Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
EVIDENCE BATCH I
It is well-settled that the rules of evidence are not strictly
1. Atienza v Board of Medicine (BOM) applied in proceedings before administrative bodies such as
“Wrong Kidney” the BOM.
Nevertheless, BOM admitted Editha Siosons (Edithas) Formal Witness Dr. Nancy Aquino testified that the Records Office of
Offer of Documentary Evidence and denied petitoner’s RMC no longer had the originals of the exhibits because [it]
subsequent motion for reconsideration. Petitioner filed a petition transferred from the previous building, x x x to the new building.
for certiorari with the CA which was dismissed.Hence, this petition.
Ultimately, since the originals cannot be produced, the BOM
Issue: properly admitted Edithas formal offer of evidence and,
W/N the exhibits are inadmissible as evidence thereafter, the BOM shall determine the probative value
thereof when it decides the case.
Ruling:
BOM properly admitted Editha’s formal offer of evidence. 2. Gomez v Gomez
Evidence Case Digests Batch 1 2019-2020 (Pelaez) 2
Forged deeds of donation continuous sitting because the horizontal lines had some
variances horizontally. Nevertheless, she admitted that the vertical
Facts: lines did not show any variance. IDSETA
Zenaida Torres failed to convince the trial court that the Deeds of
Donation were not prepared in one sitting:
Consuelo Ariston Angel Regarding non-typing in one continuous sitting, she
admitted that she had never seen the typewriter used to
type the Donations 401 and 402, nor even tried to get
Augusto (Special hold of it, before she made the report;
Maria Rita Jesus Ariston Jr Administrator of
intestate Consuelo)
Further, Torres fell apart during cross-examination as
admitted that she had not taken any specialized studies
on the matter of "Questioned Documents," except on one
or two seminars on "Questioned Documents. In effect,
On February 15, 1980, Augusto Gomez as Special Administrator insofar as the issue of typewriting in one sitting or not, is
of the Intestate Estate of Consuelo Gomez instituted two cases concerned, the testimony of Torres was completely
involving different parcels of land and property belonging to the discredited
deceased Consuelo Gomez.
On the other hand, the trial court gave weight to the testimony of
Consuelo, Ariston Sr. and Angel Gomez were sister and brothers, Francisco Cruz:
respectively. Maria-Rita Gomez-Samson, Jesus Gomez and Cruz testified on this point that the Donations 401 and
Ariston Gomez, Jr. are the children of Ariston, Sr. while Augusto 402 were both typed in one continuous sitting. He
Gomez is the child of Angel. elucidated clearly on how he arrived at this conclusion.
He was able to determine that the typewriter used was
In the first of the two cases, Augusto alleged that certain parcels the elite typewriter, by showing that when his typewriting
of land (2 parcels located in Marikina and 1 in Pasig) owned by measuring the instruments were placed over the
Consuelo were transferred fraudulently by donations inter vivos in documents, there were twelve (12) letters that went
favor of Maria-Rita and Jesus; and Augusto wanted the subject inside one inch, which is a characteristic of an elite
Deed of Donation Intervivos declared false and null and void and typewriter.
be replaced by titles in the name of the Intestate Estate of
Secondly, he noticed that the color tone of the typewriter
Consuelo.
ink is the same, thru the entire documents and further
concluded that both the horizontal and vertical
In the other case, Augusto alleged in his complaint that Consuelo
alignments are in agreement.
was also the sole and absolute owner of certain personal
properties such as shares of stock in different corporations,
Petitioner also alleges that the signature "Consuelo C. Gomez"
jewelry, collector’s items, cars (1978 Mercedes Benz 200 and
was written before the typewritten name "Consuelo C. Gomez." In
1979 Toyota Corona) and P200,000 in cash and that a fraudulent
this second round of analysis of the respective testimonies of
Deed of Donation Intervivos was executed by Consuelo in favor
Zenaida Torres and Francisco Cruz, the trial court arrived at the
of the Aristons. Augusto also wanted to have such deed cancelled.
same conclusion:
The trial court again sided with Francisco Cruz who
Both complaints were consolidated and were dismissed by the
testified, citing authorities, that it is impossible to
trial court and was also affirmed by the CA. Thus, this Petition for
determine accurately which came first, because there
Review on Certiorari to SC.
were no intersections at all.
Issue:
Petitioner claims that the testimony of Zenaida Torres, having
Among several issues presented, the core issue as determined by
positively maintained that the handwritten signatures "Consuelo
SC is whether petitioner Augusto was able to prove that the Deeds
C. Gomez" in both Deeds of Donation were affixed before the
of Donation were merely intercalated into two sheets of paper
typewritten name, cannot possibly be overcome by the opinion of
signed by Consuelo Gomez (Consuelo).
Francisco Cruz putting in issue the fact that Torres was a court-
appointed expert, as opposed to Cruz who was merely designated
Ruling:
by respondents.
NO. The only direct evidence presented by petitioner Augusto on
the matter is the testimony of Zenaida Torres, Document On the first point, SC agrees with petitioner that positive
Examiner of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). evidence is, as a general rule, more credible than
Respondents, on the other hand, presented their own expert negative evidence. However, the reason for this rule is
witness, Francisco Cruz, Chief of Document Examination of the that the witness who testifies to a negative may have
PC-INP Crime Laboratory. Other direct evidence presented by forgotten what actually occurred, while it is impossible to
respondents includes testimonies positively stating that the Deeds remember what never existed.
of Donation were signed by Consuelo in their completed form in While we cannot say that positive evidence does not
the presence of Notary Public Jose Sebastian. These testimonies carry an inherent advantage over negative evidence
are that of Jose Sebastian himself, and that of several of the when it comes to expert witnesses, the process by which
respondents including Ariston Gomez, Jr. (Ariston, Jr.), who the expert witnesses arrived at their conclusions should
allegedly drafted said Deeds of Donation. be carefully examined and considered.
Expert testimony no doubt constitutes evidence worthy
Weight and Credibility of the Expert Witnesses of meriting consideration, although not exclusive on
Zenaida Torres's testimony, was that she had examined the two questions of a professional character. The courts of
Deeds of Donation, Documents No. 401 and No. 402, and her justice, however, are not bound to submit their findings
findings were that the signatures were indeed those of Consuelo. necessarily to such testimony; they are free to weigh
However, she opined that they were not typed or prepared in one them, and they can give or refuse to give them any value
as proof, or they can even counterbalance such evidence
Evidence Case Digests Batch 1 2019-2020 (Pelaez) 3
with the other elements of conviction which may have When Ball was finally arrested, the officers took from his person a
been adduced during the trial. brown felt hat which was recognized by the jewelry store owner, a
windbreaker type jacket, trousers, gray shirt and shoes. These
Alleged patent irregularities on the face of the assailed Deeds items were considered to be relevant and admissible in evidence.
of Donation
However, in his motion for new trial, Ball objects that a police
Petitioner, also presents circumstantial evidence and arguments officer was permitted to testify that $258.02 in currency were taken
to prove claiming that there are patent irregularities on the face of from his person along with other personal effects such as a
the assailed Deeds of Donation. All these alleged irregularities are crusifixion, small pen knife and a black leather wallet. He argued
more apparent than real with none of these alleged irregularities that these were irrelevant and immaterial as it neither tended to
connotes fraud or foul play. It is true that the condition and physical prove nor disprove any of the issues involved in this case. Such
appearance of a questioned document constitute a valuable factor currencies and personal effects were even neither identified by the
which, if correctly evaluated in light of surrounding circumstances, store owner nor by any other person as the money allegedly stolen
may help in determining whether it is genuine or forged. However, from the store.
neither the expert witnesses, nor our personal examination of the
exhibits, had revealed such a questionable physical condition. Issue:
Should the currencies taken from Ball be considered relevant and
Payment of donor's tax before the death of Consuelo thus, admissible in evidence?
Petitioner claims that the CA seriously erred in its finding of fact
that Consuelo herself paid the donor's tax of the properties subject Ruling:
of the donation No. The mere possession of a quantity of money is in itself no
indication that the possessor was the taker of money charged as
The party asserting a fact has the burden of proving it. Petitioner, taken, because in general all money of the same denomination
however, merely formulated conjectures based on the evidence and material is alike, and the hypothesis that the money found is
he presented. Neither did petitioner present any evidence that the the same as the money taken is too forced and extraordinary to
records of the BIR Commissioner were falsified or antedated, be receivable.
thus, letting the presumption that a public official had regularly
performed his duties stand. This is in contrast to respondents' In the absence of proof or of a fair inference from the record that
direct evidence attesting to the payment of said tax during the the money in Ball’s possession at the time of his arrest came from
lifetime of Consuelo as ruled by CA. or had some connection with the robbery and in the absence of a
plain showing of his impecuniousness before the robbery and his
Credibility of Jose Sebastian sudden affluence, the evidence was not in fact relevant.
Petitioner claims that no credence should have been given to the
testimony of the notary public, Jose Sebastian, as said Jose The admission of the evidence infringed the right to a fair trial and
Sebastian is the same judge whom this Court had dismissed from for that reason, the judgment is reversed and the case remanded.
the service in Garciano v. Sebastian.
The fact of prior criminal conviction alone does not suffice to 4. Lopez vs Heesen
discredit a witness; the testimony of such a witness must be (This is a case decided by the New Mexico Supreme Court.
assayed and scrutinized in exactly the same way the testimony of Selling of a hunting rifle model which has a defect.)
other witnesses must be examined for its relevance and credibility.
FACTS:
WHEREFORE, subject to the modification of the assailed Sears Roebuck was engaged in designing, manufacturing and
Decision, the Petition is DENIED. selling of hunting fire arms. Sears sold the Higgins Model 51
Hunting Rifle in 1958. The thing about his model is its design has
3. State of Missouri v William Arthur Ball a defect. This model is deemed negligently designed. In fact, its
“All money are the same” safety device was considered unsafe and dangerous among gun
enthusiasts.
Principle:
There is no logical connection between the fact of possession of The case started when appellant Jesse Lopez filed a suit against
the dollar bills on one hand and robbery on the other. As it stands, appellee Robert Heesen alleging that one fateful day of October
such evidence shall be excluded on the ground of irrelevancy. of 1958, Heesen assaulted and shot appellant Lopez with a
shotgun thereby inflicting dangerous and painful wounds and
Facts: injuries to appellant all to his damage in the total sum of $80.000.
At 2:30 pm on October 15, 1958, two colored men, one tall Heesen denied the allegation of the complaint and demanded for
(William Ball) and the other short, entered the Krekeler Jewelry a jury trial. And in this trial the gun company Sears Roebuck who
Store. Ball bought a cigarette lighter and looked at other items sold the defected gun to Heesen was joined as party-defendant.
while the other man moved about in the store. Later in the day, at
about 5:50, as the owner, John Kreler, was placing items in the The amended complaint alleged that on October 14, 1958 Sears
safe prior to closing, the two men came back and after drawing a sold to Heesen one of said Higgins Model 51 Hunting Rifles, the
long barreled blue .38 gun against the owner, they took watches one that was negligently designed or manufactured by Sears, and
and rings of the stipulated value of $4,455.21 and $140 in cash that appellee Sears negligently failed to warn appellee Heesen of
from the register. the dangerous and defective condition of the rifle.
About 3 weeks after the robbery, Ball was seen by police officers The appellant introduced evidence tending to prove that the safety
and just as he was about to be cuffed, he shoved the officer and device on the Higgins Model 51 rifle is easy to knock off safety,
attempted to run away. He was apprehended when one of the making the rifle dangerous. Frank Doyle, his witness, said that the
officers fired shots at him, hitting his legs, buttocks and his back. safety device, without telescopic sight, is not a safe piece, in that
the projection is too long and it is too prone to be knocked from
“safe” to “fire” position.
Evidence Case Digests Batch 1 2019-2020 (Pelaez) 4
1. Whether or not there was a violation of his rights against given greater evidentiary weight to the testimony of a credible
unreasonable search and seizure that would lead the witness. Appelant was also previously convicted of possession of
evidence to be deemed admissible or inadmissible hashish in Germany, and the supposed recipient of the package
2. Whether or not his explanation should be given was likewise convicted for drug abuse in Zurich. Evidence to be
consideration believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness, but it must be credible in itself such as the common
Ruling: experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable
1. Sections 2 and 3, Article III of the Constitution provide: under the circumstances.
"Section 2.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 6. Waterous Drug Corp. V. NLRC
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches “Overpriced purchase of medicines”
and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall FACTS:
issue except upon probable cause to be determined Antonia Melodia Catolico,was hired as a pharmacist by petitioner
personally by the judge after examination under oath or Waterous Drug Corporation. She filed before the Office of the
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may Labor Arbiter a case for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched illegal suspension against the petitioner Waterous Drug
and the persons or things to be seized. Corporation. A case in point is medicine purchased with YSP of
ten (10) bottles of Voren tablets at P384.00 per unit. Previous
"Section 3.(1)The privacy of communication and correspondence P.O.s issued to YSP, Inc. showed that the price per bottle
shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or is P320.00 while P.O. No. 19045 is priced at P384.00 or an over
when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed price of P64.00 per bottle (or total of P640.00). YSP sent a check
by law. contained in the envelope which payable to Catolico as a “refund”
(2)Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding for the jacked-up price. I
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding." It is furthered argued that the envelope was opened by another
employee and should therefore not be admissible as evidence for
Exclusionary Rule is laid down in Mapp v. Ohio by the US Federal violation of the guaranteed constitutional right on the privacy of
SC, and in our SC, in Stonehill v. Diokno. This rule declares as communication. Catolico was required to answer in writing the
inadmissible any evidence obtained by virtue of a defective search charges made against her and was subsequently dismissed from
and seizure warrant. In several cases, the SC adhered to this rule, service without any hearing conducted. Labor Arbiter decided in
and in these cases, the evidence were so obtained and procured favour of private respondent who declared the dismissal and
by the State acting through its law enforcers or other authorized suspension illegal, for failure by petitioners to prove their
government agencies. However, in the case at bar, the evidence allegations against private respondent and to show any
sought to be excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by investigation was conducted, and was therefore, dismissed
a private person, acting in a private capacity and without any without just cause and due process. The complaint for unfair labor
intervention and participation of State authorities. It is a principle, practice was however dismissed by the Labor Arbiter.
that in the absence of governmental interference, the rights under
the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. NLRC dismissed petitioner's appeal for lack of merit, and affirmed
the labor arbiter's findings, but with modification on the dispositive
It is clear from the facts that the search was done by Mr. Job portion of the appealed decision by deleting the award for illegal
Reyes, the proprietor of the forwarding agency, following standard suspension as the same was already included in the computation
operating procedures. In fact, he took samples to send to the NBI. of the aggregate of the awards in the amount of P35,401.86. It
The mere presence of the NBI did not convert the reasonable into declared that the check was inadmissible in evidence pursuant to
a warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution. Sections 2 and 3(1 and 2) of Article III of the Constitution.Their
To repeat, violations against unreasonable search and seizure motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioners filed
may only be invoked against the State by an individual who this special civil action for certiorari, with the allegations that the
unjustly exercises sovereign authority. It can never be invoked NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion and that due process
against an act done by a private individual, acting in his personal was duly accorded to private respondent. In addition, petitioner
capacity. further alleged that the Commission gravely erred in applying
Section 3, Article III of the Constitution.
Similarly, the admissibility of evidence procured by an individual
effected through private seizure, equally applies to appellant’s Petitioners submit that, in light of the decision in the People v.
rights to privacy and communication. Marti, the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches
and seizures refers to the immunity of ones person from
2. Appellant contends that he was not the owner of the packages interference by government and cannot be extended to acts
as he was merely requested by a certain Michael, a German committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit
National, whom he met at a pub in Ermita. In their 30-minute of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.
conversation, the request was made and he was given P2,000
to ship the packages as Michael had to leave the country the ISSUE:
next day. W/N the check drawn by YSP is admissible as evidence. YES 2.
W/N Catolico was unjustly dismissed. YES
SC finds that the testimony is self-serving and contrary to human
experience as the story can easily be fabricated. It is not normal HELD:
for a stranger to entrust the shipment of the packages to a person As regards the constitutional violation upon which the NLRC
he just met in a span of 30 minutes. As to why Marti agreed to do anchored its decision, we find no reason to revise the doctrine laid
the errand, he failed to explain. Denials, if not substantiated by down in People vs. Marti that the Bill of Rights does not protect
clear and convincing evidence, are considered as negative self- citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by
serving evidence which deserve no weight in law and cannot be private individuals. It is not true, as counsel for Catolico claims,
Evidence Case Digests Batch 1 2019-2020 (Pelaez) 6
that the citizens have no recourse against such assaults. On the machines. He was, however, interrupted when the accused looked
contrary, and as said counsel admits, such an invasion gives rise through one of the holes and calmly told him that the accused has
to both criminal and civil liabilities. killed his employer and needed help in disposing the body.
Shocked by this, Campos immediately called the police.
Despite this, the SC ruled that there was insufficient evidence of
cause for the dismissal of Catolico from employment. It is evident After succeeding in persuading Guillermo to give them the keys to
from the Supervisor's memorandum that Catolico was dismissed the locked gate, the police accosted the accused who told them
because of an alleged anomalous transaction with YSP. “Sir, hindi ako lalaban, susuko ako, haharapin ko ito.” When asked
Unfortunately for petitioners, their evidence does not establish that where the victim’s body was, Guillermo pointed to some cardboard
there was an overcharge. Control Clerk Eugenio C. Valdez, who boxes where the dismembered limbs and chopped torso was
claims to have discovered Catolico's inappropriate transaction, found, while the victim’s head was inside a cement bag. When the
stated in his affidavit: police asked how he did it, the accused answered that he first hit
the head of the victim and then dismembered the body. The
4. My findings revealed that on or before the month of July 31, accused then turned over a blood-stained coconut lumber and a
1989, Ms.Catolico in violation of the [company] procedure, made saw. When asked as to his motive, he answered that Keyser had
an under the table deal with YSP Phils. to supply WDRC needed been maltreating him and his co-workers. He expressed no regret
medicines like Voren tablets at a jack-up price of P384.00 per for his actions. At the police station, however, the custodial
bottle of 50 mg. which has a previous price of only P320.00; investigation was conducted without appraising the accused of his
constitutional rights and his right to counsel.
5. I verified the matter to YSP Phils. to determine the discrepancy
and I found out that the cost per bottle was indeed overpriced. The While in police custody, Guillermo was interviewed on separate
Accounting Department of YSP Phils. through Ms. Estelita Reyes occasions by two TV reporters, namely: Gus Abelgas of ABS-CBN
confirmed that there was really an overprice and she said that the and Kara David of GMA. Appellant admitted to David that he
difference was refunded through their check voucher no. 629552 committed the crime and never gave it second thought. He also
which was shown to me and the payee is Melodia Catolico, disclosed to David the details of the crime. When asked why he
through a China Bank Check No. 892068 dated November 9, killed his employer, Guillermo stated that Keyser had not paid him
1989. for years, did not feed him properly, and treated him like an animal.
Both Abelgas and David said that Guillermo expressed absolutely
It clearly appears then that Catolico's dismissal was based on no remorse over his alleged misdeed during the course of their
hearsay information. Estelita Reyes never testified nor executed respective interviews with him.
an affidavit relative to this case; thus, we have to reject the
statements attributed to her by Valdez. Hearsay evidence carries During the trial, Guillermo’s defense consisted of denial, that he
no probative value. was a victim of a police frame-up. He said that he was a stay-in
employee and that on the day of the crime, he was asked to work
The purchase orders were silent as to Catolico's participation in overtime during the afternoon. Since his employer did not arrive,
the purchase. If the price increase was objectionable to he fell asleep and was awakened by the police asking him to open
petitioners, they or their officers should have disapproved the the gates. According to him, the police immediately handcuffed
transaction. Consequently, petitioners had no one to blame for him and looked around the premises and returned carrying boxes
their predicament but themselves. This set of facts emphasizes and sacks. He said he was then brought to the police station where
the exceedingly incredible situation proposed by petitioners. he was advised to admit having killed his employer since there
Catolico's dismissal then was obviously grounded on mere was no other person to be blamed. When he was made to face
suspicion, which in no case can justify an employee's dismissal. the media reporters, he said the police instructed him what to say.
Suspicion is not among the valid causes provided by the Labor Having been sentenced to suffer the penalty of death, Guillermo’s
Code for the termination of employment; and even the dismissal case was brought for automatic review to the SC.
of an employee for loss of trust and confidence must rest on
substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, ISSUE/S:
whims, caprices, or suspicion. 1) W/N the prosecution’s evidence is sufficient to prove the
accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt
7. People of the Philippines V. Eric Guillermo 2) W/N the death penalty is appropriate in accused’s case
“Chop-chop”
RULING:
FACTS: Guillermo has been found guilty of murder by the Trial 1) Yes.The accused contends that any evidence gathered from
Court of Antipolo City with evident premeditation and treachery him during the custodial investigation, including his confession, is
thereby sentencing him to suffer death penalty. The facts show inadmissible due to the fact that he was not properly informed of
that Guillermo killed his employer Victor Keyser, owner of Keyser his rights. He was only made to read said rights in the wall of the
Plastics, by hitting him with a piece of wood and thereafter cutting precinct.
his limbs with a carpenter’s saw.
The contention has merit. However, there are other instances,
Keyser Plastics shares its building with Greatmore Corp. where aside from the custodial investigation, that accused had voluntarily
prosecution witness Campos is employed as a security guard. admitted the crime. First, he admitted the crime to Campos, whose
According to Campos, the spaces of the two companies are testimony was not countered by the defense. Second, he admitted
separated by a wall, the lower part of which is made of cement but the crime to members of the media on two separate occasions.
the upper part is made of lawanit boards. The upper part made of Third, he voluntarily confessed before the police could enter the
lawanit has two large holes which would allow a person on one scene and before any questions were posed to him.
side of the wall to see the other side. He further said that on the
day of the crime, he both saw the accused and the victim enter Therefore, while the confession during the custodial investigation
the premises of Keyser Plastics at around 8:00 am. At around is inadmissible because of the disregard of the accused’s
10:00 am, he heard some loud noises from Keyser Plastics but he constitutional rights, the other instances wherein he admitted to
did not pay attention thinking it was just the sound from the committing the crime are admissible since the rights enumerated
Evidence Case Digests Batch 1 2019-2020 (Pelaez) 7
in the Constitution are meant to preclude the slightest use of the sa US but wala nalang nako i-include. Ang gist is conservative
States coercive power as would lead an accused to admit courts would deny physical examination since they view it as
something false but are not intended to prevent him from freely violative of the right against self-incrimination; while more
and voluntarily admitting the truth outside the sphere of such progressive courts allow physical examination. We follow the
power. progressive view since we see the absolute protection of an
accused as a loose extension of the constitutional guaranty.)
2) No. The aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation
and treachery were not sufficiently proven. A legal shield was raised against odious inquisitorial methods of
interrogating an accused person by which to extort unwilling
The autopsy revealed that the traumas in the head were found on confessions with the ever present temptation to commit the crime
the front, left, and right side of the head but none were found at of perjury – nemo tenetur seipsum accusare. The kernel of the
the back of the head. Moreover, there was no witness to testify as privilege as disclosed by the textwriters was testimonial
to how the head was hit by the accused. compulsion. As forcing a man to be a witness against himself
was deemed contrary to the fundamentals of republican
One attendant circumstance, however, is amply proved by the government, the principle was taken into the American
prosecutions evidence which shows that the victims corpse was Constitutions, and from the United States was brought to the
sewn by appellant into 7 pieces. Under the RPC, outraging or Philippine Islands, in exactly as wide — but no wider — a scope
scoffing at the corpse is a qualifying circumstance. as it existed in old English days. The provision should here be
Dismemberment of a dead body is one manner of outraging or approached in no blindly worshipful spirit, but with a judicious and
scoffing at the corpse of the victim. In this case, the corpse of thee a judicial appreciation of both its benefits and its abuses.
victim was dismembered by the accused who sawed off the head,
limbs, and torso. The Information categorically alleges this Perhaps the best way to test the correctness of our position is to
qualifying circumstance, when it stated that the appellant go back once more to elements and ponder on what is the prime
thereafter, cut into pieces using said saw one Victor Keyser. This purpose of a criminal trial. As we view it, the object of having
being the case, as proved by the prosecution, accused is guilty criminal laws is to purge the community of persons who violate the
not just of homicide but of murder. laws to the great prejudice of their fellow men. Criminal
procedure, the rules of evidence, and constitutional
The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. There being provisions, are then provided, not to protect the guilty but to
neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances in the instant protect the innocent. No rule is intended to be so rigid as to
case, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed embarrass the administration of justice in its endeavor to ascertain
upon accused. the truth. No accused person should be afraid of the use of any
method which will tend to establish the truth. For instance, under
(Basin lang I-ask, gi-reduce ang damages. Moral damages P500k the facts before us, to use torture to make the defendant admit her
to P50k, exemplary P300k to P25k, compensatory P500k deleted guilt might only result in including her to tell a falsehood. But no
because of lack of proof, civil indemnity P50k, and attorney’s fees evidence of physical facts can for any substantial reason be
P25k.) held to be detrimental to the accused except in so far as the
truth is to be avoided in order to acquit a guilty person.
8. VILLAFOR vs SUMMERS [1920] (physical examination for
pregnancy sa adulterer) Obviously a stirring plea can be made showing that under the due
process of law cause of the Constitution every person has a
The constitutional guaranty, that no person shall be compelled in natural and inherent right to the possession and control of his own
any criminal case to be a witness against himself, is limited to a body. It is extremely abhorrent to one's sense of decency and
prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-incrimination. propriety to have to decide that such inviolability of the person,
(Section 17, Article III) particularly of a woman, can be invaded by exposure to another's
gaze. As Mr. Justice Gray in Union Pacific Railway Co. vs.
FACTS: Emeteria Villaflor and her paramour, Florentino Souingco Botsford said, "To compel any one, and especially a woman, to
are charged with the crime of adultery before the CFI in Manila. lay bare the body, or to submit to the touch of a stranger, without
On trial before the Judge, Hon. Pedro Concepcion, upon the lawful authority, is an indignity, an assault, and a trespass."
petitioner of the assistant fiscal for the city of Manila, the court Conceded, and yet, as well suggested by the same court, even
ordered the defendant Emeteria Villaflor (petitioner herein) to superior to the complete immunity of a person to be let alone
submit her body to the examination of one or two competent is the inherent which the public has in the orderly
doctors to determine if she was pregnant or not. The accused administration of justice. Unfortunately, all too frequently the
refused to obey the order on the ground that such examination of modesty of witnesses is shocked by forcing them to answer,
her person was a violation of the constitutional provision relating without any mental evasion, questions which are put to them; and
to self-incrimination (Section 17, Article III). Thereupon she was such a tendency to degrade the witness in public estimation does
found in contempt of court and was ordered to be committed to not exempt him from the duty of disclosure. Between a sacrifice
Bilibid Prison until she should permit the medical examination of the ascertainment of truth to personal considerations,
required by the court. As a result, petitioner now prays that a writ between a disregard of the public welfare for refined notions
of habeas corpus be issued to restore her to her liberty. of delicacy, law and justice cannot hesitate.
ISSUE/S: WoN the compelling of a woman to permit her body to Once again we lay down the rule that the constitutional
be examined by physicians to determine if she is pregnant violates guaranty, that no person shall be compelled in any criminal
the constitutional right providing that no person shall be compelled case to be a witness against himself, is limited to a
in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. –NO, the prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-
privilege only applies to testimonial compulsion, not to a physical incrimination. The corollary to the proposition is that, an ocular
examination. inspection of the body of the accused is permissible. The proviso
is that torture of force shall be avoided. Whether facts fall within or
RULING: without the rule with its corollary and proviso must, of course, be
(naa’y taas na discussion on some opposing decisions sa courts decided as cases arise.
Evidence Case Digests Batch 1 2019-2020 (Pelaez) 8
The lower court issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the 2. NO. Allowing a witness to object to questions the
Board and ordered the latter to await the judicial disposition of the answers to which could lead to a penal liability being
matter upon petitioner’s posting of a bond amounting to P500. subsequently incurred is merely one aspect to the
right against self-incrimination.
According to the Board, the right against self-incrimination is
available only when a question calling for an incriminating answer The constitutional guarantee also protects as well the right to
is asked of a witness. Pascual's remedy is to object once he is in silence. As far back as 1905, the SC has held that, "the accused
the witness stand. Respondent Board, denied that it acted with has a perfect right to remain silent and his silence cannot be used
grave abuse of discretion. as a presumption of his guilt." In Chavez v. Court of Appeals, the
SC reaffirmed the doctrine stating that it is the right of a defendant
A motion for intervention was filed by Salvador Gatbonton and "to forego testimony, to remain silent, unless he chooses to take
Enriqueta Gatbonton, the complainants in the administrative case the witness stand — with undiluted, unfettered exercise of his own
for malpractice against Pascual. Their answer in intervention free genuine will."
sustained the power of Board of Medical Examiners, which for
them is limited to compelling the witness to take the stand, to be The constitutional guarantee, along with other rights granted an
distinguished, in their opinion, from the power to compel a witness accused, stands for a belief that while crime should not go
to incriminate himself. They likewise alleged that the right against unpunished and that the truth must be revealed, such desirable
self-incrimination cannot be availed of in an administrative objectives should not be accomplished according to means or
hearing. methods offensive to the high sense of respect accorded the
human personality. "The constitutional foundation underlying the
The lower court found the claim of Pascual to be well-founded and privilege is the respect a government ... must accord to the dignity
prohibited the Board "from compelling the petitioner to act and and integrity of its citizens."
testify as a witness for the complainant in said investigation
without his consent and against himself."
Evidence Case Digests Batch 1 2019-2020 (Pelaez) 9
The facts of the case are, on the 15th day of September, Oliva was case)
staying in the house of her sister located on Ilang-Ilang Street, in
Manila. On said day, a number of Chinamen were gambling who FACTS:
have the habit of visiting the house of her sister. Oliva after taking Mr. Roberto Salanguit was charged with violation of RA 6425
a bath, returned to her room where he was followed by defendant (Dangerous Drugs Act). On December 26, 1995 in Quezon City
who asked for some face powder. After using the powder upon his he wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly possessed 11.14g of
private parts, he threw Oliva on the flower, and placed his private Metamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) and 1,254g of
parts upon hers. Marijuana, a prohibited drug. This was confiscated by virtue of the
search warrant.
Several days after, the sister of Oliva discovered that the Oliva
was suffering from gonorrhoea. It was during this time that Oliva On Dec. 25, 1996, Inspector Aguilar applied for the warrant in
related to her sister what happened. Branch 90 of Dasmarinas Cavite, this was supported by his
witness SPO1 Edmund Badua, who testified that as a poseur-
The sister at once foot an investigation to find the Chinamen. A buyer, he was able to purchase 2.12 grams of shabu from
number of Chinamen were collected wherein Oliva was called to accused-appellant. The sale took place in accused-appellant's
identify the perpetrator. Defendant was not present at first but room, and Badua saw that the shabu was taken by accused-
when he arrived, Oliva identified him. appellant from a cabinet inside his room.
Defendant was arrested and was stripped of his clothing. The The warrant is issued by Judge Dolores Espanol.They found 12
policeman took a portion of the substance emitting from his body small heat-sealed transparent plastic bags containing a white
and was turned over to the Bureau of Science (BOS) for scientific crystalline substance, a paper clip box also containing a white
analysis wherein he was found to be suffering gonorrhoea. crystalline substance, and two bricks of dried leaves which
appeared to be marijuana wrapped in newsprint having a total
During trial, defendant objected to the admissibility of the weight of approximately 1,255 grams.
testimony of Oliva by reason of his age, however the trial court
held that she had sufficient knowledge and discernment, thus her PO3 Duazo requested a laboratory examination of the confiscated
testimony deserves full credit. Also, he contended the result of the evidence. The white crystalline substance with a total weight of
scientific examination made by the BOS as it was not admissible 2.77 grams and those contained in a small box with a total weight
in evidence. To admit such evidence is to compel defendant to of 8.37 grams were found to be positive for methamphetamine
testify against himself. hydrochloride. On the other hand, the two bricks of dried leaves,
one weighing 425 grams and the other 850 grams, were found to
ISSUE: WON the examination conducted by BOS was in violation be marijuana.
of the right of Tan Teng against self-incrimination.
The accused contested the conviction in three grounds:
RULING: First, the admissibility of the shabu allegedly recovered on the
No, it is not.The prohibition contained in section 5 of the Philippine ground that the warrant used in obtaining it was invalid. Second,
Bill that a person shall not be compelled to be a witness against the admissibility of the marijuana allegedly seized from the
himself, is simply a prohibition against legal process to extract accused pursuant to the plain view doctrine.Third, employment of
from the defendant's own lips, against his will, an admission of his unnecessary force by the officers.
guilt.
ISSUE:
The doctrine contended for by appellant would prohibit courts from WON the marijuana seized is justified on the ground of
looking at the fact of a defendant even, for the purpose of plain view doctrine by the searching party.
disclosing his identity. Such an application of the prohibition under
discussion certainly could not be permitted. Such an inspection of HELD:
the bodily features by the court or by witnesses, can not violate FIRST, accused proposed the invalidity of the search warrant
the privilege granted under the Philippine Bill, because it does not using three grounds: one, no probable cause to search for drug
call upon the accused as a witness — it does not call upon the paraphernalia. Second, search warrant issued for more than one
defendant for his testimonial responsibility. Evidence obtained in specific offense. And lastly. Place to be searched was not
this way from the accused, is not testimony but his body itself. described with sufficient particularity.
In this case, evidence clearly shows that the defendant was To rebut the first ground, the court held that the fact that there was
suffering from the venereal disease, and that through his brutal no probable cause to support the application for the seizure of the
conduct said disease was communicated to Oliva Pacomio. In a drug paraphernalia does not warrant the conclusion that the
rape cases, it is always difficult to secure positive and direct proof. search warrant was void. The fact would be material only if the
Such crimes as the present are generally proved by circumstantial drug paraphernalia was in fact seized by the police officer. None
evidence. In cases of rape the courts of law require corroborative was taken by the searching party. The search warrant is only void
proof, for the reason that such crimes are generally committed in in so far as it authorized the seizure of the drug paraphernalia but
secret. In the present case, taking into account the number and valid as to the seizure of the metamphetamine hydrochloride. In
credibility of the witnesses, their interest and attitude on the Aday vs. Supreme Court, the invalid portions of the search warrant
witness stand, their manner of testifying and the general are severable from the authorization of the named articles. In
circumstances surrounding the witnesses, including the fact that conclusion, the first part of the search warrant authorizing the
both parties were found to be suffering from a common disease, search of the accused’s house for undetermined quantity of shabu
the accused is guilty of the crime of "abusos deshonestos”. is valid even though the second part of the search for the drug
paraphernalia is not.
13. People vs Salanguit GR 133254-55, April 19, 2001
To rebut the second ground, even though the possession or use
Officers should be careful as their slight mistake will absolve a of shabu and the possession of drug paraphernalia are punished
person of his crime. (referring to the marijuana possession in the under two provisions of RA 6425, still the Court follows similar
Evidence Case Digests Batch 1 2019-2020 (Pelaez) 11
jurisprudence. In People vs Dichoso, it is said that the argument therein to execute the warrant or liberate
is pedantic. The Dangerous Drug Act of 1972 is a special law that himself or any person lawfully aiding him
deals specifically with dangerous drugs which are prohibited and when unlawfully detained therein.
regulated and defines and penalizes categories of offense which
are closely related or which belong to the same class. Accordingly, Accused-appellant's claim that the policemen had clambered up
one search warrant may thus be validly issued for the violation of the roof of his house to gain entry and had broken doors and
Dangerous Drug Act windows in the process is unsupported by reliable and competent
proof. No affidavit or sworn statement of disinterested persons, like
To rebut the third ground, that the search warrant failed to indicate the barangay officials or neighbors, has been presented by
the place to be searched with sufficient particularity. accused-appellant to attest to the truth of his claim.
This contention is without merit. As the rule is that a description of WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. Q-95-64357, the decision of
the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Quezon City, finding accused-
can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place appellant Roberto Salanguit y Ko guilty of possession of illegal
intended to be searched. While the address stated in the warrant drugs under §16 of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as the
is merely "Binhagan St., San Jose, Quezon City," the trial court Dangerous Drugs Act
took note of the fact that the records of Search Warrant Case No.
160 contained several documents which identified the premises to 14. PEOPLE v DAMASO
be searched. Also police officers who raided appellant's house
under the leadership of Police Senior Inspector Rodolfo Aguilar DOCTRINE: The lack of objection may make any incompetent
could not have been mistaken as Inspector Aguilar resides in the evidence admissible. But admissibility of evidence should not be
same neighborhood in Binhagan where appellant lives. equated with weight of evidence. Hearsay evidence whether
objected to or not has no probative value.
SECOND. (this is the part of the case that is relevant to the subject
of EVEDENCE) The contention of the accused that the search FACTS:
warrant authorized the seizure of methamphetamine The accused-appellant, Basilio Damaso, was originally charged in
hydrochloride or shabu but not marijuana. This is a correct an information filed before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan
contention by the accused and help by the carelessness of the City with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 in furtherance
police officers in writing the report. of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion,
together 6 other persons. Such information was later amended to
Under the "plain view doctrine," unlawful objects within the "plain exclude all other persons except the accused-appellant Basilio
view" of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have Damaso from the criminal charge.
that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in
evidence. On June 18, 1988, Lt. Candido Quijardo, a Philippine
Constabulary officer and some companions were sent to verify the
For the doctrine to apply, there must be the requisites present: (a) presence of CPP/NPA members in Barangay Catacdang,
prior justification; (b) inadvertent discovery of the evidence; and Arellano-Bani, Dagupan City. In said place, the group
(c) immediate apparent illegality of the evidence before the police. apprehended 4 persons. When interrogated, the persons
apprehended revealed that there was an underground safehouse
The court discussed first the “prior justification and discovery by at Gracia Village in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. They found subversive
inadvertence” Once the valid portion of the search warrant has documents, a radio, a 1 x 7 caliber .45 firearm and other items. L
been executed, the “plain view doctrine” can no longer provide any After the raid, the group proceeded to Bonuan, Dagupan City, and
basis for admitting the other items subsequently found. put under surveillance the rented apartment of Rosemarie
Aritumba, sister of Berlina Aritumba whom they earlier arrested.
In the case at bar the police failed to allege in the case the time They interviewed Luzviminda Morados, a visitor of Rosemarie
when the marijuana was found, be it prior to or contemporaneous Aritumba. She stated that she worked with Bernie Mendoza aka
with the shabu subject of the warrant, or whether it was recovered Basilio Damaso, herein appellant. She guided the group to the
on accused-appellant's person or in an area within his immediate house rented by appellant. When they reached the house, the
control. Its recovery, therefore, presumably during the search group found that it had already been vacated by the occupants.
conducted after the shabu had been recovered from the cabinet, The Barangay Captain of the place was requested to point out the
as attested to by SPO1 Badua in his deposition, was invalid. The new house rented by appellant. The group again required
court discussed second the “apparent Illegality of the evidence” Morados to go with them. When they reached the house, the group
The court explained that the marijuana bricks were wrapped in saw Luz Tanciangco outside. They told her that they already knew
newsprint. There was no apparent illegality to justify their seizure. that she was a member of the NPA in the area. At first, she denied
And pointed a jurisprudence of People v. Musa in which we it, but when she saw Morados she requested the group to go
declared inadmissible the marijuana recovered by NARCOM inside the house.
agents because the said drugs were contained in a plastic bag
which gave no indication of its contents. Upon entering the house, the group, as well as the Barangay
Captain, saw radio sets, pamphlets entitled 'Ang Bayan', xerox
THIRD, The claims that undue and unnecessary force was copiers and a computer machine. They also found persons who
employed by the searching party in effecting the raid. were companions of Luz Tanciangco (namely, Teresita Calosa,
Ricardo Calosa, Marites Calosa, Eric Tanciangco and Luzviminda
Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure: Morados). The group requested the persons in the house to allow
Right to break door or window to effect them to look around. When Luz Tanciangco opened one of the
search. — The officer, if refused admittance rooms, they saw books used for subversive orientation, one M-14
to the place of directed search after giving rifle, bullets and ammunitions, Kenwood radio, artificial beard,
notice of his purpose and authority, may maps of the Philippines, Zambales, Mindoro an(d) Laguna and
break open any outer or inner door or window other items.
of a house or any part of a house or anything
Evidence Case Digests Batch 1 2019-2020 (Pelaez) 12
They confiscated the articles and brought them to their and the evidence actually presented. In the amended information,
headquarters for final inventory. They likewise brought the the gun was described as an M-14 rifle with serial no. 1249935.
persons found in the house to the headquarters for investigation. Yet, the gun presented at the trial bore a different serial number
Said persons revealed that appellant was the lessee of the house which is 1249985.
and owned the items confiscated therefrom.
*The Solicitor General contends that the discrepancy is merely
Based on this, Damaso was charged with illegal possession of a typographical error.
firearms. The prosecution presented as witnesses Lt. Quijardo
and M/Sgt Gomez to attest to this fact. The Court does not think so. This glaring error goes into the
substance of the charge. Its correction or lack of it could spell the
ISSUE: difference between freedom and incarceration of the accused-
Whether the evidence is admissible or not on grounds of its being appellant.
hearsay, immaterial, or irrelevant and illegal for lack of a search
warrant Since the gun as identified at the trial differs from the gun
described in the amended information, the corpus delicti (the
HELD: substance of the crime, the fact that a crime has actually been
NO, the evidence is inadmissible. committed) has not been fully established. This circumstance
coupled with dubious claims of appellant's connection to the house
1. There is no substantial and credible evidence to establish the (where the gun was found) have totally emasculated (weakened)
fact that the appellant is allegedly the same person as the lessee the prosecution's case.
of the house where the M-14 rifle and other subversive items were
found or the owner of the said items. The testimonies are hearsay The evidence in hand is too weak to convict the accused-appellant
because the witnesses testified on matters not on their own of the charge. ACCORDINGLY, the decision appealed from is
personal knowledge. hereby REVERSED and the appellant is ACQUITTED
* The Solicitor General, however, argues that while the 16. People v Aminnudin
testimonies may be hearsay, the same are admissible because of “Onboard with Mary Jane (marijuana)”
the failure of counsel for appellant to object thereto.
Facts:
It is true that the lack of objection to a hearsay testimony results Idel Aminnudin was arrested on June 25, 1984 after disembarking
in its being admitted as evidence. But, one should not be misled from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in the evening, in Iloilo City.
into thinking that since these testimonies are admitted as The PC officers earlier received a tip from one of their informers
evidence, they now have probative value. Hearsay evidence, that the accused-appellant was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo
whether objected to or not, cannot be given credence. City and was carrying a marijuana. He was identified by name.
Acting on this tip, they waited for him and approached him as he
2. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the appellant is descended from the gangplank after the informer had pointed to
the lessee of the house, the case against him still will not prosper, him. The PC officers simply accosted him, inspected his bag and
the reason being that the law enforcers failed to comply with the finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took him to their
requirements of a valid search and seizure proceedings. Although, headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of suspected
there are instances when a warrantless search and seizure articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI
becomes valid [(1) search incidental to an arrest; (2) search of a laboratory for examination. They were verified as marijuana
moving vehicle, and (3) seizure of evidence in plain view] but none leaves and an information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act
of the exceptions is present in this case. was filed against him. The information was amended to include
Farida Ali y Hassen. They were both arraigned and pleaded not
* Solicitor General claims that the group of Lt. Quijardo entered guilty. The fiscal subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the charge
the appellant's house upon invitation of Luz Tanciangco and against Ali absolving her after a thorough investigation.
Luzviminda Morados, helper of the appellant, so technically
speaking, there was no search as the group was voluntarily shown Aminnudin disclaimed the marijuana and alleged that he was
the articles used in subversion; that besides, a search may be arbitrarily arrested, immediately handcuffed and his bag was
validly conducted without a search warrant with the consent of the confiscated without a search warrant. (he also claimed that he only
person searched as in this case, appellant's helper and Luz sells watches which the trial court rejected given he was only
Tanciangco allowed them to enter and to look around the carrying two watches and has travelled to Jolo for that purpose,
appellant's house; and that since the evidence seized was in plain spending for the fare and other expenses)
view of the authorities, the same may be seized without a warrant.
The Court is not persuaded. The constitutional immunity from It is not disputed and in fact admitted by the PC officers who
unreasonable searches and seizures, being a personal one testified that they had no warrant when they arrested Aminnudin.
cannot he waived by anyone except the person whose rights are Their only justification is the tip received from a reliable and regular
invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or her informer. According to the testimony of the chief of the arresting
behalf. In the case at bar, the records show that appellant was not team, Lt. Cipriano Querol Jr, they received the intelligence report
in his house at that time. There is no evidence that would establish pertaining to the coming of Aminnudin to Iloilo with marijuana on
the fact that Luz Morados was indeed the appellant's helper, or if June 25 on June 23 or 2 days before the arrest. He also testified
it was true that she was his helper, that the appellant had given that they did not try to secure a search warrant because they were
her authority to open his house in his absence. As a consequence, sure that the operation will yield a positive result and that the
the search conducted by the authorities was illegal. It would have search warrant is not necessary.
been different if the situation here demanded urgency which could
have prompted the authorities to dispense with a search warrant. Issue: W/N the confiscated bundles of marijuana are admissible
But the record is silent on this point. in evidence
defendant may not refuse to take the stand altogether and the FACTS:
right against self-incrimination may only be invoked the moment The victim, Noli Pasion and his wife, Elsa, were residing in a house
incriminating questions are asked. along Mac Arthur Highway in Balibago, Angeles City. Pasion
However, as an exception, when the civil or administrative owned a pawnshop, which formed part of his house. He also
proceeding is penal in nature, the rule in criminal cases where the maintained two (2) rows of apartment units at the back of his
defendant may refuse to take stand is applicable. house.
Facts: The accused Bokingco and Col killed Noli Pasion (Noli) using a
On December 5, 1995, respondents, Juliano Lim and Lilia Lim claw hammer with treachery and evident premeditation. Bokingco
filed a Complaint for Annulment, Specific Performance with enetered a guilty plea while Col opted for a not guilty plea.
Damages against AFP-RSBS (AFP Retirement and Separation Bokingco confessed to the crime during the pre-trial.
Benefits System), Espreme Realty, Alfredo Rosete, Maj. Oscar Pasion was the employer of the killers. He employed them to
Mapalo, Chito Rosete, BPI and Register of Deeds of Mindoro construct an apartment building. Dante Vitalicio was the brother in
Occidental. It asked, among other things, that the Deed of Sale law of Pasion. He was living in one of the apartments owned by
executed by AFP-RSBS over certain parcels of land in favor of his broher. He was a witness to the crime and was himself
Espreme Realty be annulled. Parallel to this civil case are two attacked by Bokingco but was able to save himself with the help
criminal cases pending before the City Prosecutors of of another worker. Both victims were brought to the hospital but
Mandaluyong City and Pasig City involving the same set of facts. Pasion already expired.
On May 28, 1997, respondents filed a Notice to Take Deposition Elsa the wife of Pasion testified that she was in the master’s
Upon Oral Examination of petitioners Oscar Mapalo and Chito bedroom on the second floor of the house when she heard
Rosete. In response, petitioners filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion banging sounds and her husband’s moans. She immediately got
and Objection to Take Deposition, arguing that, since there are off the bed and went down. Before reaching the kitchen, Col
two criminal cases pending involving the same set of facts, to blocked her way. Elsa asked him why he was inside their house
permit the taking of the deposition would be violative of their right but Col suddenly ran towards her, sprayed tear gas on her eyes
against self-incrimination because by means of oral deposition, and poked a sharp object under her chin. Elsa was wounded when
respondents would seek to establish allegations of fact in the she bowed her head to avoid the tear gas. Col then instructed her
complaint which are also the allegations of fact in the complaint to open the vault of the pawnshop but Elsa informed him that she
affidavits in the said criminal case. The lower court denied the does not know the combination lock. Elsa tried offering him money
objection and scheduled the taking thereof. but Col dragged her towards the back door by holding her neck
and pulling her backward. Before they reached the door, Elsa saw
Issue: Bokingco open the screen door and heard him tell Col: "tara, patay
W/N the constitutional right against self-incrimination of Mapalo na siya." Col immediately let her go and ran away with Bokingco.
and Rosete would be violated by the taking of their deposition in Elsa proceeded to Apartment No. 3. Thereat, she saw her
the civil case although they are also respondents in another husband lying on the floor, bathed in his own blood.
criminal case with identical set of facts
Bokingco admitted that he conspired with Col to kill Pasion and
Ruling: that they planned the killing several days before because they got
No. Under Sec 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, “No person "fed up" with Pasion. Bokingco defended himself by saying that
shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”. This right is Pasion who was drunk at the time went to his room and asked him
accorded to every person who gives evidence in any civil, criminal why he was not at the construction site, he said he just stayed at
or administrative proceedings. his room for the whole day prompting Pasion to hit him in the head.
This caused Bokingco to take a hammer and hit Pasion. He then
As to an accused in a criminal case, it is settled that he can refuse fled the scene and was captured in Mindanao. He admitted that
outright to take the stand as a witness. An ordinary witness (or a he harbored ill-feelings against Pasion.
party in a civil action), on the other hand, may not disregard a
subpoena, decline to appear before the court or to refuse to testify Col confirmed that he was one of the construction workers
altogether. His right against self-incrimination can be claimed only employed by Pasion. He however resigned on 26 February 2000
when a specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put because of the deductions from his salary. He went home to
to the witness. However, this rule admits of an exception and that Cainta, Rizal, where he was apprehended and brought to Camp
is when such civil or administrative proceeding partakes of the Olivas. Upon reaching the camp, he saw Bokingco who pointed to
nature of a criminal proceeding. him as the person who killed Pasion. He insisted that he doesn’t
know Bokingco very well. Trial court found the two guilty of murder
In this case, the case is civil, it being a suit for annulment, specific with the presence of two aggravating circumstance of NIGHTTIME
performance with damages. The fact that there are two criminal and ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE. Penalty given was death. Court
cases pending which are allegedly based on the same set of facts of Appeals affirmed the ruling. There sentence was downgraded
as that of the civil case will not give them the right to refuse to take to reclusion perpetua
the witness stand and to give their depositions as they are not
facing criminal charges in the civil case. ISSUE:
1) Whether the qualifying circumstances were properly
19. People vs Bokingco appreciated to convict appellant Bokingco of murder and
Killing the owner of a pawnshop and apartments. 2) Whether appellant Col is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a
co-conspirator.
Doctrine: Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding
only on the confessant, is not admissible against his or her co- RULING:
accused, and is considered as hearsay against them. There is no question that Bokingco attacked and killed Pasion.
An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made Bokingco made two (2) separate and dissimilar admissions: first,
by a conspirator. in his extrajudicial confession taken during the preliminary
investigation where he admitted that he and Col planned the killing
Evidence Case Digests Batch 1 2019-2020 (Pelaez) 15
of Pasion; and second, when he testified in open court that he was no showing that he took advantage of said trust to facilitate the
only provoked in hitting Pasion back when the latter hit him in the commission of the crime.
head. On the basis of his extrajudicial confession, Bokingco was
charged for murder qualified by evident premeditation and A downgrade of conviction from murder to homicide is
treachery. proper for Bokingco for failure of the prosecution to prove the
presence of the qualifying circumstances.
No Treachery
For treachery to be appreciated, the prosecution must prove that No conspiracy. Ergo, Col was acquitted.
at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend The trial court pinned Col as conspirator. This Court is well aware
himself, and that the offender consciously adopted the particular of the policy to accord proper deference to the factual findings of
means, method or form of attack employed by him. Nobody the trial court, owing to their unique opportunity to observe the
witnessed the commencement and the manner of the attack. witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct, and
While the witness Vitalicio managed to see Bokingco hitting attitude under grueling examination. However, this rule admits of
something on the floor, he failed to see the victim at that time. exceptions, namely: 1) when the trial court’s findings of facts and
Bokingco admitted in open court that he killed Pasion. Treachery conclusions are not supported by the evidence on record, or 2)
cannot be appreciated to qualify the crime to murder in the when certain facts of substance and value likely to change the
absence of any proof of the manner in which the aggression was outcome of the case have been overlooked by the lower court, or
commenced. 3) when the assailed decision is based on a misapprehension of
facts. The second exception obtains in this case.
No Evident Premeditation
To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution Indeed, in order to convict Col as a principal by direct participation
must establish the confluence of the following requisites: (a) the in the case before us, it is necessary that conspiracy between him
time when the offender was determined to commit the crime; (b) and Bokingco be proved. As a rule, conspiracy must be
an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his established with the same quantum of proof as the crime itself and
determination; and (c) a sufficient interval of time between the must be shown as clearly as the commission of the crime. The
determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect finding of conspiracy was premised on Elsa’s testimony that
upon the consequences of his act. It is indispensable to show how appellants fled together after killing her husband and the
and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had extrajudicial confession of Bokingco. Nobody witnessed the
elapsed before it was carried out. In the instant case, no proof was commencement of the attack. Col was not seen at the apartment
shown as to how and when the plan to kill was devised. Bokingco where Pasion was being attacked by Bokingco. In fact, he was at
admitted in court that he only retaliated when Pasion allegedly hit Elsa’s house and allegedly ordering her to open the pawnshop
him in the head. Despite the fact that Bokingco admitted that he vault.
was treated poorly by Pasion, the prosecution failed to establish
that Bokingco planned the attack. Based on the testimony of Elsa, Col sprayed something in her eye
when she ran to check what was making a strange sound in the
Exrajudicial Confession during preliminary investigation no masters bedroom. She was then asked to give the password of
admissible. the vault and a sharp object was poked under her chin. At most,
It was during the preliminary investigation that Bokingco Col’s action can be equated as attempted robbery. Elsa testified
mentioned his and Col’s plan to kill Pasion. Bokingco’s confession that she heard Bokingco call out to Col that Pasion had been killed
was admittedly taken without the assistance of counsel in violation and that they had to leave the place. This does not prove that they
of Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which provides: acted in concert towards the consummation of the crime. It only
Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission proves, at best, that there were two crimes committed
of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to simultaneously and they were united in their efforts to escape from
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel the crimes they separately committed.
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill Pasion.
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before he sought Col.
xxxx Their moves were not coordinated because while Bokingco was
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this killing Pasion because of his pent-up anger, Col was attempting to
or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence rob the pawnshop.
against him.
Rule in Evidence – connected with our subject
In the instant case, the extrajudicial confession is In as much as Bokingco’s extrajudicial confession is inadmissible
inadmissible against Bokingco because he was not assisted against him, it is likewise inadmissible against Col, specifically
at all by counsel during the time his confession was taken where he implicated the latter as a cohort. Under Section 28, Rule
before a judge. 130 of the Rules of Court, the rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another. Res inter
The finding that nighttime attended the commission of the crime is alios acta alteri nocere non debet. Consequently, an extrajudicial
anchored on the presumption that there was evident confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible
premeditation. Having ruled however that evident premeditation against his or her co-accused, and is considered as hearsay
has not been proved, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime against them.
cannot be properly appreciated. There was no evidence to show
that Bokingco purposely sought nighttime to facilitate the An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made
commission of the offense. by a conspirator. Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
provides that the act or declaration of the conspirator relating to
Abuse of confidence could not also be appreciated as an the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence
aggravating circumstance in this case. Taking into account that against the co-conspirator provided that the conspiracy is shown
fact that Bokingco works for Pasion, it may be conceded that he by evidence other than by such act or declaration.49 In order that
enjoyed the trust and confidence of Pasion. However, there was the admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her
Evidence Case Digests Batch 1 2019-2020 (Pelaez) 16
Ruling: Drug test done was not legal as it was conducted without
ground upon any existing law or jurisprudence.