Luciano Tan is a membei.
the NeTC ienueieu a Becision in favoi of Rouil Enteipiises. The couit
saiu that Luciano Tan uiu not contest the sublease on a monthly basis,
anu in fact aumitteu in juuicio, viz:
1.) That |Luciano Tanj will pay P44u,uuu.uu
iepiesenting ientals fiom Septembei 1997 up to the piesent,
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
which is the outstanuing obligation of the uefenuant as of }une,
2uuu, on oi befoie }une Su, 2uuu; anu
2) ||Luciano Tanj will pay the monthly ientals computeu
at P1S,7Su.uu, on oi befoie the S
th
uay of each month aftei }une
Su, 2uuu.
Accoiuing to the NeTC, notwithstanuing the eviuentiaiy noim in civil
cases that an offei of compiomise is not an aumission of any liability,
anu is not aumissible in eviuence against the offeioi, the couit cannot
oveilook the fiank iepiesentations by Luciano Tan's counsel of the
foimei's liability in the foim of ientals, coupleu with a pioposal to
liquiuate. The foiegoing gestuies, as appieciateu by the NeTC, weie
akin to an aumission of a fact, like the existence of a uebt which can
seive as pioof of the loan, anu was thus, aumissible. The couit
pionounceu that Luciano Tan hau explicitly acknowleugeu his liability
foi the peiiouic consiueiation foi the use of the subleaseu piopeity.
Estoppel, thus, piecluues him fiom uisavowing the fact of lease implieu
fiom the tenuei of payment foi the ientals in aiieais. The RTC ieveiseu
the iuling of NeTC anu helu in favoi Tan. The appellate couit, howevei,
ieinstateu the iuling of the couit a quo.
Petitionei assails the factual finuings of the Couit of Appeals when it
iuleu that theie was a juuicial aumission as to petitionei's liability
unuei a contiact of sublease between him anu Rouil Enteipiises.
Petitionei posits that the afoiesaiu aumission, maue in open couit, anu
then, ieiteiateu in his Notion to Allow Befenuant to Beposit Rentals,
cannot be taken as an aumission of his liability, citing Section 27, Rule
1Su of the Rules of Couit, which states, 421-. />4/, that an offei of
compiomise in a civil case is not a tacit aumission of liability.
#NN`PO
Whethei the offei to compiomise by Tan can be taken as a juuicial
aumission
8PQRO
Yes. Petition uenieu.
:KMSTO
The geneial iule is an offei of compiomise in a civil case is not an
aumission of liability. It is not aumissible in eviuence against the
offeioi.
The iule, howevei, is not iion-clau. This much was eluciuateu by this
Couit in %./27WQ/@404@ "28A71.4/> $A??>4-7O "2@E FE B3A.1 30 M??-/>7, to wit:
To ueteimine the aumissibility oi non-aumissibility of an offei
to compiomise, the ciicumstances of the case anu the intent of
the paity making the offei shoulu be consiueieu. Thus, if a
paity uenies the existence of a uebt but offeis to pay the same
foi the puipose of buying peace anu avoiuing litigation, the
offei of settlement is inaumissible. If in the couise theieof, the
paity making the offei aumits the existence of an inuebteuness
combineu with a pioposal to settle the claim amicably, then,
the aumission is aumissible to piove such inuebteuness
(Noian, Comments on the Rules of Couit, vol. S, p. 2SS |198u
eu.j); Fiancisco, Rules of Couit, vol. vII, p. S2S |197S eu.j citing
NcNiel v. Bolbiook, 12 Pac. (0S) 84, 9 L. eu., 1uu9). Inueeu, an
offei of settlement is an effective aumission of a boiiowei's
loan balance (L.N. Banuiciaft Nanufactuiing Coip. v. Couit of
Appeals, 186 SCRA 64u |199uj. x x x.
Similaily, in the case of '/./8-.3 8- C/24>/ FE "27A>/. :A9=-. B3. the
Couit applieu the exception to the geneial iule. In '/./8-.3 theie was
neithei an expiesseu noi implieu uenial of liability, but uuiing the
couise of the aboitive negotiations theiein, the uefenuant expiesseu a
willingness to pay the plaintiff. Finuing that theie was no uenial of
liability, anu consiueiing that the only question uiscusseu was the
amount to be paiu, the Couit uiu not apply the iule of exclusion of
compiomise negotiations.
In the case at bai, the NeTC anu the Couit of Appeals piopeily
appieciateu petitionei's aumission as an exception to the geneial iule
of inaumissibility. The NeTC founu that petitionei uiu not contest the
existence of the sublease, anu his counsel maue fiank iepiesentations
anent the foimei's liability in the foim of ientals. This expiesseu
aumission was coupleu with a pioposal to liquiuate. The Notion to
Allow Befenuant to Beposit Rentals was ueemeu by the NeTC as an
explicit acknowleugment of petitionei's liability on the subleaseu
piemises. The Couit of Appeals agieeu with the NeTC. Inueeu, the
existence of the Contiact of Lease, uateu 18 0ctobei 1999 was not
uenieu by petitionei. The contiacts that weie assaileu by petitionei aie
the contiacts uateu 18 anu 2S Nay 1992, the valiuity of which has been
uphelu by this Couit in the consoliuateu cases of u.R. No. 1296u9 anu
u.R. No. 1SSSS7.
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
F6G 9/- "= 2#%+
HE#E *3E IKLXYJ $-?1-9=-. NYO NPPJ
Q(%"%")*(#+ ZD3 M, Q/3O Z-2.< %-25O M22/ %-25
#($Q)*G(*%$+ :/A.-2@- %425O M21,32< %425O (89A28 %425

B0CTRINE(S): *32- .->/1-8 13 RA/>404@/1432 30 [412-77-7
Any eviuence, whethei oial oi uocumentaiy, is heaisay if its
eviuentiaiy weight is not baseu on the peisonal knowleuge of the
witness but on the knowleuge of some othei peison not on the witness
stanu.
FACTS:
Involveu in this case is a piopeity in Nalate, Nanila. In 1961, the
subject piopeity was bought by Aisenio fiom spouses Nayo anu
Nasangkay. A TCT was latei issueu in his name.
The colonial-style house stanuing on the lot was occupieu by Teng
Ching Lay, togethei with his seconu wife (Bko Ah Pao) anu theii
chiluien (Beniy anu Anna). Aisenio, Teng Ching Lay's son fiom a fiist
maiiiage, also stayeu in the same house.
When Aisenio maiiieu ueimana, they moveu to a new house built on
the same lot. The couple hau S sons: Lauience, Anthony, anu Eumunu.
Latei, Aisenio's family anu Teng Ching Lay moveu to Butuan City while
Bko Ah Pao anu the chiluien iemaineu in the piopeity. They woulu all
stay in the piopeity whenevei they came to Nanila.
Aisenio uieu in 1972. In the intestate pioceeuings foi the settlement of
Aisenio's estate befoie the CFI of Agusan uel Noite anu Butuan City, the
couit issueu an 0iuei appioving the pioject of paitition which
incluueu, among otheis, the piopeity in question which was
aujuuicateu in favoi of the sons. A new TCT in the name of the sons was
issueu in 1979.
In 1989, Teng Ching Lay uieu. An estate tax ietuin signeu by Anna was
fileu foi the estate of Teng Ching Lay. Appeaiing on the uoisal siue of
the estate tax ietuin was a list of piopeities belonging to Teng Ching
Lay, which only listeu those locateu in Cavite anu Butuan City.
In 1991, the iesponuents sent a uemanu lettei to petitioneis to vacate
the subject piopeity. When the lattei iefuseu, iesponuents instituteu
an ejectment case against them in the NeTC of Nanila.
In 1992, the petitioneis fileu a complaint foi the cancellation of title anu
paitition against iesponuents befoie the RTC of Nanila. Petitioneis,
who have been iesiuing in the piopeity since 1961, uemanueu the
ieconveyance of its title in theii favoi on the giounu that Aisenio
meiely helu the piopeity in tiust foi Teng Ching Lay.
Accoiuing to petitioneis, Teng Ching Lay puichaseu the piopeity fiom
the spouses Aiisteo Nayo anu Saluu Nasangkay but it was maue to
appeai in the contiact of sale that Aisenio was the venuee because of
the constitutional piohibition against aliens owning lanu in the
Philippines \*31-+ M1 1,- 149- 30 1,- 7/>- 13 M.7-243O %-25 B,425 :/< 6/7
/ B,42-7- @414T-2O ,- 32>< =-@/9- / 2/1A./>4T-8 !4>4?423 @414T-2 <-/.7
>/1-.].
RTC uismisseu the complaint fileu by petitioneis on the giounu that
petitioneis faileu to piove that Aisenio was meiely holuing the subject
piopeity in tiust foi his fathei, Teng Ching Lay. The CA affiimeu.
Bence, the petitioneis fileu a petition foi ieview of the uecision anu
iesolution of the CA.
The petitioneis piimaiily iely on the testimony of Angel Sembiano, the
peisonal accountant of Teng Ching Lay anu the coipoiate accountant of
Tiiumph Timbei, the coipoiation contiolleu by the lattei. Sembiano
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
testifieu only as to what Aisenio hau allegeuly tolu him that is that his
fathei, Teng Ching Lay, was buying a house in Nanila , anu uiiecteu him
to piepaie a vouchei anu a check of the coipoiation payable to Teng
Ching Lay. Saiu vouchei anu check, howevei, along with the othei
iecoius of the coipoiation, weie allegeuly lost uuiing the floou that hit
Butuan City in 1981.
ISS0E(S):
Whethei Sembiano's testimony is baiieu by the ueau man's statue.
R0LINu: YES. Petition uenieu.
RATI0:
Sembiano's testimony on behalf of petitioneis is about an allegeu
ueclaiation against an inteiest of a peison who is ueau in an action that
is in effect a claim against his estate. Such a testimony if coming fiom a
paity woulu be baiieu by the suiviving paities iule, oi the ueau man's
statute, in the Rules of Couit:
Section 2S, Rule 1Su. Bisqualification by ieason of ueath oi
insanity of auveise paity. - Paities oi assignois of paities to a
case, oi peisons in whose behalf a case is piosecuteu, against
an executoi oi auministiatoi oi othei iepiesentative of a
ueceaseu peison, oi against a peison of unsounu minu, upon a
claim oi uemanu against the estate of such ueceaseu peison oi
against such peison of unsounu minu, cannot testify as to any
mattei of fact occuiiing befoie the ueath of such ueceaseu
peison oi befoie such peison became of unsounu minu.
Anu while Sembiano is not a paity, he is piactically a suiiogate of
petitioneis since he was the peisonal accountant of theii pieuecessoi-
in-inteiest anu the coipoiate accountant of the coipoiation he
contiolleu.

F>G 9!-94! "= 9/%1!%1-5
HE #E *3E IXPJLX $-?1-9=-. INO NPPN
Q:M"*%"!!WMQQ(::((+ Q-3?>- 30 1,- Q,4>4??42-7
MBB^$(GWMQQ(::M*%+ #3=-.13 Q/27-273<
B0CTRINE(S):
0bjections to the competency of a husbanu anu wife to testify in a
ciiminal piosecution against the othei may be waiveu.
The objection to the competency of the spouse must be maue
when he oi she is fiist offeieu as a witness.
FACTS:
Analie is the legitimate wife of Robeito. She testifieu that she hau been
living-in with the victim, Bilaiio, since Febiuaiy 1994. 0n Nay 8, 1994,
she anu Bilaiio weie in the house they weie ienting at Lumang Bayan,
Antipolo, Rizal. Bilaiio was lying uown insiue the house. She stoou up
when she heaiu a knocking on the uooi. As she openeu the uooi, she
saw appellant holuing a gun. She embiaceu appellant anu tiieu to
wiest the gun away fiom him but she faileu. Bilaiio went out of the
house anu sat on a bench. Appellant appioacheu Bilaiio anu askeu
him if he ieally loves his wife. Bilaiio answeieu in the affiimative.
Appellant next askeu Bilaiio if he was still single. Bilaiio answeieu
yes. Appellant counteu one to thiee anu at the count of thiee shot
Bilaiio. Bilaiio was hit on the foieheau anu spiawleu on the giounu.
The RTC accoiueu full faith anu cieuence to the testimony of Analie. It
founu the testimony of Analie cieuible anu obseiveu that she iemaineu
unpeituibeu uuiing the cioss-examination. Robeito Pansensoy was
founu guilty beyonu ieasonable uoubt of the ciime of muiuei.
Accuseu-appellant's contention: Analie's testimony is flaweu as she
insisteu that she anu appellant hau been sepaiateu foi moie than S
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
yeais but this is belieu by the fact that theii youngest uaughtei is
baiely a yeai olu. Be also points out that appellant's veision that he
uiaggeu his wife outsiue by pulling hei haii was moie believable anu
in accoiu with human behavioi iathei than Analie's veision that
appellant took time to inteiiogate the victim iegaiuing how much the
lattei loveu his wife anu othei peisonal ciicumstances befoie shooting
him.
ISS0E(S):
Whethei oi not the maiital uisqualification iule shoulu be applieu.
R0LINu:
N0. Bowevei, 1,- /55./F/1425 @4.@A971/2@- 30 -F48-21 ?.-9-841/1432
6/7 231 ?.3F-8 .-7A>1425 13 1,- 938404@/1432 30 1,- 8-@47432 0.39 9A.8-.
13 ,394@48-E
RATI0:
As the legitimate wife of appellant, Analie's testimony woulu have been
uisiegaiueu hau appellant timely objecteu to hei competency to testify
unuei the maiital uisqualification iule. 0nuei this iule, neithei the
husbanu noi the wife may testify foi oi against the othei without the
consent of the affecteu spouse, except in a civil case by one against the
othei, oi in a ciiminal case foi a ciime committeu by one against the
othei oi the lattei's uiiect uescenuants oi ascenuants. Bowevei,
objections to the competency of a husbanu anu wife to testify in a
ciiminal piosecution against the othei may be waiveu as in the case of
othei witnesses geneially. The objection to the competency of the
spouse must be maue when he oi she is fiist offeieu as a witness. In
this case, the incompetency was waiveu by appellant's failuie to make
a timely objection to the aumission of Analie's testimony.

F?G 9!-94! -. 28! 98#4#99#%!1 "= 9/4!:
HE#E *3E I_JXII SA>< KO NPIP
Q:M"*%"!!WMQQ(::((+ Q-3?>- 30 1,- Q,4>4??42-7
MBB^$(GWMQQ(::M*%+ M.1A.3 Q/>-.

B0CTRINE(S):
Nental ietaiuation, by itself, uoes not uisqualify a peison fiom
testifying. What is essential is the quality of peiception, anu the
mannei in which this peiception is maue known to the couit.
FACTS:
AAA is a mentally ietaiueu young giil, whose mental conuition is akin
to that of a five yeais olu chilu.
Aftei attenuing classes, AAA, then 14 yeais olu, heaueu foi home. While
AAA was walking along the path neai the Chinese pagoua, Palei pulleu
hei to the siue of the pagoua. Aituio then unuiesseu AAA anu he also
iemoveu his own clothes. Aituio theieaftei, pioceeueu to have sexual
inteicouise with AAA. Aftei the inciuent, she went home but uiu not tell
anyone what hau happeneu. This inciuent happeneu again seveial uays
latei.
AAA unueiwent S meuical examinations wheie it was founu, among
otheis, that AAA's exteinal genitalia hau an "incomplete fiesh
laceiation at the 9 o'clock position."
AAA also unueiwent a psychological examination wheie it was
iepoiteu that AAA's mental conuition is classifieu as seveiely
ietaiueu. The psychologist noteu that AAA's IQ is equivalent to
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
that of a five yeai-olu chilu anu she neeus to be unuei continueu
counseling to help hei uevelop the skills neeueu to enable hei to
peifoim hei uaily living as a noimal peison.
Latei, two Infoimations foi iape weie fileu against Palei. The
RTC founu Palei guilty beyonu ieasonable uoubt of 2 count of
iape. Bespite AAA's mental capacity, the CA uphelu hei
cieuibility.
Appellant's contention: AAA's weak mental state uiu not contiibute to
hei cieuibility as a witness but insteau showeu that hei statements in
couit weie iesults of a systematic tiaining anu ieheaisal. Be insists
that AAA's mothei only coacheu hei to implicate him in the ciimes.
ISS0E(S):
Whethei oi not mental ietaiuation, by itself, uisqualifies a peison fiom
testifying.
R0LINu: N0. Becision affiimeu.
RATI0:
Aiticle 266-A (1) of the Reviseu Penal Coue pioviues that iape against a
woman may be committeu. In this piovision, cainal knowleuge of a
woman who is a mental ietaiuate is iape. A mental conuition of
ietaiuation uepiives the complainant of that natuial instinct to iesist a
bestial assault on hei chastity anu womanhoou. Foi this ieason, sexual
inteicouise with one who is intellectually weak to the extent that she is
incapable of giving consent to the cainal act alieauy constitutes iape;
without iequiiing pioof that the accuseu useu foice oi intimiuation in
committing the act. In this ciicumstance, what neeus to be allegeu in
the infoimation anu pioven uuiing tiial aie the facts of appellant's
cainal knowleuge of the victim, anu the victim's mental ietaiuation.
3PVMKQ ZPMKZRKMSTVJ ^] SMNPQ[J RTPN VTM RSNc`KQS[] K _PZNTV [ZT\
MPNMS[]SVX= What is essential is the quality of peiception, anu the
mannei in which this peiception is maue known to the couit. In this
case, iecoius show that uespite the victim's mental ietaiuation, she
testifieu in a stiaightfoiwaiu anu categoiical mannei that appellant hau
iapeu hei. The uefense coulu not even shake hei iesolve to implicate
appellant in the ciime. 0n the contiaiy, hei statements uuiing cioss-
examination even suppoit hei position. Theie is thus, no ieason to
oveituin the finuing of cieuibility by the tiial anu appellate couits.
FAG 9!-94! "= &/12#44-
.HE#E *3E I_JKLL MA5A71 `O NPIP
Q:M"*%"!!WMQQ(::((+ Q-3?>- 30 1,- Q,4>4??42-7
MBB^$(GWMQQ(::M*%+ (0.-2 B/714>>3
B0CTRINE(S):
It is competent foi the oiuinaiy witness to give his opinion as to the
sanity oi mental conuition of a peison, pioviueu the witness has hau
sufficient oppoitunity to obseive the speech, mannei, habits, anu
conuuct of the peison in question. The mothei of an offenueu paity in a
iape case, though not a psychiatiist, if she know the physical anu
mental conuition of the paity, how she was boin, what she is suffeiing
fiom, anu what hei attainments aie, is competent to testify on the
mattei.
FACTS:
AAA, then 18 yeais olu, appioacheu Castillo in oiuei to collect his uebt
foi the iice cake he bought fiom hei mothei. Insteau of settling his
account, Castillo cuuuleu AAA until they ieacheu the house of a ceitain
Atok. 0nce insiue, Castillo unuiesseu AAA anu also iemoveu his own
clothes. Castillo then mounteu AAA anu successfully inseiteu his penis
into AAA's vagina. Bays latei, AAA was again iapeu by Castillo outsiue a
chapel while AAA was on hei way to visit hei aunt's house.
AAA hau a physical examination at the Bistiict Bospital wheie it was
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
founu that AAA's hymen showeu healeu laceiations at S o'clock anu 9
o'clock positions which coulu have been causeu by a blunt object oi by
violence oi by ieason of sexual inteicouise.
AAA was also subjecteu to psychological tests to ueteimine hei mental
capacity. The psychological tests auministeieu by Nyina Belos Reyes-
villanueva on AAA. The psychological tests showeu that AAA has pooi
visual motoi cooiuination anu low level mental functioning not within
hei chionological age, 4E-E, 21 yeais olu at the time of hei
examination. In view of that iesult, Nyina Belos Reyes-villanueva
concluueu that AAA is suffeiing fiom milu to moueiate mental
ietaiuation with a mental age of 8 to 12 yeais olu anu can be euucateu
up to uiaue vI level. She also noteu that AAA lackeu peisonal hygiene
anu has a vague concept of big numbeis anu time, like uays of the week.
The RTC founu Castillo guilty beyonu ieasonable uoubt of the ciime of
iape. The CA affiimeu.
Appellant's contention: The iecoius aie beieft of any eviuence that
woulu conclusively show that AAA was suffeiing fiom mental
ietaiuation because of the following:
BBB's ueclaiation that AAA is a slow thinkei uoes not
sufficiently establish AAA's mental ietaiuation.
The "expeit witness qualification" of the piosecution's
supposeu expeit witness is highly questionable because she
hau not acquiieu any uoctoiate uegiee in the fielu of
psychology oi psychiatiy. Noie so, the psychological tests
auministeieu by hei on AAA weie inauequate to establish
AAA's mental capacity.
ISS0E(S):
Whethei oi not theie was a failuie to establish AAA's mental
ietaiuation.
R0LINu:
N0. AAA's stiaightfoiwaiu testimony, as well as hei unwaveiing anu
positive iuentification of the appellant as hei uefilei anu toimentoi,
coiioboiateu by the meuical finuings conuucteu by Bi. Antillon-
Nalimas, was sufficient to convict the appellant.
RATI0:
'()*)+* +- +./)*0.1 2)3*45545
It is competent foi the oiuinaiy witness to give his opinion as to the
sanity oi mental conuition of a peison, _ZTaSRPR MWP YSMVPNN WKN WKR
N`[[SLSPVM T__TZM`VSM] MT T^NPZaP MWP N_PPLWJ \KVVPZJ WK^SMNJ KVR
LTVR`LM T[ MWP _PZNTV SV c`PNMSTV= Commonly, it is iequiieu that the
witness uetails the factois anu ieasons upon which he bases his opinion
befoie he can testify as to what it is.
The mothei of an offenueu paity in a iape case, though not a
psychiatiist, if she knows the physical anu mental conuition of the
paity, how she was boin, what she is suffeiing fiom, anu what hei
attainments aie, is competent to testify on the mattei. Thus, even
though the uuiuance Psychologist who examineu AAA may not qualify
as an expeit witness, though the psychological tests conuucteu by hei
on AAA may not be accuiate to ueteimine AAA's mental capacity, such
ciicumstance is not fatal to the piosecution's cause.
In the case at bench, BBB (AAA's mothei) testifieu that AAA has been
suffeiing fiom epilepsy since she was nine yeais olu, which is one of the
ieasons why AAA was not able to finish hei uiaue I level. AAA also hau
to stop schooling because she hau uifficulties unueistanuing hei
lessons in school, she cannot wiite well, she hau pooi memoiy anu she
hau uifficulty answeiing even the simplest question askeu of hei. BBB
fuithei stateu that AAA is the eluest of hei foui chiluien; howevei,
compaieu to hei youngei siblings, AAA hau a haiu time compiehenuing
the instiuctions given to hei at home anu in school.
In the same way, though the uuiuance Psychologist who examineu AAA
may not be qualifieu as an expeit witness, hei obseivations, howevei,
as iegaius the appeaiance, mannei, habits anu behavioi of AAA, is also
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
aumissible in eviuence as an oiuinaiy witness' testimony. Even befoie
the uuiuance Psychologist auministeieu the psychological tests on AAA,
she alieauy noticeu that AAA lackeu peisonal hygiene. While
conveising with AAA, she obseiveu that AAA has low level mental
functioning as she has uifficulty unueistanuing simple things, has a
vague concept of big numbeis anu time like uays of the week, anu has
iegiesseu behavioi that is not congiuent to hei age, i.e., 21 yeais olu at
the time of hei examination. She also stateu that she was not able to
auministei the Puiuue Non-Language Test, which is an Intelligence
Quotient Test, on AAA uue to the lattei's inability to iuentify the items
theiein.
6+7(434*84 0*/ 8.4/)9):)31 +- 74*30::1 /4-)8)4*3 .0(4 ;)83)75 05
2)3*45545
The competence anu cieuibility of mentally ueficient iape victims as
witnesses have been uphelu wheie it is shown that MWP] LKV
LT\\`VSLKMP MWPSZ TZRPKQ LK_K^Q] KVR LTVNSNMPVMQ]. Rathei than
unueimine the giavity of the complainant's accusations, it even lenus
gieatei cieuence to hei testimony, that, someone as feeble-minueu anu
guileless coulu speak so tenaciously anu explicitly on the uetails of the
iape if she has not in fact suffeieu such ciime at the hanus of the
accuseu.
In this case, the stiaightfoiwaiu naiiation of AAA of what tianspiieu,
accompanieu by hei categoiical iuentification of appellant as the
malefactoi, sealeu the case foi the piosecution.
9:#"#4!+!$ &-33*%#&/2#-%
F;G 4!! "= &/
.KLMNO
Spouses Lee anu Keh enteieu the Philippines in the 19Sus as
immigiants fiom China. They hau 11 chiluien (Lee-Keh chiluien). In
1948, Lee biought fiom China a young woman nameu Tiu supposeuly
to seive as housemaiu. The iesponuents Lee-Keh chiluien believe that
Tiu left theii householu, moveu into anothei piopeity of Lee anu hau a
ielation with him.
Aftei Keh uieu, the Lee-Keh chiluien leaineu that Tiu's 8
chiluien with Lee (Lee's othei chiluien, incluuing petitionei Emma Lee)
claimeu that they weie chiluien of Lee anu Keh. Thus, the Lee-Keh
chiluien iequesteu the NBI to investigate. The NBI iuleu in theii favoi
stating that the mothei of these chiluien is not Keh, but Tiu. Baseu on
the hospital iecoius of Lee's othei chiluien, Keh's ueclaieu age uiu not
coinciue with hei actual age when she supposeuly gave biith to such
othei chiluien.
Responuents Lee-Keh chiluien fileu a petition befoie the RTC
foi the ueletion fiom the ceitificate of live biith of petitionei Emma Lee,
one of Lee's othei chiluien, the name Keh anu ieplace the same with the
name Tiu to inuicate hei tiue mothei's name. Latei, the iesponuents
fileu with the RTC a iequest fi the issuance of a subpoena au
testificanuum to compel Tiu, Emma Lee's piesumeu mothei, to testify
in the case. Tiu moveu to quash the subpoena, claiming that it is
unieasonable anu violateu Section 2S, Rule 1Su of the Rules of Couit,
the iule on paiental piivilege, she being Emma Lee's stepmothei. The
RTC quasheu the subpoena.
0n appeal, the CA ieveiseu anu iuleu in favoi of iesponuents
stating that only a subpoena uuces tecum, not a subpoena au
testificanuum, may be quasheu foi being oppiessive oi unieasonable.
Bence, Emma Lee fileu this piesent petition.
Petitionei Emma Lee iaises two othei objections to iequiiing
Tiu to come to couit anu testify: a) consiueiing hei auvance age,
testifying in couit woulu subject hei to haish physical anu emotional
stiesses; anu b) it woulu violate hei paiental iight not to be compelleu
to testify against hei stepuaughtei.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
#NN`PO Whethei oi not Tiu may be compelleu to testify in the coiiection
of entiy case that iesponuent Lee-Keh chiluien fileu foi the coiiection
of the ceitificate of biith of petitionei Emma Lee to show that she is not
Keh's uaughtei.

:`QSVXO Yes. The Couit uenieu the petition anu affiimeu the uecision
anu iesolution of the Couit of Appeals.

$-@1432 NKO #A>- ILP 30 1,- #A>-7 30 (F48-2@-, ieaus:
<=6>%'$ ?@A B0.4*30: 0*/ -):)0: (.);):4C4AD $+ (4.5+* 701
94 8+7(4::4/ 3+ 3453)-1 0C0)*53 E)5 (0.4*35F +3E4. /).483 0584*/0*35F
8E):/.4* +. +3E4. /).483 /4584*/0*35A

The above is an auaptation fiom a similai piovision in Aiticle
S1S of the Civil Coue that applies only in ciiminal cases. But those who
ieviseu the Rules of Civil Pioceuuie chose to extenu the piohibition to
all kinus of actions, whethei civil, ciiminal, oi auministiative, fileu
against paients anu othei uiiect ascenuants oi uescenuants.
But heie Tiu, who invokes the filial piivilege, claims that she is
the stepmothei of petitionei Emma Lee. The piivilege cannot apply to
them because the iule applies only to "uiiect" ascenuants anu
uescenuants, a family tie connecteu by a common ancestiy. A
stepuaughtei has no common ancestiy by hei stepmothei.

M.14@>- `JK thus pioviues:

M.1E `JKE %,- 84.-@1 >42- 47 -41,-. 8-7@-28425 3. /7@-28425E %,-
03.9-. A241-7 1,- ,-/8 30 1,- 0/94>< 641, 1,37- 6,3 8-7@-28 0.39 ,49E
%,- >/11-. =4287 / ?-.732 641, 1,37- 0.39 6,39 ,- 8-7@-287E
Consequently, Tiu can be compelleu to testify against
petitionei Emma Lee.
Taking in minu the ultimate puipose of the Lee-Keh chiluien's
action, obviously, they woulu want Tiu to testify oi aumit that she is the
mothei of Lee's othei chiluien, incluuing petitionei Emma Lee. Keh hau
uieu anu so coulu not give testimony that Lee's othei chiluien weie not
heis. The Lee-Keh chiluien have, theiefoie, a legitimate ieason foi
seeking Tiu's testimony anu, noimally, the RTC cannot uepiive them of
theii iight to compel the attenuance of such a mateiial witness.
F<G 9!%/ "= /9/:#&#-
.KLMNO
Responuent Atty. Apaiicio was the legal counsel foi uiace
Bufana in an illegal uismissal case befoie the NLRC. Complainant
Feinanuo Pena, Piesiuent of N0F Company, ieceiveu a notice fiom the
NLRC foi a meuiationconciliation confeience. In the confeience,
iesponuent submitteu a claim foi sepaiation pay aiising fiom the
allegeu illegal uismissal of hei client. Complainant iejecteu the claim
anu issueu notices to uiace Bufana foi hei to ietuin to woik. In ieply to
this, iesponuent wiote a lettei to complainant ieiteiating his client's
claim foi sepaiation pay. The lettei also containeu thieats to
complainant with the filing of ciiminal cases foi tax evasion anu
falsification of uocuments.
Thus, complainant fileu an auministiative complaint with the
IBP. Responuent also claimeu that the complaint hau no ceitification
against foium shopping anu that Atty. }ocson, complainant's legal
counsel, playeu a pait in imputing the malicious anu uefamatoiy
chaiges against him. The IBP Boaiu of uoveinois uismisseu the
complaint against iesponuent. The IBP Boaiu of uoveinois took against
complainant his failuie to attach the ceitification against foium
shipping to his complaint. Bence, this petition by complainant Pena.

#NN`PO Whethei oi not iesponuent can invoke the piivilegeu
communication iule unuei which a piivate communication executeu in
the peifoimance of a legal uuty is not actionable.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
:`QSVXO No. Petition is gianteu. Responuent Atty. Apaiicio is founu
liable foi violation of Rule 19.u1 of Canon 19 of the Coue of Piofessional
Responsibility anu is meteu out with the penalty of iepiimanu.

Complainant's subsequent compliance with the iequiiement
cuieu the supposeu uefect in the oiiginal complaint.
Rule 19.u1 commanus that a "lawyei shall employ only faii anu
honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client anu shall not
piesent, paiticipate in piesenting oi thieaten to piesent unfounueu
ciiminal chaiges to obtain an impiopei auvantage in any case oi
pioceeuing." 0nuei this Rule, a lawyei shoulu not file oi thieaten to file
any unfounueu oi baseless ciiminal case oi cases against the
auveisaiies of his client uesigneu to secuie a leveiage to compel the
auveisaiies to yielu oi withuiaw theii own cases against the lawyei's
client.
Thiough his lettei, he thieateneu complainant that shoulu the
lattei fail to pay the amounts they piopose as settlement, he woulu file
anu claim biggei amounts incluuing moial uamages, as well as multiple
chaiges such as tax evasion, falsification of uocuments, anu cancellation
of business license to opeiate uue to violations of laws. The thieats aie
not only unethical foi violating Canon 19, but they also amount to
blackmail.
Inueeu, the wiiting of uemanu letteis is a stanuaiu piactice anu
tiauition in this juiisuiction. It is usually uone by a lawyei puisuant to
the piincipal-agent ielationship that he has with his client, the
piincipal. Thus, in the peifoimance of his iole as agent, the lawyei may
be taskeu to enfoice his client's claim anu to take all the steps necessaiy
to collect it, such as wiiting a lettei of uemanu iequiiing payment
within a specifieu peiiou. Bowevei, the lettei in this case contains moie
than just a simple uemanu to pay. It even contains a thieat to file
ietaliatoiy chaiges against complainant which have nothing to uo with
his client's claim foi sepaiation pay. The lettei was obviously uesigneu
to secuie leveiage to compel complainant to yielu to theii claims.
Inueeu, letteis of this natuie aie uefinitely piosciibeu by the Coue of
Piofessional Responsibility.
Responuent cannot claim the sanctuaiy pioviueu by the
piivilegeu communication iule unuei which a piivate communication
executeu in the peifoimance of a legal uuty is not actionable. The
piivilegeu natuie of the lettei was iemoveu when iesponuent useu it to
blackmail complainant anu extoit fiom the lattei compliance with the
uemanus of his client.
F6G 9!%2/+-% 12!!4 &-:9= "= &/
.KLMNO
Petitionei, a coipoiation engageu in the manufactuie of u.I
wiie anu nails, employeu iesponuent Peifecto Balogo. Petitionei
allegeu that iesponuent absenteu himself fiom woik on August 7, 2uu2
without giving piioi notice of his absence. As a iesult, petitionei sent
him a lettei by iegisteieu mail, iequiiing an explanation foi his
absence. Petitionei sent anothei lettei, by iegisteieu mail, infoiming
him that he hau been absent without official leave (AW0L) fiom August
7 to 21, 2uu2. 0thei letteis weie sent to iesponuent but iesponuent
faileu to iesponu.
Latei, iesponuent fileu a complaint with the NLRC foi
unueipayment of salaiies anu wages, oveitime pay, holiuay pay etc. Be
allegeu that he hau contiacteu flu associateu with uiaiihea anu this
pieventeu him fiom iepoiting foi woik. When he finally iepoiteu foi
woik, he allegeu that petitionei iefuseu to take him uespite the
meuicial ceitificate anu note fiom his uoctoi inuicating that he was fit
to woik.
Buiing the conciliation pioceeuings, iesponuent piesenteu the
meuical ceitificate coveiing his peiiou of absence. Bowevei, petitionei
iequiieu him to submit himself to the company physician to ueteimine
whethei he was fit to ietuin to woik. Latei, uuiing the conciliation
pioceeuings, iesponuent piesenteu a meuical ceitificate issueu by the
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
company physician. Accoiuing to petitionei, iesponuent iefuseu to
ietuin to woik.
The Laboi Aibitei uismisseu the illegal uismissal chaige but
uiiecteu petitionei to pay SIL anu 1S
th
month pay. 0n appeal, the NLRC
ieveiseu anu uiiecteu the petitionei to pay sepaiation pay, backwages,
1S
th
month pay anu SIL. The CA affiimeu the NLRC's iuling. The CA helu
that iesponuent was constiuctively uismisseu when petitionei iefuseu
to accept the iesponuent back to woik uespite the valiu meuical ieason.
It also iuleu that theie was no abanuonment since petitionei faileu to
piove a cleai anu uelibeiate intent on the iesponuent's pait to
uiscontinue woiking with no intention of ietuining. Bence, this
petition.
Petitionei contenus that the CA cannot use the paities' actions
anuoi agieements uuiing the negotiation foi a compiomise agieement
as basis foi the conclusion that the iesponuent was illegally uismisseu
because an offei of compiomise is not aumissible in eviuence unuei
Section 27, Rule 1Su of the Rules of Couit.

#NN`PO Whethei oi not the statements anuoi agieements maue at
conciliation pioceeuings aie piivilegeu anu cannot be useu as eviuence.

:`QSVXO Yes. Bowevei, the coiiect ieason foi the CA's eiioi in
consiueiing the actions anu agieements uuiing the conciliation
pioceeuings befoie the laboi aibitei is Aiticle 2SS of the Laboi Coue,
anu not Section 27, Rule 1Su of the Rules of Couit.

/ZMSLQP <66 T[ MWP 4K^TZ &TRP states that ab4c203.9/1432 /28
71/1-9-217 9/8- /1 @32@4>4/1432 ?.3@--84257 7,/>> =- 1.-/1-8 /7
?.4F4>-5-8 @399A24@/1432 /28 7,/>> 231 =- A7-8 /7 -F48-2@- 42 1,-
B399477432E B32@4>4/13.7 /28 7494>/. 3004@4/>7 7,/>> 231 1-7140< 42 /2<
@3A.1 3. =38< .-5/.8425 /2< 9/11-.7 1/D-2 A? /1 @32@4>4/1432 ?.3@--84257
@328A@1-8 =< 1,-9Ed
In the piesent case, we finu that the CA uiu inueeu consiuei the
statements the paities maue uuiing conciliation; thus, the CA eiieu by
consiueiing excluueu mateiials in aiiiving at its conclusion. The ieasons
behinu the exclusion aie two-folu.

!4.71, since the law favois the settlement of contioveisies out of
couit, a peison is entitleu to "buy his oi hei peace" without uangei of
being piejuuiceu in case his oi hei effoits fail; hence, any communication
maue towaiu that enu will be iegaiueu as piivilegeu. Inueeu, if eveiy
offei to buy peace coulu be useu as eviuence against a peison who
piesents it, many settlements woulu be pieventeu anu unnecessaiy
litigation woulu iesult, since no piuuent peison woulu uaie offei oi
enteitain a compiomise if his oi hei compiomise position coulu be
exploiteu as a confession of weakness.
$-@328, offeis foi compiomise aie iiielevant because they aie
not intenueu as aumissions by the paities making them. A tiue offei of
compiomise uoes not, in legal contemplation, involve an aumission on
the pait of a uefenuant that he oi she is legally liable, oi on the pait of a
plaintiff, that his oi hei claim is giounuless oi even uoubtful, since it is
maue with a view to avoiu contioveisy anu save the expense of
litigation. It is the uistinguishing maik of an offei of compiomise that it
is maue tentatively, hypothetically, anu in contemplation of mutual
concessions.
While we agiee with the petitionei that the CA shoulu not have
consiueieu the agieements anuoi statements maue by the paities
uuiing the conciliation pioceeuings, the CA's conclusion on illegal
uismissal, howevei, was not giounueu solely on the paities' statements
uuiing conciliation, but was amply suppoiteu by othei eviuence on
iecoiu. Baseu on these othei pieces of eviuence, the iesponuent was
illegally uismisseu; hence, oui iuling iegaiuing the statement maue
uuiing conciliation has no effect at all on oui final conclusion.
F>G ,4*! &:-11 "= -4#"/:!1
.KLMNO
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Responuent Neomi 0livaies applieu foi a health caie piogiam
with petitionei Blue Cioss Bealth Caie, a health maintenance fiim. Foi
the peiiou of 0ctobei 16, 2uu2 to 0ctobei 1S, 2uuS, she paiu the
amounts iequiieu anu she also availeu of the auuitional seivice of
limitless consultations anu paiu the auuitional amount. The application
was appioveu on 0ctobei 22, 2uu2. In the agieement, ailments uue to
"pie-existing conuitions" weie excluueu fiom the coveiage.
0n Novembei Su, 2uu2, iesponuent suffeieu a stioke. She
incuiieu hospital expenses amounting to PS4, 217.2u. She iequesteu
fiom the iepiesentative of petitionei a lettei of authoiization in oiuei
to settle hei meuical bills. But petitionei iefuseu to issue the lettei anu
suspenueu payment penuing submission of a ceitification fiom hei
attenuing physician that the stioke she suffeieu was not causeu by a
pie-exisitng conuition. When petitionei still iefuseu, she anu hei
husbanu weie constiaineu to settle the bill. They theieaftei fileu a
complaint foi collection of sum of money against petitionei in the
NeTC. Petitionei aigueu that it hau not yet uenieu iesponuent's claim
since it was still awaiting Bi. Saniel, the iesponuent's physician, foi hei
iepoit.
Bi. Saniel wiote a lettei to petitionei stating that iesponuent is
invoking patient-physician confiuentiality anu that he shoulu not
ielease any meuical infoimation conceining hei neuiologic status to
anyone without hei appioval.
The NeTC uismisseu the complaint foi lack of cause of action. It
helu that the best peison to ueteimine whethei oi not the stioke she
suffeieu was not causeu by a pie-existing conuition is Bi. Saniel who
tieateu hei. 0n appeal, the RTC ieveiseu. The CA affiimeu the RTC.
Bence, this petition.
Petitionei aigues that iesponuent pieventeu Bi. Saniel fiom
submitting his iepoit. Bence, It contenus that the piesumption that
eviuence willfully suppiesseu woulu be auveise if piouuceu shoulu
apply in its favoi. Responuents countei that the buiuen was on
petitionei to piove that iesponuent's stioke was excluueu fiom the
coveiage of theii agieement because it was uue to a pie-existing
conuition. It faileu to piove this.

#NN`PO Whethei oi not by the suppiession of the meuical iepoit because
of the uoctoi-patient piivilege, theie is a uisputable piesumption that
iesponuent's stioke was uue to a pie-existing conuition.

:`QSVXO No. Petition is uenieu.

Petitionei nevei piesenteu any eviuence to piove that iesponuent
Neomi's stioke was uue to a pie-existing conuition. It meiely
speculateu that Bi. Saniel's iepoit woulu be auveise to Neomi, baseu on
hei invocation of the uoctoi-patient piivilege.
1PLMSTV 6 FPGJ :`QP ;6; T[ MWP :`QPN T[ &T`ZM NMKMPNO
$-@E LE G47?A1/=>- ?.-7A9?14327E e %,- 03>>36425 ?.-7A9?14327
/.- 7/1470/@13.< 40 A2@321./84@1-8O =A1 9/< =- @321./84@1-8 /28
3F-.@39- =< 31,-. -F48-2@-+
\-] %,/1 -F48-2@- 64>>0A>>< 7A??.-77-8 63A>8 =- /8F-.7- 40
?.38A@-8E

This piesumption uoes not apply if (a) the eviuence is at the
uisposal of both paities; (b) the suppiession was not willful; (c) it is
meiely coiioboiative oi cumulative anu (u) the N`__ZPNNSTV SN KV
PdPZLSNP T[ K _ZSaSQPXP. Beie, iesponuents' iefusal to piesent oi allow
the piesentation of Bi. Saniel's iepoit was justifieu. It was piivilegeu
communication between physician anu patient.
Since petitionei hau the buiuen of pioving exception to
liability, it shoulu have maue its own assessment of whethei
iesponuent Neomi hau a pie-existing conuition when it faileu to obtain
the attenuing physician's iepoit. It coulu not just passively wait foi Bi.
Saniel's iepoit to bail it out. The meie ieliance on a uisputable
piesumption uoes not meet the stiict stanuaiu iequiieu unuei oui
juiispiuuence.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
F?G /#: 98#4#99#%!1 &-:9= "= 9!%%17!44J #%&=
.KLMNO
Petitionei Aii Philippines is a uomestic coipoiation engageu in
the business of aii tianspoitation seivices. Responuent Pennswell Inc.
was oiganizeu to engage in the business of manufactuiing anu selling
inuustiial chemicals, solvents anu special lubiicants. Responuent solu
to petitionei sunuiy goous in tiaue. 0nuei the contiacts, petitionei's
total outstanuing obligation amounteu to P449, 864.98 with inteiest at
14% pei annum until the amount woulu be fully paiu. Since petitionei
faileu to comply, iesponuent fileu a complaint foi a sum of money.
Petitionei contenueu that it was uefiauueu by iesponuent foi
its pievious sale of 4 items That saiu items weie misiepiesenteu by
iesponuent as belonging to a new line but weie in fact, iuentical with
piouucts petitionei hau pieviously puichaseu fiom iesponuent.
Buiing the penuency of the tiial, petitionei fileu a Notion to
Compel iesponuent to give a uetaileu list of the ingieuients anu
chemical components of ceitain piouucts. Petitionei wanteu the PIPAC
to uonuuct a compaiison of iesponuent's goous. The RTC gianteu the
motion. Responuent aigueu that it cannot be compelleu to uo so
because the mattei is confiuential anu that its piouucts aie specializeu
lubiicants, anu if theii components weie ievealeu, its business
competitois may easily imitate the same types of piouucts. Thus, the
RTC ieveiseu itself anu iuleu that the chemical components aie tiaue
seciets anu piivilegeu in chaiactei.
0n appeal, CA affiimeu. Bence, this petition.
Relying on Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Couit, petitionei
aigues that the use of moues of uiscoveiy opeiates with uesiiable
flexibility unuei the uiscietionaiy contiol of the tiial couit.

#NN`PO Whethei oi not the chemical components oi ingieuients of
iesponuent's piouucts aie tiaue seciets oi inuustiial seciets that aie
not subject to compulsoiy uisclosuie.

:`QSVXO Yes. The petition is uenieu. The uecision anu iesolution of the
CA is affiimeu.
A tiaue seciet is uefineu as a plan oi piocess, tool, mechanism
oi compounu known only to its ownei anu those of his employees to
whom it is necessaiy to confiue it. A tiaue seciet may consist of any
foimula, pattein, uevice, oi compilation of infoimation that: (1) is useu
in one's business; anu (2) gives the employei an oppoitunity to obtain
an auvantage ovei competitois who uo not possess the infoimation. It
is inuubitable that tiaue seciets constitute piopiietaiy iights. The
inventoi, uiscoveiei, oi possessoi of a tiaue seciet oi similai
innovation has iights theiein which may be tieateu as piopeity, anu
oiuinaiily an injunction will be gianteu to pievent the uisclosuie of the
tiaue seciet by one who obtaineu the infoimation "in confiuence" oi
thiough a "confiuential ielationship."
In B3@3>/28O the paiameteis in the ueteimination of tiaue
seciets weie set to be such N`^NMKVMSKQ [KLM`KQ ^KNSN MWKM LKV
YSMWNMKVR e`RSLSKQ NLZ`MSV].
The chemical composition, foimulation, anu ingieuients of
iesponuent's special lubiicants aie tiaue seciets within the
contemplation of the law. Responuent was establisheu to engage in the
business of geneial manufactuiing anu selling of, anu to ueal in,
uistiibute, sell oi otheiwise uispose of goous, waies, meichanuise,
piouucts, incluuing but not limiteu to inuustiial chemicals, solvents,
lubiicants, acius anu the like. In the cieation of its lubiicants,
iesponuent expenueu effoits, skills, ieseaich, anu iesouices. The
ingieuients constitute the veiy fabiic of iesponuent's piouuction anu
business.
Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Couit peimits paities to
inspect uocuments oi things upon a showing of goou cause befoie the
couit in which an action is penuing. Baseu on the piovision, the
piouuction oi inspection of uocuments oi things as a moue of uiscoveiy
sanctioneu by the Rules of Couit may be availeu of by any paity upon a
showing of goou cause theiefoi befoie the couit in which an action is
penuing. The couit may oiuei any paity: a) to piouuce anu peimit the
inspection anu copying oi photogiaphing of any uesignateu uocuments,
papeis, books, accounts, letteis, photogiaphs, objects oi tangible things,
which aie VTM _ZSaSQPXPR; which constitute oi contain eviuence
mateiial to any mattei involveu in the action; anu which aie in his
possession, custouy oi contiol; oi b) to peimit entiy upon uesignateu
lanu oi othei piopeity in his possession oi contiol foi the puipose of
inspecting, measuiing, suiveying, oi photogiaphing the piopeity oi any
uesignateu ielevant object oi opeiation theieon.
Rule 27 sets an unequivocal pioviso that the uocuments,
papeis, books, accounts, letteis, photogiaphs, objects oi tangible things
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
that may be piouuceu anu inspecteu shoulu VTM ^P _ZSaSQPXPR. The
uocuments must not be piivilegeu against uisclosuie. 0n the giounu of
public policy, the iules pioviuing foi piouuction anu inspection of
books anu papeis uo not authoiize the piouuction oi inspection of
piivilegeu mattei; that is, books anu papeis which, because of theii
confiuential anu piivilegeu chaiactei, coulu not be ieceiveu in eviuence.
1PLMSTV <> T[ :`QP ;6f RZKYN MWP M]_PN T[ RSNc`KQS[SLKMSTV
^] ZPKNTV T[ _ZSaSQPXPR LT\\`VSLKMSTVJ MT YSMO (a) communication
between husbanu anu wife; (b) communication between attoiney anu
client; (c) communication between physician anu patient; (u)
communication between piiest anu penitent; anu (e) public officeis anu
public inteiest. 2WPZP KZPJ WTYPaPZJ TMWPZ _ZSaSQPXPR \KMMPZN MWKM
KZP VTM \PVMSTVPR ^] :`QP ;6f= Among them aie the following: (a)
euitois may not be compelleu to uisclose the souice of publisheu news;
(b) voteis may not be compelleu to uisclose foi whom they voteu; (c)
MZKRP NPLZPMN; (u) infoimation containeu in tax census ietuins; anu (u)
bank ueposits.
Inueeu, the piivilege is not absolute; the tiial couit may compel
uisclosuie wheie it is inuispensable foi uoing justice. We uo not,
howevei, finu ieason to except iesponuent's tiaue seciets fiom the
application of the iule on piivilege. The ievelation of iesponuent's
tiaue seciets seives no bettei puipose to the uisposition of the main
case penuing with the RTC, which is on the collection of a sum of
money. As can be gleaneu fiom the facts, petitionei ieceiveu
iesponuent's goous in tiaue in the noimal couise of business. To be
suie, theie aie uefenses unuei the laws of contiacts anu sales available
to petitionei. 0n the othei hanu, the gieatei inteiest of justice ought to
favoi iesponuent as the holuei of tiaue seciets. If we weie to weigh the
conflicting inteiests between the paities, we iule in favoi of the gieatei
inteiest of iesponuent. 2ZKRP NPLZPMN NWT`QR ZPLPSaP XZPKMPZ
_ZTMPLMSTV [ZT\ RSNLTaPZ]J ^PLK`NP MWP] RPZSaP PLTVT\SL aKQ`P
[ZT\ ^PSVX XPVPZKQQ] `VgVTYV KVR VTM ZPKRSQ] KNLPZMKSVK^QP ^]
MWP _`^QSL= To the minu of this Couit, petitionei was not able to show a
compelling ieason foi us to lift the veil of confiuentiality which shielus
iesponuent's tiaue seciets.
FAG 8/$)*4/ "= 3/$4/%$/

Na. Luisa Baujula vs. Atty. Nauianua

.KLMNO

Nis. Baujula anu Atty. Nauianua weie both employeu unuei the Buieau
of Fiie Piotection (BFP).

Atty. Nauianua was pait of the BFP piomotion boaiu. In exchange foi
Nis. Baujula's piomotion, she uemanueu a cellulai phone.

Consequently, Nis. Baujula fileu a ciiminal anu uisciplinaiy case
against Atty. Nauianua. Atty. Nauianua, then, fileu a countei-claim
against Nis. Baujula foi falsification of public uocuments anu
immoiality. The saiu countei-claim was baseu on infoimation which
atty. Nauianua hau ieceiveu fiom Nis. Baujula when the lattei
pieviously appioacheu hei foi legal auvice.

This piompteu Nis. Baujula file a sepaiate complaint foi violation of
ait. 2u9 of the RPC, (betiayal of tiust by an attoiney) anu Canons No.
1S.u2 anu 21.u2 of the CPR against Atty. Nauianua.

The IBP commission iuleu in favoi of Nis. Baujula. It stateu that, "the
infoimation ielateu by complainant to the iesponuent is 'piotecteu
unuei the attoiney-client piivilege communication.'" Bence, it
iepiimanueu Atty. Nauianua.

The case was eventually elevateu to the Supieme Couit.

#NN`PO

WN the infoimation ielayeu to atty. Nauianua is piotecteu unuei the
the attoiney-client piivilege communication iule, given that atty.
Nauianua iefuseu to accept hei as a client.

:`QSVXO

Yes. The Supieme Couit iuleu in favoi of Nis. Baujula. It ieasoneu:

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
%,- 939-21 @39?>/42/21 /??.3/@,-8 1,- 1,-2 .-@-?14F- .-7?328-21 13
7--D >-5/> /8F4@-O / F-.41/=>- >/6<-.W@>4-21 .->/14327,4? -F3>F-8 =-16--2
1,- 163E VVV M9325 1,- =A.8-27 30 1,- .->/14327,4? 47 1,/1 6,4@, -2U3427
1,- >/6<-.O .-7?328-21 42 1,47 4271/2@-O 13 D--? 42F43>/1- @32048-214/>
4203.9/1432 /@fA4.-8 3. .-F-/>-8 8A.425 >-5/> @327A>1/14327E >E4 -083
3E03 +*4 )5F 03 3E4 4*/ +- 3E4 /01F *+3 )*8:)*4/ 3+ E0*/:4 3E4 8:)4*3G5
8054 )5 E0./:1 +- 8+*54HI4*84A '- :)33:4 7+74*3F 3++F )5 3E4 -083 3E03
*+ -+.70: (.+-455)+*0: 4*C0C474*3 -+::+25 3E4 8+*5I:303)+*E *3.
64>> 41 9/D- /2< 8400-.-2@- 1,/1 23 @321./@1 6,/173-F-. 6/7 -V-@A1-8 =<
1,- ?/.14-7 13 9-93.4/>4T- 1,- .->/14327,4?E M7 6- 7/48 42 ;A.=- FE
C/5A>1/ObJc W

M >/6<-.W@>4-21 .->/14327,4? 6/7 -71/=>47,-8 0.39 1,- F-.< 04.71 939-21
@39?>/42/21 /7D-8 .-7?328-21 03. >-5/> /8F47- .-5/.8425 1,- 03.9-.g7
=A742-77E %3 @327141A1- ?.30-77432/> -9?>3<9-21O 41 47 231 -77-214/> 1,/1
1,- @>4-21 -9?>3<-8 1,- /113.2-< ?.30-77432/>>< 32 /2< ?.-F43A7 3@@/7432E

"1 47 231 2-@-77/.< 1,/1 /2< .-1/42-. =- ?/48O ?.3947-8O 3. @,/.5-8h
2-41,-. 47 41 9/1-.4/> 1,/1 1,- /113.2-< @327A>1-8 848 231 /01-.6/.8
,/28>- 1,- @/7- 03. 6,4@, ,47 7-.F4@- ,/8 =--2 73A5,1E

"1 / ?-.732O 42 .-7?-@1 13 =A742-77 /00/4.7 3. 1.3A=>-7 30 /2< D428O @327A>17
/ >/6<-. 641, / F4-6 13 3=1/42425 ?.30-77432/> /8F4@- 3. /77471/2@-O /28
1,- /113.2-< F3>A21/.4>< ?-.9417 3. /@fA4-7@-7 641, 1,- @327A>1/1432O 1,-2
1,- ?.30-77432/> -9?>3<9-217 47 -71/=>47,-8E

:4D-647-O / >/6<-.W@>4-21 .->/14327,4? -V4717 231641,71/28425 1,- @>37-
?-.732/> .->/14327,4? =-16--2 1,- >/6<-. /28 1,- @39?>/42/21 3. 1,-
232W?/<9-21 30 1,- 03.9-.g7 0--7E

G-/2 [4593.- >4717 1,- -77-214/> 0/@13.7 13 -71/=>47, 1,- -V471-2@- 30 1,-
/113.2-<W@>4-21 ?.4F4>-5- @399A24@/1432O F4T+

\I] [,-.- >-5/> /8F4@- 30 /2< D428 47 73A5,1 \N] 0.39 / ?.30-77432/> >-5/>
/8F47-. 42 ,47 @/?/@41< /7 7A@,O \L] 1,- @399A24@/14327 .->/1425 13 1,/1
?A.?37-O \X] 9/8- 42 @32048-2@- \K] =< 1,- @>4-21O \J] /.- /1 ,47 4271/2@-
?-.9/2-21>< ?.31-@1-8 \Y] 0.39 847@>37A.- =< ,497->0 3. =< 1,- >-5/>
/8F473.O \_] -V@-?1 1,- ?.31-@1432 =- 6/4F-8E
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
/$3#11#-%1 /%$ &-%.!11#-%1
F;G 1/% 3#+*!4 &-:9= "= H/4/4-
;= 1KV 3SX`PQ &TZ_TZKMSTV aN= 8PQPV HKQKQT
.KLMNO
Kalalo was a uealei of beei piouucts. $,- ,/8 / @.-841 3F-.8./01
/../25-9-21 641, ?-141432-. $CB 6,-.-=<O ?.43. 13 1,- 8->4F-.< 30 =--.
?.38A@17O 7,- 63A>8 =- .-fA4.-8 13 477A- 163 @,-@D7 13 ?-141432-.+ / =>/2D
@,-@D /28 / @,-@D 13 =- 04>>-8 A? 641, /2 /93A21 @3..-7?328425 13 1,-
5.377 F/>A- 30 1,- 53387 8->4F-.-8E M1 1,- -28 30 1,- 6--DO i/>/>3 /28 /2
/5-21 30 $CB 63A>8 @39?A1- 1,- /@1A/> /93A21 8A- 13 1,- >/11-. =<
8-8A@1425 1,- F/>A- 30 1,- .-1A.2-8 -9?1< =--. =311>-7 /28 @/7-7 0.39 1,-
5.377 F/>A- 30 1,- 53387 8->4F-.-8E )2@- 1,-< 7A@@--8-8 42 8-1-.942425
1,- /@1A/> /93A21 36-8 13 $CBO 1,/1 /93A21 63A>8 =- 6.411-2 32 1,-
=>/2D @,-@DO /28 .-7?328-21 63A>8 0A28 ,-. /@@3A21 /@@3.8425><E
"2 149-O .-7?328-21g7 =A742-77 5.-6 /28 1,- 2A9=-. 30 =--. ?.38A@17
8->4F-.-8 13 ,-. =< $CB 42@.-/7-8 0.39 NPP 13 XOPPP @/7-7 / 6--DE
;-@/A7- 30 1,- 42@.-/7-8 F3>A9- 30 8->4F-.4-7O 41 =-@/9- F-.< 84004@A>1 03.
,-. 13 03>>36 /28 D--? 1./@D 30 1,- 1./27/@14327E %,A7O 7,- .-fA-71-8
.-5A>/. 71/1-9-217 30 /@@3A21 0.39 ?-141432-.O =A1 41 0/4>-8 13 @39?><E
Consequently, Kalalo oiueieu hei bank to stop payment of the checks
issueu to SNC. SNC, then, sent a uemanu lettei thieatening Kalalo with
impiisonment. In iesponse, Kalalo sent a lettei with an offei of
compiomise . In this lettei, Kalalo acknowleugeu the ieceipt of hei
upuateu statement of account anu offeieu to pay in installments.
Bowevei, SNC iefuseu hei offei. Insteau, it fileu a complaint foi
violation of BP 22 against Kalalo.
SNC asseiteu that the compiomise agieement was an
acknowleugement of liability unuei Rule 1Su, Section 27 of the Reviseu
Rules on Eviuence, which pioviues:
Sec. 27. 0ffei of compiomise not aumissible. - In civil
cases, an offei of compiomise is not an aumission of
any liability, anu is not aumissible in eviuence against
the offeioi.
#V LZS\SVKQ LKNPNJ PdLP_M MWTNP SVaTQaSVX c`KNSU
T[[PVNPN FLZS\SVKQ VPXQSXPVLPG TZ MWTNP KQQTYPR ^]
QKY MT ^P LT\_ZT\SNPRJ KV T[[PZ T[ LT\_ZT\SNP ^]
MWP KLL`NPR \K] ^P ZPLPSaPR SV PaSRPVLP KN KV
S\_QSPR KR\SNNSTV T[ X`SQM=
Bence, unuei the afoiementioneu piovision, SNC asseiteu that the
compiomise agieement was an aumission of guilt by Kalalo.
The RTC anu CA iuleu in favoi of Kalalo. The case was eventually
elevateu to the SC.
Issue:
WN the 0ffei of Compiomise may be consiueieu as eviuence against
iesponuent Kalalo.
Ruling:
No. The Supieme Couit iuleu in favoi of Kalalo. It ieasoneu:
>E4 '--4. +- 6+7(.+7)54 /034/ @ J484794. ?KKK 205 70/4 (.)+. 3+
3E4 -):)*C +- 3E4 8.)7)*0: 8+7(:0)*3 0C0)*53 E4. +* L M0.8E ?KKN -+.
0 ;)+:03)+* +- 3E4 #+I*8)*C 6E48O5 "02A >E4 '--4. +- 6+7(.+7)54
205 8:40.:1 *+3 70/4 )* 3E4 8+*34P3 +- 0 8.)7)*0: (.+844/)*C 0*/F
3E4.4-+.4F 80**+3 94 8+*5)/4.4/ 05 0* )7(:)4/ 0/7)55)+* +- CI):3A
!42/>><O 8A.425 1,- 1-714932< 30 .-7?328-21 /28 /01-. ,-. .-@-4?1 30 1,-
$1/1-9-21 30 M@@3A21 0.39 $CBO 7,- .-@/21-8 1,- @321-217 30 1,- )00-. 30
B39?.3947-E $,- -V?>/42-8 1,/1O /1 1,- 149- 7,- ,/8 1,- >-11-. ?.-?/.-8O
1,- 042/> /93A21 36-8 13 ?-141432-. $CB 6/7 <-1 A28-1-.942-8h /28 1,/1
7,- 6/7 @3271/21>< 0/@425 1,.-/17 30 49?.47329-21 0.39 ?-141432-.g7
/5-217E %,- 1.4/> @3A.17 /28 1,- BM 5/F- 6-45,1 13 ,-. UA71404@/1432O /28
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
6- 0428 23 @35-21 .-/732 13 8471A.= 1,-4. 04284257E [- .A>-O 1,-.-03.-O 1,/1
1,- )00-. 30 B39?.3947- 9/< 231 =- @32748-.-8 /7 -F48-2@- /5/4271
.-7?328-21 i/>/>3O 23. @/2 41 =- 1,- =/747 30 ,-. >4/=4>41< 13 ?-141432-. 42
1,- /93A21 30 j`NIONIKE
F<G 9!-94! -. 28! 98#4#99#%!1 "= )/%)/4/%#
<= 9PT_QP T[ MWP 9WSQS__SVPN aN= HWKRRK[] )KVeKQKVS
.KLMNO
0n Febiuaiy 2uuS, Bahaian, Tiiniuau, anu Asali paiticipateu in the
bombing of a bus at the coinei of Ayala Avenue anu EBSA. Shoitly
befoie the explosion, the spokespeison of the Abu Sayyaf uioup - Abu
Solaiman - announceu ovei iauio station BZBB that the gioup hau a
valentine's Bay "gift" foi foimei Piesiuent uloiia Nacapagal-Aiioyo.
In miu-maich, Bahaian, Tiiniuau, anu Asali gave sepaiate television
inteiviews wheiein they aumitteu to having paiticipateu in the
bombing. Asali then testifieu that the night befoie the valentine's Bay
bombing, Tiiniuau anu Bahaian got anothei two kilos of TNT fiom him.
)2 1,-4. /../4529-21 03. 1,- 9A>14?>- 9A.8-. @,/.5- \B.49E B/7- *3E PKW
XYJ]O ;/,/./2O %.4248/8O /28 M7/>4 />> -21-.-8 / ?>-/ 30 5A4>1<E )2 1,-
31,-. ,/28O A?32 /../4529-21 03. 1,- 9A>14?>- 0.A71./1-8 9A.8-. @,/.5-
\B.49E B/7- *3E PKWXYY]O /@@A7-8 M7/>4 ?>-8 5A4>1<E M@@A7-8 %.4248/8 /28
;/,/./2 ?>-8 231 5A4>1<E
Buiing the pietiial heaiing, the paities stipulateu the following:
1. 2WP KLL`NPR ,KWKZKVJ 2ZSVSRKRJ KVR /NKQS KQQ KR\SMMPR MT
LK`NSVX MWP ^T\^ Pd_QTNSTV SVNSRP MWP ::&+ ^`N YWSLW QP[M
[T`Z _PT_QP RPKR KVR \TZP TZ QPNN [TZM] _PZNTVN SVe`ZPR.
2. Both ,KWKZKV KVR 2ZSVSRKR KXZPPR MT NMS_`QKMP MWKM YSMWSV
MWP _PZSTR 3KZLW <fU<> PKLW XKaP NP_KZKMP SVMPZaSPYN MT
MWP /,1U&,% VPYN VPMYTZg KR\SMMSVX MWPSZ _KZMSLS_KMSTV
in the commission of the saiu ciimes, subject of these cases.
S. Accuseu /NKQS QSgPYSNP KR\SMMPR MWKM SV MWP \SRRQP T[
3KZLW <ff? WP XKaP K MPQPaSNSTV VPYN SVMPZaSPY SV YWSLW
WP KR\SMMPR MWKM WP N`__QSPR MWP Pd_QTNSaP RPaSLPN which
iesulteu in this explosion insiue the RRCu bus anu which
iesulteu in the filing of these chaiges.
4. Finally, accuseu Bahaian, Tiiniuau, anu Asali aumitteu that
they aie membeis of the Abu Sayyaf.
%,- 1.4/> @3A.1 /7D-8 6,-1,-. /@@A7-8 ;/,/./2 /28 %.4248/8 6-.-
/9-2/=>- 13 @,/25425 1,-4. a231 5A4>1<d ?>-/7 13 1,- @,/.5- 30 9A>14?>-
0.A71./1-8 9A.8-.O @32748-.425 1,/1 1,-< ?>-8 a5A4>1<d 13 1,- ,-/F4-.
@,/.5- 30 9A>14?>- 9A.8-.E G-0-27- @3A27-> @320-..-8 641, /@@A7-8
;/,/./2 /28 %.4248/8 /28 -V?>/42-8 13 1,-9 1,- @327-fA-2@-7 30 1,-
?>-/7E %,- 163 /@@A7-8 /@D236>-85-8 1,- 42@327471-2@4-7 /28 9/240-71-8
1,-4. .-/842-77 03. .-W/../4529-21E M01-. 1,- "203.9/1432 6/7 .-/8 13
1,-9O ;/,/./2 /28 %.4248/8 ?>-8 5A4>1< 13 1,- @,/.5- 30 9A>14?>-
0.A71./1-8 9A.8-.E (ASALI T0RNEB STATE-WITNESS)
The tiial couit accepteu theii plea of guilt.
Bowevei, Bahaian anu Tiiniuau wanteu to change theii plea of guilty to
not guilty. Bence, they claimeu that the tiial couit eiieu in accepting
theii plea of guilt uespite insufficiency of seaiching inquiiy into the
voluntaiiness anu full compiehension of the consequences of the saiu
plea.
They allegeu that the tiial couit juuge faileu to obseive the pioceuuie
manuateu unuei Section S, Rule 116 of the Rules of Couit which
pioviues:
SEC. S. Plea of guilty to capital offense; ieception of
eviuence. When the accuseu pleaus guilty to a
capital offense, the couit shall conuuct a seaiching
inquiiy into the voluntaiiness anu full compiehension
of the consequences of his plea anu shall iequiie the
piosecution to piove his guilt anu the piecise uegiee
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
of culpability. The accuseu may also piesent eviuence
in his behalf.
The CA affiimeu the uecision of the tiial couit.
#NN`PO
WN The tiial couit giavely eiieu in accepting accuseu-appellants' plea
of guilt uespite insufficiency of seaiching inquiiy into the voluntaiiness
anu full compiehension of the consequences of the saiu plea.
:`QSVXO
No. The tiial couit was coiiect in accepting the plea of guilty.
Although, a1,- .-fA4.-9-21 13 @328A@1 / 7-/.@,425 42fA4.< 7,3A>8 231 =-
8--9-8 7/14704-8 42 @/7-7 42 6,4@, 41 6/7 1,- 8-0-27- @3A27-> 6,3
-V?>/42-8 1,- @327-fA-2@-7 30 / a5A4>1<d ?>-/ 13 1,- /@@A7-8O /7 41 /??-/.7
42 1,47 @/7-E "2 Q-3?>- FE M>=3.48/O 1,47 B3A.1 03A28 1,/1 1,-.- 6/7 714>> /2
49?.3F48-21 ?>-/ 30 5A4>1<O -F-2 40 1,- /@@A7-8 ,/8 />.-/8< 7452404-8 42
3?-2 @3A.1 1,/1 ,47 @3A27-> ,/8 -V?>/42-8 1,- @327-fA-2@-7 30 1,- 5A4>1<
?>-/h 1,/1 ,- A28-.71338 1,- -V?>/2/1432 30 ,47 @3A27->h 1,/1 1,- /@@A7-8
A28-.71338 1,/1 1,- ?-2/>1< 30 8-/1, 63A>8 714>> =- 9-1-8 3A1 13 ,49h /28
1,/1 ,- ,/8 231 =--2 4214948/1-8O =.4=-8O 3. 1,.-/1-2-8Ed
$4;4.3E4:455F 24 0.4 *+3 I*7)*/-I: +- 3E4 8+*34P3 I*/4. 2E)8E 3E4
.4D0..0)C*74*3 205 8+*/I834/ +. +- 3E4 -083I0: 7):)4I 5I..+I*/)*C
3E4 -)*/)*C +- CI):3 0C0)*53 3E4 088I54/A >E4 6+I.3 +954.;45 3E03
088I54/ #0E0.0* 0*/ >.)*)/0/ (.4;)+I5:1 (:4/ CI):31 3+ 0*+3E4.
8E0.C4 Q 7I:3)(:4 7I./4. Q 9054/ +* 3E4 5074 083 .4:)4/ I(+* )* 3E4
7I:3)(:4 -.I53.034/ 7I./4. 8E0.C4A >E4 6+I.3 -I.3E4. *+345 3E03
(.)+. 3+ 3E4 8E0*C4 +- (:40 3+ +*4 +- CI):3F 088I54/ #0E0.0* 0*/
>.)*)/0/ 70/4 32+ +3E4. 8+*-455)+*5 +- CI):3 Q +*4 3E.+ICE 0*
4P3.0RI/)8)0: 8+*-455)+* !4P8:I5);4 34:4;)5)+* )*34.;)425F 05
53)(I:034/ 91 9+3E 088I54/ /I.)*C (.43.)0:&F 0*/ 3E4 +3E4. ;)0
RI/)8)0: 0/7)55)+* !(.43.)0: 53)(I:03)+*&A 6+*5)/4.)*C 3E4 -+.4C+)*C
8).8I7530*845F 24 /447 )3 I**484550.1 3+ .I:4 +* 3E4 5I--)8)4*81 +-
3E4 S540.8E)*C )*HI).1T )* 3E)5 )*530*84A U470*/)*C 3E4 8054 -+. .4D
0..0)C*74*3 )5 *+3 20..0*34/F 05 3E4 088I54/G5 (:40 +- CI):3 205 *+3
3E4 5+:4 905)5 +- 3E4 8+*/47*03+.1 RI/C74*3 I*/4. 8+*5)/4.03)+*A
F6G 8- 7/# 9/%+ "= 9!-94!
6= 8T 7KS 9KVX aN= 9PT_QP
.KLMNO
Customs Examinei uilua L. Cinco (Cinco) uiscoveieu shabu hiuuen in
small chocolate boxes within Bo Wai Pang's luggage. This piompteu
Cinco to infoim hei supeiiois Buty Collectoi Alalo anu Customs
Appiaisei Noia Sancho. She then leu the 1S Bong Kong Nationals to the
Intensive Counting 0nit (IC0).
At the IC0, 18 similai chocolate boxes weie iecoveieu fiom the
baggages of the six accuseu.
NARC0N Agent Neowillie ue Castio coiioboiateu the ielevant
testimony of Cinco peitaining to the piesence of the chocolate boxes.
Accoiuing to him, he conuucteu a test on the white ciystalline
substance containeu in saiu chocolate boxes at the NAIA using the
Nanuelline Re-Agent Test. The iesult of his examination of the white
ciystalline substance yielueu positive foi methamphetamine
hyuiochloiiue oi shabu.
The following uay, the touiists weie biought to the National Buieau of
Investigation (NBI) foi fuithei questioning. The confiscateu uiugs weie
tuineu ovei to the Foiensic Chemist who examineu them. Finuings
show that the samples weie positive foi methamphetamine
hyuiochloiiue. 0ut of the 1S touiists, the NBI founu eviuence foi
violation of R.A. No. 642S only as against Bo Wai Pang anu his five co-
accuseu.
The tiial couit convicteu Bo Wai Pang foi violation of R.A. 642S on the
basis of the testimony of witnesses anu the existence of the Shabu.
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Bowevei, uuiing the saiu investigations, Bo Wai Pang was not notifieu
of his iight to counsel. Bence, he fileu an appeal wheiein he claimeu
that all the eviuence taken uuiing the investigations shoulu have been
excluueu.
#NN`PO
WN all eviuence taken uuiing custouial investigation shoulu be given
that Bo Wai Pang was uepiiveu of his constitutional anu statutoiy
iights unuei custouial investigation.
:`QSVXO
No. 0nly extiajuuicial confession oi aumission aie to be excluueu.
"2 MfA423 FE Q/471-ObLNc 3E4 6+I.3 8034C+.)80::1 .I:4/ 3E03 S3E4
)*-.083)+*5 +- 3E4 5+D80::4/ M).0*/0 .)CE35 .4*/4. )*0/7)55)9:4 V+*:1
3E4 4P3.0RI/)8)0: 8+*-455)+* +. 0/7)55)+* 70/4 /I.)*C 8I53+/)0:
)*;453)C03)+*AG >E4 0/7)55)9):)31 +- +3E4. 4;)/4*84F (.+;)/4/ 3E41
0.4 .4:4;0*3 3+ 3E4 )55I4 0*/ W0.4X *+3 +3E4.2)54 4P8:I/4/ 91 :02 +.
.I:45F W0.4X *+3 0--4834/ 4;4* )- +930)*4/ +. 30O4* )* 3E4 8+I.54 +-
8I53+/)0: )*;453)C03)+*AT
"2 1,- @/7- /1 =-2@,O ?-141432-. 848 231 9/D- /2< @320-77432 3.
/89477432 8A.425 ,47 @A71384/> 42F-7145/1432E %,- ?.37-@A1432 848 231
?.-7-21 /2< -V1./UA84@4/> @320-77432 -V1./@1-8 0.39 ,49 /7 -F48-2@- 30 ,47
5A4>1E C3.-3F-.O 23 71/1-9-21 6/7 1/D-2 0.39 ?-141432-. 8A.425 ,47
8-1-21432 /28 7A=7-fA-21>< A7-8 42 -F48-2@- /5/4271 ,49E '-.4><O )*
/434.7)*)*C 3E4 CI):3 +- 3E4 (43)3)+*4. 0*/ E)5 8+D088I54/F 3E4 3.)0:
8+I.3 9054/ )35 J48)5)+* +* 3E4 3453)7+*)45 +- 3E4 (.+548I3)+*
2)3*45545 0*/ +* 3E4 4P)534*84 +- 3E4 8+*-)58034/ 5E09IA VVV
Q-141432-. @/2231 1/D- .-0A5- 42 1,47 B3A.1g7 .A>425 42 Q-3?>- FE
[325 B,A-2 C425bLXc 13 -V@A>?/1- ,497->0 0.39 1,- @.49- @,/.5-8E
%,3A5, 1,-.- /.- 7-9=>/2@- 42 1,- 0/@17O 1,- @/7- 30 C425 47 231 -V/@1><
32 />> 03A.7 641, 1,- ?.-7-21 @/7-E %,- 847?/.41< 47 @>-/. 0.39 1,- -F48-2@-
/88A@-8 A?32 6,4@, 1,- 1.4/> @3A.17 42 -/@, @/7- .->4-8 32 42 .-28-.425
1,-4. .-7?-@14F- 8-@474327E M??/.-21>< 42 C425O 1,- 1.4/> @3A.1O 42
@32F4@1425 1,- /@@A7-8O .->4-8 ,-/F4>< 32 1,- 7452/1A.-7 6,4@, 1,-< /004V-8
32 1,- =3V-7 30 M>?-2 B-.-/>7 /28 32 1,- ?>/714@ =/57E %,- B3A.1
@3271.A-8 1,- /@@A7-8g7 /@1 30 /004V425 1,-4. 7452/1A.-7 1,-.-32 /7 / 1/@41
/89477432 30 1,- @.49- @,/.5-8E M28O 742@- 1,- /@@A7-8 6-.- 231 4203.9-8
30 1,-4. C4./28/ .45,17 6,-2 1,-< /004V-8 1,-4. 7452/1A.-7O 1,- /89477432
6/7 8-@>/.-8 42/894774=>- -F48-2@- 03. ,/F425 =--2 3=1/42-8 42 F43>/1432
30 1,-4. @327141A1432/> .45,17E "2 .A>425 /5/4271 1,- /@@A7-8O 1,- 1.4/> @3A.1
/>73 5/F- @.-8-2@- 13 1,- 73>- 1-714932< 30 1,- @A71397 -V/942-. 6,39 41
?.-7A9-8 13 ,/F- ?-.03.9-8 ,47 8A14-7 42 .-5A>/. 9/22-.E Z36-F-.O 42
.-F-.7425 1,- UA859-21 30 @32F4@1432O 1,- B3A.1 231-8 1,/1 7/48
-V/942-.g7 1-714932< 6/7 231 @3..3=3./1-8 =< 31,-. ?.37-@A1432
6412-77-7E \9-8<3 49?3.1/21 842 13]
F>G 9!-94! "= 8#9-%/
>= 9PT_QP aN= 8S_TVK
.KLMNO
AAA

was founu ueau on the moining of }une 12, 2uuu in hei
house in Isla Copa, Consolation, Cagayan ue 0io City. She was iapeu,
physically manhanuleu anu stiangleu, which eventually leu to hei
ueath. Bei fuinituie anu belongings weie founu stiewn on the flooi.
AAA's necklace with two heait-shapeu penuants beaiing hei initials
anu hanubag weie likewise missing. 0pon investigation, the local police
uiscoveieu a hole boieu into the >/6/241 wall of the comfoit ioom
insiue AAA's house, big enough foi a peison of meuium builu to entei.
The main electiical switch behinu a "showei cuitain" locateu at the
"back ioom" was tuineu off, uiawing the police to infei that the
peipetiatoi is familiai with the layout of AAA's house.
SP01 Blauimii Agbalog of the local police thus calleu foi a
meeting of AAA's ielatives uuiing which AAA's sistei BBB, who is
appellant's mothei, ueclaieu that hei son-appellant hau tolu hei that
"Nama, I'm soiiy, I uiu it because I uiu not have the money," anu he was
thus apologizing foi AAA's ueath. BBB executeu an affiuavit affiiming
appellant's confession. The police aiiesteu appellant on }une 1S, 2uuu
oi the uay aftei the commission of the ciime. Be was at the time
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
weaiing AAA's missing necklace. When on even uate he was piesenteu
to the meuia anu his ielatives, appellant apologizeu but qualifieu his
paiticipation in the ciime, claiming that he only acteu as a look-out, anu
attiibuteu the ciime to his co-accuseu Romulo B. Seva, }i. (Seva) />4/7
"ueipacs" anu a ceitain "Reypacs."
Appellant in an inteiview which was bioaucasteu, when askeu
by a iauio iepoitei "[,< 848 <3A 83 41 13 <3A. /A21kO" answeieu
";-@/A7- 30 9< 0.4-287 /28 ?--.7El When piesseu if he was intoxicateu
oi was on uiugs when he "uiu it," appellant answeieu that he uiu it
because of his fiienus anu of poveity. Appellant enteieu a plea of not
guilty. SP01 Agbalog anu Consuelo Naiavilla, anothei ielative of
appellant, testifieu on BBB's ueclaiation given uuiing the meeting of
ielatives. Appellant iefuseu to piesent eviuence on his behalf. The tiial
couit founu appellant guilty beyonu ieasonable uoubt of "Rape with
Bomiciue (anu Robbeiy)." Seva was acquitteu. The CA affiimeu in the
uecision that appellant is guilty but mouifieu his punishment. Bence,
this petition.

#NN`PO Whethei oi not appellant is guilty beyonu ieasonable uoubt of
the offense chaigeu.

8PQRO Yes. The uecision of the CA is affiimeu.

:KMSTO
The confluence of the following establisheu facts anu
ciicumstances sustains the appellate couit's affiimance of appellant's
conviction: !4.71O appellant was fiequently visiting AAA piioi to hei
ueath, hence, his familiaiity with the layout of the house; 7-@328O
appellant aumitteu to his ielatives anu the meuia that he was piesent
uuiing commission of the ciime, albeit only as a look-out; 1,4.8,
appellant was in possession of AAA's necklace at the time he was
aiiesteu; anu 03A.1,O appellant extiajuuicially confesseu to the iauio
iepoitei that he committeu the ciime uue to his peeis anu because of
poveity.
Appellant's confessions to the meuia weie likewise piopeily
aumitteu. The confessions weie maue in iesponse to questions by news
iepoiteis, not by the police oi any othei investigating officei. We have
helu that statements spontaneously maue by a suspect to news
iepoiteis on a televiseu inteiview aie ueemeu voluntaiy anu aie
aumissible in eviuence.
Appellant aigues, howevei, that the questions poseu to him by
the iauio bioaucastei weie vague foi the lattei uiu not specify what
ciime was being iefeiieu to when he questioneu appellant. But, as the
appellate couit positeu, appellant shoulu have qualifieu his answei
uuiing the inteiview if inueeu theie was a neeu. Besiues, he hau the
oppoitunity to claiify his answei to the inteiview uuiing the tiial. But,
as stateu eailiei, he opteu not to take the witness stanu.
&-%$*&2 E &8/:/&2!: !"#$!%&!
F;G 9!-94! "= &-%&-:#-
.KLMNO
Accuseu uio Concoicio, Euwin Yungot, Rommel Nagpatoc anu
}osel Ayala weie chaigeu with 2 counts foi the muiuei of 0scai Celis
anu }einie Sumagaysay. Accuseu Yungot anu Nagpatoc weie aiiesteu
while the two accuseu iemaineu at laige. Both of them pleaueu not
guilty anu they weie tiieu sepaiately.
Buiing Yungot's tiial, piosecution witness Lagamon testifieu
that he knew both Celis anu Sumagsay whom he hau met in school. That
on the uay of the muiuei, he hau a uiinking spiee with both of them
anu othei people at the Bavao Fiesta. Aftei consuming 4 oi S botthles of
beei, they all went home. While walking, he heaiu at commotion at his
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
back. Be tuineu aiounu anu saw accuseu Yungot stab Celis two oi thiee
time at his chest while thiee of foui peisons weie holuing Celis. Be also
saw anothei peison stab Sumagaysay. Aftei the inciuent, the assailants
scampeieu away anu he biought Celis to the hospital. Be uiu not notice
wheie Sumagaysay hau gone aftei he was stabbeu.
At the heaiing foi Nagpatoc's motion foi bail, Lagamon
ieiteiateu his testimony at Yungot
S tiial. 0n cioss-examination, Lagamon pointeu to Nagpatoc as the
peison who stabbeu Celis, contiaiy to his testimony uuiing Yungot's
tiial that Yungot was the one who stabbeu Celis.
The piosecution also piesenteu }ose 0yson as a witness. Bis
testifieu that he at the Bavao Fiesta on the uay of the muiuei with
Concicio, Yungot, anu Nagpatoc. That when Celis, Sumagaysay left with
theii companions, 0yson's gioup followeu them. That Yungot stabbeu
Celis anu that he coulu not asceitain who stabbeu Sumagaysay.
Ysmael Cahiwant, the baiangay captail of Poblacion, Bavao
City, testifieu to piove the goou moial chaiactei of Nagpatoc. Be stateu
that Nagpatoc hau been active in community activities anu hau
uemonstiateu leaueiship in the youth activities foi the "IKP" chapel.
Accoiuing to Cahiwat, at the time of Nagpatoc's aiiest, the lattei was an
electeu $/255A24/25 i/=/1//2 membei. 0n the othei hanu, Leovigiluo
Bautista, a youth oiganizei associateu with the Bepaitment of Social
Welfaie anu Bevelopment (BSWB), issueu a ceitification confiiming
that Yungot was a =32/048- membei of the Q/5W/7/ Youth Novement.
The tiial couit founu both Yungot anu Nagpatoc guilty beyonu
ieasonable uoubt of muiuei. Yungot aigueu that his guilt was not
ueteimineu beyonu ieasonable uoubt by the couit. Nagpatoc aigueu
that the tiial couit uiu not appieciate the chaiactei eviuence piesenteu
by the accuseu.

#NN`PO Whethei oi not the tiial couit eiieu in not appieciating the
chaiactei eviuence piesenteu by accuseu.

8PQRO No.

:KMSTO
The inconsistencies between the testimony of Lagamon, }i. anu
}ose 0yson's testimony, paiticulaily, the mannei how Celis anu
Sumagaysay weie attackeu, anu the numbei of peisons involveu in the
stabbing inciuent, as fuithei pointeu out by Yungot, aie moie appaient
than ieal, if not altogethei immateiial anu insignificant. Conceueuly,
some inconsistencies may be noteu; they aie, howevei, not so mateiial
anu substantial as to affect the cieuibility of the saiu witnesses; thus
theie is no compelling ieason to uistuib the finuings of the tiial couit in
this iegaiu.
With iegaiu to the issue of chaiactei eviuence iaiseu by
Nagpatoc, the couit iuleu that the allegation has no meiit.
In B4+(:4 ;5A 64.4:4C)0F we iuleu that "xxx xxx. |ijt is tiue that
the goou moial chaiactei of an accuseu having iefeience to the moial
tiait involveu in the offense chaigeu may be pioven by him. But an
accuseu is not entitleu to an acquittal simply because of his pievious
goou moial chaiactei anu exemplaiy conuuct if the Couit believes he is
guilty beyonu ieasonable uoubt of the ciime chaigeu. The affiimance
oi ieveisal of his conviction must be iesolveu on the basic issue of
whethei the piosecution hau uischaigeu its uuty of pioving his guilt
beyonu peiauventuie of uoubt." Aftei ieviewing the eviuence in this
case, we aie convinceu that the piosecution has satisfactoiily oveicome
the piesumption of innocence accoiueu to eveiy accuseu anu that
accuseu-appellants, Yungot anu Nagpatoc aie guilty beyonu ieasonable
uoubt of the ciime chaigeu; thus, eviuence of goou moial chaiactei will
not pievail.
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
F<G 9!-94! -. 28! 98#4#99#%!1 "= 4!!
PE0PLE vs. N0EL LEE
Facts:
An Infoimation was fileu against Lee chaiging him with the ciime of
muiuei. Accuseu-appellant Noel Lee pleaueu not guilty to the chaige.
The piosecution establisheu the following facts: At 9:uu in the evening
Beiminia Naiquez, anu hei son, }oseph, weie in the living ioom of theii
house. Befoie she coulu wain him, }oseph tuineu his bouy towaius the
winuow, anu simultaneously, appellant fiieu his gun hitting }oseph's
heau. Beiminia biought }oseph to the NC0 Bospital wheie he latei
uieu. Beiminia fileu a complaint foi muiuei against accuseu-appellant.
Be uenies the killing of }oseph Naiquez. Be claims that, he was in his
house anu was having some uiinks with his neighboi. Accuseu-
appellant hau known the victim since chiluhoou anu }oseph hau a bau
ieputation in theii neighboihoou as a thief anu uiug auuict. As pioof of
the victim's bau ieputation, appellant piesenteu a lettei hanuwiitten by
his mothei, Beiminia, suiienueiing hei son to the Nayoi foi
iehabilitation because he was hookeu on shabu, anu was a thief. The
tiial couit founu accuseu-appellant guilty anu sentenceu him to the
penalty of ueath. The assigneu eiiois piincipally involve the issue of
the cieuibility of Beiminia Naiquez, the lone piosecution eyewitness.
Accuseu-appellant claims that the tiial couit shoulu not have accepteu
Beiminia's testimony because it is biaseu, incieuible anu inconsistent.
Accuseu-appellant makes capital of }oseph's bau ieputation in theii
community. Be alleges that the victim's uiug habit leu him to commit
othei ciimes anu he may have been shot by any of the peisons fiom
whom he hau stolen. As pioof of }oseph's bau chaiactei, appellant
piesenteu Beiminia's lettei to Nayoi Nalonzo seeking his assistance
foi }oseph's iehabilitation fiom uiugs.
Issue: Whethei oi not pioof of the bau moial chaiactei of the victim is
ielevant to ueteimine the piobability oi impiobability of his killing.
Belu: N0
Chaiactei eviuence is goveineu by Section S1, Rule 1Su of the Rules on
Eviuence
"Section S1. Chaiactei eviuence not geneially aumissible; exceptions:--
(a) In Ciiminal Cases:
(1) The accuseu may piove his goou moial chaiactei which is
peitinent to the moial tiait involveu in the offense chaigeu.
(2) 0nless in iebuttal, the piosecution may not piove his bau moial
chaiactei which is peitinent to the moial tiait involveu in the offense
chaigeu.
(S) The goou oi bau moial chaiactei of the offenueu paity may be
pioveu if it tenus to establish in any ieasonable uegiee the piobability
oi impiobability of the offense chaigeu.
The iule is that the chaiactei oi ieputation of a paity is iegaiueu as
legally iiielevant in -ueteimining a contioveisy, so that eviuence
ielating theieto is not aumissible. Theie aie exceptions to this iule
howevei anu Section S1, Rule 1Su gives the exceptions in both ciiminal
anu civil cases. In ciiminal cases, sub-paiagiaph 1 of Section S1 of Rule
1Su pioviues that the accuseu may piove his goou moial chaiactei
which is peitinent to the moial tiait involveu in the offense chaigeu.
Anu this eviuence must be "peitinent to the moial tiait involveu in the
offense chaigeu," meaning, that the chaiactei eviuence must be
ielevant anu geimane to the kinu of the act chaigeu, e.g., on a chaige of
iape, chaiactei foi chastity; on a chaige of assault, chaiactei foi
peacefulness oi violence; on a chaige foi embezzlement, chaiactei foi
honesty anu integiity. Chaiactei eviuence, whethei goou oi bau, of the
offenueu paity may be pioveu "if it tenus to establish in any ieasonable
uegiee the piobability oi impiobability of the offense chaigeu." In
homiciue cases, a peitinent chaiactei tiait of the victim is aumissible in
two situations: (1) as eviuence of the ueceaseu's aggiession; anu (2) as
eviuence of the state of minu of the accuseu.The pugnacious,
quaiielsome oi tiouble-seeking chaiactei of the ueceaseu oi his
calmness, gentleness anu peaceful natuie, as the case may be, is
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
ielevant in ueteimining whethei the ueceaseu oi the accuseu was the
aggiessoi. When the eviuence tenus to piove self-uefense, the known
violent chaiactei of the ueceaseu is also aumissible to show that it
piouuceu a ieasonable belief of imminent uangei in the minu of the
accuseu anu a justifiable conviction that a piompt uefensive action was
necessaiy. In the instant case, pioof of the bau moial chaiactei of the
victim is iiielevant to ueteimine the piobability oi impiobability of his
killing. Accuseu-appellant has not allegeu that the victim was the
aggiessoi oi that the killing was maue in self-uefense.Theie is no
connection between the ueceaseu's uiug auuiction anu thieveiy with
his violent ueath in the hanus of accuseu-appellant. In light of the
positive eyewitness testimony, the claim that because of the victim's
bau chaiactei he coulu have been killeu by any one of those fiom whom
he hau stolen, is puie anu simple speculation. Noieovei, pioof of the
victim's bau moial chaiactei is not necessaiy in cases of muiuei
committeu with tieacheiy anu piemeuitation.

F6G &1& "= ,!4/+/%
CIvIL SERvICE C0NNISSI0N, vs. ALLYS0N BELAuAN,
Facts:
The instant case stemmeu fiom two sepaiate complaints fileu
iespectively by Nagualena uapuz, founueiuiiectiess of the "Nothei
anu Chilu Leaining Centei," anu Ligaya Annawi, a school teachei
against iesponuent Bi. Allyson Belagan, Supeiintenuent of the
Bepaitment of Euucation, Cultuie anu Spoits (BECS), Nagualena
chaigeu iesponuent with sexual inuignities anu haiassment, while
Ligaya accuseu him of sexual haiassment. Nagualena's complaint
alleges that she fileu an application with the BECS 0ffice foi a peimit to
opeiate a pie-school. 0ne of the iequisites foi the issuance of the
peimit was the inspection of the school piemises by the BECS Bivision
0ffice. Since the officei assigneu to conuuct the inspection was not
piesent, iesponuent volunteeieu his seivices. Responuent anu
complainant visiteu the school. In the couise of the inspection, while
both weie uescenuing the staiis of the seconu flooi, iesponuent
suuuenly placeu his aims aiounu hei shoulueis anu kisseu hei cheek.
Feaiful that hei application might be jeopaiuizeu anu that hei husbanu
might haim iesponuent, She then wiote a lettei-complaint foi sexual
inuignities anu haiassment to foimei BECS Secietaiy Ricaiuo uloiia.
Responuent was placeu unuei suspension. 0n the pait of Ligaya
Annawi, she allegeu in hei complaint that on foui sepaiate occasions,
iesponuent toucheu hei bieasts, kisseu hei cheek, toucheu hei gioins,
embiaceu hei fiom behinu anu pulleu hei close to him, his oigan
piessing the lowei pait of hei back. The BECS conuucteu a joint
investigation of the complaints of Nagualena anu Ligaya. In his uefense,
iesponuent uenieu theii chaige of sexual haiassment. Bowevei, he
piesenteu eviuence to uispiove Ligaya's imputation of ueieliction of
uuty. BECS Secietaiy ienueieu a }oint Becision finuing iesponuent
guilty anu was oiueieu uismisseu fiom the seivice. 0pon appeal, The
CSC iuleu that iesponuent's tiansgiession against Nagualena
constitutes giave misconuuct. Responuent fileu a motion foi
ieconsiueiation, contenuing that he has nevei been chaigeu of any
offense in his S7 yeais of seivice. By contiast, Nagualena was chaigeu
with seveial offenses befoie the NTC Responuent claimeu that the
numeious cases fileu against Nagualena cast uoubt on hei chaiactei,
integiity, anu cieuibility. The CSC uenieu iesponuent's motion foi
ieconsiueiation, holuing that The chaiactei of a woman who was the
subject of a sexual assault is of minoi significance in the ueteimination
of the guilt oi innocence of the peison accuseu of having committeu the
offense. This is so because even a piostitute oi a woman of ill iepute
may become a victim of saiu offense.
Issue: Whethei oi not chaiactei eviuence piesenteu by iesponuent is
aumissible.
Belu: N0
ueneially, the chaiactei of a paity is iegaiueu as legally iiielevant in
ueteimining a contioveisy. 0ne statutoiy exception is that ielieu upon
by iesponuent, i.e., Section S1 (a) S, Rule 1Su of the Reviseu Rules on
Eviuence:
"SEC. S1. Chaiactei eviuence not geneially aumissible; exceptions. -
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
(a) In Ciiminal Cases:
(S) The goou oi bau moial chaiactei of the offenueu paity may be
pioveu if it tenus to establish in any ieasonable uegiee the piobability
oi impiobability of the offense chaigeu."
It will be ieauily obseiveu that the above piovision peitains only to
ciiminal cases, not to auministiative offenses. Anu even assuming that
this technical iule of eviuence can be applieu heie, still, we cannot
sustain iesponuent's postuie. Not eveiy goou oi bau moial chaiactei of
the offenueu paity may be pioveu unuei this piovision. 0nly those
which woulu establish the piobability oi impiobability of the offense
chaigeu. This means that the chaiactei eviuence must be limiteu to the
tiaits anu chaiacteiistics involveu in the type of offense chaigeu. Thus,
on a chaige of iape - chaiactei foi chastity, on a chaige of assault -
chaiactei foi peaceableness oi violence, anu on a chaige of
embezzlement - chaiactei foi honesty. In the piesent auministiative
case foi sexual haiassment, iesponuent uiu not offei eviuence that has
a beaiing on Nagualena's chastity. What he piesenteu aie chaiges foi
giave oial uefamation, giave thieats, unjust vexation, physical injuiies,
malicious mischief, etc. fileu against hei. Ceitainly, these pieces of
eviuence aie inaumissible unuei the above piovision because they uo
not establish the piobability oi impiobability of the offense
chaigeu.0bviously, in invoking the above piovision, what iesponuent
was tiying to establish is Nagualena's lack of cieuibility anu not the
piobability oi the impiobability of the chaige. In this iegaiu, a uiffeient
piovision applies.

8!/:1/5 !"#$!%&!
F;G ,/5/%# "= 9!-94!
LE0BEuARI0 BAYANI vs. PE0PLE 0F TBE PBILIPPINES
Facts:
Leouegaiio Bayani was chaigeu with violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Alicia
Rubia aiiiveu at the gioceiy stoie of Boloies Evangelista anu askeu the
lattei to ieuiscount a PSBank Check in the amount of PSS,uuu.uu. The
check was uiawn by Leouegaiio Bayani against his account with the
PSBank. Rubia tolu Evangelista that Bayani askeu hei to ieuiscount the
check foi him because he neeueu the money. Consiueiing that Rubia
anu Bayani weie long-time customeis Evangelista agieeu to ieuiscount
the check. Aftei Rubia enuoiseu the check, Evangelista gave hei the
amount of PSS, uuu.uu.Bowevei, when Evangelista uepositeu the check
in hei it was uishonoieu by the uiawee bank foi the ieason that, Bayani
closeu his account with the PSBank. Evangelista then infoimeu Rubia of
the uishonoi of the check anu uemanueu the ietuin of hei PSS,uuu.uu.
Rubia ieplieu that she was only iequesteu by Bayani to have the check
ieuiscounteu anu auviseu Evangelista to see him. When Evangelista
talkeu to Bayani, she was tolu that Rubia boiioweu the check fiom him.
Theieaftei, Evangelista, Rubia, Bayani anu his wife, Aniceta, hau a
confeience in the office of Atty. velasco, Evangelista's lawyei. Bayani
anu Aniceta, on one hanu, anu Rubia, on the othei, pointeu to each
othei anu uenieu liability theieon. Aniceta tolu Rubia that she shoulu
be the one to pay since the PSS,uuu.uu was with hei, but the lattei
insisteu that the saiu amount was in payment of the pieces of jeweliy
Aniceta puichaseu fiom hei. Bayani testifieu that when he changeu his
iesiuence his wife lost foui blank checks, one of which was the
contesteu check. Bayani testifieu that his wife uiscoveieu the loss of the
checks when he biought his wife to the office of Atty. Emmanuel
velasco. Be uiu not see Evangelista in the office of the lawyei, anu was
only latei infoimeu by his wife that she hau a confeience with
Evangelista. Bis wife naiiateu that accoiuing to Evangelista, Rubia hau
ieuiscounteu a check he issueu, which tuineu out to be the check she
(Aniceta) hau lost. Be was also tolu that Evangelista hau uemanueu the
iefunu of the amount of the check. Be latei tiieu to contact Rubia but
faileu. Be finally testifieu that he coulu not iecall having affixeu his
signatuie on the check. Aniceta Bayani coiioboiateu the testimony of
hei husbanu. She testifieu that she was inviteu to go to the office of
Atty. velasco wheie she, Rubia anu Evangelista hau a confeience. It
was only then that she met Evangelista. Rubia aumitteu that she
ieuiscounteu the complainant's check with Evangelista. When
Evangelista askeu hei to pay the amount of the check, she askeu that
the check be shown to hei, but Evangelista iefuseu to uo so. At the
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
conclusion of the tiial, the couit founu Bayani guilty of B.P. 22. 0n
appeal, the petitionei aveiieu that the piosecution faileu to auuuce
eviuence that he affixeu his signatuie on the check, oi ieceiveu fiom
Rubia the amount of PSS,uuu.uu, thus negating his guilt of the ciime
chaigeu. The petitionei asseits that even the bank managei of PSB who
authenticateu his specimen signatuies on the signatuie caiu he
submitteu upon opening his account with the bank, faileu to testify that
the signatuie on the check was his genuine signatuie. The petitionei
contenus that Evangelista's testimony, that Rubia tolu hei that it was
the petitionei who askeu hei to have the check ieuiscounteu, is heaisay
anu, as such, even if he uiu not object theieto is inaumissible in
eviuence against him. Be aveis that the piosecution faileu to piesent
Rubia as a witness, uepiiving him of his iight to cioss-examine hei. Be
contenus that any ueclaiation maue by Rubia to Evangelista is
inaumissible in eviuence against him.
Issue: Whethei oi not Evangelista's testimony, that Rubia tolu hei that
it was the petitionei who askeu hei to have the check ieuiscounteu, is
heaisay.
Belu: YES
We agiee with the submission of the petitionei that Evangelista's
testimony, that Rubia tolu hei that the petitionei iequesteu that the
subject check be ieuiscounteu, is heaisay. Evangelista hau no peisonal
knowleuge of such iequest of the petitionei to Rubia. Neithei is the
infoimation ielayeu by Rubia to Evangelista as to the petitionei's
iequest aumissible in eviuence against the lattei, because the
piosecution faileu to piesent Rubia as a witness, thus, uepiiving the
petitionei of his iight of cioss-examination.Bowevei, the eviuence
belies the petitionei's asseition that the piosecution faileu to auuuce
eviuence that he issueu the subject check. Evangelista testifieu that
when she talkeu to the petitionei upon Rubia's suggestion, the
petitionei aumitteu that he gave the check to Rubia, but claimeu that
the lattei "boiioweu" the check fiom him. The petitionei cannot escape
ciiminal liability by uenying that he ieceiveu the amount of PSS,uuu.uu
fiom Rubia aftei he issueu the check to hei.

F<G 9/2*4/ "= 9!-94!
ANNA LERINA PAT0LA, vs PE0PLE 0F TBE PBILIPPINES,
Facts:
Petitionei was chaigeu with estafa unuei an infoimation fileu in the
Regional Tiial Couit. Saiu accuseu, being then a saleswoman of
Footlockei's Chain of Stoies, faileu to uelivei the collection to the saiu
company but insteau, feloniously misappiopiiate, misapply anu conveit
the pioceeus of the sale to hei own use anu benefit. Petitionei pleu not
guilty to the offense chaigeu in the infoimation. At pie-tiial, no
stipulation of facts was hau, anu petitionei uiu not avail heiself of plea
baigaining. Theieaftei, tiial on the meiits ensueu.The only othei
witness foi the Piosecution was Kaien uuivencan, stoie auuitoi. She
ueclaieu that uo hau iequesteu hei to auuit petitionei aftei some
customeis hau tolu him that they hau alieauy paiu theii accounts but
the office leugei hau still ieflecteu outstanuing balances foi them; she
uiscoveieu that the amounts appeaiing on the oiiginal copies of
ieceipts in the possession of aiounu Su customeis vaiieu fiom the
amounts wiitten on the uuplicate copies of the ieceipts petitionei
submitteu to the office; Buiing uuivencan's stint as a witness, the
Piosecution maikeu the leugeis of petitionei's vaiious customeis
allegeuly with uisciepancies. In the couise of uuivencan' suiiect-
examination,petitionei's counsel inteiposeu a continuing objection on
the giounu that the figuies weie heaisay because the peisons who hau
maue the entiies weie not themselves piesenteu in couit.
Issue: Whethei oi not uuivencan's testimony on the leugeis anu
ieceipts to piove petitionei's misappiopiiation oi conveision was
inaumissible foi being heaisay.
Belu: YES
The petition is meiitoiious. Testimonial anu uocumentaiy
eviuence,being heaisay,uiu not piove petitionei's guilt beyonu
ieasonable uoubt Nonetheless, in all ciiminal piosecutions, the
Piosecution beais the buiuen to establish the guilt of the accuseu
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
beyonu ieasonable uoubt 0n his pait, uo essentially uesciibeu foi the
tiial couit the vaiious uuties of petitionei as Footluckei's sales
iepiesentative. 0n hei pait, uuivencan conceueu having no peisonal
knowleuge of the amounts actually ieceiveu by petitionei fiom the
customeisoi iemitteu by petitionei to Footlockei's. This means that
peisons othei than uuivencan piepaieu the eviuence. Accoiuingly, hei
being the only witness who testifieu on the entiies effectively uepiiveu
the RTC of the ieasonable oppoitunity to valiuate anu test the veiacity
anu ieliability of the entiies as eviuence of petitionei's
misappiopiiation oi conveision thiough cioss-examination by
petitionei. The uenial of that oppoitunity ienueieu the entiie pioof of
misappiopiiation oi conveision heaisay, anu thus unieliable anu
untiustwoithy foi puiposes of ueteimining the guilt oi innocence of the
accuseu. Section S6 of Rule 1Su, Rules of Couit, a witness can testify
only to those facts that she knows of hei peisonal knowleuge; that is,
which aie ueiiveu fiom hei own peiception, except as otheiwise
pioviueu in the Rules of Couit. The peisonal knowleuge of a witness is a
substantive pieiequisite foi accepting testimonial eviuence that
establishes the tiuth of a uisputeu fact. A witness beieft of peisonal
knowleuge of the uisputeu fact cannot be calleu upon foi that puipose
because hei testimony ueiives its value not fiom the cieuit accoiueu to
hei as a witness piesently testifying but fiom the veiacity anu
competency of the extiajuuicial souice of hei infoimation.In case a
witness is peimitteu to testify baseu on what she has heaiu anothei
peison say about the facts in uispute, the peison fiom whom the
witness ueiiveu the infoimation on the facts in uispute is not in couit
anu unuei oath to be examineu anu cioss-examineu. The weight of such
testimony then uepenus not upon the veiacity of the witness but upon
the veiacity of the othei peison giving the infoimation to the witness
without oath. The infoimation cannot be testeu because the ueclaiant is
not stanuing in couit as a witness anucannot, theiefoie, be cioss-
examineu. It is appaient, too, that a peison who ielates a heaisay is not
obligeu to entei into any paiticulai, to answei any question, to solve
any uifficulties, to ieconcile any contiauictions, to explain any
obscuiities, to iemove any ambiguities; anu that she entienches heiself
in the simple asseition that she was tolu so, anu leaves the buiuen
entiiely upon the ueau oi absent authoi. Thus, the iule against heaisay
testimony iests mainly on the giounu that theie was no oppoitunity to
cioss-examine the ueclaiant The testimony may have been given unuei
oath anu befoie a couit of justice, but if it is offeieu against a paity who
is affoiueu no oppoitunity to cioss-examine the witness, it is heaisay
just the same.

F6G 3/4/5/% #%1*:/%&! &-= #%&= "= /4,!:2-
NALAYAN INS0RANCE C0., INC., vs R0BELI0 ALBERT0 anu ENRIC0
ALBERT0 REYES,
Facts:
At aiounu S o'clock in the moining theie was an acciuent involving foui
vehicles. Baseu on the Police Repoit, the Isuzu Tankei was in fiont of
the Nitsubishi ualant with the Nissan Bus on theii iight siue shoitly
befoie the vehiculai inciuent. All S vehicles weie at a halt along EBSA
facing the south uiiection when the Fuzo Caigo Tiuck simultaneously
bumpeu the ieai poition of the Nitsubishi ualant anu the ieai left
poition of the Nissan Bus. Bue to the stiong impact, these two vehicles
weie shoveu foiwaiu anu the fiont left poition of the Nitsubishi ualant
iammeu into the ieai iight poition of the Isuzu Tankei. Nalayan
Insuiance issueu Cai Insuiance Policy in favoi of Fiist Nalayan Leasing
anu Finance Coipoiation (the assuieu), insuiing the afoiementioneu
Nitsubishi ualant against thiiu paity liability, own uamage anu theft,
among otheis. Baving insuieu the vehicle against such iisks, Nalayan
Insuiance claimeu in its Complaint that it paiu the uamages sustaineu
by the assuieu amounting to P 7uu,uuu. Nalayan Insuiance sent seveial
uemanu letteis to iesponuents Rouelio Albeito anu Eniico Albeito
Reyes, the iegisteieu ownei anu the uiivei of the Fuzo Caigo Tiuck,
iequiiing them to pay the amount it hau paiu to the assuieu. When
iesponuents iefuseu to settle theii liability, Nalayan Insuiance was
constiaineu to file a complaint foi uamages foi gioss negligence against
iesponuents.In theii Answei, iesponuents asseiteu that they cannot be
helu liable foi the vehiculai acciuent, since its pioximate cause was the
ieckless uiiving of the Nissan Bus uiivei. Responuents contioveiteu
the iesults of the Police Repoit, asseiting that it was baseu solely on the
biaseu naiiation of the Nissan Bus uiivei. Tiial ensueu. Nalayan
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
Insuiance piesenteu the testimony of its lone witness, a motoi cai
claim aujustei, who attesteu that he piocesseu the insuiance claim of
the assuieu anu veiifieu the uocuments submitteu to him. The tiial
couit, iuleu in favoi of Nalayan Insuiance anu ueclaieu iesponuents
liable foi uamages. Nalayan Insuiance fileu its Notion foi
Reconsiueiation, aiguing that a police iepoit is a piima facie eviuence
of the facts stateu in it
Issue: Whethei oi not the police iepoit is aumissible as eviuence
Belu: YES
Nalayan Insuiance contenus that, even without the piesentation of the
police investigatoi who piepaieu the police iepoit, saiu iepoit is still
aumissible in eviuence, especially since iesponuents faileu to make a
timely objection to its piesentation in eviuence Responuents countei
that since the police iepoit was nevei confiimeu by the investigating
police officei, it cannot be consiueieu as pait of the eviuence on iecoiu.
Inueeu, unuei the iules of eviuence, a witness can testify only to those
facts which the witness knows of his oi hei peisonal knowleuge, that is,
which aie ueiiveu fiom the witness' own peiception.Concomitantly, a
witness may not testify on matteis which he oi she meiely leaineu
fiom otheis eithei because saiu witness was tolu oi ieau oi heaiu those
matteis.Such testimony is consiueieu heaisay anu may not be ieceiveu
as pioof of the tiuth of what the witness has leaineu. This is known as
the heaisay iule. "Beaisay is not limiteu to oial testimony oi
statements; the geneial iule that excluues heaisay as eviuence applies
to wiitten, as well as oial statements." Theie aie seveial exceptions to
the heaisay iule unuei the Rules of Couit, among which aie entiies in
official iecoius. Section 44, Rule 1Su pioviues: Entiies in official
iecoius maue in the peifoimance of his uuty by a public officei of the
Philippines, oi by a peison in the peifoimance of a uuty specially
enjoineu by law aie piima facie eviuence of the facts theiein stateu.
Requisites foi the aumissibility in eviuence, as an exception to the
heaisay iule of entiies in official iecoius, thus:
(a) that the entiy was maue by a public officei oi by anothei peison
specially enjoineu by law to uo so; (b) that it was maue by the public
officei in the peifoimance of his oi hei uuties, oi by such othei peison
in the peifoimance of a uuty specially enjoineu by law; anu
(c) that the public officei oi othei peison
hau sufficient knowleuge of the facts by him oi hei stateu, which must
have been acquiieu by the public officei oi othei peison peisonally oi
thiough official infoimation.
Notably, the piesentation of the police iepoit itself is aumissible as an
exception to the heaisay iule even if the police investigatoi who
piepaieu it was not piesenteu in couit, as long as the above iequisites
coulu be auequately pioveu. Beie, theie is no uispute that SP01
Bungga, the on-the-spot investigatoi, piepaieu the iepoit, anu he uiu
so in the peifoimance of his uuty. Bowevei, what is not cleai is whethei
SP01 Bungga hau sufficient peisonal knowleuge of the facts containeu
in his iepoit. Thus, the thiiu iequisite is lacking. Responuents faileu to
make a timely objection to the police iepoit's piesentation in eviuence;
thus, they aie ueemeu to have waiveu theii iight to uo so. As a iesult,
the police iepoit is still aumissible in eviuence.

F>G 9!-94! -. 28! 98#4#99#%!1 "= -3#&2#%
PE0PLE vS. NARY L00 0NICTIN Y SINuC0.
Facts:
Piimo Aivin uuevaiia, aiiiveu home aftei his employment contiact in
Libya expiieu. Be contacteu a college classmate, Rebecca }oy Roque,
who pieviously infoimeu him that she knew of a ieciuitei foi oveiseas
employment. Roque thus set up a meeting between him anu the
ieciuitei, who tuineu out to be accuseu-appellant 0mictin. 0mictin met
uuevaiia the thiee agieeu to pay 0mictin PhP 4u,uuu each foi theii
ueployment in Lonuon as caiegiveis. 0mictin assuieu them that they
woulu leave foi Lonuon within 6u to 9u uays. 0pon saiu payment,
0mictin infoimeu uuevaiia that she woulu scheuule an oiientation anu
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
contiact signing at a latei uate. Bowevei, the piomiseu oiientation anu
contiact signing nevei took place. uuevaiia was able to meet with
0mictin, who piomiseu to ietuin his money uuiing the fiist week of
Naich. Like the eailiei piomises, the piomise to ieimbuise iemaineu
unfulfilleu.Anothei piivate complainant, veionica Caponpon, was
assuieu of employment in New Zealanu as an apple pickei, foi which
she was iequiieu by 0mictin to pay PhP 2u,uuu as placement fee foi the
ueployment. Roy Feinanuez Nago, anothei piivate complainant, was
piomiseu employment abioau as a caiegivei within thiee months fiom
payment of a placement fee of PhP 4u,uuuFoi PhP 4u,uuu, 0mictin
unueitook to senu piivate complainant Anthony Ambiosio oveiseas foi
employment within thiee to foui months. Ambiosio was only able to
pay the amount of PhP 16,uuu. The piomiseu employment nevei
mateiializeu. All foui piivate complainants fileu complaints against
0mictin with the National Buieau of Investigation (NBI) foi Illegal
Reciuitment anu Estafa. The NBI piepaieu an entiapment opeiation to
aiiest 0mictin anu pioviueu Nago with PhP 6u,uuu maikeu money. The
entiapment opeiation was set in motion. Aftei ieceiving the maikeu
money, 0mictin was aiiesteu by the accompanying NBI agents. RTC
ienueieu a Becision finuing 0mictin guilty as chaigeu. Aggiieveu,
0mictin appealeu| to the CA, iaising that Piimo uuevaiia was not the
one who paiu the accuseu, but Elisa Botenes, who issueu a check in
favoi of accuseu-appellant in behalf of uuevaiia. Thus, without the
suppoiting testimony of Botenes who was not piesenteu by the
piosecution, uuevaiia's testimony is unsubstantiateu anu heaisay;
Issue: Wethei oi not uuevaiia's testimony is heaisay
Belu: YES
The testimony of Piimo uuevaiia unuoubteuly shows that he was not
the one who paiu the accuseu-appellant. Bis testimony, to the effect
that the check, issueu by a ceitain Elisa Botenes, was paiu by the bank,
cleaily falls within the iules piosciibing the aumission of heaisay
eviuence. It beais stiessing that the failuie of the piosecution to
piesent Elisa Botenes ienueis the testimony of witness uuevaiia as
unsubstantiateu anu heaisay. Anothei piosecution witness, Ni.
Anthony Ambiosio, testifieu that he gave the accuseu-appellant the
amount of P 16,uuu iepiesenting initial payment in consiueiation of the
woik abioau. It is boine on iecoiu howevei, that Anthony's testimony
was unsubstantiateu by any pioof that he maue such payment, i.e.,
ieceipts. A peiusal of the iecoius will show that Anthony's testimony
that he was uivesteu of saiu amount, thiough the misiepiesentation of
the accuseu-appellant, amounts to nothing but a meie uncoiioboiateu
anu self-seiving allegation. Suiely, meie allegation, without pioof, is not
enough to piove the guilt of the accuseu beyonu ieasonable uoubt.
Also, the testimony of Ambiosio cannot be consiueieu as self-seiving
eviuence. The common objection known as "self-seiving" is not coiiect
because almost all testimonies aie self-seiving. The piopei basis foi
objection is "heaisay". Petitionei fails to take into account the
uistinction between self-seiving statements anu testimonies maue in
couit. Self-seiving statements aie those maue by a paity out of couit
auvocating his own inteiest; they uo not incluue a paity's testimony as
a witness in couit Self-seiving statements aie inaumissible because the
auveise paity is not given the oppoitunity foi cioss-examination, anu
theii aumission woulu encouiage fabiication of testimony. This cannot
be saiu of a paity's testimony in couit maue unuei oath, with full
oppoitunity on the pait of the opposing paity foi cioss-examination.
Self-seiving ueclaiation is one that is maue by a paity, out of couit anu
in his favoi. It uoes not incluue the testimony he gives as a witness in
couit." Assayeu against the foiegoing stanuaius, Ambiosio's testimony
is not self-seiving anu is aumissible in eviuence. We can hypothetically
assume, as a seconu consiueiation, that the testimonies of uuevaiia anu
Ambiosio aie unsubstantiateu anu self-seiving. Still, the
unsubstantiateu anu self-seiving natuie of saiu testimonies woulu not
caiiy the uay foi 0mictin, since she aumitteu, uuiing tiial, the
substance of theii testimonies.

-9#%#-% :*4!
F;G .*44!:- "= 9!-94!
F0LLER0 vs. PE0PLE
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
u.R. No. 17uS8S. Septembei 12, 2uu7.

ERNEST0 N. F0LLER0, petitionei, vs. PE0PLE 0F TBE PBILIPPINES,
iesponuent.

Facts:
In 1977, Einesto Fulleio was employeu as a telegiaph opeiatoi at the
Buieau of Telecommunications 0ffice (BT0) in Iiiga City. In 1982, he
became the Acting Chief 0peiatoi of the same office until 1994.

A Peisonal Bata Sheet (PBS) |Civil Seivice Foim 212j uateu 8 }anuaiy
1988, puipoiteuly accomplisheu anu signeu by petitionei, states that
he passeu the Civil Engineeiing Boaiu Examination given on 198S in
Nanila with a iating of 7S.8%. Fulleio submitteu the saiu PBS to BT0,
Legazpi City. It appeais that Fulleio applieu foi the position of eithei a
}unioi Telecommunications Engineei oi Telecommunications Tiaffic
Supeivisoi with the Regional Biiectoi of the Civil Seivice Commission
(CSC), Region S, Legazpi City.

0pon inquiiy maue by Ns. Nagistiauo, a suboiuinate of petitionei in
the BT0, Iiiga City, with the Piofessional Regulation Commission (PRC),
it was veiifieu that petitionei nevei passeu the boaiu examination foi
civil engineeiing anu that petitionei's name uoes not appeai in the
book of iegistiation foi civil engineeis.

Petitionei uenieu executing anu submitting the subject PBS anu
uisowneu the signatuie anu thumbmaik appeaiing theiein. Be claimeu
that the stioke of the signatuie appeaiing in the PBS uiffeis fiom the
stioke of his genuine signatuie.

RTC Legazpi City founu Fulleio guilty of falsification.

Note that two of the eviuentiaiy uocuments piesenteu weie the uaily
time iecoius of Nagistiauo which contains the signatuie of Fulleio.
They weie piesenteu to piove that the signatuies theiein is similai to
the signatuie in the subject PBS.

Relevant Issue: W0N RTC Legazpi City is obligeu to put a hanuwiiting
expeit on the witness stanu anu uiiect the lattei to examine petitionei's
signatuies in the foiegoing exhibits befoie iuling on theii aumissibility.
- N0

Belu:
Well-entiencheu is the iule that iesoit to hanuwiiting expeits is N0T
manuatoiy. Banuwiiting expeits, while piobably useful, aie N0T
inuispensable in examining oi compaiing hanuwiitings oi signatuies.

This is so since unuei Section 22, Rule 1S2 of the Reviseu Rules on
Eviuence, the hanuwiiting of a peison may be pioveu by any witness
who believes it to be the hanuwiiting of such peison, because he has
seen the peison wiite; oi has seen wiiting puipoiting to be his upon
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
which the witness has acteu oi has been chaigeu, anu has thus acquiieu
knowleuge of the hanuwiiting of such peison.

Noieovei, the opinion of a non-expeit witness, foi which piopei basis
is given, may be ieceiveu in eviuence iegaiuing the hanuwiiting oi
signatuie of a peison with which he has sufficient familiaiity.

RTC Legazpi City can, as it uiu, iely on the testimonies of the
piosecution witnesses who aie familiai with petitionei's
hanuwiitingsignatuie in ueteimining the aumissibility of the afoiesaiu
exhibits. It can, by itself, also compaie petitionei's signatuie in the PBS
with the petitionei's signatuies in the subject exhibits with oi without
the aiu of an expeit witness anu theieaftei iule on the aumissibility of
such exhibits baseu on its own obseivation. In shoit, it can exeicise
inuepenuent juugment as iegaius the aumissibility of saiu exhibits.

F<G 8!:%/%$!I "= 1/% )*/%U1/%2-1
BERNANBEZ vs. SAN }0AN-SANT0S
u.R. No. 16647u. August 7, 2uu9.

CECILI0 C. BERNANBEZ, NA. vICT0RIA C. BERNANBEZ-SAu0N,
TERESA C. BERNANBEZ-vILLA ABRILLE1 anu NATIvIBAB CR0Z-
BERNANBEZ, petitioneis, vs. }0vITA SAN }0AN-SANT0S, iesponuent.

Facts:
Naiia Louiues San }uan Beinanuez (Lulu) was boin to the sps. Felix
anu Naiia. 0nfoitunately, the Naiia uieu uuiing chilubiith. Felix left
Lulu in the caie of hei mateinal uncle, Soteio San }uan. Felix maiiieu
Nativiuau. The union piouuceu S chiluien, petitioneis Beinanuez. As
the only chilu of Naiia anu the sole testate heii of Soteio, Lulu inheiiteu
piopeities fiom the San }uan family (estimateu at PSu million in 1997).
She went to live with hei fathei anu his new family. She was then 1u
yeais olu anu stuuying in La Consolacion Collegei. Bowevei, uue to hei
"violent peisonality," Lulu stoppeu schooling when she ieacheu uiaue
S.

0pon ieaching the age of majoiity, Lulu was given full contiol of hei
estate. Neveitheless, because she uiu not even finish hei elementaiy
euucation, Felix continueu to exeicise actual auministiation of hei
piopeities. Buiing the peiiou of theii infoimal auministiation (fiom
1968 until 199S), Felix anu petitioneis unueitook vaiious "piojects"
involving hei ieal piopeities.

Lulu sought the assistance of hei mateinal fiist cousin, iesponuent San
}uan-Santos, aftei leaining that petitioneis hau been uissipating hei
estate. She confiueu to }ovita that she was maue to live in the basement
of petitioneis' Rizal home anu was ieceiving a measly uaily allowance
of P4uu foi hei foou anu meuication. Lulu was seveiely oveiweight,
unkempt anu smelleu of uiine. Since she hau not been given a piopei
toilet, Lulu uiinateu anu uefecateu in the gaiuen. Lulu was founu to be
afflicteu with tubeiculosis, iheumatism anu uiabetes. San }uan-Santos
fileu a petition foi guaiuianship in the RTC of San Nateo, Rizal as Lulu
as incapable of managing hei estate.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
BY: ASANA, BRI0NES, CARANBANu, CB0A, C0NTRERAS, CR0Z, B0NA, ESTILLES, u0NZAuA, LAZAR0, LIN, SENA}0N, TENuC0, 0RBINA | SB 2u1S | 1uu
Buiing the heaiing, Lulu iuentifieu anu uesciibeu hei paients,
stepmothei, half-siblings anu mateinal ielatives. She claimeu inheiiting
tiacts of lanu fiom the San }uan family. Bowevei, these piopeities weie
uissipateu by the Beinanuez family as they liveu a "luxuiious" lifestyle.
When askeu to explain this allegation, Lulu saiu that hei stepmothei
anu half-siblings ioue in cais while she was maue to iiue a tiicycle.

The RTC ueclaieu Lulu an incompetent anu appointeu San }uan-Santos
as guaiuian. CA affiimeu the RTC uecision in toto.

Petitioneis assaileu the CA uecision.

Relevant Issue: W0N the opinions of Lulu's attenuing physicians
iegaiuing hei mental state weie aumissible in eviuence given that they
aie not expeits in psychiatiy. - YES

Belu:
The iesponuent uiscloseu that Lulu hau been confineu in Recoveiy.com,
a psychosocial iehabilitation centei anu convalescent home caie facility
in Quezon City, since 2uu4 uue to violent anu uestiuctive behavioi. She
also hau uelusions of being physically anu sexually abuseu by "Boy
Negio" anu imaginaiy pets she calleu "Nichael" anu "Nauonna." The
meuical iepoit stateu Lulu hau unspecifieu mental ietaiuation with
psychosis but claimeu significant impiovements in hei behavioi.

0nuei Section Su, Rule 1Su of the Rules of Couit, an oiuinaiy witness
may give his opinion on the mental sanity of a peison with whom he is
sufficiently acquainteu. Lulu's attenuing physicians spoke anu
inteiacteu with hei. Such occasions alloweu them to thoioughly
obseive hei behavioi anu concluue that hei intelligence level was
below aveiage anu hei mental stage below noimal. Theii opinions weie
aumissible in eviuence.

Fuitheimoie, wheie the sanity of a peison is at issue, expeit opinion is
not necessaiy. The obseivations of the tiial juuge coupleu with
eviuence establishing the peison's state of mental sanity will suffice.
Beie, the tiial juuge was given ample oppoitunity to obseive Lulu
peisonally when she testifieu befoie the RTC.

F6G 9:-+:!11#"! 2:/$! b 1!:"#&! !%2!:9:#1!1 "= /%2-%#-
PR0uRESSIvE TRABE & SERvICE ENTERPRISES vs. ANT0NIA
u.R. No. 179Su2. Septembei 18, 2uu9.

PR0uRESSIvE TRABE & SERvICE ENTERPRISES, petitionei, vs. NARIA
NILAuR0SA ANT0NI0, iesponuent. SEC0NBINA N. CEBRER0,
uefenuant-appellant befoie the Couit of Appeals.

viigilio Cebieio owns a paicel of lanu in Sampaloc. When he uieu, his
wife Secunuina anu theii chiluien extia-juuicially settleu his estate
allotting the lanu to Secunuina.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
BY: ASANA, BRI0NES, CARANBANu, CB0A, C0NTRERAS, CR0Z, B0NA, ESTILLES, u0NZAuA, LAZAR0, LIN, SENA}0N, TENuC0, 0RBINA | SB 2u1S | 1u1
Latei, Secunuina solu the lanu to Piogiessive Tiaue anu Seivices
(petitionei). A new TCT was issueu in the name of Secunuina anu, on
even uate, a new TCT was issueu in the name of petitionei.

Thiee yeais passeu, heiein iesponuent Naiia Nilagiosa Antonio
(Nilagiosa) fileu a Complaint befoie the RTC of Nanila foi the
annulment of TCT against petitionei anu Secunuina, claiming that piioi
to his ueath, Cebieio, with Secunuina's consent, solu to hei the lanu;
that she was not able to iegistei the sale because she hau to go to the
0S to attenu to peisonal family matteis; anu that the Beeu of
Extiajuuicial Settlement of Estate anu the Beeu of Absolute Sale in favoi
of petitionei aie null anu voiu. In hei Answei, Secunuina uenieu that
she anu hei husbanu solu the lanu to Nilagiosa, claiming that the sale
to petitionei was lawful anu foi valuable consiueiation; anu that, in any
event, laches anu piesciiption hau set in to bai Nilagiosa's claim.

RTC of Nanila founu petitionei to be a puichasei in goou faith. With
iespect to Secunuina, it concluueu that since she anu hei husbanu twice
solu the lanu to two uiffeient venuees without theii knowleuge anu
consent, "|shej must compensate |the plaintiff Nilagiosaj who was
uamageu by hei fiauu."
CA ieveiseu the uecision hence this case.

The foimei lawyei of the Cebieio spouses, }uuge Celso B. Lavia, who
is familiai with the signatuies of the spouses, testifieu that Cebieio's
puipoiteu signatuie in the Beeu of Absolute Sale to Nilagiosa is not his.

Relevant Issue: W0N Secunuina faileu to piove that the Beeu of
Absolute Sale to Nilagiosa was a foigeiy because she faileu to piesent
expeit witnesses - N0

Belu:
It is settleu that hanuwiiting expeits, while useful, aie not
inuispensable in examining oi compaiing hanuwiitings oi signatuies.
Foi Section 22 of Rule 1S2 of the Rules of Couit pioviues:

"The hanuwiiting of a peison may be pioveu by any witness who
believes it to be the hanuwiiting of the peison because he has seen the
peison wiite, oi has seen wiiting puipoiting to be his upon which the
witness has acteu oi been chaigeu, anu has thus acquiieu knowleuge of
the hanuwiiting of such peison. Eviuence iespecting the hanuwiiting
may also be given by a compaiison, maue by the witness oi the couit,
with wiitings aumitteu oi tieateu as genuine by the paity against
whom the eviuence is offeieu, oi pioveu to be genuine to the
satisfaction of the juuge." (0nueiscoiing supplieu)

Complementing the saiu piovision is Section Su of Rule 1Su of the Rules
of Couit which allows the ieception of the opinion of a witness, like
}uuge Lavia, foi which piopei basis is given, as eviuence iegaiuing a
hanuwiiting with which he has sufficient familiaiity.

As the Couit finus that the Beeu of Absolute Sale in Nilagiosa's favoi is
not genuine, it tiansmitteu no iights to hei. Consequently, the subject
lanupait of Cebieio's estate which was allotteu to Secunuina was
valiuly solu by hei to petitionei.
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121

F>G 9!:!I "= 9!-94!
TABA0 vs. PE0PLE
u.R. No. 187246. }uly 2u, 2u11.

EBWIN TABA0 y PEREZ, petitionei, vs. PE0PLE 0F TBE PBILIPPINES,
iesponuent.

Facts:
0ne night, the petitionei was uiiving his Toyota Coiolla cai towaius
Nagtahan when it suuuenly iampeu on an islanu uiviuei, bumping
Rochelle Lanete who was ciossing the stieet. As a iesult of the impact,
Rochelle was thiown into the miuule of the ioau on hei back.
Theieaftei, Leonaiuo Nenuez' speeuing blue Toyota Coiona cai ian
ovei Rochelle's bouy. Bystanueisaimeu with stones anu woouen
clubsfolloweu Nenuez' cai until it stoppeu neai the Nagtahan
Flyovei. Fiancisco Cielo, a newspapei ueliveiy boy, pleaueu with the
bystanueis not to huit Nenuez. Cielo went insiue Nenuez' cai, sat
besiue him, got his uiivei's license, anu oiueieu him to move the cai
backwaius. Nenuez followeu his oiuei, but his cai hit the centei islanu
twice while backing up. Cielo went out of the cai anu appioacheu the
spiawleu bouy of Rochelle; he anu the petitionei biought Rochelle's
bouy insiue Nenuez' cai. The thiee of them (the petitionei, Cielo anu
Nenuez) biought Rochelle to the 0ST Bospital, wheie she uieu.

RTC of Nanila founu Nenuez anu petitionei guilty of ieckless
impiuuence iesulting to homiciue. CA affiimeu the uecision with
mouifications.

The petitionei claims that the CA violateu Section 49, Rule 1Su of the
Reviseu Rules of Couit when it uisiegaiueu the testimony of uefense
witness Police Senioi Inspectoi Banilo Coinelio who testifieu that the
petitionei's cai coulu not have bumpeu the victim because the lattei's
bouy was not thiown in line with the cai, but on its siue. The petitionei
aigues that PSi. Insp. Coinelio is highly qualifieu in the fielu of tiaffic
acciuent investigation, anu as such, his statements aie "backeu-up by
|thej piinciples of applieu physics, engineeiing, anu mathematics."

Relevant Issue: W0N CA eiieu in uisiegaiuing the testimony of uefense
witness PSi. Insp. Coinelio. - N0

Belu:
Section 49, Rule 1Su of the Reviseu Rules of Couit states that the
opinion of a witness on a mattei iequiiing special knowleuge, skill,
expeiience oi tiaining, which he is shown to possess, may be ieceiveu
in eviuence. The use of the woiu "may" signifies that the use of opinion
of an expeit witness is PERNISSIvE anu not manuatoiy on the pait of
the couits. Allowing the testimony uoes not mean, too, that couits aie
bounu by the testimony of the expeit witness. The testimony of an
expeit witness must be constiueu to have been piesenteu not to sway
the couit in favoi of any of the paities, but to assist the couit in the
ueteimination of the issue befoie it, anu is foi the couit to auopt oi not
to auopt uepenuing on its appieciation of the attenuant facts anu the
applicable law. It has been helu of expeit testimonies:

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
BY: ASANA, BRI0NES, CARANBANu, CB0A, C0NTRERAS, CR0Z, B0NA, ESTILLES, u0NZAuA, LAZAR0, LIN, SENA}0N, TENuC0, 0RBINA | SB 2u1S | 1uS
"Although couits aie not oiuinaiily bounu by expeit testimonies, they
may place whatevei weight they may choose upon such testimonies in
accoiuance with the facts of the case. The ielative weight anu
sufficiency of expeit testimony is peculiaily within the piovince of the
tiial couit to ueciue, consiueiing the ability anu chaiactei of the
witness, his actions upon the witness stanu, the weight anu piocess of
the ieasoning by which he has suppoiteu his opinion, his possible bias
in favoi of the siue foi whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paiu
witness, the ielative oppoitunities foi stuuy anu obseivation of the
matteis about which he testifies, anu any othei matteis which ueseive
to illuminate his statements. The opinion of the expeit may not be
aibitiaiily iejecteu; it is to be consiueieu by the couit in view of all the
facts anu ciicumstances in the case anu when common knowleuge
utteily fails, the expeit opinion may be given contiolling effect. The
pioblem of the cieuibility of the expeit witness anu the evaluation of
his testimony is left to the uiscietion of the tiial couit whose iuling
theieupon is not ieviewable in the absence of abuse of uiscietion."

We emphasize that PSi. Insp. Coinelio was N0T an eyewitness to the
inciuent; his testimony was meiely baseu on the Tiaffic Acciuent
Repoit piepaieu by SP04 Eugai Reyes who himself uiu not witness the
inciuent. At any iate, nowheie in PSi. Insp. Coinelio's testimony uiu he
conclusively state that the petitionei coulu not have been involveu in
the inciuent.

Fiom his testimony, it is cleai that PSi. Insp. Coinelio uiu not uiscount
the possibility that the victim coulu have been thiown on the siue. Be
likewise aumitteu that the location of an acciuent victim in ielation to
the vehicle woulu also uepenu on the speeu of the vehicle anu the point
of impact.
F?G 9!-94! "= &/12#44-
.KLMNO

Accuseu-Appellant Castillo was fileu chaiges against by AAA, assisteu
by hei mothei BBB, with the ciime of iape committeu as follows:

That sometime in Naich 2uuu, in XXX, XXX City, Philippines, anu within
the juiisuiction of this Bonoiable Couit, the above-nameu |appellantj,
uiu then anu theie wilfully (sic), unlawfully anu feloniously foice anu
intimiuate AAA, known by the |appellantj to be mentally ietaiueu, anu
then foicibly committeu sexual inteicouise with the saiu AAA, against
hei will.

Contiaiy to anu in violation of Aiticle 266-A, paiagiaph 1, of the
Reviseu Penal Coue, as amenueu by |Republic Act No.j 8SSS.

When aiiaigneu on 2S August 2uuu, appellant, assisteu by counsel ue
oficio, pleaueu N0T u0ILTY to the ciime chaigeu.

The piosecution piesenteu the following witnesses: AAA, the piivate
offenueu paity; Bi. Thessa Naiie Antillon-Nalimas (Bi. Antillon-
Nalimas), the uoctoi in uingoog Bistiict Bospital who examineu AAA;
BBB, the mothei of AAA, who was also piesenteu as iebuttal witness;
anu Nyina uelos Reyes-villanueva, the uuiuance Psychologist at the
Noithein Ninuanao Neuical Centei who conuucteu psychological tests
on AAA to ueteimine hei mental capacity

0n the basis of the testimonies of the afoiesaiu witnesses, the
piosecution establisheu that AAA was 18 yeais olu when she was iapeu
by the appellant. She is the eluest of the foui chiluien of BBB anu CCC,
the ueceaseu fathei of AAA. She began attenuing school when she was
alieauy eight yeais olu. AAA, howevei, was not able to finish hei uiaue
I level piimaiily because of hei epileptic seizuies which staiteu when
she was nine yeais olu. Since then she suffeieu epileptic seizuies at
least once a month. Buiing attacks, AAA tiembles anu becomes stiff.
AAA also hau uifficulty unueistanuing hei lessons in school, she cannot
wiite well anu she hau pooi memoiy. Compaieu to hei youngei
siblings, AAA hau uifficulty following instiuctions given to hei at home
anu in school.

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
AAA was also subjecteu to psychological tests to ueteimine hei mental
capacity. The psychological tests auministeieu by Nyina Belos Reyes-
villanueva on AAA consist of the Biaw-A-Peison Test anu the Benuei
visual Notoi Test. The afoiesaiu psychological tests showeu that AAA
has pooi visual motoi cooiuination anu low level mental functioning
not within hei chionological age, i.e., 21 yeais olu at the time of hei
examination. In view of that iesult, Nyina Belos Reyes-villanueva
concluueu that AAA is suffeiing fiom milu to moueiate mental
ietaiuation with a mental age of 8 to 12 yeais olu anu can be euucateu
up to uiaue vI level. She also noteu that AAA lackeu peisonal hygiene
anu has a vague concept of big numbeis anu time, like uays of the week.
She fuithei ueclaieu that AAA's instinct to iesist any sexual assault is
always theie; howevei, with hei low level mental functioning she coulu
easily be ueceiveu oi peisuaueu by a man to engage into sexual
inteicouise. The iesult of AAA's psychological tests was also ieuuceu
into wiiting as eviuenceu by a Psychological Repoit uateu 2 Septembei
2uuS

The tiial couit founu the appellant guilty beyonu ieasonable uoubt. 0n
appeal befoie the CA, the appellant contenus that tiial couit eiieu in
finuing that AAA is a mental ietaiuate uespite the failuie of the
piosecution to piove such mental ietaiuation. The uefense of the
appellant of the piosecution's failuie to establish the mental
ietaiuation of AAA is giounueu on its contention that he iecoius aie
beieft of any eviuence that woulu conclusively show that AAA was
suffeiing fiom mental ietaiuation. That BBB's ueclaiation that AAA is a
slow thinkei uoes not sufficiently establish AAA's mental ietaiuation.
Fuithei, that the "expeit witness qualification" of the piosecution's
supposeu expeit witness is highly questionable because she hau not
acquiieu any uoctoiate uegiee in the fielu of psychology oi psychiatiy.
Noie so, the psychological tests auministeieu by hei on AAA weie
inauequate to establish AAA's mental capacity.

Appellant anchois his aigument foi acquittal on the allegeu failuie of
the piosecution to establish AAA's mental ietaiuation to make him
guilty of iape unuei Aiticle 266-A, pai. 1(b), of the Reviseu Penal Coue.
Appellant concluues that his guilt has not been pioven beyonu
ieasonable uoubt.

#NN`PO

Whethei the testimony given by the witness was enough to sustain the
couit's finuing that AAA is a mental ietaiuate theiefoie making
Appellant liable unuei Aiticle 266-A, pai 1 (b) of RPC.

8PQRO

Yes. The accusseu-appellant is guilty beyonu ieasonable uoubt.

:KMSTO
This Couit helu that mental ietaiuation can be pioven by eviuence
othei than meuicalclinical eviuence, such as the testimony of
witnesses anu even the obseivation by the tiial couit.
Section Su, Rule 1Su of the Reviseu Rules on Eviuence explicitly
pioviues:
SEC. Su. 0pinion of oiuinaiy witnesses. - The opinion of a witness foi
which piopei basis is given, may be ieceiveu in eviuence iegaiuing-
(a) x x x
(b) x x x
(c) The mental sanity of a peison with whom he is sufficiently
acquainteu.
The witness may also testify on his impiessions of the emotion,
behavioi, conuition oi appeaiance of a peison.
Accoiuingly, it is competent foi the oiuinaiy witness to give his opinion
as to the sanity oi mental conuition of a peison, pioviueu the witness
has hau sufficient oppoitunity to obseive the speech, mannei, habits,
anu conuuct of the peison in question. Commonly, it is iequiieu that the
witness uetails the factois anu ieasons upon which he bases his opinion
befoie he can testify as to what it is. As the Supieme Couit of veimont
saiu: "A non-expeit witness may give his opinion as to the sanity oi
insanity of anothei, when baseu upon conveisations oi uealings which
he has hau with such peison, oi upon his appeaiance, oi upon any fact
beaiing upon his mental conuition, with the witness' own knowleuge
anu obseivation, he having fiist testifieu to such conveisations,
!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!121
BY: ASANA, BRI0NES, CARANBANu, CB0A, C0NTRERAS, CR0Z, B0NA, ESTILLES, u0NZAuA, LAZAR0, LIN, SENA}0N, TENuC0, 0RBINA | SB 2u1S | 1uS
uealings, appeaiance oi othei obseiveu facts, as the basis foi his
opinion."
The mothei of an offenueu paity in a iape case, though not a
psychiatiist, if she knows the physical anu mental conuition of the
paity, how she was boin, what she is suffeiing fiom, anu what hei
attainments aie, is competent to testify on the mattei. Thus, even
though the uuiuance Psychologist who examineu AAA may not qualify
as an expeit witness, though the psychological tests conuucteu by hei
on AAA may not be accuiate to ueteimine AAA's mental capacity, such
ciicumstance is not fatal to the piosecution's cause.
In the case at bench, BBB testifieu that AAA has been suffeiing fiom
epilepsy since she was nine yeais olu, which is one of the ieasons why
AAA was not able to finish hei uiaue I level. AAA also hau to stop
schooling because she hau uifficulties unueistanuing hei lessons in
school, she cannot wiite well, she hau pooi memoiy anu she hau
uifficulty answeiing even the simplest question askeu of hei. BBB
fuithei stateu that AAA is the eluest of hei foui chiluien; howevei,
compaieu to hei youngei siblings, AAA hau a haiu time compiehenuing
the instiuctions given to hei at home anu in school.
In the same way, though the uuiuance Psychologist who examineu AAA
may not be qualifieu as an expeit witness, WPZ T^NPZaKMSTVNJ WTYPaPZJ
KN ZPXKZRN MWP K__PKZKVLPJ \KVVPZJ WK^SMN KVR ^PWKaSTZ T[ ///J SN
KQNT KR\SNNS^QP SV PaSRPVLP KN KV TZRSVKZ] YSMVPNNh MPNMS\TV]=
Even befoie the uuiuance Psychologist auministeieu the psychological
tests on AAA, she alieauy noticeu that AAA lackeu peisonal hygiene.
While conveising with AAA, she obseiveu that AAA has low level
mental functioning as she has uifficulty unueistanuing simple things,
has a vague concept of big numbeis anu time like uays of the week,
anu has iegiesseu behavioi that is not congiuent to hei age, i.e., 21
yeais olu at the time of hei examination. She also stateu that she was
not able to auministei the Puiuue Non-Language Test, which is an
Intelligence Quotient Test, on AAA uue to the lattei's inability to
iuentify the items theiein.

EVID DigestsCompilation SET01

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

EVID DigestsCompilation SET01

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

!"#$!%&! ( )*$+! ,-%#./&#- 0 &/1! $#+!

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen