696 SCRA 729: SPOUSES FELIX CHINGKOE AND ROSITA CHINGKOE, vs.

SPOUSES
FAUSTINO CHINGKOE AND GLORIA CHINGKOE

FACTS

Respondents are the registered owners of a real property in Quezon City and allowed
respondent Faustino’s brother, Felix to inhabit the subject property. Faustino then sold the
same to Felix on condition that the title shall be delivered only after the petitioners paid the
full purchase price. Faustino then agreed to deliver in advance an incomplete draft of a Deed
of Absolute Sale, not yet notarized. While respondents themselves drafted the deed, the
parties again agreed that the document would only be completed after full payment.

Thereafter, respondents sent a demand letter to petitioners asking them to vacate the
premises, but refused to do so, prompting the former to sue for unlawful detainer with the
MTC of QC. In their part, petitioners presented a copy of a completed Deed of Absolute Sale
stating that they had paid in full.

MTC dismissed the unlawful detainer suit. The RTC affirmed the findings of the MTC. The CA
reversed the findings of the lower courts.

ISSUE

WON it is proper to admit and give weight to testimony given in a different proceeding (action
for specific performance) pending before the Regional Trial Court in resolving the issue herein
(unlawful detainer)

RULING

YES. In the absence of objection and as a matter of convenience, a court may properly treat
all or part of the original record of a former case filed in its archives, as read into the record
of a case pending before it, when, with the knowledge of the opposing party, reference is
made to it for that purpose by name and number or in some other manner by which it is
sufficiently designated.

In the case at bar, as the CA rightly points out that the petitioners never objected to the
introduction of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes containing the testimony of a witness,
which were records of the specific performance suit. As shown by the records and as
petitioners admitted in their Reply, the testimony was already introduced on appeal before
the RTC. Given these facts, the CA committed no reversible error in taking judicial notice of
the records of the specific performance suit. In any case, the said testimony was not the only
basis for reversing the RTC’s Decision. Independent of the testimony, the CA – through its
perusal and assessment of other pieces of evidence, specifically the Deed of Absolute Sale –
concluded that petitioners’ stay on the premises had become unlawful.
699 SCRA 173: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.BENEDICT HOMAKY LUCIO

FACTS

An informant went to the PDEA Cordillera Administrative Region (PDEA-CAR) in Baguio City
to give information regarding an illegal sale or distribution of dangerous drugs, particularly
dried marijuana being done in Barangay Lucnab, by a couple identified as Wilma and Ben.
Elements of the PDEA then decided to conduct a buy-bust operation, and proceeded to the
shanty of the couple. After being introduced, the police officer and Lucio negotiated, and the
latter noticed a white nylon sack just behind the door with marijuana bricks inside and asked
if he can choose the brick he wanted. After handling the money, he then switched off his
flashlight several times as his pre-arranged signal that transaction has been consummated.
Immediately thereafter, the arresting and back-up officers hiding from behind approached
them and arrested Lucio and Wilma. Lucio and Wilma, together with the confiscated marijuana
bricks, were brought by the arresting officers to the PDEA Office for proper documentation
and identification. There was compliance with the chain of custody.The defense interposed
frame-up. Lucio and Wilma were eventually charged with Illegal Sale and Possession of
Dangerous Drugs.

RTC= Guilty, Lucio/ Acquitted, Wilma CA= Affirmed.

ISSUE

WON inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimony would be sufficient for an acquittal in the
present case.

RULING

NO. In order for a discrepancy or inconsistency between the testimonies of witnesses to serve
as basis for acquittal, it must refer to significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the
accused. An inconsistency which has nothing to do with the elements of the crime cannot be
a ground for the acquittal of the accused. It is elementary in the rule of evidence that
inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and
collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration nor the veracity or weight
of their testimony. In fact, these minor inconsistencies enhance the credibility of the
witnesses, for they remove any suspicion that their testimonies were contrived or rehearsed.

In this case, the question as to what part of the body of the accused did the police officers
recover the money does not dissolve the elements of illegal sale and possession as minor
inconsistencies do not negate or dissolve the eyewitnesses’ positive identification of the
appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.69 Minor inconsistencies in the narration of PO1
Castro, PO1 Labbutan and SPO4 Lucas do not detract from their essential credibility as long
as their testimony on the whole is coherent and intrinsically believable.
704 SCRA 163: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, , vs. LUZ REYES-BAKUNAWA,
MANUEL BAKUNAWA, JR., MANUEL BAKUNAWA III, FERDINAND E. MARCOS AND
IMELDA R. MARCOS

FACTS

An action for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages brought by the
Republic against for having allegedly acquired and accumulated ill-gotten wealth consisting
of funds and other property. Luz Bakunawa had served as Imelda Marcos’ Social Secretary
during the Marcos administration; that it was during that period of her incumbency in that
position that the Bakunawas had acquired money other property disproportionate to her
salaries and their other lawful income and acting as dummies of the Marcos spouses; securing
favorable contracts with the Department of Public Works and Communications for the
construction of government projects through grossly undercapitalized corporations and
without complying with such usual requirements as public bidding, notice and publication of
contractors, and land grabbing, among others. Bakunawas on the other hand, alleged that
Luz Bakunawa was never the Social Secretary of Imelda Marcos, and their acquisitions was
well within their legitimate income, owning closed family corporations.

SB rendered its decision dismissing the complaint. Denied MR, hence this appeal.

ISSUE

WON the evidence offered may be used for a other purposes than that specified.

RULING

NO. The Court upholds the Sandiganbayan. It was basic enough that the Sandiganbayan could
not consider any evidence that was not formally offered; and could consider evidence only for
the purposes it was specifically offered. Formal offer is necessary because judges are
mandated to rest their findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the evidence
offered by the parties at the trial. It has several functions: (1) to enable the trial judge to
know the purpose or purposes for which the proponent is presenting the evidence; (2) to
allow opposing parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility; and (3) to
facilitate review by the appellate court, which will not be required to review documents not
previously scrutinized by the trial court. The offer and purpose will also put the trial court in
the position to determine which rules of evidence it shall apply in admitting or denying
admission to the evidence being offered.

Yet, the Republic offered the negotiated contracts solely to prove that the Bakunawas had
been incorporators or owners, or had held key positions in the corporations that entered into
the contracts. The Sandiganbayan thus correctly ruled, therefore, that the contracts could be
considered and appreciated only for those stated purposes, and not for the purpose of proving
the irregularity of the contracts.
705 SCRA 17: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. GILBERT REYES WAGAS,

FACTS

Wagas was charged with estafa, for failure to pay an order for 200 bags of rice over the
telephone. The accused apparently proposed payment of the order for a postdated check in
the amount of P200,000. The check was deposited by Ligaray, but was dishonored due to
insufficiency of funds. He then demanded payment but the accused failed to do so. In his
defense, Wagas himself admitted having issued BPI Check No. 0011003 to Cañada, his
brother-in-law, not to Ligaray and denied having any telephone conversation or any dealings
with Ligaray. He explained that the check was intended as payment for a portion of Cañada’s
property that he wanted to buy, but when the sale did not push through, he did not anymore
fund the check. On cross-examination, the Prosecution confronted Wagas with a letter
admitting that he owed Ligaray ₱200,000.00 for goods received. Wagas admitted the same,
but insisted that it was Cañada who had transacted with Ligaray, and that he had signed the
letter only because his sister and her husband (Cañada) had begged him to assume the
responsibility.

RTC = Convicted for Estafa; denied the motion for new trial and/or reconsideration

ISSUE

WON the identity of the perpetrator of the crime was established by mere telephone call.

RULING

NO. In every criminal prosecution, the identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. We deem it essential for purposes of reliability
and trustworthiness that a telephone conversation like that one Ligaray supposedly had with
the buyer of rice to be first authenticated before it could be received in evidence. Among
others, the person with whom the witness conversed by telephone should be first satisfactorily
identified by voice recognition or any other means.32 Without the authentication, incriminating
another person just by adverting to the telephone conversation with him would be all too
easy. In this respect, an identification based on familiarity with the voice of the caller, or
because of clearly recognizable peculiarities of the caller would have sufficed.33 The identity
of the caller could also be established by the caller’s self-identification, coupled with additional
evidence, like the context and timing of the telephone call, the contents of the statement
challenged, internal patterns, and other distinctive characteristics, and disclosure of
knowledge of facts known peculiarly to the caller. Ligaray’s declaration that it was Wagas who
had transacted with him over the telephone was not reliable because he did not explain how
he determined that the person with whom he had the telephone conversation was really
Wagas whom he had not yet met or known before then.
712 SCRA 313: ADVANCE PAPER CORPORATION vs. ARMA TRADERS CORPORATION

FACTS

Petitioner Advance Paper is transacts various paper products and had regularly been in
business with Respondent Arma Traders, engaged in the wholesale and distribution of school
and office supplies. Arma Traders obtained three loans from Advance Paper. As payment
for the transactions, Arma Traders issued several postdated checks payable to cash or
to Advance Paper. Advance Paper presented the checks to the bank but these were
dishonored either for "insufficiency of funds" or "account closed." Despite repeated
demands, however, Arma Traders failed to settle its account with Advance Paper,
prompting the petitioners file a collection suit.

The petitioners claimed that the respondents fraudulently issued the checks as payment for
the purchases and loan transactions knowing that they did not have sufficient funds with the
drawee bank, presenting the summary of the transactions and their corresponding sales
invoices as their documentary evidence. Arma Traders upon learning of the complaint
immediately looked for Arma Traders’ records and found no receipts involving the purchases
of notebooks and other paper products from Advance Paper.

RTC granted the petition. CA reversed.

ISSUE

WON failure to object to unidentified sales invoices are admissible.

RULING

YES. The rule is that failure to object to the offered evidence renders it admissible, and the
court cannot, on its own, disregard such evidence.85 When a party desires the court to reject
the evidence offered, it must so state in the form of a timely objection and it cannot raise the
objection to the evidence for the first time on appeal. Because of a party’s failure to timely
object, the evidence becomes part of the evidence in the case. Thereafter, all the parties are
considered bound by any outcome arising from the offer of evidence properly presented.

We agree with the respondents that with respect to the identification of the sales invoices,
Haw’s testimony was hearsay because he was not present during its preparation and the
secretaries who prepared them were not presented to identify them in court. Further, these
sales invoices do not fall within the exceptions to the hearsay rule even under the "entries in
the course of business" because the petitioners failed to show that the entrant was deceased
or was unable to testify. But even though the sales invoices are hearsay, nonetheless, they
form part of the records of the case for the respondents’ failure to object as to the admissibility
of the sales invoices on the ground that they are hearsay. Based on the records, the
respondents through Ng objected to the offer "for the purpose [to] which they are being
offered" only – not on the ground that they were hearsay.