1

PEOPLE v ZAKARIA obviating switching, planting or contamination of

FACTS evidence.48 A failure to mark at the time of taking of initial
custody imperils the integrity of the chain of custody that
1. The accused were found to have sold and deliver to P02 the law requires.
Aninias 3 plastic of shabu in a buy0bust operation. The records show that the buy-bust team did not observe
2. The accused pleaded not guilty.
the mandatory procedures under Republic Act No. 9165 and
3. During the pre-trial, the prosecution dispensed with the its IRR. Although PO2 Aninias supposedly marked the
testimony of forensic chemist after the accused admitted
confiscated shabu with his initials immediately upon seizure,
the existence of Forensic Chemist Report he did not do so in the presence of the accused or of their
4. Prosecution says that it was a buybust operation and the
representatives and any representative from the media and
accused handed the shabu to the police and the latter paid; Department of Justice (DOJ), or any elected public official. If
on the other hand, defense argues that she saw her
he had, he would have readily stated so in court. In fact,
husband lying on the floor as well as their companion and both PO2 Aninias and PO3 Valdez themselves revealed that
the shabu was planted
no media or DOJ representative, or elected public official
5. RTC convicted the accused. On appeal, the CA affirmed the was present during the buy-bust operation and at the time
conviction.
of the recovery of the evidence at the target area.
6. OSG counters that the State proved the identities of the
The certificate of inventory, although signed by a media
seller and the delivery of shabu as well as the payment;
representative and a barangay official, was nonetheless
ISSUE: WON the State sufficiently established the origin of seized discredited by PO2 Aninias admission that only the
drugs? confidential informant and the members of the buy-bust
HELD: No. the corpus delicti was not credibly proved because the team were present at the time of the recovery of the
Prosecution did not establish an unbroken chain of custody, sachets of shabu from Samin
resulting in rendering the seizure and confiscation of the shabu Another serious lapse committed was that the buy-bust
open to doubt and suspicion. team did not take any photographs of the sachets of shabu
RATIO: upon their seizure.
the Prosecution neither recognized nor explained the lapses.
The chain of custody was crucial in establishing the link
between the shabu confiscated from the accused and the
evidence presented to the court for its appreciation.
The test of relevancy is whether an item of evidence will
have any value, as determined by logic and experience, in
proving the proposition for which it is offered, or whether it
would reasonably and actually tend to prove or disprove any
matter of fact in issue
Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the
seized dangerous drugs or other related items immediately
after they are seized from the accused, for the marking
upon seizure is the starting point in the custodial link that
succeeding handlers of the evidence will use as reference
point. Moreover, the value of marking of the evidence is to
separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other
similar or related evidence from the time of seizure from the
accused until disposition at the end of criminal proceedings,
 2

HEIRS OF SABANPAN v COMORPOSA
FACTS:
1. Unlawful detainer case was filed by petitioner against
respondent in Davao Del Sur MTC
2. Pet alleges that Marcos Saez was lawful and actual
possessor of land and he died leaving it to heirs.
3. Comorposa, who was terminated from his job, had a
problem in relocating his house. Son of Saez, Adolfo, allowed
Comorposa to occupy the land of Saez. Hence, a nipa hut
was carried by his neighbors and transferred to the land. He
did not pay any rental.
4. Comorposa went to Hawaii; he was succeeded in his
possession by respondents who also did not pay for rentals.
5. A formal demand was made but the respondents refused to
vacate.
6. Respondents argue that they have the right over the land as
they acquired it through prescription and that DENR upheld
their possession thus entitled to tile.
7. MTC ruled in favor of pet but RTC reversed. CA affirmed the
RTC saying that there was a certification by CENR. Hence,
this petition
ISSUE: WON the certification is admissible?
HELD: Yes
RATIO:
the rule on summary procedure -- cases in which no full-
blown trial is held.
ADMISSIBILITY AND PROBATIVE VALUE
Petitioners assert that the CA erred in disregarding the
Affidavits of their witnesses, insisting that the Rule on
Summary Procedure authorizes the use of affidavits. They
also claim that the failure of respondents to file their
position paper and counter-affidavits before the MTC
amounts to an admission by silence.
The admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its
probative value. Admissibility refers to the question of
whether certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at
all, while probative value refers to the question of whether
the admitted evidence proves an issue. Thus, a particular
item of evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary
weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines
provided by the rules of evidence.
While in summary proceedings affidavits are admissible as
the witnesses respective testimonies, the failure of the
adverse party to reply does not ipso facto render the facts,
set forth therein, duly proven. Petitioners still bear the
burden of proving their cause of action, because they are
the ones asserting an affirmative relief.

The Certification, on the other hand, is being contested for

bearing a facsimile of the signature of CENR Officer Jose F.
Tagorda.The facsimile referred to is not the same as that
which is alluded to in Garvida. The one mentioned here
refers to a facsimile signature, which is defined as a
signature produced by mechanical means but recognized as
valid in banking, financial, and business transactions.
As early as the pretrial conference at the Municipal Trial
Court (MTC), the CENR Certification had already been
marked as evidence for respondents as stated in the Pre-
trial Order.[22] The Certification was not formally offered,
however, because respondents had not been able to file
their position paper.
Neither the rules of procedure [23] nor jurisprudence[24] would
sanction the admission of evidence that has not been
formally offered during the trial. But this evidentiary rule is
applicable only to ordinary trials, not to cases covered by

ATIENZA v BOARD OF MEDICINE
FACTS
1. Sioson went to RMC for check up due to lumbar pains. She
went through diagnostic lab tests and ut revealed that her
kidney is normal but her left kidney is non-functioning and
non-visualizing. So she underwent kidney operation.
2. Husban Sioson filed a complaint for gross negligence and
incompetence before BOM against the doctors who allegedly
participated in the operation due to the remova; of fully
functional right kidney instead of left.
3. Editha Sioson file her fomal ofeer of documentary evidence;
attached therein are Exh A-D for proving the her kidneys
were both in proper anatomical location at the time of
operation
4. Pet opposed the formal offer of exhibits alleging that they
are inadmissibale becaue the same are mere photocopies,
not properly identified and authenticated and intended to
establish hearsay
5. BOM set the hearing; petitioner filed MR, denied by BOM
saying that it should first admint the evidence being offered.
Pet filed petition for certiorari w CA, the latter dismissed for
lack of merit.
ISSUE: WON the documentary evidence were admissible? WON
rules of Evidence is applicable?
HELD: Yes; No
RATIO:
rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings
before administrative bodies such as the BOM.
[I]t is the safest policy to be liberal, not rejecting them on
doubtful or technical grounds, but admitting them unless
plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent, for the reason
that their rejection places them beyond the consideration of
the court, if they are thereafter found relevant or
competent; on the other hand, their admission, if they turn
out later to be irrelevant or incompetent, can easily be
remedied by completely discarding them or ignoring them.
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether
or not the circumstance (or evidence) is to be considered at
all. On the other hand, the probative value of evidence
refers to the question of whether or not it proves an issue.
3
Section 20. Administrative investigation shall be conducted
in accordance with these Rules. The Rules of Court shall only
apply in these proceedings by analogy or on a suppletory
character and whenever practicable and convenient.
Technical errors in the admission of evidence which do not
prejudice the substantive rights of either party shall not
vitiate the proceedings.
admission of the exhibits did not prejudice the substantive
rights of petitioner because, at any rate, the fact sought to
be proved thereby, that the two kidneys of Editha were in
their proper anatomical locations at the time she was
operated on, is presumed under Section 3, Rule 131 of the
Rules of Court:
Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. The following
presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but
may be contradicted and overcome by other
evidence:
(y) That things have happened according to the
ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of
life.
The echibits were certified photocopies filed in connection w
the medical case and contains hand written interpretation.
They were actually attached in counter affidavit.
The fact sought to be established by the admission of
Edithas exhibits, that her kidneys were both in their proper
anatomical locations at the time of her operation, need not
be proved as it is covered by mandatory judicial notice.
o Laws of nature involving the physical sciences,
specifically biology,[14] include the structural make-up
and composition of living things such as human
beings. In this case, we may take judicial notice that
Edithas kidneys before, and at the time of, her
operation, as with most human beings, were in their
proper anatomical locations.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE IS INAPPLICABLE:
o The subject of inquiry in this case is whether
respondent doctors before the BOM are liable for
gross negligence in removing the right functioning
kidney of Editha instead of the left non-functioning
kidney, not the proper anatomical locations of
Edithas kidneys.
o these exhibits do not constitute hearsay evidence of
the anatomical locations of Edithas kidneys.
 4

o the introduction of secondary evidence, such as

copies of the exhibits, is allowed.
o Ultimately, since the originals cannot be produced,
the BOM properly admitted Edithas formal offer of
evidence and, thereafter, the BOM shall determine
the probative value thereof when it decides the case.
 5

HO WAI PANG v PEOPLE issue and [are] not otherwise excluded by law or rules, [are] not
FACTS affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial
investigation.
1. 13 HK passengers arrived in PH as tourists; the group leader o petitioner did not make any confession or admission
Soony Wong presented a baggage declaration to customs during his custodial investigation. The prosecution did not
2. Cico examined the baggage of each 13 passengers present any extrajudicial confession extracted from him
3. She became suspicious, she took 4 chocolate boxes and as evidence of his guilt.
opened one of them. Instead of of chabu she saw white
On the other hand, petitioners conviction in the present case was
transparent plastic with crystalline substance
on the strength of his having been caught in flagrante
4. In all, 18 chocolate boxes were recovered.
delicto transporting shabu into the country and not on the basis
5. NARCOM corroborated; it turns out that it was shabu. It was
of any confession or admission
bundled w tape and placed inside a plastic bag and placed
in the Inbond section.
6. They were brought to NBO; NBI found evidence for violation
of RA6425 only against petitioner and his 5 co-accused.
7. Information was filed but petitioner filed motion for
reinvestigation wc was granted; it was found out that there
was a conspiracy so an amended single info was filed.
8. Accused invoked denial claiming no knowledge about the
shabu
9. RTC found them guilty; RTC affirmed. While conceding that
petitioners constitutional right to counsel during the
custodial investigation was indeed violated, it nevertheless
went on to hold that there were other evidence sufficient to
warrant his conviction.
ISSUE: WON the evidence taken should have been excluded for
violation of constitutional and statutory rights under custodial
investigation?
HELD: No.
RATIO:

While there is no dispute that petitioner was subjected to all

the rituals of a custodial questioning by the customs
authorities and the NBI in violation of his constitutional right
under Section 12 of Article III of the Constitution, we must
not, however, lose sight of the fact that what said
constitutional provision prohibits as evidence are only
confessions and admissions of the accused as against
himself.
Court categorically ruled that the infractions of the so-called
Miranda rights render inadmissible only the extrajudicial
confession or admission made during custodial investigation. The
admissibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant to the

PEOPLE v DOMINGO REYES
FACTS:
1. Yao family on board a Maza van arrived at their poltry in
Bulacan
2. Father alighted to open the gate of the farm
3. Reyes and Pataray approached, poked their guns at father
and dragged him inside the van
4. Appelants boarded the van; other companion also boarded
and took the drivers seat and blind folded each member of
the family
5. The van stopped; children stepped out of the van, while the
remaining members of family were inside the vehicle and
drove with other appellants
6. The vn stopped again and the appellant told father to
produce 5m as ransom in exchange for release of other
family members.
7. When the appellants left the van, father drove it towards the
farm and sought help from relatives
8. Those who were taken were brought to a safe house in
mountainous part of Bualacan
9. Abagtan (housemaid) was aked to go to farm to look for the
father but she could not find him
10. Robert (son) was also freed so he could help looking and
reminding for the ransom
11. Father agreed; thereafter they threatened the father since it
already spread in newspaper and radio.
12. They were suppose to meet in QC but the appellants did not
arrive.
13. Corpses of mother and another son were found in La Mesa
Dam due to strangulation
14. Appellant Arnldo surrendered and executed a written EJ
confession narrating his participation
15. Appellant Reyes was arrested in Batangas. Appellant Flores
executed written EJ confession and identified Flores and
Arnaldo and others as co-participants.
16. Prosecution adduced focumentary evidence to bolster the
allegations such as sinumpaang salaysay, sketch, deat cert,
joint affidavit of police, written EJ confession
17. Defence deniel liability through alibi and frame-up
18. RTC convicted them of kidnapping for ransom w homicide;
CA affirmed
6
ISSUE: WON the EJ confession were admissible since there was no
counsel?
HELD: Yes. Records reflect that appellants Arnaldo and Reyes were
likewise accorded their right to competent and independent
counsel during their respective custodial investigations.
RATIO:
An extra-judicial confession is a declaration made voluntarily
and without compulsion or inducement by a person under
custodial investigation, stating or acknowledging that he
had committed or participated in the commission of a crime.
extra-judicial confession is admissible in evidence if the
following requisites have been satisfied: (1) it must be
voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance of
competent and independent counsel; (3) it must be express;
and (4) it must be in writing.
We have gone over the records and found that the PAOCTF
investigators have duly apprised appellants Arnaldo and
Flores of their constitutional rights to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel of their own
choice during their respective custodial investigations.
When asked if they had a lawyer of their own, appellant
Arnaldo replied that he would be assisted by Atty. Uminga,
while appellant Flores agreed to be represented by Atty.
Rous. Thereafter, when asked if they understood their said
rights, they replied in the affirmative.
There was no conflict of interest with regard to the legal
assistance rendered by Atty. Uminga and Atty. Rous. Both
counsels had no interest adverse to appellants Arnaldo and
Flores.
In the case at bar, appellants Arnaldo and Flores failed to
discharge their burden of proving that they were forced or
coerced to make their respective confessions.
Nevertheless, even without the extra-judicial confessions of
appellants Arnaldo and Flores, evidence on record is
sufficient to sustain a finding of culpability of appellant
Reyes. As earlier found, Abagatnan, Robert
and Yao positively identified appellant Reyes as one of their
kidnappers.

TAN v HOSANA
FACTS
1. Jose and Milagros Hosana bought a house in Naga. Milagros
sold to Tan the property by a DOS executed by Milagros
herself and as atty in fact of Jose by SPA executed by Jose in
her favor.
2. Jose filed a complainr for annulment of sale against Milagros
and Tan alleging that he wasworking in Japan and it was
made without his consent.
3. Tan maintained that he was a buyer in good faith and for
value; he filed a cross claim against Milagros and claimed
damages
4. RTC declared Milagros in default and dismissed Tans
complaint
5. Bonifacio as witness of Jose testified that the Joses
signature in SPA was forges.
6. Tan said that thru a phone call, Jose has agreed to the said
sale and so he made a payment
7. RTC nullified the sale and held that SPA was null and void;
CA affirmed but ordered reimbursement of 200k (amt stated
in DOS) only instead of 700k which was the amount actually
paid
8. Tan filed petrev arguing that the matters contained in DOS
cannot be used as evidence since it was null and void and
that DOS was not specifically offered to prove the actual
considereation of sale and the full amount of actual money
paid must be returned
ISSUE: WON the DOS can be a basis for the amount of
consideration paid?
HELD: Yes. void document is admissible as evidence because the
purpose of introducing it as evidence is to ascertain the truth
respecting a matter of fact, not to enforce the terms of the
document itself.
7
RATIO:
Whether Tomas sufficiently proved that he paid P700,000.00
for the subject property is a factual question that the CA had
already resolved in the negative
The CA found Tomas claim of paying P700,000.00 for the
subject property to be unsubstantiated as he failed to
tender any convincing evidence
In civil cases, the basic rule is that the party making
allegations has the burden of proving them by a
preponderance of evidence.
A void contract is equivalent to nothing and is absolutely
wanting in civil effects.
It is basic that if a void contract has already been
performed, the restoration of what has been given is in
order.
While the terms and provisions of a void contract cannot be
enforced since it is deemed inexistent, it does not preclude
the admissibility of the contract as evidence to prove
matters that occurred in the course of executing the
contract
The deed of sale as documentary evidence may be used as
a means to ascertain the truthfulness of the consideration
stated and its actual payment; used as a means to
determine matters that occurred in the execution of such
contract
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is
not excluded by the law of these rules. There is no provision
in the Rules of Evidence which excludes the admissibility of
a void document
The notarized deed of sale is a public document and is
prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein