Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE; HEARSAY EXCLUDED reduced his statement into writing whereby Reyes claimed that on
December 15, 1996, he saw petitioner and Sotero Paredes (Paredes)
JOSE ESPINELI VS PEOPLE board a red car while armed with a .45 caliber firearm and armalite,
DOCTRINE respectively; and that petitioner told Paredes that ayaw ko nang
abutin pa ng bukas yang si Berbon. Subsequently, Reyes posted bail
Jurisprudence teaches us that "for circumstantial evidence to be and was released. Thenceforth, he jumped bail and was never again
sufficient to support a conviction, all circumstances must be heard of.
consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the NBI Agent Segunial testified on these facts during the trial.
accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the
hypothesis that he is innocent x x x." Thus, conviction based on The victims widow, Sabina Berbon (Sabina) testified that Reyes
circumstantial evidence can be upheld provided that the asked financial help so he could transfer his family to the province
circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads and protect them from any untoward consequence that may result
to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, from his giving information to the NBI regarding the death of
to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person Sabinas husband. Sabina gave him the total amount of P1,500.00
and promised to help him in applying for the witness protection
FACTS program. After that, however, Reyes never came back.
On June 24, 1997, an Information charging petitioner with the crime Another prosecution witness, Rodolfo Dayao (Rodolfo), testified that
of he sold his red Ford Escort car to three persons who came to his
murder was filed before the RTC. The facts show that in the early residence which he later identified the said car from the photographs
evening of December 15, 1996, Alberto presented to him by the police officers.
Berbon y Downie (Alberto), a 49-year old Senior Desk Coordinator
of the radio Dr. Ludivino J. Lagat (Dr. Lagat), the NBI Medico-Legal Officer
station DZMM, was shot in the head and different parts of the body who conducted a post-mortem examination on Alberto, declared in
in front of his house in Imus, Cavite by unidentified malefactors who his Autopsy Report that the victim suffered multiple gunshot wounds
immediately fled the crime scene on board a waiting car. in the head and body. He also stated that based on the size of the
gunshot wounds or entrance, high-powered
Meanwhile, the group of Atty. Orly Dizon (Atty. Dizon) of the NBI guns were used in the killing.
arrested and took into custody one Romeo Reyes (Reyes) for the
crime of Illegal Possession of Deadly Weapon. Reyes confided to the Petitioner, on the other hand, did not adduce evidence for his
group of Atty. Dizon that he was willing to give vital information defense. Instead, he filed a Demurrer to Evidence without leave of
regarding the Berbon case. In due course, NBI Agent Dave Segunial court.
The trial court adjudged petitioner guilty of murder. CA found from which the inference is derived are proven; and iii) the
petitioner guilty only of homicide instead of murder. It ratiocinated combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a
that since none of the prosecution witnesses saw how the killing of conviction beyond reasonable
the victim was perpetrated, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of doubt. All the circumstances must be consistent with one another,
superior strength cannot be appreciated. Neither can nighttime serve consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the
as an aggravating circumstance as the time of the commission of the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent. Thus,
crime was not even alleged in the Information. conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld provided
that the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which
MR DENIED.
leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the
Petitioner anchors his quest for the reversal of his conviction on the accused, to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person.
alleged erroneous admission in evidence of the Sinumpaang
The records reveal that there was no eyewitness to the actual
Salaysay of Reyes for being hearsay and inadmissible. He avers that
killing of Alberto. Thus the courts below were forced to render
the said sworn statement should not have been given probative value
their verdict of conviction on circumstantial evidence as
because its contents were neither confirmed nor authenticated by the
sanctioned under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court. The
affiant.
central issue now confronting this Court is whether the prosecution
ISSUE has amply proved by circumstantial evidence petitioners guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
WON the prosecution has amply proved by circumstantial evidence
petitioners guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
JALLALUDIN ABDULRAHMAN GULAM VS SPOUSES The RTC rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint and ordering
CATALINO and RICARDA SANTOS the rescission of the Contract to Sell. The amount of P1,100,000.00,
the amount admitted by the defendant to have been paid by the
DOCTRINE plaintiffs and received by herein defendant is hereby declared as
FACTS forfeited in favor of the defendants to be applied as rental of the
house from June of 1994 up to the time of rendition of judgment and
Petitioner and respondents entered into a Contract to Sell on January the payment of P20,000.00 a month from the time of rendition of the
1994, whereby the latter agreed to sell to petitioner a 72-square judgment until the plaintiff and all persons claiming rights under him
meter parcel of land located in Sampaloc, Manila, for the price of shall have finally vacated the premises, and to pay the amount of
P1,700,000.00, including a 2 storey townhouse to be constructed by P200,000.00 by way of attorneys fees for unjustly refusing to
respondents on the property. A final deed of sale shall be executed by comply with their obligation in bad faith thus forcing the defendants
respondents upon full payment of the contract price, with petitioner to litigate this matter in court.
bearing the costs of the taxes. Written on the contract is the note:
Received the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos only Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed
(P500,000.00) representing Partial Payment of Full Downpayment. the RTC Decision
Two years after the execution of the Contract to Sell, petitioner filed ISSUE
against respondents an action for Specific Performance, asking the WON the RTC and the CA erred in dismissing petitioners complaint
RTC to order respondents to execute a final deed of sale, plus and ordering the rescission of the Contract to Sell.
damages and costs. Petitioner contended that he already fulfilled his
end of the bargain by paying the stipulated amount, including the WON the trial court gravely erred in holding that plaintiff Mr. Gulam
taxes, or a total of P2,050,000.00. did not or was incompetent to testify on due execution of the receipt
in the contract to sell, Norhaya, the plaintiffs wife
should have been asked instead since she would be competent on this
matter but the issue on said receipt on the contract to sell was instead testimony is considered hearsay and may not be received as
avoided on direct examination, Mr. Gulam was also declared proof of the truth of what he has learned. The hearsay rule is
incompetent to testify on the march 9, 1994 receipt for the amount of based upon serious concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability
p500,000.00 since it was Norhaya who made the of hearsay evidence inasmuch as such evidence are not given under
payment thereof, Mr Gulam cannot testify on the due execution of oath or solemn affirmation and, more
said receipt. importantly, have not been subjected to cross-examination by
opposing counsel to test the perception, memory, veracity, and
RULING
articulateness of the out of-court declarant or actor upon whose
The RTC ruled that petitioner cannot testify on the alleged receipt of reliability on which the worth of the out-of-court statement depends.
these contested amounts as he was not present during the time that it
True, petitioners statements may be considered as independently
was made, since according to petitioner himself, it was his wife
relevant statements and may be admissible not as to the veracity
Norhaya who allegedly made the payments. The RTC, meanwhile,
thereof but to the fact that they had been thus uttered. However,
gave credence to respondents claim that petitioner is yet to pay the
the admissibility of his testimony to such effect should not be
full amount of the purchase price, relying on the two letters sent by
equated with its weight and sufficiency. Admissibility of evidence
petitioners wife Norhaya to Santos admitting that the amount of
depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight of
P1,100,000.00 has already been given to respondents, and a balance
evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency
of P446,036.00 in the purchase price remains, exclusive of the cost
to convince and persuade.
of labor and improvements, and which Norhaya seeks to reimburse
from respondents. The CA sustained the RTCs findings, stating that In this case, both the RTC and the CA refused to give credence to
the receipt dated March 9, 1994 is a forgery. It also ruled that petitioners testimony, and the Court finds no reason to doubt the
respondents are entitled to a rescission of the Contract to sell as assessments made by both courts. Even assuming that his wife,
petitioner failed to comply with his obligations under the contract. indeed, told him that payments were made on these dates, still, it
does not follow that it is sufficient proof to establish his claim of
Petitioner insists that the CA erred in holding that his testimony with
overpayment. These should be weighed vis--vis the other evidence on
regard to the payments made by his wife was hearsay. Petitioner
record, which, as appraised by the RTC and the CA, do not support
argues that the purpose of such testimony was merely to establish the
petitioners claim.
fact that such statement was made.
Although Norhaya testified, she did not, however, give any credible
It is a hornbook doctrine of evidence that a witness can testify only
testimony regarding these alleged payments. In fact, Norhaya failed
to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge, which
to testify on the alleged separate payment made in the amount of
means those facts which are derived from his perception. A
P500,000.00, which was annotated on the Contract to Sell.
witness may not testify as to what he merely learned from others
either because he was told or read or heard the same. Such
LEODEGARIO BAYANI VS PEOPLE Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge;
hearsay excluded. A witness can testify only to those facts
FACTS
which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are
Bayani was charged with violation of BP 22. It was alleged that he derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously issue and make out a check these rules.
dated August 26, 1992, in the amount of P10,000.00 drawn against
the PS Bank, Candelaria Branch, Quezon, payable to Cash and give
the said check to one Dolores Evangelista knowing fully well that it Under the above rule, any evidence whether oral or documentary is
had no sufficient balance. Petitioner was convicted by RTC. hearsay if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge
Evangelista alleged that he had 2 confrontations with Bayani and a of the witness, but on that of some other person who is not on the
certain Alicia Rubia, and all what the accused Leodegario Bayani witness stand. Hence, information that is relayed to the former by the
could say were flat denials of having talked with, or otherwise met latter before it reaches the court is considered hearsay.
Evangelista, regarding the latters claim of payment of the value of
In the present case, complainant Evangelista testified that she was
Check, admittedly from the check booklet of the said accused Bayani
approached by Alicia Rubia who told her that she was requested by
issued by PS Bank, Candelaria Branch. CA affirmed in toto RTCs
petitioner to have the check exchanged for cash, as he needed money
decision.
badly.
ISSUE Obviously, Evangelistas testimony is hearsay since she had no
personal knowledge of the fact that petitioner indeed requested
The court of appeals erred in refusing to acquit the accused despite
Rubia to have the check exchanged for cash, as she was not
the conviction of the trial court is utterly based on hearsay evidence
personally present when petitioner supposedly made this request.
RULING What she testified to, therefore, was a matter that was not
derived from her own perception but from Rubias.
The Court sustains the CA in affirming petitioners conviction by the
RTC. However, petitioner is barred from questioning the admission of
Evangelistas testimony even if the same is hearsay. Section 34, Rule
Petitioner denies having issued the check subject of this case. He 132 of the Rules of Court requires that the trial court shall not
argues that the evidence consider any evidence which has not been finally offered. Section 35
pinpointing him as the signatory on the check is merely hearsay. of the same Rule provides that as regards the testimony of a witness,
Section 36 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides for the rule on the offer must be made at the time the witness is asked to testify. And
hearsay evidence, to wit: under Section 36 of the same Rule, objection to a question
propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness
shall be made as soon as the ground therefor becomes reasonably
apparent. Thus, it has been held that in failing to object to the relevant to the issues of petitioners falsehood, his authorship of
testimony on the ground that it was hearsay, the evidence offered the check in question and consequently, his culpability of the
may be admitted. Since no objection to the admissibility of offense charged. In any event, petitioners conviction did not rest
Evangelistas testimony was timely made from the time her solely on Evangelistas testimony. There are other pieces of
testimony was offered and up to the time her direct examination was evidence on record that established his guilt, to wit: the subject
conducted check was included in the booklet of checks issued by the PS
then petitioner has effectively waived any objection to the Bank to petitioner; the subject check was made to apply to the
admissibility thereof and his belated attempts to have her testimony account of petitioner whose name appears on the upper portion
excluded for being hearsay has no ground to stand on. While of the said check; and most telling is that petitioner never
Evangelistas statement may be admitted in evidence, it does not categorically denied that the signature appearing on the check
necessarily follow that the same should be given evidentiary was his.
weight. Admissibility of evidence should not be equated with
Neither did petitioner claim that the signature was a forgery. All
weight of evidence. In this regard, it has been held that although
these pieces of evidence, taken together, inevitably support the
hearsay evidence may be admitted because of lack of objection
finding of petitioners guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the offense
by the adverse partys counsel, it is nonetheless without
charged.
probative value, unless the proponent can show that the evidence
falls within the exception to the hearsay evidence rule. In this
case, Evangelistas testimony may be considered as an
independently relevant statement, an exception to the hearsay
rule, the purpose of which is merely to establish the fact that the LEAMER INDUSTRIES INC VS MALAYA INSURANCE CO.
statement was made or the tenor of such statement. Independent INC.
of the truth or the falsity of the statement, the fact that it has been
made is relevant. When Evangelista said that Rubia told her that it FACTS
was petitioner who requested that the check be exchanged for cash, Ilian Silica Mining entered into a contract of carriage with Lea Mer
Evangelista was only testifying that Rubia told her of such request. It Industries, Inc., for the shipment of 900 metric tons of silica sand
does not establish the truth or veracity of Rubias statement since it valued at P565, 000. Consigned to Vulcan Industrial and Mining
is merely hearsay, as Rubia was not presented in court to attest to Corporation, the cargo was to be transported from Palawan to
such utterance. On this score, evidence regarding the making of such Manila. On October 25, 1991, the silica sand was placed on board
independently relevant statement is not secondary but primary, Judy VII, a barge leased by Lea Mer. During the voyage, the vessel
because the statement itself may (a) constitute a fact in issue or (2) sank, resulting in the loss of the cargo.
be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of that fact. Indeed,
independent of its truth or falsehood, Evangelistas statement is
Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., as insurer, paid Vulcan the value of the Report conducted by their company. The final Report showed that
lost cargo. To recover the amount paid and in the exercise of its right the barge was not seaworthy because of the existence of the holes.
of subrogation, Malayan demanded reimbursement from Lea Mer, Manlapig testified that he had prepared that Report after taking into
which refused to comply. Consequently, Malayan instituted a account the findings of the surveyor, as well as the pictures and the
Complaint with the RTC of Manila for the collection the amount that sketches of the place where the sinking occurred. Evidently, the
respondent had paid Vulcan. The trial court dismissed the Complaint, existence of the holes was proved by the testimonies of the
upon finding that the cause of the loss was a fortuitous event. The witnesses, not merely by Cortez Survey Report.
RTC noted that the vessel had sunk because of the bad weather
Rule on Independently Relevant Statement
condition brought about by Typhoon Trining. CA reversed the RTC
decision. The CA held that the vessel was not seaworthy when it That witnesses must be examined and presented during the trial, and
sailed for Manila. Thus, the loss of the cargo was occasioned by that their testimonies must be confined to personal knowledge is
petitioners fault, not by a fortuitous event. required by the rules on evidence, from which we quote:
ISSUE Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge;
hearsay excluded.
Whether or not the survey report of the cargo surveyor, Jesus Cortez,
who had not been presented as a witness of the said report during the A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his
trial of this case before the lower court can be admitted in evidence personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own
to prove the alleged facts cited in the said report. perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.
RULING On this basis, the trial court correctly refused to admit Jesus
Cortezs Affidavit, which respondent had offered as evidence.
Petitioner claims that the Survey Report prepared by Jesus Cortez,
Well-settled is the rule that, unless the affiant is presented as a
the cargo surveyor, should not have been admitted in evidence. The
witness, an affidavit is considered hearsay. An exception to the
Court partly agrees. Because he did not testify during the trial,
foregoing rule is that on independently relevant statements. A
then the Report that he had prepared was hearsay and therefore
report made by a person is admissible if it is intended to prove
inadmissible for the purpose of proving the truth of its contents.
the tenor, not the truth, of the statements. Independent of the truth
The Survey Report Not the Sole Evidence or the falsity of the statement given in the report, the fact that it has
been made is relevant. Here, the hearsay rule does not apply. In the
The facts reveal that Cortezs Survey Report was used in the
instant case, the challenged Survey Report prepared by Cortez was
testimonies of respondents witnesses -- Charlie M. Soriano; and
admitted only as part of the testimonies of respondents witnesses.
Federico S. Manlapig, a cargo marine surveyor and the vice-
The referral to Cortezs Report was in relation to Manlapigs final
president of Toplis and Harding Company. Soriano testified that the
Adjustment Report. Evidently, it was the existence of the Survey
Survey Report had been used in preparing the final Adjustment
Report that was testified to. The admissibility of that Report as part second, to the bakery of Delfina Boot, as if he were up for some
of the testimonies of the witnesses was correctly ruled upon by the mischief Shortly after that chance meeting, Gerome learned that
trial court. At any rate, even without the Survey Report, petitioner Ursula Calimbo had been struck to death.
has already failed to overcome the presumption* of fault that
Hilaria Calimbo Binatero (Ellen), daughter of Ursula, testified that
applies to common carriers.
she lived next door to her mother, their houses separated only by a
fence. In the evening of February 17, 1992, she was cooking in her
house when she heard her mother cry for help, Ellen, tabangin ko
*common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in
(Ellen, please help me). She rushed to her mother and found her
their vigilance over the goods entrusted to them, as required by the
bloodied near the main door. She asked her what happened and who
nature of their business and for reasons of public policy.
was responsible for her condition. Her mother replied, Gerry.
Consequently, the law presumes that common carriers are at fault or
negligent for any loss or damage to the goods that they transport. Ellen testified that on February 10, 1992, she saw accused de las
Eras hiding behind the fence of her mothers house, looking
particularly at the back of the house near the kitchen and the comfort
EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE room. On February 12, 1992, her mother received a pension of P3,
000.00. On February 14, 1992, someone stole the money. Her mother
SEC 37 DYING DECLARATION suspected accused de las Eras as the culprit.
PEOPLE VS GERARDO DE LAS ERAS Y ZAFRA Luisito Redulla testified that he rushed to the scene of the crime
FACTS when he heard Ellen (daughter) cry for help. He went to the victim
and asked what happened to her and who was responsible, and she
An information was filed charging Gerardo de las eras with the crime answered Gerry, the son of Pepe and Corning struck her (gibunalan
of murder alleging that he hit a certain Ursula Calimbo, a defenseless siya). Incidentally, accused Gerardo de las Eras parents are Felipe,
woman, on the head and other vital parts of her body, thereby nicknamed Pepe, and Cornelia Zafra de las Eras. Luisito Redulla was
causing her immediate death. It was alleged that Gerome Diola saw the arresting officer when, in 1989, accused Gerry de las Eras was
accused Gerardo de las Eras (aka Gerry) within the vicinity of the charged with theft.
house of Ursula Calimbo (then 73 years old). Gerome knew accused
de las Eras since childhood. They had a short conversation, then Hilaria immediately rushed Ursula to the hospital, but after one hour,
parted ways. When asked by Diola during the brief she died.
and chance meeting as to his destination, de las Eras seemed unable In his defense, accused Gerardo de las Eras invoked denial and alibi.
to give a definite answer as he was giving two different destinations: Early in the evening of February 17, 1992, he accompanied Dedec
first, that he was on his way to his brothers house; and on the Carnecer to have a battery recharged, and after which, he went
directly to his grandmother to buy cigarettes and to have supper. His Denial and alibi are weak defenses and cannot overturn the positive
grandmothers house was about one hundred (100) meters away from identification by the prosecution witnesses of the assailant, more so
the house of the victim. when there are material inconsistencies in the testimony of the
accused denying his participation in the crime. In this case, accused
RTC found Gerry guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. appellant gave different responses as to his whereabouts when the
crime was committed.
ISSUE
Accused-appellants defense of denial and alibi is further weakened
WON the trial court erred in relying heavily on the dying declaration
by the fact that he escaped from detention on May 23, 1992, before
of the deceased and other circumstantial evidence.
his arraignment. On January 21, 1995, he was re-arrested and
RULING detained at the Bohol Detention and Rehabilitation Center (BDRC)
for another crime. On June 7, 1997, during the trial of this case,
NO. accused-appellant again escaped from the guard on duty. On
Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an accused if the December 17, 1997, he was apprehended again. Such escapade is
following requisites concur: (1) there must be more than one akin to flight before arrest in the commission of a crime, which is
circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are an indication of guilt. However, there was no eyewitness showing
proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances produces a how the assailant attacked the victim. Without any particulars as to
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The totality of the evidence the manner in which the aggression commenced or how the act
must form an unbroken chain showing beyond reasonable doubt which resulted in the victims death unfolded, treachery cannot be
the culpability of the accused. appreciated. In the absence of specific evidence proving the
qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength,
The dying declaration made by the victim immediately prior to absorbed therein, the crime committed is homicide, not murder.
her death constitutes evidence of the highest order of the cause of
her death and of the identity of the assailant. Under the Revised
Rules on Evidence, a dying declaration is admissible provided the PEOPLE VS RAMIL PEA
following requisites are present: (1) the statement concerns the crime
and surrounding circumstances of the declarants death; (2) at the FACTS
time it was made, the declarant was under the consciousness of an
Accused-appellant Ramil Pea was charged with murder. In the early
impending death; (3) the declarant would have been competent as a
morning of December 8, 1995, accused-appellant hired Jimbo
witness had he survived; and (4) the declaration was offered in a
Pelagio, a tricycle driver working the night shift, to take him to Paco,
criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide in which the
Obando, Bulacan. When they reached their destination, he ordered
declarant was the victim. When asked by her daughter Hilaria
Pelagio to get off the tricycle. Then, accused-appellant robbed
Binatero and policeman Luisito Redulla, the victim pointed to
Pelagio of his money and repeatedly struck him on the head with a
accused-appellant Gerry de las Eras as her assailant. This
qualifies as a dying declaration.
gun. Pelagio fell on the ground unconscious. Accused-appellant shot Whether the statement of the victim Jimbo Pelagio as well as the
him on the head and fled on board his tricycle. testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on the victims declaration
can be considered as part of the res gestae, hence, an exception to the
That same morning, SPO1 Froilan Bautista got a call from the hearsay rule
Valenzuela Emergency Hospital stating that a man had been shot on
the head and was in their hospital. SPO1 Bautista and SPO1 Jose Sta. RULING
Ana rushed to the hospital and found the still conscious Pelagio lying
The trial court ruled that Pelagios statement was a dying declaration
on a stretcher. SPO1 Bautista took the statement of Pelagio in a
since it was uttered at the point of death and with consciousness of
question and answer method, which he took down on two sheets of
that fact due to the serious nature of his wounds. Thus, it admitted
yellow paper. After his statement was taken, Pelagio affixed his
Pelagios statement in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule.
thumbmark on both sheets. In his statement, Pelagio related how
accused-appellant inflicted his injuries on him. The requisites for the admissibility of dying declarations have
already been established in a long line of cases. An ante-mortem
The owner of the tricycle, Wilfredo Lampa proceeded to the
statement or dying declaration is entitled to probative weight if: (1)
hospital wherein Pelagio told him that it was accused-appellant who
at the time the declaration was made, death was imminent and the
shot him and took away his tricycle. Francisca Pelagio, Jimbo
declarant was conscious of that fact; (2) the declaration refers to the
Pelagios mother, also rushed to the hospital. Upon advice of the
cause and surrounding circumstances of such death; (3) the
doctors, Francisca brought her son to the Jose Reyes Memorial
declaration relates to facts which the victim was competent to testify
Hospital. On February 6, 1996, Jimbo Pelagio expired.
to; (4) the declarant thereafter died; and (5) the declaration is offered
For his part, accused-appellant claimed that he was in San Isidro, San in a criminal case wherein the declarants death is the subject of the
Luis, Pampanga together with his wife on the date of the incident. He inquiry.
went into hiding in the house of his uncle, Maximiano Guevarra, for
The first element is lacking in the case at bar. It was not
nine (9) months because he allegedly killed a certain Roger
established with certainty whether Pelagio uttered his statement
Wininsala. He came to know that he was being accused of the
with consciousness of his impending death. While he was in pain
murder of Pelagio, whom he did not know, only while he was in
when he made his statement, he expressly stated that accused-
detention on a drug charge. Accused-appellants testimony was
appellant only pistol whipped him and almost shot him. The
corroborated by his uncle Maximiano Guevarra.
significance of a victims realization or consciousness that he was on
RTC rendered a decision convicting Pea guilty of murder. Hence this the brink of death cannot be gainsaid. Such ante mortem statement
appeal. is evidence of the highest order because at the threshold of death,
all thoughts of fabricating lies are stilled. The utterance of a
victim made immediately after sustaining serious injuries may be
ISSUE considered the incident speaking through the victim. It is entitled
to the highest credence. Granting that Pelagio, after giving his
statement, later on realized that he was dying, his statement still
cannot be considered a dying declaration. The crucial factor to alleged in the information, the trial court did not state why the killing
consider is the contemporaneity of the moment when the statement was qualified to murder. The prosecution failed to establish the
was made and the moment of the realization of death. The time the attendance of the qualifying circumstances with concrete proof. The
statement was being made must also be the time the victim was crime proved was only homicide.
aware that he was dying. While it may not qualify as a dying
declaration, Pelagios statement may nonetheless be admitted in
evidence as part of the res gestae. PEOPLE VS PO3 AKIB NORRUDIN
A declaration made spontaneously after a startling occurrence is FACTS
deemed as part of the res gestae when (1) the principal act, the res
gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before An information was filed charging accused appellant with the crime
the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements of murder.
concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending PO2 Carias testified that in the evening of July 7, 1995, he reported
circumstances. for work at the Surigao City Police Station. He saw the accused-
Pelagios declaration is admissible as part of the res gestae since it appellant at the police station although the latter was already off-
was made shortly after a startling occurrence and under the influence duty. The accused-appellant was wearing civilian clothes and had his
thereof. Under the circumstances, the victim evidently had no firearm tucked at the side of his waist.
opportunity to contrive his statement beforehand. In this case, it is Carias, Morales and the accused-appellant went to Barangay Lipata
clear that the pistol-whipping and the gunshot on the head of Pelagio to inspect the police team assigned there. In Barangay Lipata, they
qualified as a startling occurrence. Notably, Pelagio constantly had some drinks with a friend until about 12:30 a.m. of July 8, 1995.
complained of pain in his head while his statement was being taken Thereafter, Morales, Carias and the accused appellant returned to
by SPO1 Bautista, so much so that there was no opportunity for him Surigao City. Upon reaching the city, the accused-appellant, who
to be able to devise or contrive anything other than what really was already drunk by then, got off in front of Casa Blanca, a pension
happened. house, restaurant and videoke bar located at Narciso Street. Carias
Even if there were intervening periods between the time the victim and the others then returned to the police station as it was still their
gave his account of the incident to the prosecution witnesses and the duty. At around 2:00 a.m., while Deguino was at the police station,
time the latter first disclosed what the victim told them, the same will he received a radio communication requesting police officers to
not affect the admissibility of the victims declaration or statement as proceed to Casa Blanca in connection with a shooting incident which
part of res gestae since it is sufficient that such declaration or had just occurred therein.
statement was made by the victim before he had time to contrive or Kit Aguilar, a GRO testified that prior to the occurrence of the
devise a falsehood. shooting incident at Casa Blanca, she and a certain Maritess, a fellow
However, this Court cannot agree with the trial court that the crime GRO, were entertaining a customer named Vidal Avila, Jr. The
should be murder. While evident premeditation and treachery were following day, July 8, 1995, the accused appellant arrived at Casa
Blanca. Maritess, rose to meet him, as he was her live-in boyfriend. for gunpowder residue. Leva, another policeman, testified that he
Maritess and the accused-appellant sat at another table and ordered went to Akibs house. Leva and Deguino went in and the accused
beer. Not long after that, they started arguing and the accused- appellant surrendered to them.
appellant began shouting at Maritess, which continued even outside
DAMI TESTIMONIES. SHET
the establishment. Later, after Avila, Jr. went outside. Aguilar looked
through the restaurants window and saw that Avila, Jr. turned right to Accused appellant denied the allegations. He said that after their
Narciso Street. Shortly afterwards, she heard a gunshot. Maritess inspection he insisted on going home, that when he got home, went
then went back inside the restaurant. Aguilar asked Maritess if she straight to bed. Also, he argued that this fellow police men picked
knew anything about the gunshot which was fired earlier. Maritess him up and went to station and told him that shot a man dead at Casa
replied that it was her boyfriend, the accused-appellant, who fired the Blanca. The accused-appellant said he was stunned by Levas
shot. Subsequently, accused-appellant also went back inside Casa statement since he had nothing to do with the incident. The accused-
Blanca, finished his drink and left the restaurant with Maritess. appellant also denied that Maritess, the GRO from Casa Blanca, is
Dorothy Rivera, the owner of Casa Blanca, corroborated Aguilars his girlfriend. He maintained that he does not know the woman and
testimony. he has not gone inside the said restaurant.
For his part, Ramil Llorado testified that he and his friends were RTC found him guilty.
drinking when they heard a gunshot. Subsequently, Avila asked them
for help. Llorado recognized the man as Vidal Avila, Jr., an ISSUE
employee in the Office of the City Engineer of Surigao City. They WON the dying declaration was admissible
reported the incident to the desk officer and requested for assistance.
On the way to hospital, Llorado asked Avila who shot him. Avila, Jr. RULING
replied in a weak voice that a policeman shot him. Llorado was
Court affirmed RTC decision.
shocked upon hearing Avila, Jr.s answer, but since they were inside a
police car at that time together with some policemen, he refrained Although Avila, Jr. did not expressly state that he was dying when he
from further asking questions. made the declaration, the circumstances surrounding such
declaration show that the same was uttered by him under the
PO3 Deguino went to Casa Blanca were several witnesses told
consciousness of impending death. It has been held in a number of
him that the assailant was a fellow police officer. PO2 Carias
cases that even if a declarant did not make a statement that he was on
later told him that he dropped the accused off at Casa Blanca
the brink of death, a dying declaration may be admissible if there are
and that he was already drunk. At the hospital, he asked Avila,
circumstances from which it may be inferred with certainty that such
Jr if he recognized the person who shot him and whether or not
was his state of mind.
it was AKIB (accused) to which he responded, yes. The victim
was so weak that Deguino had to repeat the questions several A dying declaration made in the form of answers to questions put by
times. A laboratory technician in the PNP Crime Laboratory in CDO the person to whom the declaration is made is admissible in court,
also testified that the accused-appellants right hand tested positive and may be proved by the testimony of the witness who heard the
same or to whom it was made. Thus, the trial court did not err in this complaint be titled in the name of Basilisa, the latter being the
admitting the following testimony of Deguino in whose presence eldest and so Original Certificate of Title No. 20742 in the name of
Avila, Jr. made the dying declaration. Basilisa Santos was obtained although it was agreed among them
In addition to the dying declaration of the victim, there are several that it did not and does not necessarily mean that Basilisa Santos is
circumstances which, taken together, indubitably point to the guilt of the sole and exclusive owner of this parcel of land, and as embodied
accused-appellant. The Court has previously held that circumstantial in the Title obtained in the name of Basilisa Santos;
evidence will suffice to support a conviction where (1) there is more
than one circumstance, (2) the facts from which the inferences are b. that without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs, the title
derived are proven, and (3) the combination of all the circumstances of the lot with Original Certificate of Title No. 20742 was transferred
is sufficient to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In into another title which is now Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-
other words, when the circumstantial evidence is not only consistent 20695 in the names of Modesta Agustin, Filemon Agustin, Venancia
with guilt but also inconsistent with the hypothesis that the accused Agustin, Marcelina Agustin, Monica Agustin, Gregorio Agustin and
is innocent and with every other reasonable hypothesis except guilt. Bienvenido Agustin who are the children of the late Basilisa Santos-
The accused-appellants alibi cannot prevail over the direct and Agustin who
circumstantial evidence
against him, especially considering that it was not physically c. that during the lifetime of Basilisa Santos-Agustin, plaintiff
impossible for him to be at Casa Blanca in the early morning of July Alejandra Santos-Lazaro informed the former, who are sisters, that
8, 1995. the transfer of the title in the name of Basilisa Santos into the names
of her children would erroneously imply that the lot is solely and
exclusively owned by Basilisa Santos-Agustin's children, but
Basilisa Santos-Agustin replied [to] plaintiff Alejandra Santos-
Lazaro not to worry because an affidavit was already executed by her
SEC 38 DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST
recognizing and specifying that her brothers Alberto Santos and
ALEJANDRA LAZARO VS MODESTA AGUSTIN, ET AL Leoncio Santos, and her sister Alejandra Santos-Lazaro would each
get one fourth () share of the lot;
FACTS
The MTCC ruled, among others, that no evidentiary value could be
The petitioners (plaintiff) filed a complaint against the respondent given to the affidavit allegedly executed by Basilisa, wherein she
(defendant) for claiming as one of the co-owners of a parcel of land purportedly acknowledged her co-ownership of the subject property
Lot No. 10676. Alleging the following: with her siblings Alberto, Leoncio and Alejandra, because the affiant
was not presented on the witness stand, such that all the statements
a. that Alberto, Leoncio and Alejandra, all surnamed Santos, who are made in her affidavit were hearsay. The RTC affirmed the decision
the children of Simeon Santos, consented that the parcel of land of
with modification. The CA affirmed also the decision of MTCC with Not all notarized documents are exempted from the rule on
modification. authentication. Thus, an affidavit does not automatically become a
public document just because it contains a notarial jurat. The
Issue: presumptions that attach to notarized documents can be affirmed
Whether or not the sworn statement of Basilisa S. Agustin is a only so long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization was
declaration against interest which establishes the co-ownership of lot regular.
no. 10676 by and among the petitioners and respondents.
Petitioners rely heavily on the presumption of regularity accorded by
Ruling: law to notarized documents. While indeed, a notarized document
No. At the outset, it bears to point out that it is wrong for petitioners enjoys this presumption, the fact that a deed is notarized is not a
to argue that Basilisa's alleged sworn statement is a declaration guarantee of the validity of its contents. The presumption cannot be
against interest. It is not a declaration against interest. Instead, it made to apply to the present case because the regularity in the
is an admission against interest. Admissions against interest are execution of the sworn statement was challenged in the proceedings
those made by a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or below where its prima facie validity was overthrown by the highly
identified in legal interest with such party, and are admissible questionable circumstances under which it was supposedly executed,
whether or not the declarant is available as a as well as the testimonies of witnesses who testified on the
witness. Declarations against interest are those made by a person improbability of execution of the sworn statement, as well as on the
who is neither a party nor in privity with a party to the suit, are physical condition of the signatory, at the time the questioned
secondary evidence, and constitute an exception to the hearsay document was supposedly executed.
rule. They are admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a
witness. In the present case, since Basilisa is respondents' A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons
predecessor-in-interest and is, thus, in privity with the latter's legal who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and
interest, the former's sworn statement, if proven genuine and duly personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of
executed, should be considered as an admission against interest. what are stated therein. In the instant case, the notary public should
have exercised utmost diligence in ascertaining the true identity of
Settled is the rule that generally, a notarized document carries the the person executing the said sworn statement. However, the notary
evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due public did not comply with this requirement.
execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have
in their favor the presumption of regularity. However, this
presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and DANILO L. PAREL v SIMEON B. PRUDENCIO
convincing evidence to the contrary.
Doctrine: It is safe to presume that he would not have made such had filed ejectment case as well as criminal cases against them
declaration unless he believed it to be true, as it is prejudicial to involving the subject house which were all dismissed. Petitioner
himself as well as to his childrens interests as his heirs. A declaration asked for the dismissal of the complaint and prayed for damages and
against interest is the best evidence which affords the greatest attorneys fees.
certainty of the facts in dispute. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioner and found that the
petitioners father and respondent were co-owners of the subject
property. Aggrieved, respondent appealed with the CA and the
Facts: decision was reversed in favor of respondent declaring him to be the
sole owner of the property. The CA found the affidavit dated
Respondent, Simeon Prudencio, filed a complaint for
September 24, 1973 of Florentino, petitioners father, stating that he
recovery of possession and damages against petitioner with the RTC is not the owner of the subject house but respondent, as conclusive
of baguio for the residential building to which the petitioner was proof of respondents sole ownership of the subject house as it is a
residing. The respondent alleged that he was the sole owner of the declaration made by Florentino against his interest. It also found the
subject house located at No. 61 Forbes Park National Reservation, tax declarations and official receipts representing payments of real
Baguio City. That he merely allowed petitioner and his parents to estate taxes of the questioned property covering the period 1974 to
live in the said building (2nd floor) when it was constructed (1975) 1992 sufficient to establish respondents case which constitute at least
proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property.
out of sheer magnanimity as petitioners parents have no house of
their own and since respondents wife is the older sister of Florentino,
ISSUE:
petitioners father. In November 1985, respondent wrote a notice to
Whether or not petitioner was able to prove by
Florentino to vacate the said house as the former was due for
preponderance of evidence that his father was a co-owner of the 2
retirement and needed the place, the petitioners parents heeded the
storey residential house.
notice when they migrated to the US. However, without respondents
knowledge, petitioner and his family unlawfully entered and took
HELD:
possession of the ground floor of the residential house.
YES. The court agreed with the ruling of the CA by virtue of
Petitioner refuse to vacate the house and in his answer with
the affidavit presented by the respondent which executed and sworn
counterclaim he claims that his parents are co-owners of the
residential house (upper story belongs to the respondent, ground to by Florentino on Sept 24, 1973 which had a statement that he is
floor to his parents). he is occupying the ground floor upon the not the owner of the subject property but merely its occupant. The
instruction of his father, Florentino, with respondents full affidavit also states that the property is owned by respondent and that
knowledge; his parents spent their own resources in improving and Florentino is merely filing the tax declaration for respondent. Such
constructing the said two-storey house as co-owners thereof; the late affidavit was deemed to be a declaration against interest, Rule 131
Florentino was an awardee of the land on which the house stands and Sec. 38.
as a co-owner of the house, he occupied the ground floor thereof; the
The theory under which declarations against interest are
demand to vacate was respondents attempt to deprive petitioners
received in evidence notwithstanding they are hearsay is that the
parents of their rights as co-owner of the said house; that respondent
necessity of the occasion renders the reception of such evidence of Martial law to private respondent, Liwayway Publishing, then
advisable and, further that the reliability of such declaration asserts represented by late B/Gen. Menzi. Petitioner contends that there was
facts which are against his own pecuniary or moral interest. The vitiated consent and gross inadequacy of purchase price during its
affiant, Florentino, who died in 1989 was petitioners father and had sale on Oct. 23, 1973. The RTC dismissed the petition. On appeal to
adequate knowledge with respect to the subject covered by his the CA, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court
statement. In said affidavit, Florentino categorically declared that hence this current petition.
while he is the occupant of the residential building, he is not the
owner of the same as it is owned by respondent who is residing in One of the arguments of petitioner was that the onset of the
Quezon City. It is safe to presume that he would not have made such Martial Law should be considered as a force majeure which would
declaration unless he believed it to be true, as it is prejudicial to toll the prescriptive period set forth by law. This would have an
himself as well as to his childrens interests as his heirs. A declaration effect of counting the prescriptive period not from the execution of
against interest is the best evidence which affords the greatest the sale, 1973, but on the end of Martial Law, 1986, thus moving the
certainty of the facts in dispute. prescription period from late 1977 to late 1990 (4-year prescriptive
period)
ISSUE:
Whether or not the cause of action has prescribed
PHILIPPINE FREE PRESS v CA
HELD:
DOCTRINE: Neither may petitioner circumvent the hearsay
Yes. The Supreme Court held that petitioners contention that
rule by invoking the exception under the declaration-against- by reason of the Martial law they were unable to institute the
interest rule. In context, the only declaration supposedly made by
foregoing action. The Court can grant that Mr. Locsin, Sr. and
Gen. Menzi which can conceivably be labeled as adverse to his petitioner were, in the context of DBP and Tan, true oppositionists
interest could be that he was acting in behalf of Marcos in offering to
during the period of material law. Petitioner, however, has failed to
acquire the physical assets of petitioner. Far from making a convincingly prove that Mr. Locsin, Sr., as its then President, and/or
statement contrary to his own interest, a declaration conveying
its governing board,
the notion that the declarant possessed the authority to speak were so circumstanced that it was well-nigh impossible for him/them
and to act for the President of the Republic can hardly be
to successfully institute an action during the martial law years.
considered as a declaration against interest. Petitioner cannot plausibly feign ignorance of the fact that shortly
after his arrest in the evening of September 20, 1972, Mr. Locsin, Sr.,
FACTS: together with several other journalists, dared to file suits against
powerful figures of the dictatorial regime and veritably challenged
Petitioner, thru Teodoro Locsin Sr. filed a case for annulment the legality of the declaration of martial law. Docketed in this Court
of sale of its building, lot and printing machineries during the regime as GR No. L-35538, the case, after its consolidation with eight (8)
other petitions against the martial law regime, is now memorialized deprived of or is bereft of opportunity to cross-examine the persons
in books of to whom the statements or writings are attributed. One of its
jurisprudence and cited in legal publications and case studies as exception is declaration against interest (sec. 38)
Aquino vs. Enrile. However, in assessing the probative value of Gen. Menzis
Incidentally, Mr. Locsin Sr., as gathered from the ponencia supposed declaration against interest, i.e., that he was acting for
of then Chief Justice Querube Makalintal in Aquino, was released the late President Marcos when he purportedly coerced Mr.
from detention notwithstanding his refusal to withdraw from his Locsin, Sr. to sell the Free Press property, we are loathed to give it
petition in said case. Judging from the actuations of Mr. Locsin, Sr. the evidentiary weight petitioner endeavors to impress upon us. For,
during the onset of martial law regime and immediately thereafter, the Locsins can hardly be considered as disinterested witnesses.
any suggestion that intimidation or duress forcibly stayed his hands They are likely to gain the most from the annulment of the subject
during the dark days of martial law to seek judicial assistance must contracts. Moreover, allegations of duress or coercion should, like
be rejected. fraud, be viewed with utmost caution. They should not be laid
lightly at the door of men whose lips had been sealed by death.
The all too familiar rule is that a witness can testify only to
Evid part: The evidence referred to as hearsay pertains mainly to the those acts which he knows of his own knowledge. There can be no
testimonies of Messrs. Locsin, Sr. and Teodoro Locsin, Jr. (the quibbling that petitioners witnesses cannot testify respecting
Locsins, collectively), which, in gist, established the following facts: what President Marcos said to Gen. Menzi about the acquisition
1) the widely circulated Free Press magazine, which, prior to the of petitioners newspaper, if any there be, precisely because none
declaration of Martial Law, took the strongest critical stand against of said witnesses ever had an opportunity to hear what the two
the Marcos administration, was closed down on the eve of such talked about.
declaration, which closure eventually drove petitioner to financial Neither may petitioner circumvent the hearsay rule by
ruin; 2) upon Marcos orders, Mr. Locsin, Sr. was arrested and invoking the exception under the declaration-against-interest
detained for over 2 months without charges and, together with his rule. In context, the only declaration supposedly made by Gen.
family, was threatened with execution; 3) Mr. Locsin, Sr. was Menzi which can conceivably be labeled as adverse to his interest
provisionally released on the condition that he refrains from could be that he was acting in behalf of Marcos in offering to acquire
reopening Free Press and writing anything critical of the Marcos the physical assets of petitioner. Far from making a statement
administration; and 4) Mr. Locsin, Sr. and his family remained contrary to his own interest, a declaration conveying the notion
fearful of reprisals from Marcos until the 1986 EDSA Revolution. that the declarant possessed the authority to speak and to act for
Per the Locsins, it was amidst the foregoing circumstances the President of the Republic can hardly be considered as a
that petitioners property in question was sold to private respondent, declaration against interest.
represented by Gen. Menzi, who, before the sale, allegedly applied SEC. 38 ACT OR DECLARATION REGARDING PEDIGREE
the squeeze on Mr. Locsin, Sr. thru the medium of the Marcos cannot ROSENDO HERRERA v RESNDO ALBA
be denied and [you] have no choice but to sell line.
Jurisprudence instructs that evidence of statement made or a DOCTRINE: So far, the laws, rules, and jurisprudence
testimony is hearsay if offered against a party who has no seemingly limit evidence of paternity and filiation to
opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Hearsay evidence is incriminating acts alone. However, advances in science show that
excluded precisely because the party against whom it is presented is sources of evidence of paternity and filiation need not be limited
to incriminating acts. There is now almost universal scientific 1. how the samples were collected,
agreement that blood grouping tests are conclusive on non-
paternity, although inconclusive on paternity. 2. how they were handled,
In the Vallejo Case, the Supreme Court recognized DNA 4. Whether the method at issue enjoys widespread
analysis as admissible evidence. On the other hand, as to determining acceptance
the weight and probative value of DNA test results, the Supreme
Court provides, which is now known as the Vallejo Guidelines: In this case, the Supreme Court declared that in filiation
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, cases, before paternity inclusion can be had, the DNA test result must
courts should consider, among other things, the following data: state that the there is at least a 99.9% probability that the person is
the biological father. However, a 99.9% probability of paternity (or writing. Standing alone, neither a certificate of baptism nor family
higher but never possibly a 100% ) does not immediately result in pictures are sufficient to establish filiation.
the DNA test result being admitted as an overwhelming evidence. It So far, the laws, rules, and jurisprudence seemingly limit
does not automatically become a conclusive proof that the alleged evidence of paternity and filiation to incriminating acts alone.
father, in this case Herrera, is the biological father of the child However, advances in science show that sources of evidence of
(Alba). Such result is still a disputable or a refutable evidence which paternity and filiation need not be limited to incriminating acts.
can be brought down if the Vallejo Guidelines are not complied with. There is now almost universal scientific agreement that blood
grouping tests are conclusive on non-paternity, although
What if the result provides that there is less than
inconclusive on paternity.
99.9% probability that the alleged father is the biological father?
The present case asks us to go one step further. We are now
Then the evidence is merely corroborative. asked whether DNA analysis may be admitted as evidence to prove
Anent the issue of self-incrimination, submitting to DNA paternity.
testing is not violative of the right against self-incrimination. The
right against self-incrimination is just a prohibition on the use of
physical or moral compulsion to extort communication (testimonial N.B.: the case is about DNA test results admissibility as evidence
evidence) from a defendant, not an exclusion of evidence taken from and its probative value. Since scientific progress makes it possible to
his body when it may be material. There is no testimonial know ones filiation, evidence regarding ones pedigree need not be
compulsion in the getting of DNA sample from Herrera, hence, he
limited to incriminating acts alone.
cannot properly invoke self-incrimination.
This Courts rulings further specify what incriminating acts
are acceptable as evidence to establish filiation. In Pe Lim v. CA, a
case petitioner often cites, we stated that the issue of paternity still
has to be resolved by such conventional evidence as the relevant
incriminating verbal and written acts by the putative father. Under
Article 278 of the New Civil Code, voluntary recognition by a parent JENIE SAN JUAN DELA CRUZ and minor CHRISTIAN DELA
shall be made in the record of birth, a will, a statement before a court CRUZ AQUINO v RONALD PAUL S. GRACIA in his capacity
of record, or in any authentic writing. To be effective, the claim of as Civil Registrar of Antipolo City
filiation must be made by the putative father himself and the writing
must be the writing of the putative father. A notarial agreement to DOCTRINE: In the case at bar, there is no dispute that the
support a child whose filiation is admitted by the putative father was earlier quoted statements in Dominiques Autobiography have
considered acceptable evidence. Letters to the mother vowing to be a been made and written by him. Taken together with the other
good father to the child and pictures of the putative father cuddling relevant facts extant herein that Dominique, during his lifetime,
the child on various occasions, together with the certificate of live and Jenie were living together as common-law spouses for
birth, proved filiation. However, a student permanent record, a several months in 2005 at his parents house in Pulang-lupa,
written consent to a fathers operation, or a marriage contract where
the putative father gave consent, cannot be taken as authentic
Dulumbayan, Teresa, Rizal; she was pregnant when Dominique there must be a signature by the putative father in the private
died on September 4, 2005 handwritten instrument.
The following rules respecting the requirement of
FACTS: affixing the signature of the acknowledging parent in any private
handwritten instrument wherein an admission of filiation of a
For several months in 2005, Jenie (21) lived together with legitimate or illegitimate child is made:
Christian (19) as husband and wife without benefit of marriage. They
resided at Dominiques parents. On Sept 4, 2005 Dominique died. 2 1) Where the private handwritten instrument is the
months later, on Nov. 2, 2005, Jenie gave birth to her herein co- lone piece of evidence submitted to prove filiation, there
petitioner minor child, Christial Dela Cruz Aquino. should be strict compliance with the requirement that the
Jenie was denied the registration of her child's birth because same must be signed by the acknowledging parent; and
the document attached to the Affidavit to use the Surname of the 2) Where the private handwritten instrument is
Father, Christian Dominique Sto Tomas Aquino, (AUSF) entitled accompanied by other relevant and competent evidence,
"Autobiography," did not include the signature of the deceased it suffices that the claim of filiation therein be shown to
father, and because he was born out of wedlock and the father have been made and handwritten by the acknowledging
unfortunately died prior to his birth and has no more capacity to parent as it is merely corroborative of such other
acknowledge his paternity to the child. evidence.
Jenie and the child promptly filed a complaint for
injunction/registration of name against Gracia. The trial court held In the case at bar, there is no dispute that the earlier
that even if Dominique, the father, was the author of the unsigned quoted statements in Dominiques Autobiography have been
handwritten Autobiography, the same does not contain any express made and written by him. Taken together with the other relevant
recognition of paternity. facts extant herein that Dominique, during his lifetime, and Jenie
were living together as common-law spouses for several months
in 2005 at his parents house in Pulang-lupa, Dulumbayan,
ISSUE: Teresa, Rizal; she was pregnant when Dominique died on
September 4, 2005; and about two months after his death, Jenie
Whether or not the unsigned handwritten instrument of the gave birth to the child they sufficiently establish that the child of
deceased father of minor Christian can be considered as a Jenie is Dominiques.
recognition of paternity.
RULING:
Yes. Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by RA TECSON v COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
9255, permits an illegitimate child to use the surname of his/her DOCTRINE: For the rule (sec. 39 rule 130) to apply, it would be
father if the latter had previously recognized him/her as his offspring necessary that (a) the declarant is already dead or unable to
through an admission made in a pubic of private handwritten testify, (b) the pedigree of a person must be at issue, (c) the
instrument. Article 176, as amended, does not explicitly state that
declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in (2) Those born in the Philippines Islands of foreign parents
question, (d) declaration must be made before the controversy who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to
has occurred, and (e) the relationship between the declarant and public office in the Philippine Islands.
the person whose pedigree is in question must be shown by (3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
evidence other than such act or declaration. (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and
upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.
(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
FACTS: Under the 1973 constitution, it provides:
Is Fernando Poe, Jr.(Ronal Allan Kelly Poe, aka FPJ), the Section 1, Article III, 1973 Constitution - The following are
citizens of the Philippines:
hero of silver screen, and now one of the main contenders for the
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of
presidency, a natural-born Filipino or is he not?
the adoption of this Constitution.
Petitioners sought for respondent Poes disqualification in (2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
the presidential elections for having allegedly misrepresented Philippines.
material facts in his (Poes) certificate of candidacy by claiming that (3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the
he is a natural Filipino citizen despite his parents both being provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and
foreigners. Comelec dismissed the petition, holding that Poe was a thirty-five.
Filipino Citizen. Petitioners assail the jurisdiction of the Comelec, (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
contending that only the Supreme Court may resolve the basic issue
on the case under Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 The 1987 Constitution generally adopted the provisions of
Constitution. the 1973 Constitution, except for subsection (3) thereof that aimed to
correct the irregular situation generated by the questionable proviso
in the 1935 Constitution.
Under the Jones Law, a native-born inhabitant of the Section I, Article IV, 1987 Constitution now provides:
Philippines was deemed to be a citizen of the Philippines as of 11 The following are citizens of the Philippines:
April 1899 if he was 1) a subject of Spain on 11 April 1899, 2) (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of
residing in the Philippines on said date, and, 3) since that date, not a the adoption of this Constitution.
citizen of some other country. (2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
While there was, at one brief time, divergent views on Philippines.
whether or not jus soli was a mode of acquiring citizenship, the 1935 (3) Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino
Constitution brought to an end to any such link with common law, by mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching
adopting, once and for all, jus sanguinis or blood relationship as the age of majority; and
being the basis of Filipino citizenship - Section 1, Article III, 1935 (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Constitution. The following are citizens of the Philippines
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution
ISSUE: favor enough to hold that he cannot be held guilty of having made a
material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy in violation
Whether or not FPJ is considered to be a natural-born of Section 78, in relation to Section 74 of the Omnibus Election
Filipino Citizen and is thus eligible to run for the highest position of Code.
our country
HELD: Section 39, Rule 130, of the Rules of Court provides -
Act or Declaration about pedigree. The act or declaration of a person
Yes. The 1935 Constitution on Citizenship, the prevailing
deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of another
fundamental law on respondents birth, provided that among the person related to him by birth or marriage, may be received in
citizens of the Philippines are "those whose fathers are citizens of the evidence where it occurred before the controversy, and the
Philippines." relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other
than such act or declaration. The word `pedigree includes
Tracing respondents paternal lineage, his grandfather
relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates when
Lorenzo, as evidenced by the latters death certificate was identified
and the places where these facts occurred, and the names of the
as a Filipino Citizen. His citizenship was also drawn from the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately
presumption that having died in 1954 at the age of 84, Lorenzo connected with pedigree.
would have been born in 1870. In the absence of any other evidence, For the above rule to apply, it would be necessary that (a)
Lorenzos place of residence upon his death in 1954 was presumed to the declarant is already dead or unable to testify, (b) the pedigree
be the place of residence prior his death, such that Lorenzo Pou of a person must be at issue, (c) the declarant must be a relative
would have benefited from the "en masse Filipinization" that the of the person whose pedigree is in question, (d) declaration must
Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. Being so, Lorenzos citizenship be made before the controversy has occurred, and (e) the
would have extended to his son, Allan---respondents father. relationship between the declarant and the person whose
pedigree is in question must be shown by evidence other than
Respondent, having been acknowledged as Allans son to such act or declaration.
Bessie, though an American citizen, was a Filipino citizen by virtue Thus, the duly notarized declaration made by Ruby
of paternal filiation as evidenced by the respondents birth certificate. Kelley Mangahas, sister of Bessie Kelley Poe submitted as
The 1935 Constitution on citizenship did not make a distinction on Exhibit 20 before the COMELEC, might be accepted to prove
the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child, thus, the allegation of the acts of Allan F. Poe, recognizing his own paternal
bigamous marriage and the allegation that respondent was born only relationship with FPJ, i.e, living together with Bessie Kelley and
before the assailed marriage had no bearing on respondents his children (including respondent FPJ) in one house, and as one
citizenship in view of the established paternal filiation evidenced by family
the public documents presented.
But while the totality of the evidence may not establish
conclusively that respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines, the evidence on hand still would preponderate in his
SEC. 40 FAMILY REPUTATION OR TRADITION On Jan 8, 2003 BBBs brother went to the hospital and told
REGARDING PEDIGREE BBB that he saw appellant and AAA inside the room, standing and
facing each other. This prompted BBB to ask AAA about the
PEOPLE v DOMINGO GALANO y JARANILLA incident. AAA at first hesitated but later on admitted that he was
DOCTRINE: Crim: To convict an accused charged with raped. She was then brought to the city health officer for examination
qualified rape instead of rape in its simple form not only which found vaginal lacerations on AAAs private part.
condemns the accused to a more serious offense but also exposes Galleno denied the allegation and asserted the alibi that he
him to an even greater liability. As such, the State is mandated to was working in the sugarcane field at the time of the incident.
sufficiently allege in the information and to competently prove
during trial the qualifying circumstances of minority and The RTC convicted him of qualified rape contending that at
relationship with the same certainty as the crime itself the time of the incident AAA was below 18 years of age and such
fact was not contested by Gallano. It also asserted that the
Evid: BBB, who was AAAs aunt, was qualified to testify on relationship by affinity within the 3 rd civil degree was sufficiently
AAAs pedigree, like her age and her date of birth. Sec. 40 of Rule established.
130 of the Rules of Court expressly states so. Yet Pruna dictated that
BBBs testimony must be clear and credible. The CA affirmed the RTCs ruling but modified the penalty
from death to reclusion perpetua due to the intervening passage of
RA 9346 which suspends the imposition of death penalty.
FACTS: ISSUE:
Accused was found guilty of the crime of rape qualified by Whether or not accused should be guilty of qualified rape
minority and relationship by RTC of Negros Occidental and was
sentence to the supreme penalty of rape. Under the information filed HELD:
against him, he was charged with having carnal knowledge with his
No, he should only be convicted of simple rape.
niece, AAA, a 12-year old minor child, against the latters will.
It is settled that the findings of fact by the trial court are
The victim together with her brother, was living with her
accorded great weight, and are even held to be conclusive and
maternal aunt, BBB, who was the appellants wife, their children,
binding unless they were tainted with arbitrariness or oversight.
and BBBs brother in Baranggat Guimbala-on, Silay City.
Nonetheless, Gallano is guilty only of simple rape. The two
On Jan. 2, 2003 BBB went to the hospital to attend to her
requisites of quialified rape: 1) victim must be below 18 yrs old; and
father and stayed there for days. At that time AAA was at home and
2) the offender must either be related to the victim by consanguinity
was about to make her brother go to sleep when appellant took her
or by affinity within the third civil degree, or is the common law
aside, undressed her, and laid her down on the bed.
spouse of the parent of the victim; must be alleged and proved with
absolute certainty.
Prosecution was unable to provide with AAAs birth FACTS:
certificate and also failed to present any acceptable documentary
2 separate complaints for sexual harassment and various
evidence to prove the same. Prosecution merely relied on the
malfeasances were filed against Dr. Belagan, the Superintendent of
testimonies of AAA and BBB to establish AAAs minority.
DECS.
BBB, who was AAAs aunt, was qualified to testify on
1st (MAGDALENAs): She was applying for a permit to
AAAs pedigree, like her age and her date of birth. Sec. 40 of Rule
operate a pre-school and during the inspection of the pre-school,
130 of the Rules of Court expressly states so. Her testimony on
Belagan placed his arms around her shoulders and kissed her cheeks.
AAAs minority and relationship with the accused would have
Magdalena kept mum about the incident but when she followed up
sufficed for qualifying the rape however, Pruna, dictated that such
her application, Belagan replied, Mag-date muna tayo. She only
testimony must be clear and credible. BBBs testimony failed this
told her husband about the incident when he asked for the status of
test. BBB was contradicted by AAAs testimony when the former
their application. Belagan forwarded their application, with a
claims that she had taken AAA under her wing when she was 9
recommendation for the approval of the pre-school. When
months old but AAA statement was that she stayed with BBB
Magdalena found out that some DECS employees were suing
and accused only 4 years prior to the time she gave her
Belagan, she decided to complain to DECS secretary Gloria. Belagan
testimony. Gallano complicated the matter further when he
was placed under suspension.
attested that AAA started staying with them when she was 7
years old. This contradiction cast a doubt on BBBs personal 2nd (LIGAYA ANNAWI): She alleged in her complaint that
knowledge of AAAs age and date of birth, rendering her on four separate occasions, respondent touched her breasts, kissed
testimony on AAAs minority unreliable. her cheek, touched her groins, embraced her from behind and pulled
her close to him, his organ pressing the lower part of her back.
Ligaya also charged respondent with: (1) delaying the payment of the
teachers salaries; (2) failing to release the pay differentials of
substitute teachers; (3) willfully refusing to release the teachers
SEC. 41 COMMON REPUTATION uniforms, proportionate allowances and productivity pay; and (4)
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v BELAGAN failing to constitute the Selection and Promotion Board, as required
by the DECS rules and regulations.
DOCTRINE: When the credibility of a witness is sought to be
impeached by proof of his reputation, it is necessary that the DECS joint investigation: Belagan denied sexual harassment
reputation shown should be that which existed before the occurrence accusations. Presented evidence against admin acts. The DECS
of the circumstances out of which the litigation arose,[1] or at the Secretary found Belagan GUILTY of 4 counts of sexual indignities
time of the trial and prior thereto, but not at a period remote from the or harassments committed against Ligaya; and two (2) counts of
commencement of the suit.[2] This is because a person of derogatory sexual advances or indignities against Magdalena and ordered him
character or reputation can still change or reform himself. dismissed from service.
Belagan appealed to petitioner CSC. CSC affirms DECS Sec (2) No evidence of conviction of the offenses charged. The
decision BUT dismissed complaint of Ligaya. Transgression against general rule prevailing in a great majority of jurisdictions is that it is
Magdalena constitutes grave misconduct. On MR he raised that he not permissible to show that a witness has been arrested or that he
has never been charged of any offense in his 37 years of service has been charged with or prosecuted for a criminal offense, or
while Magdalena was charged with 22 offenses before MTC Baguio confined in jail for the purpose of impairing his credibility. This view
and 23 complaints before brgy captains of Brgy Silang and Hillside has usually been based upon one or more of the following grounds or
in Baguio. (in general, these charges concern grave threats or theories: (a) that a mere unproven charge against the witness does
slander) STILL DENIED. Appealed before CA. not logically tend to affect his credibility, (b) that innocent persons
are often arrested or accused of a crime, (c) that one accused of a
CA dismissed Magdalenas complaint, reversed CSC crime is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is legally established,
Resolutions on the reason that Magdalena is an unreliable witness, and (d) that a witness may not be impeached or discredited by
her character being questionable. Given her aggressiveness and evidence of particular acts of misconduct. Significantly, the same
propensity for trouble, she is not one whom any male would attempt Section 11, Rule 132 of our Revised Rules on Evidence provides that
to steal a kiss. a witness may not be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful
ISSUE: acts. Such evidence is rejected because of the confusion of issues and
the waste of time that would be involved, and because the witness
Whether or not Magdalena is a credible witness may not be prepared to expose the falsity of such wrongful acts. As it
HELD: happened in this case, Magdalena was not able to explain or rebut
each of the charges against her listed by respondent.
Yes. Magdalena testified so shes considered a witness. Her
character/reputation is a proper subject of inquiry. However, (1) the (3) CSC resolution was supported by substantial evidence.
charges and complaints happened way back in the 70s and 80s while Magdalenas testimony was given weight by CSC plus corroborated
the act complained of happened in 1994, thus, the said charges are no by affidavit.
longer reliable proofs of Magdalenas character or reputation.
Evidence of ones character or reputation must be confined to a time
not too remote from the time in question. In other words, what is to *Rules on character evidence (R130.51.a.3): the provision pertains
be determined is the character or reputation of the person at the only to criminal cases, not to administrative offenses. Even if it is
time of the trial and prior thereto, but not at a period remote applicable to admin cases, only character evidence that would
from the commencement of the suit. establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged may
be proved. Character evidence must be limited to the traits and
It is unfair to presume that a person who has wandered characteristics involved in the type of offense charged.
from the path of moral righteousness can never retrace his steps
again. Certainly, every person is capable to change or reform. >>>IN THIS CASE: no evidence bearing on Magdalenas chastity.
What were presented were charges for grave oral defamation, grave
threats, unjust vexation, physical injuries, malicious mischief, etc. 6. This insurance does not cover any loss or damage occasioned by
filed against her. or through or in consequence, directly or indirectly, of any of the
following consequences, namely:
Rules of evidence for establishing lack of credibility of the witness:
Credibility means the disposition and intention to tell the truth in the
(c) War, invasion, act of foreign enemies, hostilities, or
testimony given. It refers to a persons integrity, and to the fact that
warlike operations (whether war be declared or not), civic
he is worthy of belief. A witness may be discredited by evidence
war.
attacking his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity.
(d) Mutiny, riot, military or popular uprising, insurrection,
rebellion, revolution, military or usurped power.
SEC 42 PART OF THE RES GESTAE
DBP POOL OF ACCREDITED INSURANCE CO. v RADIO The insurers maintained that based on witnesses and
MINDANAO NETWORK INC., evidence gathered at the site, the fire was caused by the members of
the Communist Party of the Philippines/New Peoples Army. Hence
DOCTRINE: The rule in res gestae applies when the declarant the refusal to honor their obligations.
himself did not testify and provided that the testimony of the
witness who heard the declarant complies with the following The trial court and the CA found in favor of the respondent.
requisites: (1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling In its findings, both courts mentioned the fact that there was no
occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant credible evidence presented that the CCP/NPA did in fact cause the
had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and (3) that the fire that gutted the radio station in Bacolod.
statements must concern the occurrence in question and its
immediate attending circumstances.
ISSUE:
HELD:
Yes. (Refer to the Doctrine for the requisites)
In the case at bar, SPO2 Borres statements constitute a dying THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANTHONY
declaration, given that they pertained to the cause and circumstances MELCHOR PALMONES, ANTHONY BALTAZAR
of his death and taking into consideration the number and severity of PALMONES
his wounds, it may be reasonably presumed that he uttered the same G.R. No. 136303. July 18, 2000.
under a fixed belief that his own death was already imminent. This DOCTRINE:
declaration is considered evidence of the highest order and is entitled In order to admit statements as evidence part of the res gestae,
to utmost credence since no person aware of his impending death the element of spontaneity is critical. The following factors have
would make a careless and false accusation. Verily, because the generally been considered in determining whether statements offered
declaration was made in extremity, when the party is at the point of in evidence as part of the res gestae have been made spontaneously:
death and when every motive of falsehood is silenced and the mind (1) the time that lapsed between the occurrence of the act or
is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth, the transaction and the making of the statement; (2) the place where the
law deems this as a situation so solemn and awful as creating an statement was made; (3) the condition of the declarant when he made
obligation equal to that which is imposed by an oath administered in the statement; (4) the presence or absence of intervening events
court.
between the occurrence and the statement relative thereto; and (5) motorcycle, a certain PO3 Aniceta called him on the radio and told
the nature and circumstances of the statement itself. him that the assailants were Juany and Tony Palmones. He and his
men proceeded to the residence of the suspects where the brother of
FACTS: the accused-appellants, Triny Palmones, met them. He asked Triny
Anthony Melchor Palmones and Anthony Baltazar Palmones where his brothers were and the latter responded that he didnt know.
were charged with the crime of murder for the death of SPO2 Asim He then asked Triny whether his brothers owned a motorcycle and
Mamansal. Both accused pleaded not guilty to the charge against the latter admitted that they owned a Kawasaki motorcycle which
them. matched the description of the motorcycle he had been chasing. He
Prosecution witness, Sonny Boy Redovan, nephew of the victim, confronted the victim in the hospital and asked him about his
testified that at around 10:00 in the evening of April 27, 1997, his assailants. The victim answered that it was Juany and Tony
mother and elder brother informed him that something had happened Palmones.
to SPO2 Mamansal. Upon seeing his uncle in the hospital, the Defense witness, Alicia Villamor, the alleged girlfriend of the
witness went near him and asked him what had happened to him. His victim and his companion at the time he was shot, testified that she
uncle answered that he had been waylaid. The witness then asked the and Mamansal were together when the incident happened. They were
victim who the perpetrators were and the victim answered that it was on their way home when someone suddenly shot Mamansal. She was
Juany and Tony Palmones which were the nicknames of the two just at the side of Mamansal when the shooting happened but she
accused-appellants. About an hour later, he saw Police Inspector claimed that she was not able to identify the assailants as it was
Alexander Tagum arrive and he heard him ask his uncle who had dark. Patricio Fuertes then brought the victim to the hospital but she
shot him. The witness then heard his uncle positively answer the did not accompany him as her clothes were stained with blood. After
policeman that his assailants were Juany and Tony Palmones. changing her clothes, a group of policemen arrived at the crime
Dr. Hazel Mark Aguayo, the surgeon on-duty, testified that before scene. After conferring with the policemen, she then rode with Insp.
he operated on the victim, he asked is whether the victim had known Tagum in going to the hospital. On the way, Insp. Tagum tried to halt
who had shot him. He claimed that Mamansal told him that he did a passing motorcycle. When the passengers of the motorcycle kept
not know who had shot him. He did not pursue this line of on going, Insp. Tagum fired warning shots and gave chase but the car
questioning further as he was told by a companion of the victim that they were riding in ran out of gas. He then saw Alex Siago provide
the area where the victim was shot was dark. The victim developed Tagum with a motorcycle and again the latter gave chase. She
cardio respiratory arrest the following day. claimed that she was not able to see the persons riding the
Police Inspector Alexander Camilon Tagum testified that upon motorcycle as it was moving quite fast. When she finally arrived at
conducting initial investigation of the crime scene, he sent his men the hospital, she saw that Insp. Tagum was already there. She was
towards different directions to look for suspects. He then proceeded then able to talk with the victim who told her that he did not see the
to the hospital together with another witness, Alice Villamor. On the person who had shot him. The accused appellants interposed the
way to the hospital, Alice pointed to a passing motorcycle and told defense of alibi.
him that it was the motorcycle the assailants were riding. He chased The trial court rendered the accused-appellants guilty of the
the motorcycle but he was not able to catch up with them as his car crime of murder. The conviction was based largely on the alleged
ran out of gas. He was able to borrow a motorcycle and he proceeded dying declaration of the victim made to two witnesses of the
to chase the other motorcycle again. While riding on the borrowed prosecution and the apparent weakness of their defense of alibi.
after the commission of a crime, when the circumstances are such
ISSUE: that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance
WON the statements of Mamansal shall be admitted as an exception inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no
to the hearsay rule. opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false
statement.
HELD: In order to admit statements as evidence part of the res
NO. The requirements for the admissibility of an ante mortem gestae, the element of spontaneity is critical. The following factors
statement as an exception to the hearsay rule are: (a) it must concern have generally been considered in determining whether statements
the crime and the surrounding circumstances of the declarants death; offered in evidence as part of the res gestae have been made
(b) at the time it was made, the declarant was under a consciousness spontaneously: (1) the time that lapsed between the occurrence of the
of impending death; (c) the declarant was competent as a witness; act or transaction and the making of the statement; (2) the place
and (d) the declaration was offered in a criminal case for homicide, where the statement was made; (3) the condition of the declarant
murder or parricide in which the decedent was the victim. In cases when he made the statement; (4) the presence or absence of
where an alleged dying declaration is sought to be admitted, it must intervening events between the occurrence and the statement relative
be proven that that the declaration was made under a consciousness thereto; and (5) the nature and circumstances of the statement itself.
of impending death which means simply that the declarant is fully Tested against these factors to test the spontaneity of the
aware that he is dying or going to die from his wounds or injuries statements attributed to the victim, we rule that these statements
soon or imminently, or shall have a complete conviction that death is fail to qualify as part of the res gestae. When Mamansal allegedly
at hand, or there must be a settled hopeless expectation. uttered the statements attributed to him, an appreciable amount of
In the instant case, it was not established by the prosecution time had already elapsed from the time that he was shot as the
that the statements of the declarant concerning the cause and victim was shot at around 10:00 p.m. but he only uttered the
surrounding circumstances of his death were made under the statements attributed to him about 30 minutes to an hour later.
consciousness of impending death. No proof to this effect was ever Moreover, he allegedly made these statements not at the scene of
presented by the prosecution. It was not shown whether Sonny Boy the crime but at the hospital where he was brought for
Redovan or Inspector Alexander Tagum ever asked the victim treatment. Likewise, the trip from the scene of the crime to the
whether he believed that he was going to die out of his injuries or hospital constituted an intervening event that could have afforded the
any other similar question. Sonny Boy Redovan claimed that he was victim opportunity for deliberation. These circumstances, taken
able to talk with the victim for around an hour but the only thing he together, indubitably show that the statements allegedly uttered by
revealed of their conversation was the alleged identification of the Mamansal lack the requisite spontaneity in order for these to be
victim of his two assailants. For his part, Inspector Tagum admitted admitted as part of the res gestae.
that the only question he asked of the victim was if the victim knew Finally, after a thorough reading of the testimonies presented by
who had shot him. both sides, it is even doubtful that the victim ever uttered these
Neither may the alleged statements attributed to the victim be alleged ante mortem statements in the first place. We note that the
admissible as part of the res gestae. Res gestae refers to those testimonies of Sonny Boy Redovan and Investigator Alexander
exclamations and statements made by either the participants, victims, Tagum are contradicted not only by the witnesses for the defense but
or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or immediately also by the prosecutions own witnesses. Dr. Mark Aguayo, the
doctor who performed the operation on the victim and who is an been mentioned to determine whether the fax messages were made
impartial and disinterested witness, categorically stated that the simultaneously with the purported equivocal act.
victim told him that he did not recognize those who had shot him. He
likewise testified that witness Sonny Boy Redovan told him in the FACTS:
emergency room that the victim was not able to recognize his Petitioner was employed as a second marine officer by Falcon
assailants because of darkness. Similarly, the wife and the daughter Maritime and Allied Services, Inc. (private respondent) and was
of Asim Mamansal, who were also able to talk with the victim prior assigned to M/V Phoenix Seven, a vessel owned and operated by
to his death, likewise denied that the victim ever told them the Hansu Corporation (Hansu) which is based in Korea. Petitioner
identity of his assailants. We fail to see why the victim should choose claimed that his chief officer, a Korean, always discriminated against
to tell some people the identity of his assailants and deny his and maltreated the vessels Filipino crew. This prompted him to send
knowledge of the same to others. a letter-complaint to the officer-in-charge of the International
Transport Federation (ITF) in London, a measure that allegedly was
RULING: ACQUITTED. resented by the chief officer. Consequently, petitioner was dismissed.
He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal two years later.
Private respondent countered that petitioner had voluntarily
disembarked the vessel after having been warned several times of
JUANITO TALIDANO vs. FALCON MARITIME & ALLIED dismissal from service for his incompetence, insubordination,
SERVICES, INC., SPECIAL EIGHTHDIVISION OF THE disrespect and insulting attitude toward his superiors. It cited an
COURT OF APPEALS, AND LABOR ARBITER ERMITA C. incident involving petitioners incompetence wherein the vessel
CUYUGA invaded a different route at the Osaka Port in Japan due to the
July 14, 2008.G.R. No. 172031. absence of petitioner who was then supposed to be on watch duty. As
proof, it presented a copy of a fax message, sent to it on the date of
DOCTRINE: incident, reporting the vessels deviation from its course due to
Assuming that petitioners negligencewhich allegedly caused the petitioners neglect of duty at the bridge, as well as a copy of the
ship to deviate from its courseis the startling occurrence, there is report of crew discharge issued by the master of M/VPhoenix
no showing that the statements contained in the fax messages were Seven two days after the incident. Private respondent also interposed
the defense of prescription.
made immediately after the alleged incident. In addition, no dates
The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment dismissing petitioners
have been mentioned to determine if these utterances were made
complaint, holding that he was validly dismissed for gross neglect of
spontaneously or with careful deliberation. Absent the critical duties. The Labor Arbiter relied on the fax messages presented by
element of spontaneity, the fax messages cannot be admitted as part private respondent to prove petitioners neglect of his duties.
of the res gestae of the first kind. Neither will the second kind of res On appeal, the NLRC reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter
gestae apply. Petitioners alleged absence from watch duty is simply and declared the dismissal as illegal. The NLRC held that the fax
an innocuous act or at least proved to be one. messages in support of the alleged misbehavior and neglect of duty
Assuming arguendo that such absence was the equivocal act, it is by petitioner have no probative value and are self-serving.
nevertheless not accompanied by any statement more so by the fax Upon appeal, the CA ruled that prescription had not set in and
statements adverted to as parts of the res gestae. No date or time has that petitioners dismissal from employment was valid. The appellate
court relied on the fax messages issued by the ship master shortly the statement must accompany the equivocal act; and (4) the
after petitioner had committed a serious neglect of his duties. It noted statements give a legal significance to the equivocal act.
that the said fax messages constitute the res gestae. In defending the Petitioners alleged absence from watch duty is simply an
non-presentation of the logbook, it stated that three years had already innocuous act or at least proved to be one.
passed since the incident and Hansu was no longer the principal of Assuming arguendo that such absence was the equivocal act, it is
private respondent. nevertheless not accompanied by any statement more so by the
fax statements adverted to as parts of the res gestae. No date or
ISSUE: time has been mentioned to determine whether the fax messages
WON the fax messages may be admitted in evidence as part of were made simultaneously with the purported equivocal act.
the res gestae Furthermore, the material contents of the fax messages are
unclear. The matter of route encroachment or invasion is
HELD: questionable. The ship master, who is the author of the fax messages,
Yes. Section 42 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court mentions two did not witness the incident. He obtained such information only from
acts which form part of the res gestae, namely: spontaneous the Japanese port authorities. Verily, the messages can be
statements and verbal acts. In spontaneous exclamations, the res characterized as double hearsay.
gestae is the startling occurrence, whereas in verbal acts, the res In termination cases, the burden of proving just or valid cause for
gestae are the statements accompanying the equivocal act. We find dismissing an employee rests on the employer. Private respondent
that the fax messages cannot be deemed part of the res gestae. miserably failed to discharge this burden. Consequently, the
To be admissible under the first class of res gestae, it is required petitioners dismissal is illegal.
that: (1) the principal act be a startling occurrence; (2) the statements
were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a RULING:
falsehood; and (3) that the statements must concern the occurrence in Petition GRANTED. NLRC Decision reinstated.
question and its immediate attending circumstances.
Assuming that petitioners negligencewhich allegedly
caused the ship to deviate from its courseis the startling
occurrence, there is no showing that the statements contained in
the fax messages were made immediately after the alleged
incident. In addition, no dates have been mentioned to determine
if these utterances were made spontaneously or with careful
deliberation. Absent the critical element of spontaneity, the fax PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANGEL PRECIADOS (At
messages cannot be admitted as part of the res gestae of the first Large), ARTURO ENAD, EMIGDIO VILLAMOR, LEONCIO
kind. ALGABRE and FLORIANO ALGABRE @ LOLOY,
Neither will the second kind of res gestae apply. The requisites G.R. No. 122934. January 5, 2001.
for its admissibility are: (1) the principal act to be characterized must
be equivocal; (2) the equivocal act must be material to the issue; (3) DOCTRINE:
Dying declarations and statements which form part of the res
gestae are exceptions to the hearsay rule, thus they must be strictly
but reasonably construed and must extend only insofar as their help. Minutes later, the barangay captain and some neighbors
language fairly warrants. Thus, doubts should be resolved in favor of responded to her shouts for assistance. They found Primo dead on the
applying the hearsay rule, rather than the exceptions. Under said rule, floor. Informed that Antonio was missing, they searched the
Antonios so-called ante-mortem statement should not have been immediate surroundings for him but to no avail.
admitted in evidence, for it is neither a dying declaration nor a part Early in the morning of May 13, 1992, the search for Antonio
of res gestae. was resumed. He was finally found by his uncle, Simeon Degamo,
holding on to rock in a natural well, some 300 meters away from the
FACTS: rice mill. A rope was thrown to him and he was pulled out from the
Appellant Arturo Enad and Antonio Hilbero are second cousins. well. Noticing that he smelled of some poisonous chemical, his
Appellant is also a cousin of Primo Hilberos mother-in-law. rescuers made him drink coconut milk. He was weak and appeared
During the May 11, 1992 elections, appellant and Antonio on the verge of death and brought to the hospital at Clarin, Bohol for
supported rival mayoralty candidates of Sagbayan. Appellant was a emergency treatment.
supporter and poll watcher of Arthur Ariana, while Antonio, a The next day, prosecution witness Zosimo Viva, a defeated
barangay councilman of Ubujan, was a partisan of Narzal Ermac. municipal councilor candidate in the same slate of Ermac, Antonios
Appellants co-accused were also identified with Anana who won. common law wife, and two police investigators transferred Antonio
At around 11:00 p.m. of May 12, 1992, Antonio with his common to the Gov. Celestino Gallares Memorial Hospital in Tagbilaran
law wife and their two children, his brother, Primo and his wife, City. According to prosecution witness Dr. Mayda Reyes who
Helen with their three children, Antonios mother, Dominga, and admitted Antonio to the hospital, Antonio told her that the latter was
another brother, Severino were at the second floor of the old rice mill forced to drink a certain liquid, which smelled like
at Ubujan. Except for Helen, the clan had retired for the night. She insecticide. Another physician, Dr. Maria Luisa Tage, who attended
was about to go to sleep when she noticed Antonio go downstairs. to Antonio diagnosed, Poisoning, Etiology not determined, Brief
Minutes later, her husband Primo, followed him. Then she heard reactive psychosis.
someone utter, Dont move. Alarmed, she rose from her mat and Since Antonio appeared to be dying, prosecution witness PO3
peeped through a two-inch hole in the floor. The ground floor was Leonardo Inoc, a police investigator, took his ante-
illuminated by moonlight. She saw appellant holding a hand grenade mortem statement in which he named the aforementioned accused
while his other arm was locked in a stranglehold around the neck of as the persons responsible for poisoning him and dropping him in the
Antonio who knelt on the floor. Nearby stood Angel Preciados with a well.
gun pointed at Antonio. She then heard Emigdio Villamor say Dont Meanwhile, Ermac asked the NBI to conduct an
move so that your family will not die. She saw the latter forcing investigation. The toxicological examination of Primos body
Primo to swallow an object. The other accused held her husband to revealed the presence of methamidophos, the active ingredient of the
prevent him from struggling. Shocked, Helen then soundlessly cried insecticide Tamaron in Primos organs. The NBI also recovered
and embraced her children. Shortly afterwards, Helens mother-in- two empty bottles, at the scene of the incident. Chemistry tests on
law, Dominga, was awakened by the barking of the family dog. them revealed that the Hoechst bottle was positive
Dominga went downstairs where she saw Primo lifeless on the floor, for deltamethrine, an insecticide, while the other bottle revealed
reeking of poison. Antonio was nowhere to be found. Dominga traces of methamidophos.
rushed upstairs and woke up Severino, all the while shouting for
Appellant denied any involvement in the poisoning incident. He WON the trial court erred when it admitted and gave much
claimed an alibi. weight to the probative value of the ante mortem statement of
The defense offered a different version of the poisoning incident. Antonio.
According to the defense, Antonio and Primo agreed to commit
suicide by taking poison. It presented Antonios affidavit where he HELD:
recanted his story in his affidavit of May 22, 1992. Antonio testified A dying declaration is the statement which refers to the cause and
that he and Primo decided to commit suicide by drinking poison to surrounding circumstances of the declarants death, made under the
prevent defeated candidates Ermac and Viva from harming their consciousness of an impending death. It is admissible in evidence as
families. Antonio refused to follow the orders of Viva to kill the an exception to the hearsay rule because of necessity and
political leaders of Mayor Afiana, including the appellant. Thus, trustworthiness. Necessity, because the declarants death makes it
Antonio said, he and Primo feared for the lives of their relatives. impossible for him to take the witness stand and trustworthiness, for
After Primo and he drank poison, Primo immediately died. When he when a person is at the point of death, every motive for falsehood is
did not succumb right away, Antonio wrote a suicide note and tried silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration
to drown himself in the well. After his rescue, Ermac and Viva took to speak the truth. The requisites for the admissibility of a dying
him into custody and bought him to Mindanao, allegedly for his declaration are: (1) the death is imminent and the declarant is
safety. The two, however, threatened to kill him and made him conscious of that fact; (2) the declaration refers to the cause and
falsely charge the appellant with murder and frustrated surrounding circumstances of such death; (3) the declaration relates
murder. Antonio totally repudiated his ante-mortem statement and to facts which the victim is competent to testify; (4) the declarant
his earlier affidavit charging the accused with murder and frustrated thereafter dies; and (5) the declaration is offered in a criminal case
murder. wherein the declarants death is the subject of inquiry.
To rebut Antonios testimony, Dr. Mayda Reyes was called anew In the present case, the foregoing requisites were not met. A
to confirm what Antonio had told her, that he was forced to drink dying declaration is essentially hearsay, because one person is
poison by several men. SPO1 Leonardo Inoc testified again that he testifying on what another person stated. This is because the
took Antonios ante-mortem statement. Apolinario Libranza, declarant can no longer be presented in court to identify the
barangay captain of Ubujan, Sagbayan was presented to refute document or confirm the statement, but more important, to be
Antonios claims regarding Zosimo Viva. Antonios mother, confronted with said statement by the accused and be cross-
Dominga, testified that her son was not afraid of either Viva or examined on its contents. It was patently incorrect for the trial court
Ermac and affirmed the truthfulness of Helens testimony. to have allowed prosecution witness PO3 Leonardo Inoc to testify on
In sur-rebuttal, Antonio maintained the veracity of his suicide Antonios so-called dying declaration because Antonio was alive
account. and later even testified in court.
Finding the prosecutions version more credible, the trial court Where a victims statement may not be admissible as an ante
found appellant guilty of the crimes murder and frustrated murder. mortem declaration, it may nonetheless be considered as part of
the res gestae, if made immediately after a startling occurrence in
ISSUE: relation to the circumstances thereof and when the victim did not
have time to contrive a falsehood. For res gestae to be allowed as an
exception to the hearsay rule, the following requisites must be
satisfied: (1) that the principal act or res gestae be a starting The Court laid down the requisites for admission in evidence of
occurrence; (2) the statement is spontaneous or was made before the entries in the course of business: (1) the person who made the entry
declarant had time to contrive or devise, and the statement is made is dead, outside the country, or unable to testify; (2) the entries were
during the occurrence or immediately prior or subsequent thereto; made at or near the time of the transactions to which they refer; (3)
and (3) the statement made must concern the occurrence in question the person who made the entry was in a position to know the facts
and its immediately attending circumstances. stated in the entries; (4) the entries were made in a professional
In this case, the element of spontaneity is lacking in the capacity or in the performance of a duty; and (5) the entries were
alleged ante-mortem statement. Antonios statement was taken by made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.
PO3 Inoc at around 3:00 oclock P.M., May 14, 1992 or some thirty-
nine (39) hours after the incident. Thirty-nine hours is too long a FACTS:
time to be considered subsequent immediately (stress supplied) to the Michaelmar Philippines, Inc. (MPI) is the Philippine agent of
startling occurrence. Even as contemplated by the rules, statements Michaelmar Shipping Services, Inc. (MSSI). MSSI through MPI
given a day after the incident in answer to questions propounded by engaged the services of Bernardo B. Jose, Jr. (Jose, Jr.) as oiler of
an investigator cannot be considered part of the res M/T Limar.
gestae. Furthermore, the testimony of the declarant, that the Jose, Jr. began performing his duties on board the M/T Limar on
statement was made under threats and with coaching from losing 21 August 2002. A few weeks after, a random drug test was
candidates Ermac and Viva in order to get even with the winning conducted on all officers and crew members and Jose, Jr. was found
candidate, Mayor Aana, is uncontroverted. positive for marijuana. Jose, Jr. was informed about the result of his
Dying declarations and statements which form part of the res drug test and was asked if he was taking any medication. Jose, Jr.
gestae are exceptions to the hearsay rule, thus they must be strictly said that he was taking Centrum vitamins.
but reasonably construed and must extend only insofar as their Jose, Jr. was allowed to continue performing his duties on board
language fairly warrants. Thus, doubts should be resolved in favor the M/T Limar for a few months thereafter. In the Sea Going Staff
of applying the hearsay rule, rather than the exceptions. Under Appraisal Report on Jose Jr.s work performance, Jose, Jr. received a
said rule, Antonios so-called ante-mortem statement should not have 96% total rating and was described as very hardworking, trustworthy,
been, admitted in evidence, for it is neither a dying declaration nor a and reliable.
part of res gestae. When M/T Limar reached the next port after the random drug
test, Jose, Jr. was repatriated to the Philippines. When Jose, Jr.
RULING: Acquitted. arrived in the Philippines, he asked MPI that a drug test be conducted
on him. MPI ignored his request. On his own, Jose, Jr. procured drug
tests from Manila Doctors Hospital, S.M. Lazo Medical Clinic,
SEC. 43. ENTRIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS Inc., and Maritime Clinic for International Services, Inc. He was
found negative for marijuana.
BERNARDO B. JOSE, JR. vs. MICHAELMAR PHILS., INC. Jose, Jr. filed with the NLRC a complaint against MPI and MSSI
and MICHAELMAR SHIPPING SERVICES, INC. for illegal dismissal with claim for his salaries for the unexpired
November 27, 2009.G.R. No. 169606. portion of the employment contract.
DOCTRINE:
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The In the present case, the following facts are established (1) random
NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiters Decision and held that the drug tests are regularly conducted on all officers and crew members
dismissal was illegal. The NLRC gave credence to the Sea Going of M/T Limar; (2) a random drug test was conducted at the port of
Staff Appraisal Report holding that a worker who had been taking in Curacao on 8 October 2002; (3) Dr. Heath was the authorized
prohibited drug could not have given such an excellent job physician of M/T Limar; (4) the drug test result of Jose, Jr. showed
performance. Upon appeal, the CA reinstated the decision of the LA that he was positive for marijuana; (5) the drug test result was issued
and held that the drug test result constitutes entries made in the under Dr. Heaths name and contained his handwritten comments.
ordinary or regular course of duty of a responsible officer of the Hence, the drug test report is evidence in itself and does not require
vessel. additional supporting evidence except if it appears that the drug test
was conducted not in accordance with drug testing procedures.
ISSUE: Nothing of the sort has even been suggested in this particular case.
WON the CA erred in admitting the drug test result in evidence as
part of entries in the course of business.
HELD:
No. In Canque v. Court of Appeals, the Court laid down the
requisites for admission in evidence of entries in the course of
business: (1) the person who made the entry is dead, outside the LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MONETS EXPORT
country, or unable to testify; (2) the entries were made at or near the AND MANUFACTURING CORP., VICENTE V. TAGLE, SR.
time of the transactions to which they refer; (3) the person who made and MA. CONSUELO G. TAGLE
the entry was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries; (4) April 19, 2010.G.R. No. 184971.
the entries were made in a professional capacity or in the
performance of a duty; and (5) the entries were made in the ordinary DOCTRINE:
or regular course of business or duty. Under Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, entries
Here, all the requisites are present: (1) Dr. Heath is outside the prepared in the regular course of business are prima facie evidence
country; (2) the entries were made near the time the random drug test of the truth of what they state. The billing statement reconciles the
was conducted; (3) Dr. Heath was in a position to know the facts transaction entries entered in the bank records in the regular course
made in the entries; (4) Dr. Heath made the entries in his professional of business and shows the net result of such transactions. Entries in
capacity and in the performance of his duty; and (5) the entries were the course of business are accorded unusual reliability because their
made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty. regularity and continuity are calculated to discipline record keepers
The fact that the drug test result is unsigned does not necessarily in the habit of precision. If the entries are financial, the records are
lead to the conclusion that Jose, Jr. was not found positive for routinely balanced and audited. In actual experience, the whole of
marijuana. Such entries, being entries in the course of business, the business world function in reliance of such kind of records.
enjoy the presumption of regularity under Rule 130, Section 43 of
the Rules of Court. FACTS:
Land Bank and Monet executed an Export Packing Credit Line On remand, the RTC held one hearing at which the lawyer of
Agreement (Agreement) under which the bank gave Monet a credit Land Bank told the court that, apart from what the bank already
line of P250,000, secured by the proceeds of its export letters of adduced in evidence, it had no additional documents to present.
credit, promissory notes, a continuing guaranty executed by Based on this, the RTC issued an order on the same day, affirming its
respondent spouses Vicente V. Tagle, Sr. and Ma. Consuelo G. Tagle original decision. Land Bank filed a motion for reconsideration,
(the Tagles), and a third-party mortgage executed by one Pepita C. actually a motion to reopen the hearing, to enable it to adduce in
Mendigoria. Land Bank renewed and amended this credit line evidence a Consolidated Billing Statement as of October 31, 2006 to
agreement several times until it reached a ceiling of P5 million. show how much Monet and the Tagles still owed the bank. But the
Land Bank claims that by August 31, 1992 Monets obligation trial court denied the motion. Land Bank appealed the order to the
under the Agreement had swelled to P11,464,246.19. Since Monet CA but the latter rendered a decision affirming the RTC orders.
failed to pay despite demands, the bank filed a collection suit against
Monet and the Tagles before the RTC. In their answer, Monet and the ISSUE:
Tagles claimed that Land Bank had refused to collect the WON the RTC and the CA acted correctly in denying petitioner
US$33,434.00 receivables on Monets export letter of credit against Land Banks motion to reopen the hearing to allow it to present the
Wishbone Trading Company of Hong Kong while making an banks updated Consolidated Billing Statement as of October 31,
unauthorized payment of US$38,768.40 on its import letter of credit 2006 that reflects respondents Monet and the Tagles remaining
to Beautilike (H.K.) Ltd. This damaged Monets business interests indebtedness to it.
since it ran short of funds to carry on with its usual business. In other
words, Land Bank mismanaged its clients affairs under the HELD:
Agreement. Yes. Under Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, entries
The RTC and CA ruled in favor of Land Bank. Upon appeal to prepared in the regular course of business are prima facie evidence
the SC, the Court remanded the case to the RTC for reception of of the truth of what they state. The billing statement reconciles the
additional evidence. The Court noted that Exhibit 39, the Summary transaction entries entered in the bank records in the regular course
of Availment and Schedule of Amortization, on which both the RTC of business and shows the net result of such transactions.
and the CA relied, covered only Monets debt of P2.5 million under Entries in the course of business are accorded unusual reliability
Promissory Note P-981, a small amount compared to the because their regularity and continuity are calculated to discipline
P11,464,246.19 that Land Bank sought to collect from it. The records record keepers in the habit of precision. If the entries are financial,
showed, however, that Monet executed not only one but several the records are routinely balanced and audited. In actual experience,
promissory notes in varying amounts in favor of the bank. Indeed, the whole of the business world function in reliance of such kind of
the bank submitted a Consolidated Statement of Account dated records.
August 31, 1992 in support of its claim of P11,464,246.19 but both Monet and the Tagles can of course dispute the banks billing
the RTC and the CA merely glossed over it. Land Bank also statements by proof that the bank had exaggerated what was owed it
submitted a Summary of Availments and Payments from 1981 to and that Monet had made more payments than were reflected in
1989 that detailed the series of availments and payments Monet those statements. They can do this by presenting evidence of those
made. greater payments. Notably, Monet and the Tagles have consistently
avoided stating in their letters to the bank how much they still owed
it. But, ultimately, it is as much their obligation to prove this disputed transferred them to the other account. These transactions were
point if they deny the banks statements of their loan accounts. covered by what were known as debit memos since respondent had
In reverting back to Exhibit 39, which covers just one of no sufficient funds to cover the amounts he transferred. Later on,
many promissory notes that Monet and the Tagles executed in respondent purportedly incurred an overdraft or negative balance in
favor of Land Bank, the RTC and the CA have shown an his account. Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money against
unjustified obstinacy and a lack of understanding of what the respondent to recover the P297,060.01 with 12% interest per annum
Court wanted done to clear up the issue of how much Monet and from September 16, 1990 until fully paid.
the Tagles still owed the bank. The bank lawyer who claimed that
Land Bank had no further evidence to present during the
Respondent denied liability to petitioner for the said amount. He
hearing was of course in error and it probably warranted a
dismissal of the banks claim for failure to prosecute. But the contended that the alleged overdraft resulted from transactions done
banks motion for reconsideration, asking for an opportunity to without his knowledge and consent.
present evidence of the status of the loans, opened up a chance
for the RTC to abide by what the Court required of it. It The trial court dismissed the complaint. It held that petitioner was
committed error, together with the CA, in ruling that a not able to prove that respondent owed it the amount claimed
reopening of the hearing would serve no useful purpose. considering that the ledger cards it presented were merely hearsay
evidence.
DOCTRINE:
with stones and wooden clubs followed Mendez car until it stopped
It has been held of expert testimonies: near the Nagtahan Flyover. Francisco Cielo, a newspaper delivery
boy, pleaded with the bystanders not to hurt Mendez. Cielo went
Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert inside Mendez car, sat beside him, got his drivers license, and
testimonies, they may place whatever weight they ordered him to move the car backwards. Mendez followed his order,
may choose upon such testimonies in accordance but his car hit the center island twice while backing up. Cielo went
with the facts of the case. The relative weight and out of the car and approached the sprawled body of Rochelle; he and
sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the petitioner brought Rochelles body inside Mendez car. The three
the province of the trial court to decide, considering of them (the petitioner, Cielo and Mendez) brought Rochelle to
the ability and character of the witness, his actions the USTHospital, where she died on February 6, 1993 due
upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the to septicemia secondary to traumatic injuries.
reasoning by which he has supported his opinion, his
possible bias in favor of the side for whom he The Office of the City Prosecutor found probable cause
testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the and thereafter charged the petitioner and Mendez with reckless
relative opportunities for study and observation of imprudence resulting to homicide. The RTC, in its decision dated
the matters about which he testifies, and any other September 15, 2003, found that it was very clear that both accused are
matters which deserve to illuminate his responsible for the death of Rochelle Lanete, and convicted the two
statements. The opinion of the expert may not be (2) accused of the crime charged.
arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the
court in view of all the facts and circumstances in ISSUE:
the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, Whether or not petitioner is guilty of reckless imprudence resulting
the expert opinion may be given controlling to homicide
effect. The problem of the credibility of the expert
witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to RULING:
the discretion of the trial court whose ruling
thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of abuse The petitioner was
of discretion. positively identified by an
eyewitness
FACTS:
What remain to be proven beyond reasonable doubt are the
Edwin Tabao was driving his car along Governor inexcusable lack in precaution on the part of the petitioner and the
Forbes corner G. Tuazon Street towards Nagtahan when it suddenly direct link of his negligence to the victims death.
ramped on an island divider, bumping Rochelle Lanete who was An eyewitness account established that the petitioners
crossing the street. As a result of the impact, Rochelle was thrown vehicle actually hit Rochelle Lanete. Eyewitness identification is
into the middle of the road on her back. Thereafter, Leonardo vital evidence, and, in most cases, decisive of the success or failure
Mendez speeding car ran over Rochelles body. Bystanders armed of the prosecution. One of the prosecution witnesses, Victor Soriano,
unfortunately for the petitioners cause, saw the incident in its We emphasize that P/Sr. Insp. Cornelio was not an
entirety; Victor thus provided direct evidence as eyewitness to the eyewitness to the incident; his testimony was merely based on the
very act of the commission of the crime. Traffic Accident Report prepared by SPO4 Edgar Reyes who himself
The positive identification in this case, coupled with the did not witness the incident. At any rate, nowhere in P/Sr. Insp.
failure of the defense to impute any ill-motive on the eyewitness, to Cornelios testimony did he conclusively state that the petitioner
our mind, works to dispel reasonable doubt on the fact that could not have been involved in the incident. For clarity, we
the petitioners car had in fact hit Rochelle. The eyewitness account reproduce the pertinent portions of P/Sr. Insp. Cornelios testimony:
provides the necessary link between the petitioners failure to exercise
precaution in operating his vehicle and Rochelle Lanetes death. Q: So, that probability is also possible aside from
the probability that you said the victim is
Weight of expert testimony thrown in line or in front. So, you are now
The petitioner likewise claims that the CA violated Section saying it could be said that the victim can
49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court when it disregarded the be thrown sidewise?
testimony of defense witness Police Senior Inspector Danilo A: It [may be] thrown sidewise. As I said [a while]
Cornelio who testified that the petitioners car could not have bumped ago, it might be slightly offset with the
the victim because the latters body was not thrown in line with the vehicle that hit the pedestrian but not too
car, but on its side. The petitioner argues that P/Sr. Insp. Cornelio is far from the side of the bumping vehicle.
highly qualified in the field of traffic accident investigation, and as
such, his statements are backed-up by [the] principles of applied Q: Whether it is forward or sidewise, the distance
physics, engineering, and mathematics. of the object thrown would depend on the
The petitioners arguments fail to convince us. speed of the vehicle that bumped?
Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court states A: Yes, Maam.
that the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training, which he is shown to Q: You said it could be thrown sidewise do I take
possess, may be received in evidence. The use of the word may it correct[ly,] it can be thrown sidewise
signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness is permissive also?
and not mandatory on the part of the courts. Allowing the A: Maybe. As I have said [a while] ago, it [may
testimony does not mean, too, that courts are bound by the be] slightly offset with the line of the
testimony of the expert witness. The testimony of an vehicle.
expert witness must be construed to have been presented not to
sway the court in favor of any of the parties, but to assist the xxxx
court in the determination of the issue before it, and is for the
court to adopt or not to adopt depending on its appreciation of Q: So, do we take it from you that your basis only of
the attendant facts and the applicable law. telling the court that Tabao is not in [any
way] responsible is the distance of the
victim from the car that bumped?
A: I am not saying categorically that the car of
Tabao is not responsible. But as I can see
in the sketch presented today in this
Honorable Court, the position of the victim
is too far from the vehicle of Mr. Tabao. If I
were the investigator in this particular case, I
should indicate the measurement of the
victim from the car and this sketch [does] SEC 50 OPINION OF ORDINARY WITNESS
not indicate the distance.
Q: Now, failure of the investigator to indicate the DRA, LEILA A DELA LLANO VS REBECCA BIONG
distance, would that show that it was not
Tabao who bumped the victim? FACTS
A: I cannot say categorically that the car of Tabao
indeed, hit the victim. Because the distance
is very significant in this sketch for proper Juan dela Llana was a car along North Avenue, Quezon City. His
evaluation. sister, Dra. dela Llana, was seated at the front passenger seat while
a certain Calimlim was at the backseat.
xxxx
Juan stopped the car across the Veterans Memorial Hospital when the
Q: So, it cannot be said that when an object is signal light turned red. A few seconds after the car halted, a dump
bumped by a vehicle, it will be thrown truck containing gravel and sand suddenly rammed the cars rear
forward. It will all depend on which end, violently pushing the car forward. Due to the impact, the cars
portion of the bumper hit by object rear end collapsed and its rear windshield was shattered. Glass
bumped? splinters flew, puncturing Dra. dela Llana. Apart from these minor
A: Yes, Maam. wounds, Dra. dela Llana did not appear to have suffered from any
other visible physical injuries.
From the foregoing, it is clear that P/Sr. Insp. Cornelio did not
The traffic investigation report identified the truck driver as Joel
discount the possibility that the victim could have been thrown on the
side. He likewise admitted that the location of an accident victim in Primero. It stated that Joel was recklessly imprudent in driving the
relation to the vehicle would also depend on the speed of the vehicle truck. Joel later revealed that his employer was respondent
and the point of impact. Rebecca Biong
Dra. dela Llana began to feel mild to moderate pain on the left side
of her neck and shoulder. The pain became more intense as days
passed by. She consulted with Dr. Rosalinda Milla who told her that
she suffered from a whiplash injury, an injury caused by the between Joels reckless driving and her whiplash injury. Trial
compression of the nerve running to her left arm and hand. On judges are aware of the fact that whiplash injuries are common
October 19, 2000, Dr. Flores operated on her spine and neck, in vehicular collisions.
between the C5 and the C6 vertebrae.
The Issue
The operation released the impingement of the nerve, but
incapacitated Dra. dela Llana from the practice of her profession Whether or not Dra. dela Llanas medical certificate has
since June 2000 despite the surgery. Dra. dela Llana, on October 16, probative value.
2000, demanded from Rebecca compensation for her injuries, but
Rebecca refused to pay.
In defense, Rebecca maintained that Dra. dela Llana had no cause of RULING:
action against her as no reasonable relation existed between the
vehicular accident and Dra. dela Llanas injury. She pointed out that Dra. dela Llana failed to establish her case by preponderance of
Dra. dela Llanas illness became manifest one month and one week evidence
from the date of the vehicular accident
In civil cases, a party who alleges a fact has the burden of
At the trial, Dra. dela Llana presented herself as an ordinary proving it. He who alleges has the burden of proving his
witness and Joel as a hostile witness. allegation by preponderance of evidence or greater weight of
credible evidence. The reason for this rule is that bare
Dra. dela Llana reiterated that she lost the mobility of her arm allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to
because of the vehicular accident. To prove her claim, she identified proof.
and authenticated a medical certificate dated November 20, 2000
issued by Dr. Milla. The medical certificate stated that Dra. dela In short, mere allegations are not evidence.
Llana suffered from a whiplash injury. It also chronicled her clinical
history and physical examinations. In the present case, the burden of proving the proximate causation
between Joels negligence and Dra. dela Llanas whiplash injury
Dra. dela Llana further asserts that the medical certificate has rests on Dra. dela Llana. She must establish by preponderance of
probative value. Citing several cases, she posits that an evidence that Joels negligence, in its natural and continuous
uncorroborated medical certificate is credible if uncontroverted. sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produced her
whiplash injury, and without which her whiplash injury would not
She points out that expert opinion is unnecessary if the opinion have occurred.
merely relates to matters of common knowledge. She maintains
that a judge is qualified as an expert to determine the causation
Notably, Dra. dela Llana anchors her claim mainly on three pieces of expert witness. As an ordinary witness, she was not competent to
evidence: testify on the nature, and the cause and effects of whiplash injury.
Furthermore, we emphasize that Dra. dela Llana, during trial,
(1) the pictures of her damaged car, nonetheless did not provide a medical explanation on the nature as
well as the cause and effects of whiplash injury in her testimony.
(2) the medical certificate dated November 20, 2000, and
In sum, Dra. dela Llana miserably failed to establish her cause
(3) her testimonial evidence. However, none of these pieces of by preponderance of evidence.
evidence show the causal relation between the vehicular accident and
the whiplash injury.
Interestingly, the present case is peculiar in the sense that Dra. dela
Llana, as the plaintiff in this quasi-delict case, was the lone
physician-witness during trial. Significantly, she merely testified as
an ordinary witness before the trial court. Dra. dela Llana essentially
claimed in her testimony that Joels reckless driving caused her
whiplash injury. Despite the fact that Dra. dela Llana is a
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EMILIANO DURANAN
physician and even assuming that she is an expert in neurology,
we cannot give weight to her opinion that Joels reckless driving DOCTRINE:
caused her whiplash injury without violating the rules on
evidence. Under the Rules of Court, there is a substantial Discussing this provision of the Rules on Evidence, Sen. Vicente J.
Francisco writes in his treatise:
difference between an ordinary witness and an expert witness.
The mother of an offended party in a case of rape, though not a
However, courts do not immediately accord probative value to an psychiatrist, if she knows the physical and mental condition of the
admitted expert testimony, much less to an unobjected ordinary party, how she was born, what she is suffering from, and what her
testimony respecting special knowledge. The reason is that the attainments are, is competent to testify on the matter.
probative value of an expert testimony does not lie in a simple ....
exposition of the expert's opinion. Rather, its weight lies in the
assistance that the expert witness may afford the courts by It is competent for the ordinary witness to give his opinion as to the
demonstrating the facts which serve as a basis for his opinion sanity or mental condition of a person, provided the witness has had
and the reasons on which the logic of his conclusions is founded. sufficient opportunity to observe the speech, manner, habits, and
conduct of the person in question. Generally, it is required that the
In the present case, Dra. dela Llanas medical opinion cannot be witness details the factors and reasons upon which he bases his
opinion before he can testify as to what it is. As the Supreme Court
given probative value for the reason that she was not presented as an
of Vermont said: A non-expert witness may give his opinion as to the went to Camp Karingal, together with complainant and her other
sanity or insanity of another, when based upon conversations or children, CCC and DDD, where they filed affidavits and two
dealings which he has had with such person, or upon his appearance, informations.
or upon any fact bearing upon his mental condition, with the witness
own knowledge and observation, he having first testified to such They then took complainant to Camp Crame for examination. Dr.
conversations, dealings, appearance or other observed facts, as the Rosalina O. Cosidon, who examined complainant, explained that the
basis for his opinion. term congested used in reference to the labia minora meant that there
was some inflammation that could have been caused by friction due
FACTS: to intercourse. Taken together with the presence of a shallow
hymenal laceration, this finding indicates the possibility of
Upon arraignment, Duranan pleaded not guilty to each charge of intercourse that caused complainants loss of virginity within the last
rape against him, whereupon he was tried. five days.
The prosecution presented three witnesses, namely, complainant Based on the evidence of the parties, the trial court rendered a
AAA, complainants mother BBB, and the attending medico-legal decision on April 22, 1998, finding the accused-appellant guilty of
officer at Camp Crame, Dr. Rosalina O. Cosidon. two counts of rape.
Complainant AAA, who was 25 years old at the time of the incidents Accused-appellant contends that he cannot be convicted of rape since
in question, is considered to be retarded and finished up to the sixth the victims mental age was not proven. He argues that under Art.
grade only. She is unemployed and simply does household chores for 335(2) of the Revised Penal Code, an essential element for the
her family. Accused-appellant lived with the complainants family in prosecution for rape of a mental retardate is a psychiatric evaluation
the same apartment in xxx where he rented a room that he shared of the complainants mental age to determine if her mental age is
with several other people. under twelve. He further claims that only in cases where the
Accused-appellant suddenly placed his arm on her neck and dragged retardation is apparent due to the presence of physical
her inside the common bathroom. She claimed that accused-appellant deformities symptomatic of mental retardation can the mental
was able to rape her while standing up despite her resistance. evaluation be waived.
The second incident, accused-appellant pulled her from her house ISSUE:
and took her to his room. Complainant said she was forced to submit Whether or not AAA is mentally retarded
to accused-appellants lust because of his threats. After the incident,
accused-appellant sent her letters professing love for her and telling RULING:
her how beautiful she was. Complainant said she tore up the letters
after reading them. In the case at bar, BBB testified on the mental condition of her
daughter, Duranan points to the mothers statement that complainant
BBB testified that she saw her daughter leave the bathroom, quickly is quite intelligent. The statement that complainant is quite intelligent
followed by accused-appellant. BBB noticed that her daughters must be read in the context of BBBs previous statement that
lower lip was bruised. When she confronted her daughter about it, complainant thinks like a child but from her narration or statement
the latter revealed for the first time what had happened to her. BBB we can see that her declaration are (sic) true or believable. Thus,
what complainants mother meant was that complainant, although she CECILIO HERNANDEZ VS JOVITA SAN JUAN-SANTOS
thought like a child, nevertheless could tell others what happened to
her. FACTS:
Indeed, even the trial court admonished the defense counsel not to Maria Lourdes San Juan Hernandez (or Lulu) was born on February
use inculpatory questions because complainant might give 14, 1947 to the spouses Felix Hernandez and Maria San Juan
inculpatory answers At another stage of the trial, the trial court Hernandez. Unfortunately, the latter died due to complications
reminded counsel, The witness [complainant] is not very during childbirth. After Maria's death, Felix left Lulu in the care of
intelligent. I think the witness cannot even distinguish dates. her maternal uncle, Sotero C. San Juan.
Thus, the trial court itself found in dealing with complainant that she Felix married Natividad Cruz. The union produced three children,
was mentally deficient. The rule that findings of fact of the trial court petitioners Cecilio C. Hernandez, Ma. Victoria C. Hernandez-Sagun
should not be disturbed since the trial court is in the best position to and Teresa C. Hernandez-Villa Abrille.
determine the findings of fact cannot be more apt than in this case.
Meanwhile, as the only child of Maria and the sole testate heir of
Accused-appellant cites the medico-legal report which describes Sotero, Lulu inherited valuable real properties from the San Juan
complainant as coherent and contends that this is an evaluation of the family. Lulu went to live with her father and his new family. She was
mental state of complainant. This contention is totally without then 10 years old and studying at La Consolacion College. However,
basis. The medicolegal report categorically states that the purpose of due to her violent personality, Lulu stopped schooling when she
the medical examination is limited to determining whether the reached Grade 5.
complainant had been sexually abused. In other words, the purpose
of the examination was to determine her physical, not her mental, In 1968, upon reaching the age of majority, Lulu was given
state. full control of her estate. Nevertheless, because Lulu did not even
In sum, the mental retardation of the complainant is proven by the finish her elementary education, Felix continued to exercise actual
testimony of her mother, the trial courts observations during the trial administration of Lulus properties. Upon Felix's death in 1993,
of her demeanor, behavior, and her intelligence, while the fact of petitioners took over the task of administering Lulu's properties.
sexual intercourse is proven by the medico-legal certificate. In
addition, the prosecution proved the presence of force and In September 1998, Lulu sought the assistance of her
intimidation, and the court appreciated such. The intimidation, in this maternal first cousin, respondent Jovita San Juan-Santos, after
case, is constituted by the threats that accused-appellant made to the learning that petitioners had been dissipating her estate. She confided
complainant, not to mention the force employed by accused- to Jovita that she was made to live in the basement of petitioners
appellant in placing his arm on the complainants neck and holding Montalban, Rizal home and was receiving a measly daily allowance
her hands while undressing her. of P400 for her food and medication.
Under Section 2, Rule 92 of the Rules of Court, persons who, though FACTS:
of sound mind but by reason of age, disease, weak mind or other
similar causes are incapable of taking care of themselves and their Spouses Jose Chuatoco and Leoncia Yap were the registered
property without outside aid, are considered as incompetents who owners of a 365-square meter land with improvements located at
may properly be placed under guardianship. The RTC and the CA Calle Veronica St., Binondo, Manila. On the property, the spouses
both found that Lulu was incapable of taking care of herself and her established the Binondo Maternity Hospital and School of
properties without outside aid due to her ailments and weak mind. Midwifery, reserving the buildings second floor as the family
Thus, since determining whether or not Lulu is in fact an residence.
incompetent would require a reexamination of the evidence
In November 1972, Jose died. On 20 January 1981, Transfer
presented in the courts a quo, it undoubtedly involves questions of
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 13935 in the name of the spouses Jose
fact.
and Leoncia was replaced by TCT No. 142406 in the names of
Leoncia and their children. Soon thereafter, Leoncia died.
As a general rule, this Court only resolves questions of law in a
petition for review. We only take cognizance of questions of fact in Respondents alleged that their brother Rafael had in the
exceptional circumstances, none of which is present in this case. We meantime succeeded in obtaining title to the property in his own
thus adopt the factual findings of the RTC as affirmed by the CA. name by using a fictitious deed of sale dated 27 February 1979,
purportedly executed by them and their deceased mother
Leoncia in favor of Rafael. It would later be claimed by
respondents that their signatures, as they appeared on the deed of ISSUE:
sale, were forged. On 15 April 1982, TCT No. 142406 was cancelled
and TCT No. 148821 was issued in the name of Rafael. Wheher or not petitioners are buyers in good faith
After obtaining the reconstituted title, Rafael, acting through his RULING:
wife and attorney-in-fact, Teresita, executed a Deed of Absolute
Sale dated 6 June 1986 to petitioners Lim covering the disputed Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals concluded that forgery
property for the sum of P600,000.00. The Lims subsequently caused had attended the execution of the Deed of Sale, albeit in varying
the cancellation of TCT No. 148821 in the name of Rafael and TCT degrees. The Court is persuaded by the appellate courts conclusion
No. 169859 was issued in their names. that all of the signatures therein were forged, and not just that of
Eduardo, Jorge, and Felipe. The RTC had declared that the forgeries
In 1991, after the Lims refused to heed the demands of of these three signatures had been established by the document
respondents for the reconveyance of the property, a complaint was examiner of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). While the
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, of Manila. NBI expert had not formed an opinion on the genuineness of the
Respondents prayed for the declaration of nullity of the deed of sale signatures of Leoncia and Francisco, it was merely because the
purportedly executed by them in favor of Rafael, as well as the deed specimen signatures submitted to him were insufficient. However,
of sale executed by Rafael in favor of the Lims; the cancellation of the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that even in the absence of
TCT No. 169859 in the name of the Lims; and for the return of the expert testimony, the falsity of the signatures of Leoncia and
property to them. Francisco had been sufficiently established by Franciscos direct
repudiation of his signature, as well as the denials by Eduardo and
Assessing the evidence before it, the RTC rendered its Decision
Jorge of their mothers signature.
on 21 November 2000 dismissing the complaint. It declared that the
deed of sale dated 27 February 1979 was void only with respect to While the testimony of a person, disavowing the genuineness of
the undivided shares of Eduardo, Jorge, and Felipe Chuatoco, whose his signature may seem self-serving at first blush, such as that
signatures on the questioned deed were proven to be forged. proferred by Francisco, it cannot be ignored that such person is in the
However, the trial court ruled that since the property was already best position to know whether or not the signature on the check was
titled in the name of Rafael before it was sold to petitioners, the latter his, and averments he would have on the matter, if adjudged as
had the right to rely upon what appeared on the certificate of title truthful, deserve primacy in consideration. On the other hand, the
otherwise the efficacy and conclusiveness of the Torrens Certificate denials of Eduardo and Jorge of their mothers signature may be
of Title would be rendered illusory. The trial court also debunked properly appreciated in evidence, as Section 50, Rule 130 allows
respondents contention that they had no knowledge of the sale of the the opinion of an ordinary witness to be received in evidence
property to the Lims in view of their admission that in 1989 they met regarding a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity.
with Jaime Lim, the father of petitioners, and asked the latter to The appellate court committed no error in ruling that Eduardo
return the property to them and in exchange, they would return the would probably be the most reliable witness to testify on the
price paid by the Lims for the property. handwriting of his mother because he had worked closely with
and exchanged papers and communications with Leoncia on a
The Court of Appeals in its now assailed Decision reversed the
regular basis, the latter being then the administrator of the
trial courts decision.
properties left by Jose.
The fraudulent registration of the property in Rafaels name It likewise does not escape our attention that the Lims
using the forged deed of sale is not sufficient to vest title to the entire nonetheless exerted efforts beyond a facial examination of the title to
property in him. Settled is the rule that a certificate is not conclusive verify the ownership thereof. As admitted by respondents, William
evidence of title; registration does not vest title, it is merely evidence and Edgar Lim, along with Atty. Apolonio Rivera, went to the
of such title over a particular property. Certificates of title merely Register of Deeds of Manila to verify Rafaels claim over the
confirm or record title already existing and vested. They cannot be property, and saw therein the Deed of Sale executed by respondents
used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can they be used as and their mother in favor of Rafael, as well as the certificates of title.
a shield for the commission of fraud, nor to permit one to enrich They discovered that indeed, TCT No. 148821 was issued solely in
himself at the expense of others. The Torrens sytem has never been the name of Rafael, canceling TCT No. 142406 issued in the name of
recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership. Leoncia Chuatoco and her sons.
However, it is a familiar doctrine that a forged or fraudulent
document may become the root of a valid title, if the property has
already been transferred from the name of the owner to that of the
forger. This doctrine serves to emphasize that a person who deals CHARACTER EVIDENCE
with registered property in good faith will acquire good title from a
forger and be absolutely protected by a Torrens title. In the final SEC 51
analysis, the resolution of this case depends on whether the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NOEL LEE
petitioners are purchasers in good faith.
DOCTRINE:
In analyzing this question, the initial premise should be that the
Lims had acted in good faith and therefore they are innocent
purchasers for value. 1. x x x While good or bad moral character may be availed
of as an aid to determine the probability or improbability
There was no demand on the part of the Lims that they become of the commission of an offense (Section 15, Rule 123),
privy to whatever arrangements or transfers the Chuatocos may have such is not necessary in the crime of murder where the
had among themselves. The Lims had no obligation to look beyond killing is committed through treachery or premeditation.
the face of the Torrens title. The proof of such character may only be allowed in
homicide cases to show that it has produced a reasonable
belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and
a justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action
was necessary (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court,
1952 ed., Vol. 3, p. 126). This rule does not apply to cases
of murder.
2. Character is defined to be the possession by a person of Police investigators arrived at the hospital and inquired about
certain qualities of mind and morals, distinguishing him the shooting incident. Herminia told them that her son was shot by
from others. It is the opinion generally entertained of a Noel Lee.
person derived from the common report of the people who
Appellant is a well-known figure in their neighborhood and has
are acquainted with him; his reputation. Good moral
character includes all the elements essential to make up such several criminal cases pending against him in Caloocan City. He was
charged with frustrated homicide in 1984 and attempted murder in
a character; among these are common honesty and veracity,
especially in all professional intercourse; a character that 1989.
measures up as good among people of the community in Noel Lee had known the victim since childhood and their
which the person lives, or that is up to the standard of the houses are only two blocks apart. Joseph had a bad reputation in their
average citizen; that status which attaches to a man of good neighborhood as a thief and drug addict. Six days before his death,
behavior and upright conduct. Lee caught Joseph inside his car trying to steal his car stereo. Joseph
scampered away. As proof of the victims bad reputation, appellant
Facts:
presented a letter handwritten by his mother, Herminia, addressed
Herminia Marquez and her son, Joseph, 26 years of age, were in to Mayor Reynaldo Malonzo of Caloocan City. In the letter,
the living room of their house. The living room was brightly lit by a Herminia was surrendering her son to the Mayor for rehabilitation
circular fluorescent lamp in the ceiling. Outside their house was an because he was hooked on shabu, a prohibited drug, and was a thief.
alley leading to General Evangelista Street. In their living room, Herminia was scared that eventually Joseph might not just steal but
mother and son were watching a basketball game on kill her and everyone in their household because of his drug habit.
television. Herminia looked away from the game and casually
glanced at her son. To her complete surprise, she saw a hand holding The accused-appellant likewise explained the two criminal
cases filed against him in 1984 and 1989. The information for
a gun coming out of the open window behind Joseph. She looked up
and saw accused-appellant Noel Lee peering through the window attempted murder was dismissed as a result of the victims desistance
while in the frustrated homicide case, the real assailant appeared and
and holding the gun aimed at Joseph. Before she could warn him,
Joseph turned his body towards the window, and simultaneously, admitted his crime.
appellant fired his gun hitting Josephs head. Joseph slumped on the ISSUE:
sofa. Herminia stood up but could not move as accused-appellant
fired a second shot at Joseph and three (3) shots more two hit the Whether or not Lee is guilty of murder
sofa and one hit the cement floor. When no more shots were fired, RULING:
Herminia ran to the window and saw accused-appellant, in a
blue sando, flee towards the direction of his house. Herminia turned Accused-appellant makes capital of Josephs bad reputation in
to her son, dragged his body to the door and shouted for help. With their community.
the aid of her neighbor and kumpare, Herminia brought Joseph to the The rule is that the character or reputation of a party is
MCU Hospital where he later died. regarded as legally irrelevant in determining a controversy, so
that evidence relating thereto is not admissible. Ordinarily, if the
issues in the case were allowed to be influenced by evidence of
the character or reputation of the parties, the trial would be apt charge for embezzlement, character for honesty and integrity. Sub-
to have the aspects of a popularity contest rather than a factual paragraph (3) of Section 51 of the said Rule refers to the character of
inquiry into the merits of the case. After all, the business of the the offended party. Character evidence, whether good or bad, of the
court is to try the case, and not the man; and a very bad man offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any
may have a righteous cause. There are exceptions to this rule reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense
however and Section 51, Rule 130 gives the exceptions in both charged. Such evidence is most commonly offered to support a claim
criminal and civil cases. of self-defense in an assault or homicide case or a claim of consent in
a rape case.
In criminal cases, sub-paragraph 1 of Section 51 of Rule 130
provides that the accused may prove his good moral character which In the Philippine setting, proof of the moral character of the
is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. When offended party is applied with frequency in sex offenses and
the accused presents proof of his good moral character, this homicide. In rape and acts of lasciviousness or in any prosecution
strengthens the presumption of innocence, and where good character involving an unchaste act perpetrated by a man against a woman
and reputation are established, an inference arises that the accused where the willingness of a woman is material, the womans character
did not commit the crime charged. This view proceeds from the as to her chastity is admissible to show whether or not she consented
theory that a person of good character and high reputation is not to the mans act. The exception to this is when the womans consent is
likely to have committed the act charged against him. Sub- immaterial such as in statutory rape or rape with violence or
paragraph 2 provides that the prosecution may not prove the bad intimidation. In the crimes of qualified seduction or consented
moral character of the accused except only in rebuttal and when such abduction, the offended party must be a virgin, which is presumed if
evidence is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense she is unmarried and of good reputation, or a virtuous woman of
charged. This is intended to avoid unfair prejudice to the accused good reputation. The crime of simple seduction involves the
who might otherwise be convicted not because he is guilty but seduction of a woman who is single or a widow of good reputation,
because he is a person of bad character. The offering of character over twelve but under eighteen years of age x x x. The burden of
evidence on his behalf is a privilege of the defendant, and the proof that the complainant is a woman of good reputation lies in the
prosecution cannot comment on the failure of the defendant to prosecution, and the accused may introduce evidence that the
produce such evidence. Once the defendant raises the issue of his complainant is a woman of bad reputation.
good character, the prosecution may, in rebuttal, offer evidence of the
In homicide cases, a pertinent character trait of the victim is
defendants bad character. Otherwise, a defendant, secure from
refutation, would have a license to unscrupulously impose a false admissible in two situations: (1) as evidence of the deceaseds
aggression; and (2) as evidence of the state of mind of the accused.
character upon the tribunal.
The pugnacious, quarrelsome or trouble-seeking character of the
Both sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of Section 51 of Rule 130 refer deceased or his calmness, gentleness and peaceful nature, as the case
to character evidence of the accused. And this evidence must be may be, is relevant in determining whether the deceased or the
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged, meaning, accused was the aggressor. When the evidence tends to prove self-
that the character evidence must be relevant and germane to the kind defense, the known violent character of the deceased is also
of the act charged, e.g., on a charge of rape, character for chastity; on admissible to show that it produced a reasonable belief of imminent
a charge of assault, character for peacefulness or violence; on a
danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a petitioners based on quasi-delict and against Villones and Decena for
prompt defensive action was necessary. breach of contract.
In the instant case, proof of the bad moral character of the Decena recounted that he was driving a passenger jeepney
victim is irrelevant to determine the probability or improbability of bound for Candelaria, Quezon. On board, the jeepney was about
his killing. Accused-appellant has not alleged that the victim was the fifteen passengers, including private respondents Gloria and Lotis
aggressor or that the killing was made in self-defense. There is no Brazal. Upon reaching Sampaloc, Sariaya, Quezon, a Supreme
connection between the deceaseds drug addiction and thievery with Transliner bus coming from the opposite direction, suddenly
his violent death in the hands of accused-appellant. In light of the appeared on a curved portion of the road and overtook another
positive eyewitness testimony, the claim that because of the victims jeepney, which it was then following. Thereafter, the bus collided
bad character he could have been killed by any one of those from with Decenas jeepney.
whom he had stolen, is pure and simple speculation.
Petitioners presented Novencio Flores and Moises Alvarez, the
Moreover, proof of the victims bad moral character is not Manager of Supreme Transliner. Both testified that the passenger
necessary in cases of murder committed with treachery and jeepney was running very fast when the accident occurred.
premeditation.
The trial court declared that Flores was negligent in operating
the bus, while Sia failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of
a family in the choice, supervision and direction of his employees.
The Court of Appeals found that there was competent and
RULE 131 BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS preponderant evidence which showed that driver Novencio Flores
SEC 1 BURDEN OF PROOF negligence was the proximate cause of the mishap and that Felipe Sia
failed to perform the required degree of care in the selection and
SUPREME TRANSLINER INC., FELIPE SIA and NOVENCIO supervision of the bus driver. It also found that the actual damages
FLORES, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, GLORIA representing the medical expenses incurred by private respondents
BRAZAL and minor LOTIS BRAZAL were properly supported by receipts.
FACTS: ISSUE:
Petitioners Supreme Transliner Inc. and Felipe Sia are the Whether or not defendants sufficiently proved that petitioner is
registered owners of a bus driven by co-petitioner Novencio guilty
Flores. On September 24, 1990, the bus collided with a passenger RULING:
jeepney carrying private respondents Gloria and Lotis Brazal. At the
time of the incident, the jeepney was owned and registered in the Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence to
name of Marcelino Villones and driven by Reynaldo Decena. establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required
by law, which is preponderance of evidence in civil cases. The
As a result of the collision, private respondents suffered party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the affirmative
injuries. They instituted Civil Case No. SP-3312 for damages against of the issue has the burden of proof to obtain a favorable
judgment. For the defendant, an affirmative defense is one which x x x [The witness], of course, has a right not to do so and his failure
is not a denial of an essential ingredient in the plaintiffs cause of and/or refusal to testify shall not in any manner prejudice or be taken
action, but one which, if established, will be a good defense i.e. an against him. But when the prosecution has already established
avoidance of the claim. a prima facie case, more so when the offense charged is grave and
sufficient enough to send the accused behind bars for life or may
In this case, both private respondents as well as the jeepney even warrant the imposition of the supreme penalty of death, then in
driver Reynaldo Decena and its owner Marcelino Villones claim that order to meet and destroy the effects of said prima facie case and so
the bus driver, Novencio Flores, was liable for negligently operating as to shift the burden of producing further evidence to the
the bus. For private respondents, the claim constitutes their cause of prosecution, the party making the denial must produce evidence
action against petitioners which said private respondents must prove tending to negate the blame asserted to such a point that, if no more
by preponderance of evidence. At the same time, the same claim is a evidence is given, his adversary cannot win the case beyond
matter of affirmative defense on the part of Decena and Villones who reasonable doubt. In such a situation, it may be necessary for the
are impleaded as co-defendants of petitioners. Therefore, both accused to have a complete destruction of the prosecutions prima
private respondents as well as the said co-defendants had the facie case, that he take the stand since no hardship will in any
burden of proving petitioners negligence by the quantum of way be imposed upon him nor advantage be taken of him.
proof required to establish the latters liability, i.e. by
preponderance of evidence.
FACTS:
The evidence presented by the jeepney owner and its driver,
Villones and Decena, forms part of the totality of the evidence Luz Aguipo heard two persons calling out to buy rice. When William
concerning the negligence committed by petitioners as defendants later called out to Luz whether she had change for P100.00, she
in quasi-delict case. Preponderance of evidence is determined by answered that she had none. She went down the house and saw
considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, culled from accused Julius Kinok and Tapante Saligan. The duo were thus unable
the evidence, regardless of who actually presented it. [11] Petitioners to buy the rice as the couple had no change. The two accused then
liability were proved by the evidence presented by Decena and asked if the couple had corn grits. They replied that there was none
Villones at the trial, taken together with the evidence presented by available.
the victims of the collision, namely herein private respondents Gloria
and Lotis Brazal. At around 12:30 oclock past midnight, Luz was awakened by a
muffled gunburst. She immediately got up, looked over the window
and saw the two accused both holding guns which were pointed at
where her husband, William, was later found dead. She was able to
identify the two as the moon and stars were shinning brightly and
besides there was a pile of woods and bamboos (bagacay) which
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JULIUS KINOK alias were burning around eight (8) meters away from where the two
"YOS BLA-AN" and TAPANTE SALIGAN alias accused were. Not long after, the two accused ran away. Thereafter,
"TAPANTE BLA-AN", Luz went back to lie down on her bed (p.10, id.). She could not go
DOCTRINE:
back to sleep because she was scared that the two would come back not shift to the defense but remains in the prosecution throughout the
to strafe their house and kill them all. trial. However, when the prosecution has succeeded in
discharging the burden of proof by presenting evidence sufficient
While all these were going on, Ronel Mande, the 13-year old to convince the court of the truth of the allegations in the
nephew of the couple was himself awakened by the noise coming information or has established a prima facie case against the
from the horse and pigs. When he tried to look at the place where the accused, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused making it
horse and pigs were, he saw the two accused both holding firearms incumbent upon him to adduce evidence in order to meet and
which were directed and poked at the walling of the store where nullify, if not to overthrow, that prima facie case.
William was sleeping He saw both accused clearly since the moon
Appellants unexplainable silence, in the midst of the
was shining brightly and the pile of woods he had previously set fire
overwhelming evidence established by the prosecution against them,
earlier in the evening was burning just around eight (8) meters away
leads to no other conclusion than that they are guilty as charged.
from where the accused were. Upon noticing that both accused had
pointed their guns toward the store where his uncle William was Luz testified that she feared for her life as well as her
sleeping, he tried to look at the wooden railings. As he was looking, family. She was also convinced that appellants would flee to the
he heard a muffled gunburst. Thereupon, he ducked and lay down on mountains and might no longer be apprehended. Likewise, in her
the floor. Feeling very much scared, he covered himself with a barangay, many residents have been killed in the past. Although the
blanket culprits were identified, the barangay officials would usually fix the
cases because they themselves are afraid of the people in the
After the burial of her husband on October 9, 1989, she went to the mountains. Similarly, she did not immediately bring the matter to the
Kiblawan Police Station and executed a sworn statement to support police authorities because she was then busy attending to the burial
her complaint against the two accused. arrangements of her husband. With these things in her mind,
compounded by the traumatic shock of finding herself suddenly a
ISSUE: widow with five children to support, Luz could not be expected to
immediately take the proper action.
Whether or not defendants are guilty of the crime murder
Next, appellants assail Ronels credibility on the ground that he
RULING: is a nephew of Luz Aguipo and her husband who were then sending
Instead of controverting the testimonies and defending him to school. Mere relationship by itself does not give rise to the
themselves, appellants merely chose to remain silent. They relied presumption of bias or ulterior motive, nor does it ipso facto impair
solely on the testimonies of their barriomates who claimed that Luz the credibility or tarnish the testimony of a witness. Antithetically, a
Aguipo and Ronel Mande did not inform them of the names of witness relationship to a victim of the crime would even make his or
the perpetrators. her testimony more credible as it would be unnatural for a relative
who is interested in vindicating the crime to accuse somebody other
In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the onus to prove than the real culprit. Indeed, at 14, Ronels act of accusing his
beyond reasonable doubt not only the commission of the crime but barriomates of such a serious crime even strengthens the veracity of
likewise to establish, with the same quantum of proof, the identity of his testimony.
the person or persons responsible therefor. This burden of proof does
Appellants also vigorously contend that since there was no ill requiring minimal discussion that motive is not essential for
motive on their part against the victim, then they should be conviction when there is no doubt as to the identity of the accused.
acquitted. Suffice it to state that the prosecution witnesses positively
identified them as the malefactors. It is a settled principle