Sie sind auf Seite 1von 40

List of Cases for Evidence :)

313
20. Estrada v. Desierto, 356 SCRA
1. Ong Chia v. Republic, 328 SCRA
108
749- ok
21. People v. Peaflorida, 313
2. People v. Valdez, 342 SCRA 25-
SCRA 563
ok
22. People v. Espinosa, Jr., 243
3. Zulueta v. CA, 253 SCRA 699-
SCRA 7
ok
23. People v. Kulais, 292 SCRA
4. People v. Ador, 432 SCRA 1- ok
551
5. Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA, 253
24. State Prosecutors v. Muro, 236
SCRA 111- ok
SCRA 505
6. People v. Baconguis, 417 SCRA
25. Laureano v. CA, 324 SCRA 414
66- ok
26. Candido v. CA, 253 SCRA 78
7. People v. Yatar, 428 SCRA 504-
27. People v. Martinez, 274 SCRA
ok
259
8. People v. Tumimpad, 235 SCRA
28. Salamera v. Sandiganbayan,
483-ok
303 SCRA 217
9. People v. Sartagoda, 221 SCRA
29. Francisco v. People, 434 SCRA
251- ok
122
10. People v. Carpo, 356 SCRA
30. LBP v. Banal, 434 SCRA 543
249
31. Herrera v. Ballos, 374 SCRA
107
2. Rule 129 32. Director of Lands v. CA, 196
11. Sanado v. CA, 356 SCRA 546 SCRA 94
12. People v. Meneses, 288 SCRA 33. Mercury Drug v. Libunao, 434
95 SCRA 404
13. Siena Realty v. Gal-lang, 428 34. People v. Hermanes, 379
SCRA 422 SCRA 170
14. Republic v. CA, 277 SCRA 633 35. Republic v. Sandiganbayan,
15. Del Rosario v. People, 358 406 SCRA 190
SCRA 373 36. Geagonia v. CA, 241 SCRA 254
16. People v. Estomaco, 256 SCRA 37. Philippine Bank of Com. V. CA,
421 195 SCRA 567
17. Southeastern College v. CA, 38. Republic Glass Corp. v. Qua,
292 SCRA 422 435 SCRA 480
18. Coca-Cola v. NLRC, 307 SCRA 39. Vda. Dealvarez v. CA, 231
131 SCRA 309
19. Vergara v. People, 374 SCRA 40. Bitong v. CA, 292 SCRA 503
1. (G.R. No. 127240. March, 27, 2000) RATIO: 1996, he received a tip from an unnamed
Ong CHIA, petitioner,vs. REPUBLIC OF THE It is settled that naturalization laws should be informer about the presence of a marijuana
PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF plantation, allegedly owned by Abe Valdez y
rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor
Dela Cruz at Sitio Bulan, Ibung, Villaverde,
APPEALS, respondents. of the government and against the
Nueva Vizcaya. The prohibited plants were
FACTS: applicant. [T]he rule of strict application of the allegedly planted close to appellant's (ABE
The trial court granted the petition and law in naturalization cases defeat petitioners VALDEZ y DELA CRUZ) hut. Police Inspector
admitted petitioner to Philippine citizenship. argument of substantial compliance with the Alejandro R. Parungao, Chief of Police of
The State, however, through the Office of the requirement under the Revised Naturalization Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya then formed a
Solicitor General, among others for having Law. reaction team from his operatives to verify
failed to state all his former placer of residence the report. At approximately 5:00 o'clock
in violation of C.A. No. 473, 7 and to support [T]he reason for the rule prohibiting the A.M. the following day, said police team,
his petition with the appropriate documentary accompanied by their informer, left for the
admission of evidence which has not been
site where the marijuana plants were
evidence. Petitioner admits that he failed to formally offered is to afford the opposite party
allegedly being grown. After a three-hour,
mention said address in his petition, but the chance to object to their admissibility. uphill trek from the nearest barangay road,
argues that since the Immigrant Certificate of Petitioner cannot claim that he was deprived of the police operatives arrived at the place
Residence containing it had been fully the right to object to the authenticity of the pinpointed by their informant. The police
published, with the petition and the other documents submitted to the appellate court by found appellant alone in his nipa hut. They,
annexes, such publication constitutes the State. then,
substantial compliance with 7. proceeded to look around the area where
appellant had his kaingin and saw seven (7)
ISSUE:
five-foot high, flowering marijuana plants in
two rows, approximately 25 meters from
Whether or not the documents annexed by the 2. [G.R. No. 129296. September 25, 2000]
appellant's hut. PO2 Balut asked appellant
State to its appelants brief without having PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
who owned the prohibited plants and,
been presented and formally offered as appellee, vs. ABE VALDEZ y DELA
according to Balut, the latter admitted that
CRUZ,
evidence under Rule 132, Section 34 of the they were his. The police uprooted the seven
accused-appellant.
Revised Rules on Evidence justified the marijuana plants, which weighed 2.194
reversal of of the Trial Courts decision. kilograms. The police took photos of
FACTS:
appellant standing beside the cannabis
HELD: SPO3 Marcelo Tipay, a member of the police plants. Appellant was then arrested. One of
force of Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya, testified the plants, weighing 1.090 kilograms, was
YES. Decision of the Court of Appeals was
that at round 10:15 a.m. of September 24, sent to the Philippine National Police Crime
affirmed. Petition was denied.
Laboratory in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya despite of the inadmissibility of the evidence; upon to prove appellants guilt failed to
for analysis. and gravely erred in imposing the supreme meet the test of constitutional
Inspector Prevy Fabros Luwis, the Crime penalty
competence. Without these, the
Laboratory forensic analyst, testified of death upon the accused despite failure of
that upon microscopic examination of said the court to prove that the land where the prosecutions remaining evidence did not
plant, she found cystolitic hairs containing Indian even approximate the quantum of
calcium carbonate, a positive indication for Hemp were cultivated was a public land on evidence necessary to warrant appellants
marijuana. She next conducted a chemical the assumption that the accused planted. conviction. Hence, the presumption of
examination, the results of innocence on his favor stands.
which confirmed her initial impressions. She Issues:
found as follows: "SPECIMEN SUBMITTED: 1. Was the search and seizure of the
HELD:
Exh "A" - 1.090 grams of uprooted suspected marijuana plants in this case lawful? The Supreme Court REVERSED the decision of
marijuana plant placed inside a white sack 2. Was the used evidence (seizure of the Regional Trial Court and the appellant
with markings. x x x "FINDINGS: Qualitative marijuana plants) in the case against Valdez was
examination conducted on the above stated admissible? AQUITTED
specimen gave POSITIVE result to the test for 3. Has the prosecution proved that Valdez 1. and 2.
Marijuana, a prohibited drug." ABE VALDEZ y was guilty beyond reasonable doubt No. In the instant case, there was no
DELA CRUZ, the accused, was found guilty search warrant issued by a judge after
beyond reasonable doubt by trial HELD: personal
court of cultivating marijuana plants determination of the existence of probable
punishable under section 9 of Dangerous The marijuana plants seized were product cause.
Drugs Act of of an illegal search because of the absence Contention: For the appellee, the Office of
1972, as amended and was sentenced to the Solicitor General argues that the records
of search warrant and are therefore
suffer the penalty of death by lethal clearly
inadmissible in evidence. The voluntary
injection. show that there was no search made by the
The accused-appellant contended there was confession of ownership of marijuana was
police team, in the first place. The OSG points
unlawful search and that the court erred in in violation of the custodial rights because out
declaring of the absence of competent and that the marijuana plants in question were
the marijuana plants, as evidence despite independent counsel, and thus, grown in an unfenced lot and as each grew
that was the product of an illegal search; about five
inadmissible too. In sum, both the object
erred in (5) feet tall, they were visible from afar, and
convicting the accused of violation of section evidence and the testimonial evidence as
were, in fact, immediately spotted by the
9 (Dangerous Drugs Act), Republic Act No. to the appellants voluntary confession of
police
6425 ownership of the prohibited plants relied
officers when they reached the site. The seizure of evidence in "plain view" applies the court a quo to have admitted and relied
seized marijuana plants were, thus, in plain only where the police officer is not searching upon the seized marijuana plants as evidence
view of the for to
police officers. evidence against the accused, but convict appellant.
Ruling: We find no reason to subscribe to inadvertently comes across an incriminating 3. No.
Solicitor General's contention that we apply object. Clearly, In convicting appellant, the trial court
the "plain their discovery of the cannabis plants was likewise relied on the testimony of the police
view" doctrine. For the doctrine to apply, the not inadvertent. We also note the testimony officers to
following elements must be present: of SPO2 the effect that appellant admitted ownership
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid Tipay that upon arriving at the area, they first of the marijuana when he was asked who
warrantless arrest in which the police are had to "look around the area" before they planted
legally could them. It made the following observation: "It
present in the pursuit of their official duties; spot the illegal plants. Patently, the seized may be true that the admission to the police
(b) the evidence was inadvertently marijuana plants were not "immediately by the
discovered by the apparent" and accused that he planted the marijuana plants
police who have the right to be where they a "further search" was needed. In sum, the was made in the absence of any independent
are; (c) the evidence must be immediately marijuana plants in question were not in and
apparent; "plain view" competent counsel. But the accused was not,
and (d) plain view justified mere seizure of or "open to eye and hand." The "plain view" at the time of police verification; under
evidence without further search. doctrine, thus, cannot be made to apply. custodial
In the instant case, recall that PO2 Balut We therefore hold, with respect to the first investigation. His admission is, therefore,
testified that they first located the marijuana issue, that the confiscated plants were admissible in evidence and not violative of
plants evidently the constitutional fiat that admission given
before appellant was arrested without a obtained during an illegal search and seizure. during custodial investigation is not
warrant. Hence, there was no valid As to the second issue, which involves the admissible if given without any counsel."
warrantless arrest admissibility of the marijuana plants as The Constitution plainly declares that any
which preceded the search of appellant's evidence for the prosecution, we find that person under investigation for the
premises. Note further that the police team said plants commission of an
was cannot, as products of an unlawful search offense shall have the right: (1) to remain
dispatched to appellant's kaingin precisely to and seizure, be used as evidence against silent; (2) to have competent and
search for and uproot the prohibited flora. appellant. independent counsel
The They are fruits of the proverbial poisoned preferably of his own choice; and (3) to be
tree. It was, therefore, a reversible error on informed of such rights. These rights cannot
the part of be
waived except in writing and in the presence investigation as a suspect. The questioning by requisite judicial warrant. The prosecution's
of counsel. An investigation begins when it is the police was no longer a general inquiry. very own evidence clearly establishes that
no Moreover, we find appellant's extrajudicial the police
longer a general inquiry but starts to focus on confession flawed with respect to its had sufficient time to obtain a warrant. There
a particular person as a suspect, i.e., when admissibility. was no showing of such urgency or necessity
the For a confession to be admissible, it must for
police investigator starts interrogating or satisfy the following requirements: (1) it the warrantless search or the immediate
exacting a confession from the suspect in must be seizure of the marijuana plants subject of this
connection voluntary; (2) it must be made with the case. To
with an alleged offense. The moment the assistance of competent and independent reiterate, said marijuana plants cannot be
police try to elicit admissions or confessions counsel; (3) it utilized to prove appellant's guilt without
or even must be express; and (4) it must be in running afoul
plain information from a person suspected of writing. The records show that the admission of the constitutional guarantees against
having committed an offense, he should at by appellant illegal searches and the inadmissibility of
that was verbal. It was also uncounselled. A verbal evidence
juncture be assisted by counsel, unless he admission allegedly made by an accused procured pursuant to an unlawful search and
waives the right in writing and in the during seizure.
presence of the investigation, without the assistance of Second, the confession of ownership of the
counsel. counsel at the time of his arrest and even marijuana plants, which appellant allegedly
In the instant case we find that, from the before his made to
start, a tipster had furnished the police formal investigation is not only inadmissible the police during investigation, is not only
appellant's name for being violative of the right to counsel hearsay but also violative of the Bill of Rights.
as well as the location of appellant's farm, during The
where the marijuana plants were allegedly criminal investigations, it is also hearsay. purported confession was made without the
being Summary of ruling in no. 3: First, as earlier assistance of competent and independent
grown. While the police operation was pointed out, the seized marijuana plants counsel, as
supposedly meant to merely "verify" said were mandated by the Charter. Thus, said
information, the obtained in violation of appellant's confession cannot be used to convict
police chief had likewise issued constitutional rights against unreasonable appellant without
instructions to arrest appellant as a searches and running afoul of the Constitution's
suspected marijuana seizures. The search and seizure were void ab requirement that a suspect in a criminal
cultivator. Thus, at the time the police talked initio for having been conducted without the investigation must
to appellant in his farm, the latter was have the services of competent and
already under independent counsel during such
investigation In sum, both the object immediately return the properties to Dr. Martin absolute freedom of communication between
evidence and the testimonial evidence as to and to pay him P5,000.00, as nominal the spouses by making it privileged. Neither
appellant's voluntary damages; P5,000.00, as moral damages and husband nor wife may testify for or against the
attorneys fees; and to pay the costs of the suit. other without the consent of the affected
confession of ownership of the prohibited On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the spouse while the marriage subsists. Neither
plants relied upon to prove appellant's guilt decision of the Regional Trial Court. Zulueta may be examined without the consent of the
failed to filed the petition for review with the Supreme other as to any communication received in
meet the test of Constitutional competence Court. confidence by one from the other during the
3. Zulueta vs Court of Appeals marriage, save for specified exceptions. But
Caption: Issue: one thing is freedom of communication; quite
Cecilia Zulueta vs Court of Appeals and The papers and other materials obtained from another is a compulsion for each one to share
Alfredo Martin forcible entrusion and from unlawful means are what one knows with the other. And this has
(253 SCRA 699) admissible as evidence in court regarding nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each
GR no. 107383 February 20, 1996 marital separation and disqualification from owes to the other.
medical practice.

Facts: Ruling/Held:
The documents and papers are inadmissible in 4. People v. Ador 432 SCRA 1
Cecilia Zulueta is the Petitioner who offset the
private papers of his husband Dr. Alfredo evidence. The constitutional injunction
Martin. Dr. Martin is a doctor of medicine while declaring the privacy of communication and Facts:
he is not in his house His wife took the 157 correspondence to be inviolable is no less In convicting accused of murder, the trial
documents consisting of diaries, cancelled applicable simply because it is the wife who court relied on the circumstances, namely:
check, greeting cards, passport and thinks herself aggrieved by her husbands
infidelity, who is the party against whom the
1. that he was seen fleeing from the crime
photograph, private respondents between her scene,
Wife and his alleged paramours, by means of constitutional provision is to be enforced.
The only exception to the prohibition in the 2. that he allegedly surrendered a handgun,
forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet.
Cecilia Zulueta filed the papers for the Constitution is if there is a lawful order from a 3. that the slug taken from the head of the
evidence of her case of legal separation and court or when public safety or order requires victim was fired from the gun he
for disqualification from the practice of otherwise, as prescribed by law. Any violation surrendered,
medicine against her husband. of this provision renders the evidence obtained
inadmissible for any purpose in any
4. that the victim made a dying declaration
Dr. Martin brought the action for recovery of identifying him, and
the documents and papers and for damages proceeding. The intimacies between husband
and wife do not justify any one of them in 5. that paraffin test showed that he was
against Zulueta, with the Regional Trial Court
of Manila, Branch X. the trial court rendered breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other positive for gun powder.
judgment for Martin, declaring him the and in ransacking them for any telltale
capital/exclusive owner of the properties evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by Issue:
described in paragraph 3 ofMartins Complaint contracting marriage, does not shed his/her
integrity or his right to privacy as an individual
Is the conviction proper?
or those further described in the Motion to
Return and Suppress and ordering Zulueta and the constitutional protection is ever
available to him or to her. The law insures Held:
and any person acting in her behalf to a
No. For circumstantial evidence to suffice, 5. scientific experts concur in the view that admission in evidence of the
1. there should be more than one the result of a paraffin test is not conclusive. aforementioned cassette tapes.
circumstance; Plainly, the facts from which the inference These tape recordings were made and
2. the facts from which the inference are that the accused committed the crime were obtained when private respondent allowed
his friends from the military to wire tap his
derived are proven and not proven. Accordingly, the guilt of the home telephone.
3. the combination of all the circumstances is accused was not established with moral
such as to produce a conviction beyond certainty CA denied the petition because (1) Tape
reasonable doubt. recordings are not inadmissible per se.
Accordingly, the following are the guidelines They and any other variant thereof can be
in appreciating circumstantial evidence: admitted in evidence for certain purposes,
1. it should be acted upon with caution; depending on how they are presented and
offered and on how the trial judge utilizes
2. all the essential facts must be consistent
them in the interest of truth and fairness
with the hypothesis of guilt; and the even handed administration of
3. the facts must exclude every theory but 5. SALCEDO-ORTANEZ V CA
justice; and (2) A petition for certiorari is
that of guilt; and notoriously inappropriate to rectify a
Facts:
4. the facts must establish such certainty of supposed error in admitting evidence
Private respondent Rafael Ortanez filed
guilt as to convince the judgment beyond a adduced during trial. The ruling on
with the Quezon City RTC a complaint for
reasonable doubt that the accused is the one admissibility is interlocutory; neither does
annulment of marriage with damages
it impinge on jurisdiction. If it is erroneous,
who committed the offense. against petitioner Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez,
the ruling should be questioned in the
Measured against these guidelines, the on grounds of lack of marriage license
appeal from the judgment on the merits
conviction cannot stand for the following and/or psychological incapacity of the
and not through the special civil action
reasons: petitioner.
of certiorari. The error, assuming
1. the testimony of the prosecution witness gratuitously that it exists, cannot be
Among the exhibits offered by private
that he saw accused fleeing from the crime respondent were three (3) cassette tapes of anymore than an error of law, properly
scene is doubtful; alleged telephone conversations between correctible by appeal and not by certiorari.
2. the gun surrendered by the accused does petitioner and unidentified persons. Petitioner then filed the present petition for
not appear to be the same gun presented review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
during trial; Teresita submitted her Objection/Comment
3. if the gun is not the same, it is uncertain to Rafaels oral offer of evidence. However,
where the slug taken from the head of the the trial court admitted all of private
Issue:
respondents offered evidence and later on
victim came from; W/N the recordings of the telephone
denied her motion for reconsideration,
4. the dying declaration which mentioned conversations are admissible in evidence
prompting petitioner to file a petition
only the "Adors" can refer to anyone with for certiorari with the CA to assail the
that family name; and W/N the remedy of certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court was properly
availed of by the petitioner in the Court of 2. Yes and no. The extraordinary writ and was subjected to paraffin testing where
Appeals of certiorari is generally not available to he was found positive for gunpowder nitrates
challenge an interlocutory order of a trial on both hands. Lydia, upon seeing
court. The proper remedy in such cases is Baconguis, told the police that he was the
Held: an ordinary appeal from an adverse man she saw. Baconguis denied the
1. No. Rep. Act No. 4200 entitled An Act judgment, incorporating in said appeal the
allegations against him. The Regional Trial
to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and grounds for assailing the interlocutory
Other Related Violations of the Privacy of order.
Court (RTC), however, gave credence to the
Communication, and for other purposes However, where the assailed interlocutory results of the paraffin test and found
expressly makes such tape recordings order is patently erroneous and the remedy Baconguis guilty of Murder.
inadmissible in evidence thus: of appeal would not afford adequate and
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, expeditious relief, the Court may
not being authorized by all the parties to allow certiorari as a mode of redress. ISSUE:
any private communication or spoken Whether or not the paraffin test and Lydias
word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using testimony are sufficient to convict Ruel
any other device or arrangement, to secretly Baconguis of the crime charge
overhear, intercept, or record such HELD:
communication or spoken word by using a 6. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
device commonly known as a dictaphone or RUEL BACONGUIS y INSON
dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie 417 SCRA 66 (2003), EN BANC (Carpio It bears noting that the evidence relied upon
or tape-recorder, or however otherwise Morales, J.) by the prosecution is circumstantial. It is
described. . . . settled that for circumstantial evidence to
Facts: suffice to convict, the following requisites
Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, While Lydia Mercado-Lledo was sleeping in must be met: 1) there is more than one
or the existence, contents, substance, her bedroom, she heard a gunshot and when circumstance; 2) the facts from which the
purport, or meaning of the same or any part inferences are derived are proven; and 3) the
she looked at the window, she saw a man
thereof, or any information therein combination of all circumstances is such as to
contained, obtained or secured by any
jumping at their fence. The man allegedly
turned his face which enabled Lydia to see produce a conviction beyond reasonable
person in violation of the preceding
his face. When Lydia went to the sala, she doubt.
sections of this Act shall not be admissible
in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, saw her younger brother Roberto Mercado The value of the in-court identification
legislative or administrative hearing or bleeding. She thereafter brought him to the made by Lydia, however, is largely
investigation. hospital but subsequently died. The dependent upon the out-of-court
investigating officers found that the identification she made while Baconguis
Absent a clear showing that both parties to description of the man that Lydia saw
the telephone conversations allowed the matched that of Ruel Baconguis who was a was in the custody of the police. In People v.
recording of the same, the inadmissibility of suspect in several cases of theft and robbery. Teehankee, Jr., the Court held that
the subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. Baconguis was then captured by the police corruption of out-of-court identification
Act No. 4200.
contaminates the integrity of in-court same; the reason being that the former is in a
identification during the trial case. The FACTS better and unique position of hearing first hand
Accused-appellant was sentenced to death for the witnesses and observing their deportment,
totality of circumstances test has been the special complex crime of Rape with conduct and attitude. Absent any showing that
fashioned to assure fairness as well as Homicide, and ordering him to pay the heirs of the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or
compliance with the constitutional the victim. Appellant was charged to have had misapplied some facts or circumstances of
requirements of due process in regard to carnal knowledge of a certain Kathylyn Uba weight which would affect the result of the
against her will, and with the use of a bladed case, the trial judges assessment of credibility
out-of-court identification. Under the weapon, stabbed the latter inflicting upon her deserves the appellate courts highest
circumstances attendant to the fatal injuries resulting in her untimely demise. respect. Where there is nothing to show that
identification of Bocanguis, the Court is not the witnesses for the prosecution were
prepared to hold that the prosecution had In the instant case, appellant raises the issue actuated by improper motive, their testimonies
of credibility of witnesses, specifically are entitled to full faith and credit.
established that Bocanguis was the man assigning as error on the part of the trial court,
seen leaving the house-scene of the crime the latters giving of much weight to the The weight of the prosecutions evidence must
soon after a gunshot was hear. As for the evidence presented by the prosecution be appreciated in light of the well-settled rule
positive paraffin findings on Bocanguis, it is notwithstanding their doubtfulness. which provides that an accused can be
convicted even if no eyewitness is available, as
well settled that nitrates are also found in ISSUE (1) long as sufficient circumstantial evidence is
substances other than gunpowder. But even Whether appellants contentions as regards presented by the prosecution to prove beyond
assuming arguendo that Bocanguis being the witnesses credibility are meritorious. doubt that the accused committed the crime.
positive for gunpowder may be credited as
HELD: NO. ISSUE (2)
circumstantial evidence indicating his The issue regarding the credibility of the Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence
culpability, that is only one circumstance, prosecution witnesses should be resolved
and since no other circumstance was against appellant. This Court will not interfere HELD: Circumstantial evidence, to be
established by the prosecution, the first with the judgment of the trial court in sufficient to warrant a conviction, must form
determining the credibility of witnesses unless an unbroken chain which leads to a fair and
requirement of circumstantial evidence to
there appears in the record some fact or reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the
warrant conviction of Bocanguis has not circumstance of weight and influence which exclusion of others, is the perpetrator of the
been met has been overlooked or the significance of crime. To determine whether there is sufficient
which has been misinterpreted. circumstantial evidence, three requisites must
concur: (1) there is more than one
Well-entrenched is the rule that the findings of circumstance; (2) facts on which the
7. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
the trial court on credibility of witnesses are inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the
JOEL YATAR alias "KAWIT"
entitled to great weight on appeal unless combination of all the circumstances is such as
G.R. No. 150224 (428 SCRA 504); May
cogent reasons are presented necessitating a to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
19, 2004
reexamination if not the disturbance of the doubt.
Gallarde, where immediately after the mother, "Mama, patayin mo 'yan, bastos."
incident, the police authorities took pictures 2Sandra was brought to a doctor in
ISSUE (3) of the accused without the presence of Oroquieta City for a second checkup. Dr.
In an attempt to exclude the DNA evidence, counsel, we ruled that there was no violation Conol, the examining physician, ordered a
the appellant contends that the blood sample of the right against self-incrimination. The
urinalysis. Jose C. Lim, a Medical
taken from him as well as the DNA tests were accused may be compelled to submit to a
conducted in violation of his right to remain physical examination to determine his
Technologist, conducted the urinalysis. The
silent as well as his right against self- involvement in an offense of which he is result revealed that Sandra was pregnant.
incrimination under Secs. 12 and 17 of Art. III accused. 3During the trial, the accused moved that a
of the Constitution. blood test, both "Major Blood Grouping Test"
and "PhenoBlood Typing" be conducted on
Is the contention of appellant tenable? 8. People vs. Tumimpad 235 SCRA 483 the offended party, her child Jacob and the
two accused. The result of the test
HELD: NO. FACTS: conducted by the Makati Medical Center
The kernel of the right is not against all
Sandra Salcedo at the time of the incident showed that Jacob Salcedo has a type
compulsion, but against testimonial
compulsion. The right against self- was a 15-year old Mongoloid and daughter of "O"blood, Sandra Salcedo type "B," accused
incrimination is simply against the legal Lt. Col.Teofisto Salcedo and Pastora Salcedo. Ruel Prieto type "A" and accused-appellant
process of extracting from the lips of the She had a mind of a five-year old child, who type "O."
accused an admission of guilt. It does not still needed tobe fed and dressed up. Her
apply where the evidence sought to be vocabulary was limited and most of the time ISSUE:
excluded is not an incrimination but as part of she expressed herself bymotions.Col. W/N Moreno Tumimpad and Ruel Prieto are
object evidence. Teofisto Salcedo was then Provincial guilty of the crime of rape?
Commander of Misamis Occidental. Four
We ruled in People v. Rondero that although security menwere assigned to him, two of HELD:
accused-appellant insisted that hair samples
whom were accused Constable Ruel Prieto Accused-appellants' culpability was
were forcibly taken from him and submitted to
the National Bureau of Investigation for
and accused-appellantMoreno Tumimpad.It established mainly by testimonial evidence
forensic examination, the hair samples may be was on August 7, 1989, when Sandra given by the victimherself and her relatives.
admitted in evidence against him, for what is complained of constipation. Mrs. Salcedo The blood test was adduced as evidence only
proscribed is the use of testimonial compulsion then brought herto a doctor in Oroquieta to show that the allegedfather or any one of
or any evidence communicative in nature City for a checkup. Medication was given to many others of the same blood type may
acquired from the accused under duress. Sandra but her condition did not improve. have been the father of the child. Asheld by
Sandra became irritable and moody. She felt this Court in Janice Marie Jao vs. Court of
Hence, a person may be compelled to submit sick and unhappy.The following day, August Appeals 19 :Paternity ---- Science has
to fingerprinting, photographing, paraffin, 8, 1989, Sandra saw Moreno Tumimpad demonstrated that by the analysis of blood
blood and DNA, as there is no testimonial
coming out from the kitchen and told her samples of the mother, thechild, and the
compulsion involved. Under People v.
alleged father, it can be established of Reclusion Perpetua with the appellants in effect posit that
conclusively that the man is not the father of accessories provided for by the law. if flight is an indication of
aparticular child. But group blood testing On appeal: guilt, non-flight or the
cannot show only a possibility that he is. The accused-appellants fault decision not to flee, having
the trial court of ignoring the the opportunity to do so, is a
Statutes in manystates, and courts in others,
fingerprint examination report sign of innocence.
have recognized the value and the limitations submitted by the Crime
of such tests. Some of thedecisions have Laboratory of the PC/INP ISSUE (1): Whether the absence of
recognized the conclusive presumption of Camp Crame which stated fingerprints as accused-appellants
non-paternity where the results of the that none of the specimen posited, eliminates possibility that
test,made in the prescribed manner, show latent fingerprints were found accused could have been at the crime
the impossibility of the alleged paternity. This to be positive. scene.
is one of the fewcases in which the judgment o It is their contention
of the Court may scientifically be completely that since their HELD: NO. The SC agrees that a positive
fingerprints were not finding of matching fingerprints has great
accurate, and intolerableresults avoided,
found in the objects significance, however, it cannot sustain their
such as have occurred where the finding is found in the scene of (accused-appellants) theory that from the
allowed to turn on oral testimonyconflicting the crime they cannot negative findings in the fingerprint
with the results of the test. The findings of be held guilty of the examination conducted in the course of the
such blood tests are not admissible to prove crime charged investigation in the instant case, it must be
beyond reasonable concluded that they could not have been at the
doubt. scene of the crime.
9. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (plaintiff-
appellee) vs. JOEL SARTAGODA y They claim that the fact that Negative findings do not at all times lead
BOCANEGRA, JIMMY BASCUA y Vicente Sta. Ana and Jimmy to a valid conclusion for there may be
LAZARTE, VICENTE STA. ANA y Bascua did not flee, even logical explanations for the absence of
GUTIERREZ and JOHN DOE, accused- when they had all the identifiable latent prints other than their
appellants. opportunities to do so, prove not being present at the scene of the
G.R. No. 97525; April 7, 1993 their innocence. crime. Only latent fingerprints found on
When they were allowed to go smooth surface are useful for purposes of
FACTS home after Vilma failed to comparison in a crime laboratory because
All the three accused-appellants were identify them during the first prints left on rough surfaces result in dotted
convicted by the Trial Court as the confrontation at the police lines or broken lines instead of complete and
latter found all guilty beyond station, they stayed home and continuous lines. Such kind of specimen
reasonable doubt as co-principals of did not flee until they were cannot be relied upon in a fingerprint
the crime of Robbery with Rape, and again required to appear at examination. The latent fingerprints are
each sentenced to suffer the penalty the police station for the actually oily substance adhering to the
second time. The accused- surfaces of objects that come in contact with
the fingers. By their very nature, oily criminal violence to strive to see the PEOPLE OF THE
substances easily spread such that when the looks and faces of their assailants and
fingers slide against the surface they touch, no observe the manner in which the crime PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
identifiable latent print is left, only smudges was committed. Most often the face of the JAIME CARPO, OSCAR IBAO,
instead. Not all police investigators are aware assailant and body movement thereof, create
of the nature of latent fingerprints so as to be a lasting impression which cannot easily be
WARLITO IBAO and ROCHE
guided accordingly in deciding which objects to erased from their memory. IBAO, accused-appellants.
submit for fingerprint lifting and examination. DECISION
Noting the interplay of many circumstances ISSUE (3) Rule 128, subsequent PER CURIAM:
involved in the successful lifting and circumstance: Whether non-flight can be
identification of proper latent fingerprints in a considered a proof of innonce.
The accused might as well have
particular crime scene, the absence of one borrowed the famous line of
does not immediately eliminate the possibility HELD: NON-FLIGHT NOT PROOF OF
that the accused-appellants could have been
Shakespeare How this world is given
INNOCENCE; CASE AT BAR. They claim
at the scene of the crime. They may be there that the fact that Vicente Sta. Ana and Jimmy
to lying![1] - when they impute error
yet they had not left any identifiable latent Bascua did not flee, even when they had all to the trial court for relying on the
fingerprint. Besides, in the case at bar, only ten the opportunities to do so, prove their
latent fingerprints are involved. The findings in
testimony of a single witness in
innocence. The accused-appellants in effect
this particular fingerprint examination are not posit that if flight is an indication of guilt, non- convicting them of multiple murder
sufficient to case even just a reasonable doubt flight or the decision not to flee, having the complexed with attempted murder
in their finding of guilt for the crime charged. opportunity to do so, is a sign of innocence. for the death of Florentino Dulay,
The SC does not agree. Although it is
ISSUE (2): Whether police line-up is settled that unexplained flight indicates Norwela Dulay and Nissan Dulay,
required by law for proper identification guilt, it does not necessarily follow that and the wounding of Noemi Dulay.[2]
of the accused. absence thereof proves innocence,
specially so when there is overwhelming
The challenged testimony of witness
HELD: NO. Face and body movement of evidence to establish their guilt. Ruben Meriales follows:[3] On 25
assailant create lasting impression on August 1996 at about 8:00 o'clock in
victim. Whether or not there was a Disposition: Appealed decision AFFIRMED
previous police line-up, the fact is that they
the evening while he was watching
with the MODIFICATION that the accused-
were positively identified at the trial. There is appellants are held jointly and severally liable television with his family his dogs
no law requiring a police line-up as essential to to indemnify Vilma de Belen for multiple rape barked. His mother who was
a proper identification. The complainant's and that none of the accused is required to
recognition of the accused-appellants as her recognize the offspring
apprehensive that their cow might
attackers cannot be doubted for she had be stolen prodded him to check the
during the carnal acts ample opportunity to disturbance. To allay her fears he
see the faces of the men who ravaged her. It
10. [G.R. No. 132676. April 4, 2001] stood up, took his flashlight and
is the most natural reaction for victims of
trudged the unpaved path towards Dulay's house which was about a borrow the jeepney of Brgy.
his cow that was tied to a mango meter to the south from where he Kagawad Edgardo Marquez for the
tree. Then the noise grew louder was. He also saw Oscar Ibao, another hapless victims. The neighbors
thus arousing his suspicion that son of Warlito, striding towards milling around at once gave up hope
something was really wrong. After Dulay's hut. As soon as he reached on Florentino so that only Norwela,
transferring his cow nearer to his the hut Oscar lifted the sawali mat Nissan and Noemi were loaded in
house, he went inside the kitchen, near the wall and hurled something the jeepney and rushed to the
stood atop the concrete washbasin, inside. Oscar then scurried off Eastern Pangasinan District
hid himself behind the bamboo slats towards the nearby creek with Hospital. On their way, Norwela who
and peeped outside to observe. The Roche following him. Seconds later, had injuries on her chest and lower
darkness helped conceal him from a loud explosion shook the entire appendage died. Nissan who was
outside view while the light from the neighborhood and Teresita Dulay's five (5) years old and the youngest of
two (2) bulbs positioned at about screams broke into the night. the victims died later due to "shock
three (3) meters from where he Ruben Meriales, rushed outside. He from pains" caused by the shrapnel
stood filtered through the slats and ran towards Florentino's hut but was wounds in her left shoulder,
illumined the surroundings. There deterred by darkness. He returned abdomen and lower
was also moon in the sky. home to take his flashlight and raced extremities.[4]Noemi luckily
A few minutes later, he saw back to lend aid to Teresita. Inside survived. Her attending physician,
barangay captain Jaime Carpo the hut he was stunned by the Dr. Emiliano Subido, testified that
together with Warlito Ibao terrifying gore that greeted him - a Noemi was semi-conscious and
suspiciously stooping near his bloodied Florentino cradled in the vomiting although ambulatory at the
barn. He knew Jaime and Warlito arms of his weeping widow, Norwela time he examined her. But due to
very well. Jaime was his uncle and and Nissan lying side by side on a cot the seriousness of her wounds and
Warlito lived in his both doused in blood, and a the hospital's lack of facilities she
neighborhood. Warlito's son Roche motionless Norma whose head was was taken to another hospital in
was also there; he was standing by oozing with blood. Dagupan City.[5]
the mango tree. They were all Realizing the exigency of the In the course of their investigation,
looking in the direction of Florentino situation, he left the crime scene to the policemen questioned the
people who might have witnessed Ibao and Roche Ibao. Warrants for lever from the crime scene. He
the carnage. Fearful however that their immediate arrest were issued spoke with the weeping Teresita
the culprits would return, Ruben by the municipal circuit trial court. Dulay who told him that she
Meriales refused to give any On 25 October 1996 Jaime Carpo suspected the accused of having
statement but intimated to Police was taken into custody by the police, perpetrated the assault. He likewise
Officer Guillermo Osio that he would while Roche Ibao eluded arrest until conferred with Ruben Meriales who
go to the police station after the 9 December 1996 when he was named the same set of suspects and
burial. apprehended by police officers in La who promised to give his statement
On 4 September 1996, or a week Union. With Roche's arrest, Oscar to the police after the funeral.
later, Ruben kept his promise and and Warlito realized the futility of After speaking with Teresita and
went to the police station where he hiding and surrendered themselves Ruben, he summoned his colleagues
gave his statement to Police Officer to the National Bureau of to go with him to Warlito Ibao's
Osio. He named Jaime Carpo, Investigation (NBI) in La Union. house which was just across the
Warlito lbao, Oscar lbao and Roche At the trial, the prosecution road. Warlitos house was dark and
Ibao as the perpetrators of the presented Ruben, Noemi, Dr. its front door was locked. He called
crime. He further said that Rosalina O. Victorio, Dr. Emiliano out but there was no answer. They
Florentino was killed because he was Subido and Police Officers Virgilio then proceeded to Oscar's house
about to testify against Roche Ibao dela Cruz, Jovencio Tapac and which was also padlocked and
for the murder of his brother Delfin Guillermo Osio as witnesses. unoccupied. He went to Roche's
Meriales.[6] Police Officer Osio testified that on house and peeped inside before they
On 3 October 1996, solely on the the night of 25 August 1996 after left.[7] Against their positive
basis of Ruben's testimony, a receiving a report of an explosion identification by Ruben, the four (4)
criminal complaint for the murder of in Brgy. Baligayan, he together with accused interposed alibi claiming
Florentino Dulay and his two (2) Police Officers Julius Aurora, Ricardo that they were somewhere else
daughters Norwela, and Nissan as Lugares and Jovencio Tapac when the Dulay hut was
well as the frustrated murder of his immediately responded. They were blasted. They likewise assailed
daughter Noemi was filed against able to gather several grenade Ruben's testimony for being a
Jaime Carpo, Warlito Ibao, Oscar shrapnels and a grenade shifting fabrication and insisted that he lied
to get back at them because Roche supposedly started when Jaime law in Brgy. Libsong. However, on
was a suspect in the killing of his sided with the Ibaos in the murder the night of the blast, he slept at his
brother Delfin Meriales. Jaime and case instituted by the Merialeses parents' house as all of his siblings
his wife Veronica Carpo were one in against Roche for the death of Delfin and their families were there. He
testifying that in the evening of 25 Meriales. As a matter of fact on 10 only learned of the bloodbath the
August 1995 Jaime was at home December 1996 while he was following morning when they went
in Brgy. Libsong, a hundred and fifty incarcerated at the Balungao District home to his in-laws. His wife Jovelyn
(150) meters away from the house Jail, Ruben supposedly visited him corroborated his testimony in the
of the Dulays in Brgy. asking his forgiveness for having same manner that Remedios
Baligayan. When he heard the loud named him as one of the supported the story of her husband
explosion, he summoned perpetrators of the crime. Ruben Warlito.[9]
his tanods to check whether the subsequently pleaded with him to In convicting Jaime Carpo, Warlito
blast happened within reveal the names of those Ibao, Oscar Ibao and Roche Ibao of
their barangay. When he learned responsible but when he claimed the multiple murder of Florentino,
that the explosion occurred in the ignorance, Ruben left in a huff. Norwela and Nissan Dulay and the
adjoining Brgy. Baligayan, he went Warlito, Oscar and Roche Ibao attempted murder of Noemi Dulay
home to sleep. Brgy. Baligayan is testified that on the night of the the trial Court gave full credit to the
separated from his barangay by a explosion their family was having a testimony of Ruben.[10] It accepted
creek and could be reached in ten farewell party for the family's only his straightforward testimony and
(10) minutes. However, on the night girl Maribel Ibao who was leaving for ruled that "at no instance
of the incident, the creek was neck Hongkong. They heard the blast but throughout the twin testimonies of
deep such that one had to make a they did not bother to check. They Meriales did the Court notice a
detour through a mountainous route denied having heard the police twitch of falsehood on his
for about thirty (30) minutes to officers call for them an hour after lips."[11] Accordingly, in accordance
reach Brgy. Baligayan.[8] the explosion. Roche further with Sec. 6, RA 7659, and Art. 48
Jaime testified that Ruben asserted that he did not have a of The Revised Penal Code the trial
implicated him because the latter house in Brgy. Baligayan as reported court imposed upon all of the
was angry at him. Ruben's grudge because he lived with his parents-in- accused the supreme penalty of
death and ordered them to solidarily Dulay and in the wounding of Noemi disregarded important facts,[16] which
indemnify the heirs of the deceased Dulay is an admitted fact. The is not true in the present case.
as well as Noemi Dulay in the identity of the perpetrators, as The twin arguments therefore raised
amount of P600,000.00.[12] tenaciously questioned by the by accused-appellants against the
Forthwith, the case was elevated to accused, depends upon the testimony of Ruben Meriales are
this Court for automatic credibility of Ruben Meriales. devoid of merit. A scrutiny of the
review. After the filing of briefs, the In this appeal, accused-appellants records reveals that his testimony is
accused filed an Addendum to challenge the veracity of the not inconsistent with his affidavit of
Appellant's Brief urging that the testimony of Ruben Meriales 4 October 1996 inasmuch as the
favorable results of their lie detector primarily on two (2) former merely supplied the details of
tests with the NBI be admitted into grounds: first, Ruben's testimony in the event which the latter failed to
the records.[13] court is different from and is disclose. But assuming that there
A lie detector test is based on the contradictory to his affidavit of 4 was any inconsistency, it is settled
theory that an individual will October 1996; and second, Ruben is that whenever an affidavit
undergo physiological changes, not a disinterested witness because contradicts a testimony given in
capable of being monitored by he has a grudge against the court the latter commands greater
sensors attached to his body, when Ibaos. Consistent with giving due respect.[17] Such inconsistency is
he is not telling the truth. The Court deference to the observations of the unimportant and would not even
does not put credit and faith on the trial court on credibility of witnesses, discredit a fallible witness.[18] The
result of a lie detector test inasmuch we agree with the court a quo when mere fact that Ruben admitted
as it has not been accepted by the it believed Ruben Meriales more harboring resentment against the
scientific community as an accurate than the defense Ibaos for the murder of his brother
means of ascertaining truth or witnesses.[15] Indeed, the trial court is Delfin does not confirm that he
deception.[14] best equipped to make an fabricated his story. His frankness in
The explosion by means of a hand assessment of witnesses, and its admitting his resentment against the
grenade on the night of 25 August factual findings are generally not Ibaos should even be considered in
1996 resulting in the death of disturbed on appeal unless it has his favor.[19] There is likewise nothing
Florentino, Norwela and Nissan overlooked, misunderstood or unnatural in Ruben's attitude of
concealing himself behind the the noise generated by the Further, the immediate flight and
kitchen wall instead of warning the construction made it unlikely for tarriance of the Ibaos to La Union
Dulays of the looming danger to Roche to hear conversations three until Roche's arrest cannot but
their lives. It is a well-known fact (3) meters away.[20] demonstrate their guilt and desire to
that persons react differently to The defense proffered by the evade prosecution.[21]
different situations - there may be accused is alibi. But this is futile. By The trial court also correctly ruled
some who will respond violently to his own admission, Jaime was only a that accused-appellants conspired in
an impending danger while there hundred and fifty (150) meters away perpetrating the offense
may be others who will simply from the scene of the crime. In fact, charged. From the detailed account
assume a cravenly demeanor. In this it would only take him thirty (30) of Ruben, Jaime and Warlito
case, Ruben was ruled by his fear minutes, at the most, to be at the positioned themselves near the hay
rather than by his reason, but for place of the Dulays. barn while Roche casually stood by
this alone, his credibility should not More so for the Ibaos who the mango tree. As observed by the
be doubted. acknowledged that they were having trial court, the presence of Jaime,
Apropos Jaime's imputation that a party just a stone's throw away Warlito and Roche inescapably gave
Ruben had admitted to him while in from the crime scene at the time of encouragement and a sense of
jail that he lied in his testimony, we the explosion. Curiously though, if security to Oscar, the group's
find this accusation farcical as they were indeed reveling inside preceptor.Surely, the latter was
nothing was ever offered in support their house on that fateful night, emboldened to commit the crime
thereof. The lone corroborative then we cannot comprehend why knowing that his co-conspirators
testimony, which was that of Roche, they did not go out to investigate were not far behind.
does not inspire belief since Roche after hearing the blast. Besides, it Under the doctrine enunciated
himself admitted overhearing the was rather strange for the Ibaos not in People v. Tayo,[22] the crime
conversation while Jaime together to have joined their neighbors who committed may otherwise be more
with other prisoners was had instantaneously milled outside approriately denominated as murder
constructing a hut outside of his cell to view the mayhem. Their conduct qualified by explosion rather than by
at about three (3) meters away. As indeed betrayed them. treachery. However, since it was
correctly hinted by the prosecution, treachery that is alleged in the
Information and appreciated by the have brought it about, the crime is discourse between the court and the
trial court, the explosion of the only attempted murder.[25] counsel for both parties regarding
grenade which resulted in the death Since the three (3) murders and the award.
of Florentino, Norwela and Nissan, attempted murder were produced PROS. CORPUZ: x x x x (W)e would like to
and the wounding of Noemi can only by a single act, namely, the enter into stipulation the civil aspect of the
case.
be multiple murder complexed with explosion caused by the hurling of a COURT: Are the accused confident that they
attempted murder.[23] The crime grenade into the bedroom of the could be acquitted in this case? Atty Sanglay?
committed against Noemi Dulay was Dulays, the case comes under Art. 48 ATTY. SANGLAY: I think so, your Honor.
correctly denominated by the trial of The Revised Penal Code on COURT: What about Atty. Rafael?
ATTY. RAFAEL: We are confident, your Honor.
court as attempted murder complex crimes. Article 48 provides COURT: All right. So you can easily
considering that none of her injuries that the penalty for the more serious stipulate. First of all, how much do you want
was fatal. Her attending physician crime, which in the present case Fiscal?
even made conflicting statements in is reclusion perpetua to death, PROS. CORPUZ: P1,282,740.00, your Honor x
xxx
the assessment of her wounds, to should be applied in its maximum
COURT: x x x x Agree gentlemen of the
wit: although he said that Noemi period.As the crime was complexed, defense?
could have died from the shrapnel the death penalty was properly ATTY. SANGLAY: P600,000.00, your Honor.
wound in her head, he specifically imposed by the trial court. COURT: Do you agree Fiscal?
ruled out the possibility of At this point, we take exception to PROS. CORPUZ: Yes, your Honor.
COURT: All right so P600,000.00 is the agreed
"intercerebral hemorrhage"[24] and the court a quo's award of damages liquidated amount in case of conviction
despite the seriousness of the in the "negotiated amount of without necessarily having to interpret this
possible complications of her injuries P600,00.00." It appears that under stipulation as admission of guilt on the part
she would suffer from physical the auspices of the trial court of any of the accused. All right so we will
dispense with the testimony on the civil
incapacity for only ten (10) to counsel for the defense entered into aspect x x x x
fourteen (14) days. an oral compromise with the public COURT: x x x x Are you the private
As none of her wounds was severe prosecutor, which was subsequently complainant in this case?
as to cause her death, accused- ratified by the private complainant, TERESITA DULAY: Yes, sir.
COURT: If the accused get convicted and I
appellants not having performed all limiting the amount of civil liability
will hold them severally liable for you of
the acts of execution that would to P600,000.00. We note the damages in the liquidated sum of
P600,000.00 as agreed upon by the counsel, or receive anything in discharge of liability. Consequently, since Atty.
will you be satisfied? x x x x
their clients' claims but the full Sanglay and Atty. Rafael had no
TERESITA: Yes, sir.
COURT: So let that be of record. Will you sign amount in cash." specific power to compromise the
the note so that there will be evidence. The requirements under both civil liability of all accused-
(At this juncture private complainant Teresita provisions are met when there is a appellants, its approval by the trial
Dulay affixed her signature at the bottom clear mandate expressly given, by court which did not take the
right margin of the stenographic notes page
2 hereof).[26]
the principal to his lawyer precautionary measures to ensure
Article 1878 of the Civil Code and specifically authorizing the the protection of the right of
Sec. 23 of Rule 138 of the Rules of performance of an act.[27] It has not accused-appellants not to be
Court set forth the attorney's power escaped our attention that in the deprived of their property without
to compromise. Under Art. 1878 of present case counsel for both parties due process of law, could not
the Civil Code, a special power of had no special power of attorney legalize it. For being violative of
attorney is necessary "to from their clients to enter into a existing law and jurisprudence, the
compromise, to submit questions to compromise. However, insofar as settlement should not be given force
arbitration, to renounce the right to Teresita was concerned, she was and effect.
appeal from a judgment, to waive apprised of the agreement and in In light of the foregoing, the award
objections to the venue of an action fact had signed her name as of damages must be set aside and a
or to abandon a prescription already instructed by the court, thereby new one entered with all the
acquired." On the other hand, Sec. tacitly ratifying the same. As for circumstances of the case in
23, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court accused-appellants, the aforecited mind. For the death of Florentino,
provides, "(a)ttorneys have authority dialogue between the court and Norwela and Nissan Dulay, civil
to bind their clients in any case by counsel does not show that they indemnity at P50,000.00 each or a
any agreement in relation thereto were ever consulted regarding the total amount of P50,000.00 is
made in writing, and in taking proposed settlement. In the absence awarded to their heirs. This is in
appeal, and in all matters of ordinary of a special power of attorney given addition to the award of moral
judicial procedure, but they cannot, by accused-appellants to their damages at an aggregate amount of
without special authority, counsel, the latter can neither bind P150,000.00 for their emotional and
compromise their clients' litigation nor compromise his clients' civil mental anguish. With respect to
Noemi, an indemnity of each death or an aggregate amount
P30,000.00 would be just and of P300,00.00. In addition, accused-
proper. All taken, an award of appellants are ordered to pay Noemi
P330,000.00 is granted. Dulay P30,000.00 as indemnity for
Four (4) members of the Court her attempted murder. Costs against
maintain their position that RA 7659, accused- appellants.
insofar as it prescribes the death In accordance with Sec. 25 of RA
penalty, is unconstitutional; 7659, amending Art. 83 of The
nevertheless they submit to the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of
ruling of the Court, by a majority this Decision, let the records of this
vote, that the law is constitutional case be forthwith forwarded to the
and that the death penalty should be Office of the President for possible
accordingly imposed. exercise of executive clemency or
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision pardoning power.
of the trial court finding accused- SO ORDERED.
appellants JAIME CARPO, OSCAR
IBAO, WARLITO IBAO and ROCHE
IBAO GUILTY of the complex crime
of multiple murder with attempted
murder and sentencing them to the
supreme penalty of death is
AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that they are
ordered to pay the heirs of the
deceased Florentino, Norwela and
Nissan, all surnamed Dulay,
P50,000.00 as death indemnity and
P50,000.00 as moral damages for
Rule 129 ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the Office of the rejection, or revocation of applications therefor. Such
Saado vs Court of Appeals President in cancelling petitioner's lease agreement should respect is based on the time-honored doctrine of separation
be given weight of powers and on the fact that these bodies are considered
co-equal and coordinate rank as courts. The only exception
356 SCRA 546 is when there is a clear showing of capricious and
RULING: Yes. The action of an administrative agency in
granting or denying, or in suspending or revoking, a whimsical exercise of judgment or grave abuse of
Nature of Particular Acts license, permit, franchise, or certificate of public discretion, which we find absent in the case at bar.
convenience and necessity is administrative or quasi-
FACTS: Saado was issued by the now defunct Philippine judicial. The act is not purely administrative but quasi- The reasons given by the Office of the President in
Fisheries Commission an Ordinary Fishpond Permit judicial or adjudicatory since it is dependent upon the dismissing petitioner's appeal are quite clear. Transferring
covering an area of 50 hectares. On July 16, 1973, Saado ascertainment of facts by the administrative agency, upon or subletting the fishpond granted to a licensee without the
executed a contract with Nepomuceno wherein the latter which a decision is to be made and rights and liabilities consent or approval of the administrative body concerned,
agreed to develop 30 hectares of the 50 hectares covered determined. As such, the July 31, 1989 decision of the as well as the failure to develop the area required by the
by Saado's fishpond permit. Two days later, the parties Office of the President is explicitly an official act of and an fisheries rules, are definitely solid and logical grounds for
modified this earlier agreement by excluding the area of 10 exercise of quasi-judicial power by the Executive the cancellation of one's license. Withal, if petitioner
hectares already cultivated and fully developed and Department headed by the highest officer of the land. It disagrees with the decision of the Office of the President,
providing that the contract is renewable on terms thus squarely falls under matters relative to the executive he should have elevated the matter by petition for review
acceptable to both of them. department which courts are mandatorily tasked to take before the Court of Appeals for the latter's exercise of
judicial notice of under Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of judicial review. Nowhere in the record do we find such
Court. Judicial notice must be taken of the organization of action on petitioner's part.
On September 28, 1979, the Director of Fisheries and the Executive Department, its principal officers, elected or
Aquatic Resources recommended to the then Ministry of appointed, such as the President, his powers and duties. Understandably, to restore petitioner to the possession of
Natural Resources the conversion of Sanados fishpond the fishpond area is to totally disregard the July 31, 1989
permit into a 25-year fishpond loan agreement which The rendition of the subject July 31, 1989 Malacaang decision of the Office of the President which can hardly be
covered a reduced area of 26.745 hectares. Accordingly, a decision is premised on the essential function of the described as an unrelated matter, considering its patent
executive department which is to enforce the law. In
Fishpond Lease Agreement was issued. implications in the result of both Civil Case No. 2085 and
CA-G.R. CV No. 23165. For how could the appellate court
this instance, what is being enforced is Presidential Decree award possession to the very same party whose license has
On July 17, 1981, Saado filed a complaint against No. 704 which consolidated and revised all laws and
Nepomuceno with the RTC for recovery of possession and been cancelled by the executive or administrative officer
decrees affecting fishing and fisheries. Such enforcement tasked to exercise licensing power as regards the
damages, alleging that Nepomuceno failed to deliver must be true to the policy behind such laws which is "to
Saados share of the net harvest among other things. While development of fishpond areas, and which cancellation has
accelerate and promote the integrated development of the been sustained by the Office of the President? Petitioner
this case was pending, the then Minister of Agriculture and fishery industry and to keep the fishery resources of the
Food canceled the Fishpond Lease Agreement, forfeiting must remember the essence of the grant of a license. It is
country in optimum productive condition through proper not a vested right given by the government but a privilege
the improvements thereon in favor of government. Later, conservation and protection" (Section 2, P.D. No. 704).
said order was reconsidered to the extent that Nepomuceno with corresponding obligations and is subject to
was given priority to apply for the area and that his governmental regulation. Hence, to allow petitioner to
improvements thereon were not considered forfeited in Further, the issue of whether or not petitioner is still possess the subject area is to run counter to the execution
favor of the government. entitled to possession of the subject fishpond area is and enforcement of the July 31, 1989 decision which would
underpinned by an ascertainment of facts. And such task easily lose its "teeth" or force if petitioner were restored in
belongs to the administrative body which has jurisdiction possession.
Saado elevated the matter to the Office of the President
but appeal was dimissed. Meanwhile, the trial court over the matter the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.
rendered a decision over Saado's complaint for recovery The policy of the courts as regards such factual findings is RATIO: The action of an administrative agency in granting
of possession in his favor. not to interfere with actions of the executive branch on or denying, or in suspending or revoking, a license, permit,
administrative matters addressed to the sound discretion of franchise, or certificate of public convenience and necessity
government agencies. This policy is specially applicable in is administrative or quasi-judicial. The act is not purely
the grant of licenses, permits, and leases, or the approval, administrative but quasi-judicial or adjudicatory sisince it
is dependent upon the ascertainment of facts by the
administrative agency, upon which a decision is to be made
and rights and liabilities determined.