LEGAL TECHNIQUE

1.Ang vs CA
GR 182835, April 20, 2010
Rules n Ele!"rni! Evi#en!e
$%!"s& Complainant Irish Sagud and accused Rustan Ang were sweethearts. However, Irish broke up with him when she learned he
had taken a live-in partner whom he had gotten pregnant. Rustan convinced her to elope with him for he did not love the woman
whom he was about to marr, but Irish re!ected the proposal. She changed her cellphone number but Rustan managed to get hold
of it and send her te"t messages.
Irish received through multimedia message a picture of a naked woman with spread legs and with her face superimposed on the
figure. #he sender$s cellphone number, stated in the message, was one of the numbers used b Rustan. After she got the obscene
picture, she received te"t messages from Rustan threatening her that he will spread the picture he sent through the Internet.
%nder police supervision, Irish contacted Rustan through the cellphone number he used in sending the picture and te"t message.
She asked him to meet her at a resort and he did. %pon parking his motorccle and walking towards Irish, the police intercepted
and arrested him. #he police sei&ed his cellphone and several SI' cards.
Issue& whether or not the R#C properl admitted in evidence the obscene picture presented in the case.
Hel#& Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish through a te"t message constitutes an electronic document. #hus, it
should be authenticated b means of an electronic signature, as provided under Section (, Rule ) of the Rules of *lectronic
*vidence.
#he ob!ection is too late since he should have ob!ected to the admission of the pictures on such ground at the time it was offered in
evidence. He should be deemed to have waived such ground for ob!ection.
+esides, the rules he cites do not appl to the present criminal action. #he Rules on *lectronic *vidence applies onl to civil
actions, ,uasi-!udicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings. -etition denied.
2. '!u(en"%r) evi#en!e in %n un**i!i%l l%ngu%ge
+%"ul% v. peple G.R. N. 1,--5.
April 11, 2012
$%!"s&
In a *stafa case, witness auditor based her testimon on the entries found in the receipts supposedl issued b petitioner and in the
ledgers corresponding to each customer, as well as on the unsworn statements of some of the customers.
Issue& Is the testimon hearsa.
Ruling/es
Analsis/ Sec. 01 of Rule (02, Rules of Court , states that a witness can testif onl to those facts that she knows of her personal
knowledge3 that is, which are derived from herown perception, e"cept as otherwise provided in the Rules of Court . 4itness-lad-
auditor witness bereft of personal knowledge of the disputed fact cannot be called upon for that purpose because her testimon
derives its value not from the credit accorded to her as a witness presentl testifing but from the veracit and competenc of the
e"tra!udicial source of her information.
3. Act or declaration about pedigree
Tisn vs. Cur" * Appe%lsG.R. N. 12102.0ul) 31, 111.$ACT2&
#he case involves an action for reconveance filed b petitioners Cora&on and Rene against private respondent #eodora 5omingo.
#he petitioners herein are the niece and nephew of spouses #eodora 6uerrero and 'artin 6uerrero. #eodora 6uerrero died without
an ascendant or descendant. 4hen she died, the petitioners sought to inherit the parcel of land from #eodora b right of
representation. 'artin, however, sold the land to private respondents #eodora 5omingo. 7ust the same, the petitioners sought
reconveance, saing that the are entitled to inherit 8 of the propert in ,uestion b right of representation. In this regard, private
respondent 5omingo maintains that the petitioners failed to establish their legitimate filiation.
I22UE&
4hether or not the legitimac of petitioners ma be properl challenged in the present action for reconveance
HEL'&
9o. #he private respondent is not the proper part to impugn the legitimac of herein petitioners. #he presumption conse,uentl
continues to operate in favor of petitioners unless and until it is rebutted. *ven assuming that the issue is allowed to be resolved,
the burden of proof rests not on the petitioners who have the benefit of the presumption in their favor, but on the private
respondent who is disputing the same.
-. E2TATE 3$ R3GELI3 3NG 42 03ANNE R3'GIN 'IA5
6.R. 9o. (:(:(0 5ecember (: ;22:
Rule n 'NA Evi#en!e
$ACT2&
#he *state of Rogelio <ng opposed on the CA order directing the *state and 7oanne Rodgin 5ia& for 59A analsis for
determining the paternit of the minor 7oanne. #rial court formerl rendered a decision and declared the minor to be the
illegitimate child of Rogelio <ng with 7ink 5ia&, and ordering him to support the child until she reaches the age of ma!orit.
Rogelio died during the pendenc of the case with the CA. #he *state filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA. #he
contended that a dead person cannot be sub!ect to testing. CA !ustified that =59A paternit testing, as current !urisprudence
affirms, would be the most reliable and effective method of settling the present paternit dispute.=
I22UE&
4hether or not 59A analsis can still be done despite the death of Rogelio.
RULING&
>es. #he death of Rogelio does not ipso facto negate the application of 59A testing for as long as there e"ist appropriate
biological samples of his 59A. 9ew Rules on 59A *vidence allows the conduct of 59A testing b using biological samples--
organic material originating from the person?s bod, ie., blood, saliva, other bod fluids, tissues, hair, bones, even inorganic
materials- that is susceptible to 59A testing.
In case proof of filiation or paternit would be unlikel to satisfactoril establish or would be difficult to obtain, 59A testing,
which e"amines genetic codes obtained from bod cells of the illegitimate child and an phsical residue of the long dead parent
could be resorted to. @-eople vs %manito, citing #ecson vs Comelec A;A SCRA ;::B