LAYING THE PREDICATE

PEOPLE v. MOLO FACTS: Dominador Molo was found guilty of the murder of Venancio Gapisa. Gapisa was hacked with a bolo while he was asleep. The 1. 2. 3. 4. trial court gave credence to the following testimonies: the victims wife, Simeona (eye and ear witness) the victims son, Alejandro (dying declaration) Alejandros neighbor, Roman Mangaring (dying declaration) Dr. Victorio Benedicto (autopsy)

On the aggravating circumstance of recidivism and reiteration: Molo had been previously convicted of murder, frustrated murder, grave slander, less serious physical injuries, qualified trespass to dwelling and robbery. On the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender: Molo did not surrender to the authorities. He was arrested by a combined force of policemen and Philippine Constabulary agents at his residents the day after the killing. JUAN YSMAEL & CO., INC. v. HASHIM & GORAYEB FACTS: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: Hashim executed a chattel mortgage in favor of Ysmael, for the sum of P13,160.87, interest at 8% per annum. Hashim having defaulted, the mortgage was foreclosed. The property was sold by the sheriff for P2,100 only, leaving a balance of P11,060.87. Ysmael now seeks to recover the balance with the corresponding interest, in the total amount of P19,134.32. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: Hashim was also indebted to the Hashim Commercial & Trading Company, Ltd., a limited copartnership, for the sum of P14,646.47. This indebtedness was allegedly assigned to Ysmael together with its other bills receivable, fixtures, cash on hand in banks, and its entire stock of goods. Demand having been made to no avail, Ysmael now prays for a writ of attachment of the defendants property. The defendants admitted the following in their Answers: Hashim: all the allegations in the complaint Gorayeb: she and Hashim are husband and wife (Im assuming theyre estranged since shes entitled to alimony -rom) Special Defense: (1) Hashim, his relations and the stockholders of Ysmael conspired to defraud her of the alimony granted her; (2) she has suffered damages by reason of the preliminary attachment upon real property belonging to her exclusively CFI: First COA: Ysmael may recover P19,134.32. Second COA: dismissed, the indebtedness was assigned to Asia Banking Corp., not to Ysmael Both plaintiff, Ysmael and defendant, Gorayeb appealed. SC: Affirmed the CFI Decision, modified as to the amount to be recovered, P12,238.02. ISSUES: Ysmaels Issue: Was there a valid assignment of the indebtedness in favor of Ysmael? NO. Gorayebs Issues:

TC: Molo is guilty of murder, with the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, recidivism and reiteration with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. SC: Molo is guilty of murder, with the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, recidivism absent the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. ISSUES:

1.

Is Molo guilty of murder? YES.

a. b. c. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Was Molo positively identified? YES. Can Simeonas testimony be impeached for being inconsistent with the statement she previously gave the police? NO, Rule 132.13 was not followed. Is Gapisas ante-mortem declaration? YES. statement a dying

Is the circumstance of dwelling present? YES. Is the circumstance of recidivism present? YES. Is the circumstance of reiteration present? YES. Is voluntary surrender present? NO.

RATIO: On the crime of murder: a. True, there seems to be no motive for the murder, however, Molos identity as the assailant was established by Simeonas testimony (there were reproductions of the testimony in the original case).

b.

LAYING THE PREDICATE: It is contended that inconsistencies exist between Simeonas statement given to the police and her testimony, relative to (1) the precise moment when Simeona recognized the accuse and (2) whether there was a conversation between Simeona and the accused.

The records show that the alleged statement given to the police was neither offered as evidence nor shown to Simeona in order to enable her to explain the discrepancies, if any. Thus, the proper basis (predicate) not laid to impeach Simeonas testimony on the basis of the alleged inconsistencies.

1. 2. 3.

Did the trial court err in rendering judgment upon the first cause of action for the sum of P19,134.32? YES, P12,238.02. Did the trial court err in prohibiting Gorayeb from inquiring into the details of Ysmaels books-of-accounts? YES. LAYING THE FOUNDATION: Did the trial court err in refusing to receive the testimony of N.T. Hashim (defendant), A.T. Hashim, and K.N. Hemady in the former action? NO, Gorayeb was not able to lay a foundation. Did the trial court err in preventing Gorayeb from presenting proofs in support of the allegations of her answer and special defenses? YES. Ysmaels Issue

c.

DYING DECLARATION: The ante-mortem statements of Gapisa to Alejandro and Mangaring are dying declarations.

Considering the nature and extent of his wounds, Gapisa must have realized the seriousness of his condition. It can be inferred that he made the incrimination under the consciousness of impending death. On the aggravating circumstance of dwelling: The killing was done in Gapisas house, without provocation on the victims part.

4.

RATIO:

Evidence: resolution of the stockholders of the Hashim Commercial & Trading Co., Ltd. on November, 2, 19211 The only assignment actually effected was that to the Asia Banking Corporation. A mere equitable right to the assignment thereof is not sufficient. The debtor has the right to demand that the person suing him for the debt shall be the real party in interest and shall show a valid title to the chose in action. Gorayebs Issues On the First Issue: In view of the very apparent unreliability of some of the oral evidence presented, Ysmaels recovery as to its first cause of action should be limited to the amount shown by its books of account, P12,238.02. It is contended that the amount claimed in excess of the P12,238.02 was interest. However, it clearly appears that the chattel mortgage debt is included in the ledger account and the interest may properly be considered as merged therein. On the Second and Fourth Issues: The CFI erred in not giving Gorayeb an opportunity to inquire into the sources of the entries found in Ysmael's books of account in relation to Hashims indebtedness. Further, Gorayeb should have been permitted to present evidence in support of her special defense of conspiracy. The fact that such sources might have been examined in the first case (validity of chattel mortgage, G. R. No. 21345) cannot be regarded as a bar to a reasonable inquiry into the character of the debt in the case at bar. The issues in the two cases are entirely different. The former case dealt with the validity of a chattel mortgage, while the case at bar deals with the amount of the indebtedness. On the Third Issue (LAYING THE FOUNDATION): When Gorayeb offered in evidence the testimony given by Mr. Hemady and the Hashims in the earlier case, she did not claim that said testimony contained admissions against interest by the parties to the action or their agents. WHY SHOULD THIS BE CLAIMED/ALLEGED? The testimony would have been admissible without the laying of a foundation and without the witnesses having testified in the case at bar. In the case at bar, the purpose of the offer of the testimony was to impeach the testimony of the same witnesses in the present case. Thus, a foundation should have been laid by calling the attention of the witnesses to the former statements so as to give them an opportunity to explain before the statements were offered in evidence.

Whereas, on October 3rd, 1921, A. T. Hashim was authorized by the stockholders of Hashim Commercial & Trading Co., Ltd., to transfer the entire stock of the Company, cash on hand, bills receivable, and fixtures, to Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc., and Whereas, subsequently, it appeared advisable to A. T. Hashim that the transfer of said stocks of goods, etc., should be made to the Asia Banking Corporation, who would then make Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc., its agent, for the purpose of disposing the same, and Whereas, a transfer was made to the Asia Banking Corporation, in the form of an agreement entered into between the Asia Banking Corporation, Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc., and Hashim Commercial & Trading Co., Ltd., thru their proper representatives, on the 31st day of October, 1921. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the transfer made by A. T. Hashim, as aforesaid, to the Asia Banking Corporation, of all goods, wares and merchandise, as per said agreement, be and the same approved, and transfer ratified.