Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Sy vs CA

On February 11, 1987, Filipina filed a petition for legal separation, docketed as Civil Case No. 7900 before the
Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga. Later, upon motion of petitioner, the action was later amended to
a petition for separation of property on the grounds that her husband abandoned her without just cause; that they
have been living separately for more than one year; and that they voluntarily entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement dated September 29, 1983, containing the rules that would govern the dissolution of their conjugal
partnership.[8] Judgment was rendered dissolving their conjugal partnership of gains and approving a regime of
separation of properties based on the Memorandum of Agreement executed by the spouses.[9] The trial court also
granted custody of the children to Filipina.[10]
WoN the photocopies presented by the petitioner are sufficient evidence.
During the course of the trial below, which shows that these have been examined and admitted by the trial court,
with no objections having been made as to their authenticity and due execution. Likewise, no objection was
interposed to petitioner's testimony in open court when she affirmed that the date of the actual celebration of their
marriage was on November 15, 1973. We are of the view, therefore, that having been admitted in evidence, with the
adverse party failing to timely object thereto, these documents are deemed sufficient proof of the facts contained
People vs Jalon
The present case arose from the killing of Pelarito Abujan in Barangay Baikingon, Cagayan de Oro City. The victim
died apparently of gunshot wounds in the forehead and neck which were inflicted on him on the night of May 28,
1986. 6 It appears, that the deceased was on his way to the dance hall of Barangay Baikingon when he was waylaid.
Prosecution witness Allan Gamlot recalled that only he and Alexander Abujan were with the victim during the
incident. 7 On the other hand, the other principal witness for the prosecution, Eddie Apus, said that the deceased was
with other companions, namely, himself (Apus), Alexander Abujan, Allan Gamlot and a certain Mario Diamar. 8
Both these witnesses related that they were passing by a banana plantation situated along the road to the dance hall
when a shot suddenly rang out. 9 Pelarito Abujan, who, according to Apus, was walking ahead of the others with
Gamlot, tried to investigate and went near the banana grove from where the shot came. At this juncture, a second
shot rang out, after which the third shot followed. Pelarito Abujan then fell with his face downward.
WoN the circumstantial presented by the prosecution is sufficient to convict the accused-appellant.

A conviction may rest upon circumstantial evidence alone as direct evidence is not always necessary to prove the
guilt of the accused 25 nor is it readily available. But the well-entrenched rule is that such evidence should be acted
upon and weighed with extreme caution, particularly where, as in this case, the crime for which the accused stands
to be convicted carries with it the highest imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua. 26 For such evidence to support a
conviction, it is essential that (a) there must be more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences
are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such that there can be no doubt as to the
guilt of the accused, thus warranting his conviction. 27 Earlier, in People vs. Subano, 28 the Court laid down the rule
Before conviction can be had upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proved should
constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the
defendant, to the exclusion of all others, as the author of the crime.
As it was principally upon the testimonies of Allan Gamlot and Eddie Apus that the prosecution sought to
incriminate appellant by circumstantial evidence, the unreliability of their respective testimonies cannot lead us to
that fair and reasonable conclusion that appellant was the one who committed the crime charged.
Ong vs Diaz
The Estate of Rogelio Ong opposed on the CA order directing the Estate and Joanne Rodgin Diaz for DNA analysis
for determining the paternity of the minor Joanne. Trial court formerly rendered a decision and declared the minor to
be the illegitimate child of Rogelio Ong with Jinky Diaz, and ordering him to support the child until she reaches the
age of majority. Rogelio died during the pendency of the case with the CA. The Estate filed a motion for
reconsideration with the CA. They contended that a dead person cannot be subject to testing. CA justified that "DNA
paternity testing, as current jurisprudence affirms, would be the most reliable and effective method of settling the
present paternity dispute."
Whether or not DNA analysis can still be done despite the death of Rogelio.

The death of Rogelio does not ipso facto negate the application of DNA testing for as long as there exist appropriate
biological samples of his DNA. New Rules on DNA Evidence allows the conduct of DNA testing by using
biological samples--organic material originating from the person's body, ie., blood, saliva, other body fluids, tissues,
hair, bones, even inorganic materials- that is susceptible to DNA testing.
In case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be difficult to obtain,
DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of the illegitimate child and any physical
residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to.