Evidence Digests 02

8/21/2019 Evidence Digests 02

1/37

1. Samalio v. Court of Appeals

454 SCRA 462

Topic: Applicability of Rules of Evidece

Facts: Weng Sai Qin, a Chinese with Uruguayan passport, was taken to Augusto R. Samalio

Intelligence !cer o" the #ureau o" Immigration an$ %eportation I%', (ecause her passport

was suspecte$ to (e "ake. Qin pai$ Samalio )*++ in echange o" her passport (ut

Samalio returne$ Qin-s passport without an immigration arrial stamp. /herea"ter, a crimina

case "or ro((ery an$ iolation o" the Immigration 0aw was 1le$ against Samalio in the

San$igan(ayan, as well as an a$ministratie case "or $ishonesty, oppression an$

miscon$uct. Samalio was "oun$ guilty o" the charges in (oth procee$ings an$ was or$ere$

$ismisse$ "rom serice (y the #I% Commissioner, an$ such $ecision was a!rme$

(y the Ciil Serice Commission &CSC', the Secretary o" 2ustice an$ the Court o" Appeals

/he CSC an$ the Secretary o" 2ustice took cogni3ance o" the testimony o" Wen Sai Qin in the

San$igan(ayan case, applying Section 45, Rule 67+ o" the Rules o" Court.

Issue: Whether or not the Rules on 8i$ence applies in the a$ministratie case.

Ruling: 9es. /he CSC an$ the Secretary o" 2ustice $i$ not err in applying Section 45, Rule 67+ o"

the Rules o" Court, otherwise known as the rule on "ormer testimony,; in $eci$ing

petitioner-s a$ministratie case. /he proisions o" the Rules o" Court may (e applie$

suppletorily to the rules o" proce$ure o" a$ministratie (o$ies eercising u$icial powers

unless otherwise proi$e$ (y law or the rules o" proce$ure o" the a$ministratie agency

concerne$. /he Rules o" Court, which are meant to secure to eery litigant the a$>ectie

phase o" $ue process o" law, may (e applie$ to procee$ings (e"ore an

a$ministratie (o$y with u$icial powers in the a(sence o" $i?erent an$ ali$

statutory or a$ministratie proisions prescri(ing the groun$ rules "or the inestigation,

hearing an$ a$>u$ication o" cases (e"ore it. For Section 45, Rule 67+ to apply, the "ollowing

reect as that in the present case, although on $i?erent causes o"

action@ &$' the issue testi1e$ to (y the witness in the "ormer trial is the same issue inole$ in

the present case an$ &e' the a$erse party ha$ an opportunity to cross=eamine the witness in

the "ormer case. In this case, Weng Sai Qin was una(le to testi"y in the a$ministratie

procee$ings (e"ore the #I% (ecause she le"t the country een (e"ore the a$ministratie

complaint against petitioner was institute$. etitioner $oes not $eny that the testimony o" Weng

Sai Qin was gien in San$igan(ayan case, the ery (asis "or 1ling the a$ministratie complaint

Bence, the issue testi1e$ to (y Weng Sai Qin in such case was the same issue in thea$ministratie case, that is, whether petitioner etorte$ money "rom Weng Sai Qin. etitioner

also ha$ the opportunity to "ace an$ cross= eamine his accuser Weng Sai Qin, an$ to $e"en$

an$ in$icate his cause (e"ore the San$igan(ayan. Clearly, all the re


2/37

2. !" C#ia v. Republic

$2% SCRA &4'


Facts: ng Chia was (orn in China (ut he came to the country when he was a (oy an$ staye$

here since then. When he was years ol$, he 1le$ a petition to (e a$mitte$ as a

Filipino citi3en. Be testi1e$ as to his ect to their a$missi(ility. etitioner cannot claim that he was $eprie$ o" the right

to o(>ect to the authenticity o" the $ocuments su(mitte$ to the appellate court (y the State. Be

coul$ hae inclu$e$ his o(>ections, as he, in "act, $i$, in the (rie" he 1le$ with the Court o"

Appeals.

$. (atolio v. Coca Cola (ottlers) *c.

4+$ SCRA 6''


Facts: ru$encio #antolino, Gestor Romero et al., who are "ormer employees o"

Coca Cola, 1le$ a case against the latter "or illegal $ismissal. /he 0a(or Ar(iter rule$ in

"aor o" the employees, an$ or$ere$ their reinstatement an$ the payment o"

(ackwages. /he 0a(or Ar(iter also rule$ that $espite the negatie $eclarations o" Coca Cola as


3/37

to its relationship with the complainants, the complainants- testimonies are more cre$i(le to

proe the eistence o" employer=employee relationship. /he G0RC a!rme$ such $ecision (ut

the Court o" Appeals mo$i1e$ such ruling (ecause the complainants- a!$aits shoul$

not (e gien pro(atie alue since they were not su(>ecte$ to cross= eamination, they were

not a!rme$ an$ there"ore, they are hearsay ei$ence.

Issue: Whether or not a$ministratie (o$ies like the G0RC shoul$ (e strictly (oun$ (y the rules

o" ei$ence.

Ruling: Go. /he argument that the a!$ait is hearsay (ecause the a!ants were not presente$

"or cross eamination is not persuasie (ecause the rules o" ei$ence are not strictly

o(sere$ in procee$ings (e"ore a$ministratie (o$ies like the G0RC, where $ecisions may

(e reache$ on the (asis o" position papers only. It is not necessary "or the a!ants to appear

an$ testi"y an$ (e cross=eamine$ (y counsel o" the a$erse party. /o reectiely without regar$

to technicalities o" law an$ proce$ure all in the interest o" $ue process.

4. ,eople v. -alleo

2'1 SCRA &61

Topic: Epert Testimoy as Evidece/ Evidece i Crimial Cases

Facts: 2oeral Halleno was charge$ with statutory rape committe$ against 8elyn (ligar, a 1e

year ol$ girl. /he prosecution presente$ three epert witnesses namely, %r. Al"onso rosco

%r. a. 0our$es 0aJa$a, an$ %r. achael /ole$o, whose testimonies conince$ the trial court

that rape was committe$ against (ligar. Halleno conten$e$ that he shoul$ (e acect

matter un$er o(seration, or "or other reasons, the testimony will ai$ the court in reaching a

>u$gment. In the case at (ar, the trial court arrie$ at its conclusions not only with the ai$ o"

the epert testimony o" $octors who gae their opinions as to the possi(le cause o" the ictimDs

laceration, (ut also the testimony o" the other prosecution witness, especially the ictim hersel"

In other wor$s, the trial court $i$ not rely solely on the testimony o" the epert witnesses.

Such epert testimony merely ai$e$ the trial court in the eercise o" its >u$gment on the "acts.

Bence, the "act that the eperts enumerate$ arious possi(le causes o" the ictimDs laceration


4/37

$oes not mean the trial courtDs inter"erence is wrong. /he a(sence o" spermato3oa in the

ictimDs agina $oes not negate the conclusion that it was his penis which was inserte$ in the

ictimDs agina. In rape, the important consi$eration is not the emission o" semen (ut the

penetration o" the "emale genitalia (y the male organ.

5. ,eople v. Calumpa

454 SCRA &1'

Topic: Alibi

Facts: Rico Calumpang an$ 2oenal matang were charge$ with two counts o" mur$er

committe$ against the spouses Alicia Catipay an$ Santiago Catipay. /he trial court

$ismisse$ the $e"ense o" ali(i interpose$ (y the $e"en$ants (ecause it was weak an$ then

conicte$ the $e"en$ants, relying on the testimony o" agno Home3 who allege$ly eye

witnesse$ the killing o" the two ictims. /he $e"en$ants appeale$, conten$ing that the

testimony o" agno is unrelia(le an$ inconsistent, an$ that the trial court erre$ in

$ismissing their $e"ense o" ali(i.

Issue: Whether or not the $e"ense o" ali(i is su!cient to cast $ou(t as to the guilt o" the

accuse$.

Ruling: 9es. Appellants- $e"ense o" ali(i was in$ee$ weak, since their ali(is were corro(orate$

only (y their relaties an$ "rien$s, an$ it was not shown that it was impossi(le "or them to (e at

the place o" the inci$ent. Boweer, the rule that an accuse$ must satis"actorily proe

his ali(i was neer inten$e$ to change or shi"t the (ur$en o" proo" in criminal cases. It is

(asic that the prosecution ei$ence must stan$ or "all on its own weight an$ cannot $raw

strength "rom the weakness o" the $e"ense. Unless the prosecution oerturns the

constitutional presumption o" innocence o" an accuse$ (y competent an$ cre$i(le

ei$ence proin g his guilt (eyon$ reasona(le $ou(t, the presumption remains.

/here (eing no su!cient ei$ence (eyon$ reasona(le $ou(t pointing to appellants as the

perpetrators o" the crime, appellants- presume$ innocence stan$s. /he Supreme Court "oun$

that the testimony o" the lone witness agno is "ull o" inconsistencies. While agno claime$ to

hae witnesse$ the gruesome killings, the recor$s show that serious $iscrepancies

atten$e$ agno-s testimony in court an$ his sworn statement eecute$ $uring the preliminary

eamination. Well settle$ is the rule that ei$ence to (e (eliee$ must not only procee$ "rom

the mouth o" a cre$i(le witness, (ut must (e cre$i(le in itsel"Ksuch as the common eperience

an$ o(seration o" mankin$ can approe as pro(a(le un$er the circumstances stan$. agno-s

testimony "aile$ to satis"y such rule, hence, the presume$ innocence o" the accuse$ must (e

uphel$.

6. 0eirs of Sabapa v. Comorposa


5/37

-.R. o. 152%+&

Topic: Admissibility of Evidece

Facts: /he heirs o" 0our$es Sa(anpan 1le$ a complaint "or unlaw"ul $etainer with $amages

against respon$ents Al(erto Comorposa, et al. /he /C rule$ in "aor o" the heirs, (ut the R/C

reerse$ such $ecision. n appeal, the Court o" Appeals a!rme$ the R/C >u$gment, ruling that

respon$ents ha$ the (etter right to possess the su(>ect lan$@ an$ it $isregar$e$ the a!$aits o"

the petitioners- witnesses "or (eing sel"=sering. Bence, the heirs 1le$ a petition "or reiew oncertiorari (e"ore the Supreme Court, conten$ing that the Rules on Summary roce$ure

authori3es the use o" a!$aits an$ that the "ailure o" respon$ents to 1le their position papers

an$ counter=a!$aits (e"ore the /C amounts to an a$mission (y silence.

Issue: Whether or not the a!$aits in issue shoul$ hae (een consi$ere$ (y the Court o"

Appeals.

Ruling: Go. /he a$missi(ility o" ei$ence shoul$ not (e con"use$ with its pro(atie alue.

A$missi(ility re"ers to the


6/37

"alsus in uno, "alsus in omni(us $eals only with the weight o" ei$ence an$ is not a positie rule

o" law@ the rule is not an inLei(le one o" uniersal application. o$ern tren$ in >urispru$ence

"aors more Lei(ility when the testimony o" a witness may (e partly (eliee$ an$ partly

$is(eliee$ $epen$in g on the corro(oratie ei$ence presente$ at the trial. /hus,

where the challenge$ testimony is su!ciently corro(orate$ in its material points, or where the

mistakes arise "rom innocent lapses an$ not "rom an apparent $esire to perert the truth, the

rule may (e relae$. It is a rule that is neither a(solute nor man$atory an$ (in$ing upon the

court, which may accept or re>ect portions o" the witness- testimony (ase$ on its inherent

cre$i(ility or on the corro(oratie ei$ence in the case.

%. ,eople v. 3atito

-.R. o. 1444+5

Topic: Circumstatial Evidece

Facts: Fer$inan$ atito was charge$ with mur$er, committe$ against ariano

Raymun$o, 2r. /he prosecution presente$ the "ollowing $uring the trial: &6' testimony o" the

wi$ow that her hus(an$, prior to his $eath, $eclare$ that it was appellant who ha$

gunne$ him $own@ &E' the presence o" nitrate pow$er on the cast taken "rom the right han$ o"

appellant@ &7' the (itter


7/37

Topic: Circumstatial Evidece

Facts: Appellant aulino Seilleno was charge$ "or rape with homici$e, committe$

against Nirginia #akia. /he R/C conicte$ appellant (ase$ on the "ollowing circumstances

presente$ (y the prosecution: &6' appellant inite$ the ictim to watch a (eta=show@ &E' ictim

an$ the appellant procee$ to a sugarcane 1el$ in Bacien$a San Antonio, the place where the

corpse o" the ictim was "oun$@ &7' the appellant emerge "rom the sugarcane 1el$ alone an$

without the ictim, with "resh scratches on his "ace, neck an$ (oth arms@ &4' the multiple

scratches su?ere$ (y the appellant on the right si$e o" his "ace an$ ears were all cause$ (yhuman 1ngernails@ an$ &*' the ictim su?ere$ hymenal laceration, contusions, a(rasions

an$ hematoma on $i?erent parts o" her (o$y an$ was strangle$ resulting to her $eath which

in$icate$ that there was a struggle an$ the ictim igorously put up a 1ght against her attacker.

Seilleno appeale$, conten$ing that the scratches on his "ace $o not proe that they were

inLicte$ (y Nirginia, much less that he committe$ the crime.

Issue: Whether or not the prosecution ei$ence is su!cient to conict the accuse$.

Ruling: 9es. /he rules on ei$ence an$ prece$ents to sustain the coniction o" an accuse$

through circumstantial ei$ence re


8/37

Topic: irect Evidece) Circumstatial Evidece

Facts: Appellant Goel %arilay, who was then 6* years ol$, was "oun$ guilty "or the rape an$

mur$er o" minor arilyn Argan$a, an$ the attempte$ mur$er o" Ailyn Argan$a. Ailyn

testi1e$ that she an$ arilyn were on their way home when they met appellant who su$$enly

struck them with a piece o" woo$ which le"t them unconscious. Appellant le"t Ailyn un$er such

state (ut he carrie$ arilyn to a grassy place where he repeate$ly rape$ an$ eentually kille$

her. /he appellant conten$s that the prosecution "aile$ to proe that he rape$ an$ kille$ the

ictim (ecause only Ailyn-s testimony was relie$ upon an$ there was no $irect ei$encepresente$.

Issue: Whether or not the a(sence o" $irect ei$ence to proe the guilt o" the accuse$ warrants

his ac


9/37

same proo" as un$er the Spanish proce$ure. /he thir$ arti$a says that $iscontinuous

seritu$es hae no 1e$ perio$s, (ut must (e proe$ (y usage or a term so lon g

that men cannot remem(er its commencement.

Issue: Whether or not immemorial use or este$ right oer a seritu$e can (e esta(lishe$ (y

mere ei$ence like the testimony o" witnesses oer + years o" age who were ac


10/37

not he who $enies, must proe. etitioner-s sweeping conclusion that the loan o(taine$

(y the late arcelino %ailo, 2r. to 1nance the construction o" housing units without a $ou(t

re$oun$e$ to the (ene1t o" his "amily, without a$$ucing a$eustice an$ $ue process. A party may

change his legal theory on appeal only when the "actual (ases thereo" woul$ not reect property, sent out notices to acate, a$$resse$ to persons occupying the property.

Unhee$e$, petitioner then 1le$ a complaint "or e>ectment against the occupants (e"ore the

etropolitan /rial Court.

Issue: Who has the (ur$en o" proo"O

Ruling: /he only ei$ence on recor$ as to when such prescriptie perio$ commence$ as to

each o" the respon$ents are Wenceslao Sumalinog-s &heir o" Ro(erta Aying' testimony that

a(out three years a"ter 6P4, they alrea$y learne$ o" the eistence o" the 8tra=2u$icia

artition o" Real 8state with %ee$ o" A(solute Sale@ an$ 0aurencio Aying-s &heir o"8miliano Aying' a$mission that he "oun$ out a(out the sale o" the lan$ in $ispute a long time

ago an$ can only estimate that it must (e a"ter martial law. aulino Ayin &heir o" Simeon

Aying' gae no testimony whatsoeer as to when the chil$ren o" Simeon Aying

actually learne$ o" the eistence o" the $ocument o" sale. n the other han$, petitioner $i$ not

present any other ei$ence to proe the $ate when respon$ents were noti1e$ o" the

eecution o" the su(>ect $ocument. In iew o" the lack o" unam(iguous ei$ence o" when the

heirs o" 8miliano Aying an$ Simeon Aying $iscoere$ the eistence o" the $ocument o" sale, it

must (e $etermine$ which party ha$ the (ur$en o" proo" to esta(lish such "act. /he test "or

$etermining where the (ur$en o" proo" lies is to ask which party to an action or suit will "ail i" he


11/37

o?ers no ei$ence competent to show the "acts aerre$ as the (asis "or the relie" he seeks to

o(tain. oreoer, one alleging a "act that is $enie$ has the (ur$en o" proing it an$ unless the

party asserting the a!rmatie o" an issue sustains the (ur$en o" proo" o" that issue (y a

prepon$erance o" the ei$ence, his cause will not succee$. /hus, the $e"en$ant (ears

the (ur$en o" proo" as to all a!rmatie $e"enses which he sets up in answer to the plainti?-s

claim or cause o" action@ he (eing the party who asserts the truth o" the matter he has allege$,

the (ur$en is upon him to esta(lish the "acts on which that matter is pre$icate$

an$ i" he "ails to $o so, the plainti? is entitle$ to a er$ict or $ecision in his "aor.

14. (autista v. Sarmieto

1$% SCRA 5%&

Topic: ;uatum of ,roof i Crimial Cases

Facts: Complainant %r. 0eticia C. 9ap 1le$ a case o" esta"a against %r. Fe #autista, ilagros

Corpus an$ /eresita Nergere. /he case was hear$ (e"ore the sala o" 2u$ge alcolm H.

Sarmiento. /he accuse$ 1le$ a motion to $ismiss on the groun$ o" insu!ciency o" ei$ence

against them (ut it was $enie$. /hey were later "oun$ guilty "or sai$ crime.

Issue: Whether or not coniction can (e ha$ in a criminal case only upon proo" (eyon$

reasona(le $ou(t an$ not on a mere prima "acie case.

Ruling: /here is no $enying that in a criminal case, unless the guilt o" the accuse$ is esta(lishe$

(y proo" (eyon$ reasona(le $ou(t, he is entitle$ to an ac


12/37

2%4 SCRA 6&$

Topic: (urde of ,roof

Facts: 8smun$o Riera 1le$ an e>ectment case against eregrino an$ erlin$a

iram(el alleging that they constructe$ their house in his lan$ as in$icate$ (y a priate surey.

Be presente$ the "ollowing ei$ence: priate surey commissione$ (y Riera which was not

properly authenticate$ (y the #ureau o" 0an$s, a letter o" the $istrict lan$ o!cer to Riera

in"orming him that his application cannot (e gien $ue course (ecause o" a priorapplication. /C rule$ in "aor o" Riera (ecause he was a(le to esta(lish his cause o" action

through prepon$erance o" ei$ence. /he R/C reerse$ /C-s $ecision (ecause the houses o"

the iram(els were (uilt outsi$e the lan$ o" Riera an$ locate$ in a pu(lic lan$. Riera

appeale$ to the CA saying that R/CDs 1n$ings lack ei$entiary support. /he CA "oun$ that (oth

$ecisions are not supporte$ (y su(stantial ei$ence. Accor$ing to the CA, there shoul$ (e a

1el$ surey $irecte$ (y the court or ocular inspection o" the su(>ect premises,

an$ not >ust the sole surey con$ucte$ (y Riera which is sel"= sering i" without thorough

eri1cation.

Issue: Whether or not Riera was a(le to proe the "act that iram(els are within his property.

Ruling: Go. #asic is the rule in ciil cases that the party haing the (ur$en o" proo" must

esta(lish his case (y a prepon$erance o" ei$ence.; repon$erance o" ei$ence

simply means ei$ence which is o" greater weight or more conincing than that which is

o?ere$ in opposition to it. In the present e>ectment case, petitioner &as plainti?' has the (ur$en

o" proing that the houses o" priate respon$ents were locate$ within his title$ lan$. /o >usti"y

a >u$gment in his "aor, petitioner must there"ore esta(lish a prepon$erance o"

ei$ence on this essential "act. /he etant recor$s o" this case support the 1n$ing o" the Court

o" Appeals that the a regate o" ei$ence su(mitte$ (y (oth parties was insu!cient to

$etermine with certainty whether the priate respon$ents- houses were insi$e the

petitioner-s title$ property. As note$ (y Respon$ent Court, priate respon$ents- claim that

their houses were (uilt on pu(lic lan$ is not conincing (ecause petitioner has a

trans"er certi1cate o" title oer the same parcel o" lan$. 0ikewise unconincing is the priate

surey commissione$ (y the petitioner himsel" to proe that the houses o" priate

respon$ents encroache$ on his property. /he relia(ility o" the surey woul$ hae (een

in$u(ita(le ha$ it (een properly authenticate$ (y the #ureau o" 0an$s or (y o!cials thereo".

Where the ei$ence on an issue o" "act is in e


13/37

45& SCRA 652

Topic: ;uatum of ,roofust or authori3e$ cause in their $ismissal. n appeal, #enares u$gment call this Court shall not inter"ere with in

the a(sence o" any showing that the G0RC a(use$ its $iscretion in so $oing. It is well to note

at this point that in u$icial procee$ings, the +516+1


14/37

Topic: ;uatum of ,roof

Facts: erce$es %u$uaco charge$ 2u$ge 0ily 0au$ges are (y nature, highly penal in character an$ are to (e goerne$ (y the rules

applica(le to criminal cases. /he ustice

pre>u$icial to the rights o" parties or to the right $etermination o" the cause. In this case,

respon$ent-s re"usal to pay the $e$ucti(le "ranchise was >usti1e$. Ber insistence that

the $eman$ to pay (e in writing, together with her re"usal to a! her signature in the (lank

"orm, $i$ not amount to grae miscon$uct, a(use o" >u$icial o!ce or gross ignorance o" the law.

She was only eercising her legal right. Ba$ respon$ent signe$ the (lank "orm, she woul$ (e

$eeme$ to hae waie$ her earlier protest an$ woul$ hae lost the right to claim "or re"un$.

1%. State ,rosecutors v. 3uro

2$6 SCRA 5+5

Topic: >udicial otice


15/37

Facts: /he case at (ar inoles the prosecution o" the 66 charges against Imel$a arcos in

iolation o" the Central #ank Foreign 8change Restriction in the Central #ank Circular P+

2u$ge anuel uro $ismisse$ all 66 cases solely on the (asis o" the report pu(lishe$ on E

newspapers, which the >u$ge (eliees to (e reputa(le an$ o" national circulation, that the res.

o" the hilippines li"te$ all "oreign echange restrictions. /he respon$ent-s $ecision was

"oun$e$ on his (elie" that the reporte$ announcement o" the 8ecutie %epartment in the

newspaper in e?ect repeale$ the C# P+ an$ there(y $ieste$ the court o" its >uris$iction to

"urther hear the pen$ing case. Be "urther conten$s that the announcement o" the resi$ent as

pu(lishe$ in the newspaper has ma$e such "act a pu(lic knowle$ge that is su!cient "or the

>u$ge to take >u$icial notice which is $iscretionary on his part.

Issue: Whether or not the >u$ge may take >u$icial notice o" a statute (e"ore it (ecomes

e?ectie.

Ruling: Go. atters o" >u$icial notice hae three material reuris$iction o" the

court. 2u$icial notice is not eu$icial knowle$ge. /he mere personal knowle$ge o"

the >u$ge is not the >u$icial knowle$ge o" the court, an$ he is not authori3e$ to make his

in$ii$ual knowle$ge o" a "act, not generally or pro"essionally known, the (asis o" his

action. 2u$icial notice cannot (e taken o" a statute (e"ore it (ecomes e?ectie. A law not yet in

"orce an$ hence still ineistent, cannot (e o" common knowle$ge capa(le o" un


16/37

2+. Service @ide Specialists) *c. v. Court of Appeals

-.R. o. 11&&2%

Topic: Admissio of 8iability

Facts: Sericewi$e 1le$ a complaint "or replein an$or sum o" money with $amages against

spouses 8$uar$o an$ Felisa /olosa, allegin g that the spouses "aile$ to pay

the installments $ue on the purchase price o" a >eepney $espite seeral $eman$s.

0ater on, Sericewi$e amen$e$ its complaint an$ inclu$e$ 8$uar$o Harcia as $e"en$ant

alleging that the /olosa spouses, without Sericewi$eDs knowle$ge an$ consent,

eecute$ an$ $eliere$ to Harcia a %ee$ o" Sale with Assumption o" ortgage oer the

>eepney sought to (e recoere$. 0our$es #artina 1le$ a complaint=in= interention

claiming that the ehicle su(>ect o" the complaint was sol$ to her (y #inan otors owne$

(y Harcia an$ that the ehicle was in her possession when it was sei3e$ (y the sheri?

an$ therea"ter turne$ oer to Sericewi$e. 0ater, #artina an$ Harcia an$ #inan otors, with the

assistance o" their respectie counsels, moe$ to $ismiss the complaint=in=interention. /hey

allege$ that they ha$ arrie$ at an amica(le settlement o" their claims. /he $ecision was

ren$ere$ (y the trial court an$ inclu$e$ Harcia in the payment o" lia(ility to Sericewi$e.

Issue: Whether or not an o?er to compromise is consi$ere$ an a$mission o" lia(ility in ciil

cases.

Ruling: Go. /he compromise (etween #artina an$ Harcia an$ #inan otors cannot (e taken as

an a$mission o" HarciaDs lia(ility. In ciil cases, an o?er o" compromise is not an a$mission

o" any lia(ility. With more reason, a compromise agreement shoul$ not (e treate$ as an

a$mission o" lia(ility on the part o" the parties is=a=is a thir$ person. /he compromise

settlement o" a claim or cause o" action is not an a$mission that the claim is ali$, (ut merely

a$mits that there is a $ispute, an$ that an amount is pai$ to (e ri$ o" the controersy, nor is a

compromise with one person an a$mission o" any lia(ility to someone else. /he policy o"

the law shoul$ (e, an$ is, to encourage compromises. When they are ma$e, the rightso" thir$ parties are not in any way a?ecte$ there(y.

21. alada v. >ulio

1+ SCRA 4++

Topic: Admissio

Facts: Clemente %alan$an 1le$ a ciil case against Nictoria 2ulio alleging in their complaint

that what transpire$ (etween the "ormer an$ Nictorina %alan$an is not a "acto $e retrosale (ut an e


17/37

a material allegation, so that the same cannot (e $eeme$ a$mitte$ (y

$e"en$ants &appellees' who 1le$ the motion to $ismiss. As a rule, the complaint shoul$

contain allegation o" ultimate "acts constituting the plainti?Ds cause o" action. Geither is it

proper to allege in a plea$ing in"erences o" "act "rom "acts not state$, or incorrect in"erences

"rom "acts state$, "or they are not the ultimate "acts reu$gment in a complaint, (eing a conclusion an$ not a materia

allegation, is not $eeme$ a$mitte$ (y the party who 1les a motion to $ismiss.

22. ort#est !riet Airlies v. Court of Appeals

241 SCRA 1'2

Topic: ?orei" >ud"met as Evidece

Facts: lainti? Gorthwest rient Airlines authori3e$ $e"en$ant C.F. Sharp Co. through its 2apan

(ranch, to sell the "ormerDs airlines tickets. Sharp "aile$ to remit the procee$s o" the ticket sales

it ma$e on (ehal" o" Gorthwest which le$ the latter to sue in /okyo "or collection o" the

unremitte$ amount with claim "or $amages. /he /okyo %istrict Court o" 2apan ren$ere$

>u$gment or$ering Sharp to pay Gorthwest an$ Sharp "aile$ to appeal making the >u$gment

1nal. Boweer, Gorthwest "aile$ to eecute the $ecision in 2apan, hence, it 1le$ a suit "or

en"orcement o" the >u$gment (e"ore the Regional /rial Court o" anila. Sharp 1le$ its answer

aerring that the >u$gment o" the 2apanese court is null an$ oi$ an$ unen"orcea(le in this

>uris$iction hain (een ren$ere$ without $ue an$ proper notice to Sharp.

/he trial court grante$ the $emurrer to ei$ence motion o" Sharp, hol$ing that the "oreign

>u$gment in the 2apanese court sought to (e en"orce$ is null an$ oi$ "or want o" >uris$iction

oer the person o" the $e"en$ant.

Issue: Whether or not "oreign >u$gment in the 2apanese court nee$ to (e proe$ as ei$ence in

the hilippine courts.

Ruling: A "oreign >u$gment is presume$ to (e ali$ an$ (in$ing in the country "rom which it

comes, until the contrary is shown. It is also proper to presume the regularity o" the

procee$ings an$ the giing o" $ue notice therein. Un$er Section *+, Rule 7P o" the Rules o"

Court, a >u$gment in an action in personam o" a tri(unal o" a "oreign country haing >uris$iction

to pronounce the same is presumptie ei$ence o" a right as (etween the parties an$ their

successors=in=interest (y a su(seu$gment may, howeer, (e assaile$ (y

ei$ence o" want o" >uris$iction, want o" notice to the party, collusion, "rau$, or clear mistake o"law or "act. Also, un$er Section 7 o" Rule 676, a court, whether o" the hilippines or elsewhere,

en>oys the presumption that it was acting in the law"ul eercise o" >uris$iction an$ has

regularly per"orme$ its o!cial $uty. Conseu$gment. In an attempt to $ischarge that (ur$en, it conten$s that the

etraterritorial serice o" summons e?ecte$ as its home o!ce in the hilippines

was not only ine?ectual (ut also oi$, an$ the 2apanese Court $i$ not, there"ore, acuris$iction oer it. It is settle$ that matters o" reme$y an$ proce$ure such as those relating to


18/37

the serice o" process upon a $e"en$ant are goerne$ (y the le "ori or the internal law o" the

"orum. In this case, it is the proce$ural law o" 2apan where the >u$gment was ren$ere$ that

$etermines the ali$ity o" the etraterritorial serice o" process on Sharp. As to what this

law is a u$ge reerse$ his iews, an$ rule$ in "aor o" the City (y citing such

ei$ence.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court may alter its ruling as to ei$ence presente$ in a case.

Ruling: 9es. A court o" >ustice may alter its ruling while the case is within its power, to make it

con"orma(le to law an$ >ustice. %e"en$antsD reme$y was to (ring to the attention o" the court

its contra$ictory stance. Got haing $one so, this Court will not reopen the case solely "or this

purpose. 8limination o" the certi1cation as ei$ence woul$ not pro1t $e"en$ants. For, inreersing his stan$, the trial >u$ge coul$ well hae taken, (ecause he was $uty (oun$ to take,

>u$icial notice o" the r$inance appropriating an amount "or the school. /his is (ecause the city

charter o" anila reu$icial notice o" al

or$inances passe$ (y the municipal (oar$ o" anila. An$ the or$inance itsel" con1rms the

certi1cation a"oresai$ that an appropriation o" hp 6++,+++.++ was set asi$e "or the

construction o" a$$itional (uil$ing o" the 8pi"anio $e los Santos 8lementary School.

24. -alle"o v. ,eople

% SCRA %1$

Topic: >udicial otice

Facts: Florentino Hallego, in iew o" hol$ing a religious meeting at the pu(lic market without the

re


19/37

error "or the Court o" Appeals to take >u$icial notice o" r$inance Go. E, series o" 6P*5 o"

0am(unao, Iloilo when the trial court itsel" allege$ly $i$ not take cogni3ance o" the or$inance.

Issue: Whether or not the Court may (e prohi(ite$ in taking >u$icial notice o" an or$inance.

Ruling: Go. /here is nothing in the law that prohi(its a court "rom taking cogni3ance o" a

municipal or$inance. n the contrary, Section * o" Rule 6E7 o" the Rules o" Court en>oins courts

to take >u$icial notice o" matters which are capa(le o" unu$icial notice o" such.

Issue: Whether or not the CA shoul$ take >u$icial notice o" the or$er o" 2u$ge Harlitos.

Ruling: 9es. Firstly, that the rules o" proce$ure an$ >urispru$ence $o not sanction the grant o"

ei$entiary alue in or$inary trials o" ei$ence which is not "ormally o?ere$, an$ secon$ly, that

a$>ectie law is not to (e taken lightly "or without it, the en"orcement o" su(stantie law may

not remain assure$. /he Court must a$$, neertheless, that technical rules o" proce$ure are

not en$s in themseles (ut primarily $eise$ an$ $esigne$ to help in the proper an$ epe$ient

$ispensation o" >ustice. In appropriate cases, there"ore, the rules may hae to (e so construe$

li(erally as to meet an$ a$ance the cause o" su(stantial >ustice. A court will take >u$icia

notice o" its own acts an$ recor$s in the same case "acts esta(lishe$ in prior procee$ings in the

same case o" the authenticity o" its own recor$s o" another case (etween the same parties, o"

the 1les o" relate$ cases in the same court, an$ o" pu(lic recor$s on 1le in the same court. In

a$$ition >u$icial notice will (e taken o" the recor$, plea$ings or >u$gment o" a case in another

court (etween the same parties or inoling one o" the same parties, as well as o" the recor$ o"

another case (etween $i?erent parties in the same court. 2u$icial notice will also (e taken o"

court personnel.


20/37

26. Tabuea v. Court of Appeals

1'6 SCRA 65+

Topic: ?ormal !er of Evidece

Facts: 2uan eralta 2r., the hal"=(rother o" petitioner 2ose /a(uena, sol$ a parcel o" lan$ to

Al"re$o /a(ernilla while the two were in the Unite$ States. /a(ernilla returne$ to the hilippines

an$ upon his reect lan$ was coneye$ to him (y %amasa, eralta-s mother. /he

latter, howeer, reercito 8stra$a $enies he resigne$ as resi$ent or that he su?ere$ "rom

a permanent $isa(ility an$ conten$s that the !ce o" the resi$ent was not acant when

respon$ent Hloria acapagal Arroyo took her oath as presi$ent. /o oerturn his claim, the

prosecution presente$ the Angara %iary which contains $irect statements o" petitioner: his

proposal "or a snap presi$ential election where he woul$ not (e a can$i$ate@ his

statement that he only wante$ the 1e=$ay perio$ promise$ (y Chie" o" Sta? Angelo Reyes@ his

statements that he woul$ leae (y on$ay i" the secon$ enelope woul$ (e opene$ (y


21/37

on$ay@ an$ his statement that he is ery tire$ an$ he >ust wants to clear his name then he wil

go.

Issue: Whether or not the Angara $iary relie$ upon is iolatie o" the hearsay

ei$ence rule.

Ruling: Go. /he Angara %iary is not an out o" court statement. It is part o" the plea$ings in the

case at (ar. etitioner cannot complain that he was not "urnishe$ a copy o" the $iary since the

same was "re


22/37

the $irecties issue$, or worse, an a$mission o" guilt. /here"ore, the Supreme Court was

incline$ to (eliee that the respon$ent is guilty o" all the charges against him.

2'. ,eople v. Serrao

-.R. o. 81&'$&

Topic: Testimoy of Cocospirators

Facts: 8ulogio Serrano, Cenon Serrano, Anastacio Reyes et al. were charge$ "or killing a(lo

Gaarro in conspiracy with each other. /he accuse$ $enie$ all allegations an$ presente$

$i?erent ali(is. %uring the trial o" the case (e"ore the lower courts, Anastacio Reyes was

$ischarge$ to testi"y as a witness "or the prosecution. Reyes narrate$ (e"ore the court the

eents that took place "rom the time he an$ his co=conspirators plotte$ the killing up until the

(o$y o" the ictim was hi$.

Issue: Whether or not the lone testimony o" Anastacio Reyes is su!cient to

proe the conspiracy (etween the parties.

Ruling: 9es. /he appellants conten$ that in or$er that the testimony o" a conspirator may (e

a$missi(le in ei$ence against his co=conspirator, it must appear an$ (e shown (y ei$ence

other than the a$mission itsel" that the conspiracy actually eiste$ an$ that the person who is

to (e (oun$ (y the a$mission was a priy to the conspiracy@ an$ as there is nothing (ut the

lone testimony o" prosecution witness Anastacio Reyes, a co=conspirator, the trial court erre$

in 1n$ing that conspiracy has (een esta(lishe$ an$ in conictin the appellants (ase$ upon the

lone testimony o" their co=conspirator. /he contention $oes not merit serious consi$eration

(ecause the rule that /he act or $eclaration o" a conspirator relating to the conspiracy an$

$uring its eistence, may (e gien in ei$ence against the co=conspirator a"ter the conspiracy

is shown (y ei$ence other than such act or $eclaration, applies only to etra=>u$icial acts or

$eclaration, (ut not to testimony gien on the stan$ at the trial, where the $e"en$ant has the

opportunity to cross=eamine the $eclarant. An$ while the testimony o" accomplices or

con"e$erates in crime is always su(>ect to grae suspicion, comin g as it $oes

"rom a pollute$ source, an$ shoul$ (e receie$ with great caution an$ $ou(tingly eamine$,

it is neertheless a$missi(le an$ competent.

$+. ,eople v. (ulos

-.R. o. 12$542

Topic: Admissio

Facts: #oth Gancy Cor$ero an$ Rogelio #ulos are stay=in=workers "or spouses ario

an$ %elia Fariolan. Gancy was the cook an$ general househelp while Rogelio worke$

as a truck helper "or the (usiness o" ario. ne $ay when the spouses were away, Rogelio

rape$ Gancy. %uring his trial, Rogelio an$ the com(ine$ testimonies o" ario an$ Conra$o

eri$o, sought to esta(lish that Rogelio was not at the FariolansD house on the a"ternoon in


23/37

testi1e$ that Rogelio in "act le"t the Fariolans- house a"ter he ha$ alrea$y rape$ his sister.

Cor$ero also sai$ that the accuse$ in "act o?ere$ marriage to Gancy, that the Fariolan spouses

actiely persua$e$ Gancy to accept the o?er o" marriage, an$ that Gancy re"use$.

Issue: Whether or not the o?er o" marriage in rape cases is an a$mission o" guilt.

Ruling: 9es. /he Court takes into consi$eration the Light o" Rogelio the $ay a"ter the rape, an$

his o?er o" marriage to the ictim a"ter the inci$ent ha$ (een reporte$ to the authorities.

As a rule in rape cases, an o?er o" marriage to the o?en$e$ party is an a$mission o"guilt. In this case, it was proe$ that Rogelio $i$ in$ee$ o?er marriage to the ictim. /hus, he is

"oun$ guilty o" the crime o" rape.

$1. Commissioer of *teral Reveue v. 0ate Tradi" Co.) *c.

454 SCRA $+1

Topic: (est Evidece Rule

Facts: Bante /ra$ing Co. is a corporation engage$ in the sale o" plastic pro$ucts. 0t. NicenteAmoto, Acting Chie" o" Counter=Intelligence %iision o" the 8conomic Intelligence an$

Inestigation #ureau &8II#', receie$ con1$ential in"ormation that Bante ha$ importe$

synthetic resin amountin to 66*,*PP,+6.++ (ut only $eclare$ 4*,*7,P4.*5. An

inestigation was con$ucte$ an$ the "ollowing were presente$ against Bante: certi1e$ copies

o" Bante-s ro1t an$ 0oss Statement on 1le with the S8C@ machine copies o" the Consumption

8ntries su(mitte$ (y the in"ormer@ an$ ecerpts "rom the entries certi1e$ (y the inestigators.

A$ministratie hearings an$ Bante wrote the #IR Commissioner, ect o" the assessment

process, the accounting recor$s o" other tapayers engage$ in the same line o" (usiness

inclu$ing their gross pro1t an$ net pro1t sales. Such ei$ence also inclu$es $ata, recor$, paper,

$ocument or any ei$ence gathere$ (y internal reenue o!cers "rom other tapayers who ha$

personal transactions or "rom whom the su(>ect tapayer receie$ any income@ an$ recor$

$ata, $ocument an$ in"ormation secure$ "rom goernment o!ces or agencies, such as the S8C,

the Central #ank o" the hilippines, the #ureau o" Customs, an$ the /ari? an$

Customs Commission. /he law allows the #IR access to all releant or material recor$s an$

$ata in the person o" the tapayer. It places no limit or con$ition on the type or "orm o" the

me$ium (y which the recor$ su(>ect to the or$er o" the #IR is kept. /he purpose o" the law is to

ena(le the #IR to get at the tapayerDs recor$s in whateer "orm they may (e kept. Such

recor$s inclu$e computer tapes o" the sai$ recor$s prepare$ (y the tapayer in the course o"

(usiness. In this era o" $eeloping in"ormation=storage technology, there is no ali$ reason to

immuni3e companies with computer=(ase$, recor$=keeping capa(ilities "rom #IR scrutiny. /he


24/37

stan$ar$ is not the "orm o" the recor$ (ut where it might she$ light on the accuracy o" the

tapayerDs return.

$2. Sy v. Court of Appeals

$$+ SCRA 55+

Topic: !ri"ial ocumet

Facts: Filipina Sy an$ Fernan$o Sy are marrie$ an$ (lesse$ with E chil$ren. Fernan$o le"t his

"amily later an$ neer returne$. Filipina 1le$ a petition "or legal separation (ut later amen$e$ it

to a petition "or separation o" property, which was grante$ (y the court. She then later 1le$ a

petition "or legal separation on the groun$s o" a(an$onment an$ physical iolence against her

hus(an$, which was grante$ (y the Court. Filipina then 1le$ a petition "or $eclaration o"

a(solute nullity o" her marriage to Fernan$o on the groun$ o" psychological incapacity citing

ha(itual alcoholism, re"usal to lie with her without >ust cause, an$ re"usal to hae se with her.

/he trial court $enie$ her petition since her groun$s $o not constitute psychological incapacity.

/his was uphol$ (y the appellate court. n appeal to the Supreme Court, she allege$ lack o"

marriage license as her new groun$, attaching therein mere photocopies o" a marriage license

an$ marriage certi1cate.

Issue: Whether or not a mere photocopy o" a $ocument is a$missi(le in ei$ence.

Ruling: A marriage license is a "ormal reections

haing (een ma$e as to their authenticity an$ $ue eecution, means that these

$ocuments are $eeme$ su!cient proo" o" the "acts containe$ therein. 0ikewise,

no o(>ection was interpose$ to petitioner-s testimony in open court when she a!rme$ that the

$ate o" the actual cele(ration o" their marriage was on Goem(er 6*, 6P57. /here"ore, haing

(een a$mitte$ in ei$ence, with the a$erse party "ailing to timely o(>ect thereto, these

$ocuments are $eeme$ su!cient proo" o" the "acts containe$ therein.

$$. 0eirs of ela Cru v. Court of Appeals

-.R. o. 11&$%4

Topic: !ri"ial ocumet

Facts: Felomino an$ Hregorio a$ri$ allege$ly sol$ 7 parcels o" lan$ to /eo$oro $ela an$

allege$ly eecute$ a %ee$ o" Sale in "aor o" the latter. %ela Cru3 an$ his heirs took possession

o" the lan$ (ut they "oun$ out that a /orrens /itle in the name o" the a$ri$ (rothers were

issue$ on the su(>ect lan$s, so they 1le$ a petition "or reconeyance. /he a$ri$ (rothers

$enie$ haing eecute$ the %ee$ o" Sale an$ allege$ it to (e "alsi1e$. /he original copy o" the


25/37

%ee$ o" Sale was sai$ to (e lost, thus only a photocopy was presente$ $uring trial. /o proe $ue

eecution o" the %ee$ o" Sale, the Gotary u(lic-s testimony that his signature in the %ee$ o"

Sale was genuine was o?ere$. /he a$ri$s $i$ not o(>ect to the a$missi(ility o"

the photocopy. %espite this, the trial court rule$ that the photocopy was

ina$missi(le (ecause no proo" was presente$ as to the loss or $estruction o" the retaine$ copy

(y the Gotary pu(lic or the $uplicate copy hel$ (y the a$ri$s. It was then hel$ that there was

no ali$ sale an$ the case was $ismisse$. n appeal to the CA, the photocopy was hel$

a$missi(le (ut has no pro(atie alue, so still the trial court-s $ecision was uphel$. /he CA hel$

that $espite the Gotary u(lic-s testimony, the %ee$ o" Sale is not trustworthy

since the allege$ suriin g witness was not presente$ to corro(orate the Gotary

u(lic-s testimony.

Issue: Whether or not the photocopy o" the %ee$ o" Sale is ina$missi(le as ei$ence an$ i" it

has pro(atie alue.

Ruling: 9es. /he photocopy o" the %ee$ o" Sale is a$missi(le as ei$ence (ut has no pro(atie

alue. Gonetheless, the petitioners- appeal was grante$ (ecause their possession was neer


26/37

were issue$ in 0e$esma-s name. When the En$ installment was pai$ to the corporation, %ela

Rama $eman$e$ the return o" his shares. 0e$esma re"use$ so %ela Rama 1le$ a collection

case against the "ormer. n his answer, 0e$esma $enie$ the eistence o" the

agreement accompanyin g the sale o" shares o" stocks. 0e$esma raise$ as $e"enses

that the in$orsement (y %e la Rama o" the Stock Certi1cate in


27/37

$ocuments. /o proe the allege$ oral etension o" the perio$ to repurchase, one witness who

was allege$ to (e present when ariano agree$ to eten$ the time was presente$. /he tria

court rule$ that Canuto may eercise her right to repurchase. ariano appeale$

asking that parol ei$ence may not (e intro$uce$ to proe the allege$ etension o" time.

Issue: Whether parol ei$ence may (e intro$uce$ to proe the allege$ etension o" time.

Ruling: 9es, consi$ering the circumstances. Re"usal (y the en$ee o" a ali$ ten$er or o?er o"

purchase price in the eercise o" the en$or-s right to repurchase preseres the en$or-sright to repurchase. /he $e"en$ant haing eten$e$ the time within which the plainti?

coul$ repurchase the lan$ on con$ition that she woul$ 1n$ the money an$ make repurchase

within the eten$e$ perio$, it is clear that he cannot (e permitte$ to repu$iate his promise, it

appearing that the plainti? stoo$ rea$y to make the payment within the eten$e$ perio$, an$

was only preente$ "rom $oing so (y the con$uct o" the $e"en$ant himsel". /he SC citing the

cases o" Rosales s. Reyes an$ r$oe3a &E* hil. Rep., 4P*', rule$ that that a (ona 1$e o?er or

ten$er o" the price agree$ upon "or the repurchase is su!cient to presere the rights o" the

party making it, without the necessity o" making >u$icial $eposit, i" the o?er or ten$er is

re"use$. /he case o" an$ in the case o" Fructo s. Fuentes &6* hil. Rep., 7E' was "urther cite$

hol$ing that in such cases when $iligent e?ort is ma$e (y the en$or o" the lan$ to eercise the

right to repurchase resere$ (y him in his $ee$ o" sale an$ "ails (y reason o" circumstances

oer which he has no control, we are o" the opinion an$ so hol$ that he $oes not lose his right

to repurchase on the $ay o" maturity.

$6. 8ec#u"as v. Court of Appeals

14$ SCRA $$5

Topic: ,arol Evidece Rule

Facts: etitioner Nictoria 0echugas 1le$ an unlaw"ul entry case against priate

respon$ents arina 0o3a, Sala$or 0o3a et al. Another case was 1le$ "or recoery an$

possession o" the same property an$ (oth cases was trie$ >ointly. etitioner testi1e$ that she

(ought the lan$ "rom 0eoncia 0asangue in 6P*+. riate respon$ents conten$e$ that the same

lan$ in


28/37

sell is lot **EE (ut not (eing a(le to rea$ an$ write an$ "ully relying on the goo$ "aith o" her

cousin, petitioner, she >ust place$ her thum( mark on a piece o" paper.

$&. ,eople v. ?racisco

&% ,#il. 6'4

Topic: 3arital is=ualiBcatio Rule

Facts: 2uan Francisco, who ha$ (een preiously arreste$ on charges o" ro((ery, was

(eing hel$ as $etention prisoner. Be was charge$ with the crime o" parrici$e. n a isit to his

"amily, Francisco allege$ly woun$e$ his wi"e an$ cause$ the $eath o" their chil$. Francisco-s

wi"e testi1e$ against him, which he later ect to cross=eamination in the usual manner. It is well= esta(lishe$ that where

an accuse$ intro$uces his wi"e as a witness in his (ehal", the state is entitle$ to ection to the spouse-s competency must (e ma$e when he or she is 1rst o?ere$ as witness

an$ that the incompetency may (e waie$ (y the "ailure o" the accuse$ to make timely

o(>ection to the a$mission o" the spouse-s testimony, although knowing o" such

incompetency, an$ the testimony a$mitte$, especially i" the accuse$ has assente$ to the

a$mission, either epressly or implie$ly. ther courts hae hel$ that the witness-s testimony is

not a$missi(le een with the other spouse-s consent. Clearly, i" the statute proi$es that aspouse shall in no case testi"y against the other ecept in a prosecution "or an o?ense against

the other, the "ailure o" the accuse$ to o(>ect $oes not ena(le the state to use the spouse as a

witness.

$%. !rdoo v. a=ui"a

2 SCRA 2&+


29/37

Topic: 3arital is=ualiBcatio Rule

Facts: Aelino r$oJo was charge$ with rape haing rape$ his $aughter, 0eonora. In support o"

that complaint, Catalina #alanon r$oJo, the mother o" 0eonora, eecute$ a sworn statement

wherein she $isclose$ that on that same $ate, 0eonora ha$ apprise$ her o" the outrage (ut no

$enunciation was 1le$ (ecause Aelino r$oJo threatene$ to kill 0eonora an$ Catalina i" they

reporte$ the crime to the police. Catalina r$oJo in her sworn statement "urther reeale$ that

her hus(an$ ha$ also rape$ their other $aughter, Rosa. Aelino r$oJo, inoke$ the marita

$isuries, (igamy, a$ultery or concu(inage, or shoul$ it (e gien a latitu$inarian

interpretation as re"errin g to any o?ense causing marital $iscor$O /here is a $ictum that

where the marital an$ $omestic relations are so straine$ that there is no more harmony to (e

presere$ nor peace an$ tranect

properties. Another contract o" lease was eecute$ (y r. /an Teh an$ Remigio in "aor o"

priate respon$ent to "urther sa"eguar$ the latter-s interest on the su(>ect properties, (ut

priate respon$ent neer pai$ any rental an$ no $eman$ whatsoeer "or the payment thereo"

ha$ (een ma$e on him. Remigio was kille$. At his wake, petitioners were remin$e$ o" /an Tiat-s

ownership o" the su(>ect properties an$ they promise$ to trans"er the su(>ect properties to /an

Tiat who (y then ha$ alrea$y ac


30/37

etitioners, howeer, neer ma$e goo$ their promise to coney the su(>ect properties

$espite repeate$ $eman$s (y /an Tiat. In "act, petitioners ha$ the su(>ect properties

"rau$ulently trans"erre$ to their names.

Issue: Whether ei$ence is a$missi(le.

Ruling: Ina$missi(le. etitioners are in possession o" a /C/ which ei$ences their ownership o"

the su(>ect properties. n the other han$, /an Tiat relies simply on the allegation that he is

entitle$ to the properties (y irtue o" a sale (etween him an$ Ale>an$ro /an Teh who isnow $ea$. (iously, priate respon$ent will rely on parol ei$ence which, un$er

the circumstances o(taining, cannot (e allowe$ without iolatin g the %ea$

an-s Statute; "oun$ in Section E7, Rule 67+ o" the Rules o" Court. /he o(>ect an$ purpose o"

the rule is to guar$ against the temptation to gie "alse testimony in regar$ o" the transaction in

oint a!$ait o" 2uan Quiam(ao an$ Ale>an$ro Ramos stating that to their knowle$ge 0i(unao

ha$ $ie$ in 6P56 an$ ha$ (een interre$ at the 0oyola emorial ark. With this, petitioners

claime$ that Cecilia an$ arian A(a$, who were (orn in 6P4 an$ 6P*4 respectiely, are not

then the illegitimate chil$ren o" Ricar$o, (ut rather the legitimate chil$ren o" the spouses

0i(unao an$ 8mpayna$o. /hey likewise su(mitte$ the a!$ait o" %r. e$ro Arenas, Ricar$oDs

physician, $eclarin g that in 6P7*, he ha$ eamine$ Ricar$o an$ "oun$ him to(e in"ecte$ with gonorrhea, an$ that the latter ha$ (ecome sterile as a

conseoint a!$ait as to the suppose$ $eath o" 0i(unao was not

competent ei$ence to proe the latterDs $eath at that time, (eing merely secon$ary ei$ence

thereo". 0i(unaoDs $eath certi1cate woul$ hae (een the (est ei$ence as to when the latter


31/37

$ie$. /he Court rule$ "urther that as to %r. ArenasD a!$ait, the same was ina$missi(le an$ the

same remains ina$missi(le in ei$ence, notwithstan$ing the $eath o" Ricar$o A(a$ as (eing

priilege$ communication un$er Section E4 &c', Rule 67+ o" the Rules o" Court. /he rule on

con1$ential communications (etween physician an$ patient re


32/37

in"erre$ that he ma$e the same un$er the consciousness o" impen$in $eath,

consi$ering that he $ie$ only one hour a"ter (eing shot.

42. ,eople v. e -racia

1% SCRA 1'&

Topic: yi" eclaratios

Facts: /he roincial Fiscal o" 0anao $el Gorte charge$ Al"re$o Sala, Garciso $e

Hracia, an$ Raymun$o Sorima with the crime o" mur$er "or the killing o" 8rnesto Flores. A"ter

(eing sta((e$ (y respon$ents, Flores rushe$ away in the $irection o" his "atherDs house

shouting "or help. Tauswagan Nice=ayor Gemesio Agawin, who was then rea$ing a

newspaper in his house, was attracte$ (y these shouts. Be imme$iately got his riLe, went

$own an$ "ollowe$ Flores, 1nally oertaking him in the (ack stairs o" his "atherDs house, sitting

(y the stairs (ut supporte$ (y his two (rothers, an$ with his intestines protru$ing out o" his

a($omen. Upon AgawinDs in


33/37


Facts: /he $ecease$, 2uan A$incula, was a resi$ent o" the (arrio o" Salitran, in the

municipality o" %asmariJas, roince o" Caite. Crispo 0ara was charge$ with his mur$er. 0ara

shot A$incula, who sought help in the house o" a neigh(or, Feli Ramire3. A$incula "oun$ the

"amily o" Ramire3 sitting at the ta(le eating their eening meal@ an$ he tol$ them that he ha$

(een shot (y the 0ara at the same time ehi(iting the (loo$y stain on his le"t si$e. Ramire3 at

once calle$ the (arrio lieutenant, one Ciriaco Reyes@ an$ upon the arrial o" the latter,

A$incula repeate$ his account o" the occurrence, a$$ing that he was weak "rom the painresulting "rom his woun$ an$ that he woul$ not surie. /he net $ay the >ustice o" the peace o"

the municipality, one Restituto aman, took A$inculaDs a!$ait, in which the $eclarant

reiterate$ what he ha$ tol$ the lieutenant, (ut upon this occasion he sai$ he "elt (etter an$ he

in$icate$ to the >ustice o" the peace that he thought he woul$ not $ie o" the woun$. n the net

$ay A$incula was taken to the hilippine Heneral Bospital in the City o" anila where he

remaine$ "or three weeks, at the en$ o" which time he was $ischarge$. In a "ew $ays

howeer, the (ullet, which ha$ neer (een etracte$ "rom the shoul$er, (egun to make trou(le

again, an$ A$incula was taken (ack to the hospital, where (loo$ poisoning "rom the interna

woun$ soon $eelope$ an$ later on, A$incula $ie$.

Issue: Whether or not the statements o" A$incula regar$ing 0ara as the one who shot him can

(e a$mitte$ as $ying $eclarations.

Ruling: /he statement ma$e to Ciriaco Reyes in the house o" Feli Ramire3, was in our opinion

a$missi(le as a $ying $eclaration (ecause when this $eclaration was ma$e the $ecease$ was

weak, complaine$ o" the pain which he was su?ering "rom the woun$ an$ state$ that he woul$

not surie. It is true that the $ecease$ lie$ "or nearly si weeks a"ter that statement was

ma$e, an$ in this interal recoere$, to eternal appearances, almost completely

"rom the woun$. Geertheless it appears that in the en$ the $ecease$ $ie$ "rom the same

woun$@ an$ the a$missi(ility o" the 1rst $eclaration $epen$s upon the state o"

min$ o" the $ecease$ when the $eclaration was ma$e, an$ not upon the length o" timethat elapse$ (etween the inLiction o" the woun$ an$ the $eclarantDs $eath. /his statement

supplies ample proo" that the accuse$ was the author o" A$inculaDs $eath. It was not a $ying

$eclaration with regar$ to the a!$ait gien to the >ustice o" the peace (y the $ecease$ on the

$ay a"ter the "atal in>ury was inLicte$, "or the reason that when that $eclaration was ma$e the

$ecease$ in$icate$ that he was un$er the impression that the in>ury woul$ not (e "atal.

44. .S. v. ela Cru

12 ,#il. %&


Facts: /imoteo %i3on, together with a (an$, ha$ >ust committe$ ro((ery in two houses when

they were surprise$ (y Consta(ulary "orces which attacke$ them, resulting to the woun$ing o" a

mem(er an$ in the $eath o" %i3on. /he accuse$ appellants were conicte$ o" the crime

o" ro((ery in an arme$ (an$. /he accuse$ appellants were conicte$ (ase$ on the ante=

mortem statements o" %i3on, "or the purpose o" i$enti"ying the appellants as mem(ers o" the

(an$. /he ante=mortem statements a$mitte$ (y the trial court were an allege$ etra= >u$icia

$eclaration ma$e (y %i3on a "ew hours (e"ore his $eath, wherein he con"esse$ his guilt o" the


34/37

ro((ery an$ state$ that the appellants were mem(ers o" the (an$. /he ei$ence "urther

$iscloses that this con"ession was ma$e to the proincial 1scal an$ an o!cer o" the

Consta(ulary, an$ that, although the appellants were there present, un$er arrest, charge$

with the commission o" the crime, an$ hear$ the $ying man charge them with (eing mem(ers

o" the (an$, they kept silent an$ $i$ not attempt to $eny the charge.

Issue: Whether or not the $ying $eclarations o" %i3on is a$missi(le to proe mem(ership o" the

accuse$ in the (an$ which committe$ the ro((eries.

Ruling: Go. /he groun$s "or the a$mission o" ei$ence o" co=conspirators clearly

reure$ party. Counsel "or $e"en$ant

insiste$ that the witness was competent, arguin g that the $is


35/37

the parties to a procee$in g is calle$ to testi"y@ that the parties to the prosecution

o" a criminal case are the Hoernment an$ the accuse$@ that, "urthermore, the marriage o"

%inal to the witness haing (een $issole$ (y the $eath o" her hus(an$, she is no longer

his wi"e, an$ there"ore not su(>ect to any $isustice "or the epress purpose that it shoul$ (e testi1e$ to in the prosecution o"

the $e"en$ant. /he Supreme Court "oun$ that the trial court erre$ in eclu$in g

the testimony o" the witness Susana 83peleta, an$ that (y reason o" such

eclusion, the accuse$ was $eprie$ o" one o" his essential rights. /hat (ein the case, a new

trial must (e grante$.

46. 3acasiray v. ,eople

2'1 SCRA 154

Topic: @aiver to Admissibility of Evidece

Facts: etitioners elecio acasiray, Nirgilio Hon3ales an$ #ene$icto Hon3ales were

charge$ with mur$er "or the $eath o" 2ohnny Nillanuee. In the course o" the trial, the

prosecution intro$uce$ in ei$ence the etra>u$icial con"ession eecute$ (y appellant

#ene$icto Hon3ales an$ the transcript o" stenographic notes taken $uring the preliminary

inestigation wherein he a!rme$ the contents o" his con"ession. /he $e"ense o(>ecte$ thereto

on the groun$ o" ina$missi(ility "or haing (een eecute$ without assistance o" counsel. /he

trial court sustaine$ the o(>ection o" the $e"ense which, nonetheless, presente$ appellant

Hon3ales "or the sole purpose o" $enying the contents o" the con"ession an$ the transcript o"

stenographic notes. It $i$ not mark the con"ession as one o" its ehi(its. A riee$ (y

the ruling o" the trial court, the prosecution eleate$ the issue to the Court o" Appeals which


36/37

reerse$ the trial court. It rule$ that "ailure o" the $e"ense to moe "or the eclusion o"

the $ocuments constitutes a waier o" their o(>ection.

Issue: Whether or not the "ailure o" the $e"ense to moe "or the eclusion o"

the $ocuments constitutes a waier o" their o(>ection.

Ruling: /here is no waier to a$missi(ility o" the $ocuments where o(>ections were

ma$e $uring the stage o" "ormal o?er@ that o(>ection to the $ocument $urin g their

i$enti1cation an$ markin g is not eection $uring their "ormal o?er@ an$that there is no nee$ to impeach appellant where his etra>u$icial con"ession an$ the

transcript o" stenographic notes wherein he a$mitte$ lia(ility ha$ (een eclu$e$ in

ei$ence.

4&. 8ope v. alde

$2 ,#il. 644

Topic: !bDectio to Admissibility of Evidece

Facts: /his is an action (egun (y #enito 0ope3, the a$ministrator o" the estate o" arcela

8mra$ura, $ecease$, against /omas Nal$e3 "or the recoery o" possession o" the lan$

/he Court o" First Instance rule$ in "aor o" the plainti?. %e"en$ant went to the Supreme Court

assigning as error the proce$ure a$opte$ (y the court when o(>ections were interpose$ (y

counsel "or $e"en$ant to ection that the ei$ence was incompetent

an$ improper as the $ocuments themseles were the (est ei$ence. A $ecision on these

o(>ections was thus le"t in a(eyance an$ the trial terminate$ without a resolution o" the


37/37

45 ,#il. 6&6

Topic: Cofessio

Facts: Santa Singh, an 8ast In$ian, was "oun$ $ea$ on the si$ewalk in "ront o" his tien$a in

Ca(anatuan, Guea 8ci>a. /here were three kni"e woun$s on the (o$y, one o" them necessarily

mortal. Sometime the accuse$ #u$a Singh con"esse$ to a "rien$ o" his, Ram Singh that he ha$

kille$ Santa Singh an$ relate$ the $etails o" the crime, implicating 1e other 8ast In$ians in its

commission. n a su(seos.; Suspecting that #u$a Singh regrette$ hain g ma$e the

con"ession an$ contemplate$ killing him, Ram Singh reporte$ the matter to the

authorities an$ the present action was institute$ against #u$a Singh an$ his 1e allege$

companions. n motion o" the 1scal the case was $ismisse$ against all o" the $e"en$ants

ecept #u$a Singh. Upon trial, the court (elow "oun$ #u$a Singh guilty o" homici$e. /he

counsel o" #u$a moe$ that the con"ession ma$e (y Ram Singh (e stricken "rom the recor$ on

the groun$ that it ha$ not (een shown a!rmatiely (y $irect ei$ence that the con"ession ha$

(een ma$e "reely an$ oluntarily.

Issue: Whether or not the con"ession ma$e (y #u$a Singh to Ram Singh is a$missi(le.

Ruling: 9es. /here is no merit in this contention. /he ei$ence was clearly a$missi(le. Act Go

6P, upon which the argument o" counsel is ei$ently (ase$, has (een repeale$ (y the

A$ministratie Co$e an$ ei$ence o" a con"ession may now (e receie$ without $irect

a!rmatie ei$ence that the con"ession was "reely an$ oluntarily ma$e. &U.S. s. ara, 4E hil

7+.' /he "act that the court, in its $ecision, takes the con"ession into

consi$eration must (e regar$e$ as a $enial o" the motion to strike it "rom the recor$ an$ i" the

$e"en$ant $esire$ to intro$uce "urther ei$ence in re(uttal, the matter shoul$ hae (een

(rought to the attention o" that court through the appropriate motion.

Evidence Digests 02

Documents

Transcript of Evidence Digests 02