Testimonial Privilege- Hearsay

7/26/2019 Testimonial Privilege- Hearsay

1/46

TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE

G.R. No. 177861 July 13, 2010

N RE: PETITION FOR CANCELLATION AN CORRECTION OF ENTRIESN T!E RECOR OF "IRT!,

MMA #. LEE, P$%&%&o'$(, )*. CO+RT OF APPEALS, RITA #. LEE,EONCIO #. LEE, L+CIA #. LEEONG, J+LIAN #. LEE, MARTIN #. LEE,

ROSA LEEVANERLE#, MELO- LEEC!IN, !ENR- #. LEE,ATIVIA LEEMIG+EL, VICTORIANO #. LEE, '/ T!OMAS #. LEE,

$($*$'%$/ y RITA #. LEE, * A%%o('$y&'F%, R$*o'/$'%*.

acts:

Spouses Lee Tek Sheng (Lee) and Keh Shiok Cheng (Keh) entered thehilippines in the 193s as i!!igrants "ro! China# The$ had 11 children%ollecti&el$ called herein as the Lee'Keh children#

n 19% Lee +rought "ro! China a $oung ,o!an na!ed Tiu Chuan (Tiu)%

upposedl$ to ser&e as house!aid# The respondent Lee'Keh children +elie&ehat Tiu le"t the Lee'Keh household% !o&ed into another propert$ o" Leeear+$% and had a relation ,ith hi!#

Shortl$ a"ter Keh died in 199% the Lee'Keh children learned that Tiu-shildren ,ith Lee (collecti&el$% the Lee-s other children) clai!ed that the$% too%

,ere children o" Lee and Keh# This pro!pted the Lee'Keh children to re.uesthe /ational 0ureau o" n&estigation (/0) to in&estigate the !atter# "teronducting such an in&estigation% the /0 concluded in its report:

t is &er$ o+&ious that the !other o" these children is certainl$ not K4556K C54/7% +ut a !uch $ounger ,o!an% !ost pro+a+l$ T8 C58/#pon "urther e&aluation and anal$sis +$ these gents% L44 T4K S54/7 is in.uandar$ in "iing the age o" K45 S56K C54/7 possi+l$ to con"or! ,ithis grand design o" !aking his children as their o,n legiti!ate children%onse.uentl$ ele&ating the status o" his second "a!il$ and secure theiruture# The doctor la!ented that this co!plaint ,ould not ha&e +eenecessar$ had not the "ather and his second "a!il$ kept on insisting that thechildren are the legiti!ate children o" K45 S56K C54/7#1

The /0 "ound% "or ea!ple% that in the hospital records% the eldest o" theee-s other children% arcelo Lee (,ho ,as recorded as the 1;th child o" Leend Keh)% ,as +orn o" a 1% ?ule 13 o" t?ules o" 4&idence% ,hich reads:

S4CT6/ ;># Parental and "ilial pri&ilege#' /o person !a$ +e co!pelledtesti"$ against his parents% other direct ascendants% children or other dirdescendants#

The a+o&e is an adaptation "ro! a si!ilar pro&ision in rticle 31> o" the CCode that applies onl$ in cri!inal cases# 0ut those ,ho re&ised the ?ulesCi&il Procedure chose to etend the prohi+ition to all kinds o" actio,hether ci&il% cri!inal% or ad!inistrati&e% "iled against parents and other dirascendants or descendants#

0ut here Tiu% ,ho in&okes the "ilial pri&ilege% clai!s that she is step!other o" petitioner 4!!a Lee# The pri&ilege cannot appl$ to th+ecause the rule applies onl$ to DdirectD ascendants and descendants"a!il$ tie connected +$ a co!!on ancestr$# stepdaughter has no co!!ancestr$ +$ her step!other# rticle 9=> thus pro&ides:

rt# 9=># The direct line is either descending or ascending# The "or!er unithe head o" the "a!il$ ,ith those ,ho descend "ro! hi!# The latter +indsperson ,ith those "ro! ,ho! he descends#

Conse.uentl$% Tiu can +e co!pelled to testi"$ against petitioner 4!!a Lee

AMISSIONS AN CONFESSIONS

!EIRS OF PERO CLEMEA - G.R. No. 1444085+R"ANO,P$%&%&o'$(*, P($*$'%:)*!EIRS OF IRENE ". "IEN,R$*o'/$'%*. P(oul%$/:

Facts:

* tract o" land a+out ;%= s.uare !eters ,as one o" three lots2; in&ol&in t,o consolidated cases23 "or reco&er$ o" possession and o,nership "iin the 19s

+$ respondents predecessor rene 0ien (through her attorne$'in'"7regorio Cle!ea) against petitioner-s predecessor Pedro Cle!ea $ Eur+an

* rene 0ien in her co!plaint a&erred that she ac.uired the parcel o" land purchase "ro! ictoriano /apa as per deed o" sale in her "a&or A and


2/46

aid ictoriano /apa in turn ac.uired the sa!e +$ purchase "ro! Franciscoarra!eda ,ho also +ought the said land "ro! the ad!inistrator o" the estate" Pedro Cle!ea $ Conde ,hich sale had +een dul$ authoriGed andppro&ed +$ this 5onora+le Court in Ci&il Case /o# 31'n re The 4state o"edro Cle!ea $ CondeA thatA de"endant (Pedro Cle!ea H Eur+ano) e&erince he ,as re!o&ed as ad!inistrator o" the 4state o" Pedro Cle!ea $

Conde in the $ear 1939 deli+eratel$ continued to occup$ and usurp theossession and use o" the a+o&e descri+ed parcel o" land % and has e&er

ince re"used to relin.uish the possession o" the sa!e to the la,"ul o,nerAhat +$ reason o" this unla,"ul occupation and usurpation +$ the de"endant%he plainti"" ,ill su""er da!ages and in "act has su""ered da!ages +eginninghis 6cto+er 193 har&est at the rate o" ;>ca&ans o" pala$ per har&est or >a&ans $earl$#

n his ans,er% Pedro Cle!ea $ Eur+ano alleged that the land ,as his andhat it ,as in his eclusi&e possession#2> 5is clai! o" o,nership ,asi!ilarl$ +ased on a sale +$ the estate o" the late Pedro Cle!ea $ Conde tois predecessor'in'interest#

/either one o" the original parties li&ed to see the end o" the trial# 0othlainti"" and Ie"endant dies# The$ ,ere su+stituted +$ their heirs#

?TC ruled in a !odi"ied decision that the contending parties had "ailed toro&e their respecti&e clai!s o" o,nership and there"ore the land in .uestiontill +elonged to its original o,ner% the estate o" the late Pedro Cle!ea $

Conde# ?TC also stated that

ince Jno da!ages ha&ing +een pro&ed% no a,ard concerning is a,ardedsic)#

Fro! that order% respondents appealed to the Court o" ppeals (C)# t ,asocketed as C'7#?# C /o# >91;# n a decision dated pril % ;;%213he C a""ir!ed the ?TCs resolution o" the issues relating to the other t,oarcels o" land +ut re&ersed the ruling on the o,nership o" the land co&ered$ TI >;99# t proceeded to a,ard respondents P11% in da!ages aso!pensation "or their ha&ing +een depri&ed o" possession and the o,nershare in the har&est#

Petitioners no longer dispute respondents o,nership o" the propert$o&ered +$ TI >;99# The$ insist% ho,e&er% that the$ cannot +e held lia+le toespondents "or the har&est +ecause (1) the$ ne&er took possession o" theropert$ declared in TI >;99 and (;) the e&idence the C relied on toeter!ine the a!ount o" da!ages% proceeding as it did "ro! one o" thelainti""s% ,as sel"'ser&ing and there"ore could not ha&e +een a proper +asisor such an a,ard#

**u$: B6/ the a&er!ent o" Pedro Cle!ea $ Eur+ano (petitioners-redecessor) in his ns,er constituted a @udicial ad!ission

Rul&': H4S

etitioners contention that the land ,as ne&er in their possession should +eis!issed outright "or t,o reasons% +oth o" the! si!ple and rather o+&ious#

irst% petitioners predecessor Pedro Cle!ea $ Eur+ano alleged in his ans,erhat the land declared in TI >;99 ,as in his eclusi&e possession#21= Thattate!ent% inso"ar as it con"ir!ed the allegation in the co!plaint thatetitioners predecessor had retained possession o" the land in .uestion%21

Petitioners ne,l$'contri&ed assertion that the$ ,ere ne&er in possession

the land cannot hold up against these pronounce!ents# s su+stitutde"endants% the$ ,ere +ound +$ the ad!ission o" Pedro Cle!ea $ Eur+antheir predecessor in the litigation#2;= Bithout an$ sho,ing that the ad!iss,as !ade through palpa+le !istake or that no such ad!ission ,as !adpetitioners cannot no, contradict it#

dditional /otes:

Sel"'ser&ing e&idence is not to +e taken literall$ to !ean an$ e&idence thser&es its proponents interest#2;9 The ter!% i" used ,ith an$ legal senre"ers onl$ to acts or declarations !ade +$ a part$ in his o,n interestso!e place and ti!e out o" court% and it does not include testi!on$ that gi&es as a ,itness in court#23 4&idence o" this sort is ecluded on the saground as an$ hearsa$ e&idence% that is% lack o" opportunit$ "or croea!ination +$ the ad&erse part$ and on the consideration that its ad!iss,ould open the door to "raud and "a+rication#231 n contrast% a partesti!on$ in court is s,orn and su+@ect to cross'ea!ination +$ the othpart$%23; and there"ore% not suscepti+le to an o+@ection on the ground thais sel"'ser&ing#

G.R. No. 18017 Ju'$ 23, 200

FRANCISCO N. VILLAN+EVA, P$%&%&o'$(, )*. VIRGILIO P. "ALAG+ER'/ INTERCONTINENTAL "ROACASTING CORPORATION C!ANNE13, R$*o'/$'%*.

-NARESSANTIAGO, J.:

FCTS:

6n arch 31% 199;% petitioner Francisco /# illanue&a% then ssistanager "or 6perations o" ntercontinental 0roadcasting CorporatiChannel 13 (0C'13) ,as dis!issed "ro! e!plo$!ent on the ground o" loo" con"idence "or purportedl$ selling "orged certi"icates o" per"or!anContesting his ter!ination% petitioner "iled a co!plaint "or illegal dis!is+e"ore the /ational La+or ?elations Co!!ission#

Iuring the pendenc$ o" the la+or case% ne,s articles a+out irregularities0C'13 ,ere pu+lished in the ul$ 1% 199; issue o" the anila Ti!es and Philippine Star% and in the ul$ 19% 199; issue o" the anila 0ulletin#


3/46

n these ne,s articles% respondent irgilio P# 0alaguer% then President o" 0C'3% ,as .uoted to ha&e said that he unco&ered &arious ano!alies in 0C'13uring his tenure ,hich led to the dis!issal o" an operations eecuti&e "orelling "orged certi"icates o" per"or!ance#

n a letter dated ul$ ;% 199;% petitioner urged respondents to con"ir! oren$ i" he ,as the person alluded to in the ne,s article as the operations

ecuti&e o" 0C'13 ,ho ,as dis!issed "or selling "orged certi"icates o"er"or!ance# /one o" the respondents replied to the letter#

6n Septe!+er ;>% 199;% petitioner "iled +e"ore the ?egional Trial Court o"MueGon Cit$ a co!plaint "or da!ages against 0alaguer# Petitioner clai!edhat respondents caused the pu+lication o" the su+@ect ne,s articles ,hiche"a!ed hi! +$ "alsel$ and !aliciousl$ re"erring to hi! as the 0C'13perations eecuti&e ,ho sold "orged certi"icates o" per"or!ance# 5e allegedhat in causing these "alse and !alicious pu+lications% respondents &iolated

rticles 19% ;% ;1% and ;= o" the Ci&il Code#

alaguer denied that he had an$thing to do ,ith the pu+lications# 5o,e&er%e argued that the pu+lications are not actiona+le +ecause the$ are true and

,ithout !aliceA are o" legiti!ate pu+lic concern and interest +ecause 0C'13s under se.uestrationA that petitioner is a ne,s,orth$ and pu+lic "igureA and

hat the$ are pri&ileged co!!unication# 0alaguer "iled a counterclai! againstetitioner "or alleged !alicious "iling o" the ci&il case#

0C'13 also denied participation in the pu+lications# t clai!ed that assu!ingress state!ents ,ere issued during a press con"erence% the sa!e ,asone solel$ +$ 0alaguer ,ithout its authorit$ or sanction# 0C'13 also "iled aounterclai! against petitioner and a cross'clai! against 0alaguer#

6n ugust 31% 1993% the La+or r+iter rendered a Iecision "indingetitioner-s dis!issal as illegal% ,hich ,as a""ir!ed +$ the /ational La+or

?elations Co!!ission# The Co!!ission% ho,e&er% declared respondents toe acting in good "aith% hence% it deleted the a,ard o" !oral and ee!plar$a!ages#

o,e&er% on 6cto+er ;9% ;3% the ?egional Trial Court o" MueGon Cit$ heldhat petitioner is entitled to an a,ard o" da!ages#

?espondents !o&ed "or reconsideration +ut it ,as denied# 5ence% the$ppealed to the Court o" ppeals ,hich granted their appeal and re&ersedhe ?TC-s decision#

SS84:

1) Bhether or not the respondents- "ailure to respond to the letter o" theetitioner constitutes ad!ission on his part that he ,as the source o" the saide"a!ator$ ne,s reports

;) Bhether or not 0C-s cross'clai! against 0alaguer is an ad!ission

gainst the latter

R+LING:

he petition lacks !erit#

1) 6ur ?ules o" Court state that each part$ !ust pro&e his o,n a""ir!ati&ellegations and that the +urden o" proo" lies on the part$ ,ho ,ould +ee"eated i" no e&idence ,ere gi&en on either side# Thus% in ci&il cases% theurden o" proo" is generall$ on the plainti""% ,ith respect to his co!plaint#

n pro&ing his clai!% petitioner relied on the ul$ ;% 199; letter% thee,spaper articles% and the alleged ad!ission o" respondents# 0ased on the+o&e pieces o" e&idence% the Court "inds that petitioner ,as una+le to

discharge his +urden o" proo"# s such% the Court o" ppeals propedis!issed the co!plaint "or da!ages#

Petitioner argues that +$ not responding to the letter ,hich epressl$ urgthe! to repl$ i" the state!ents therein contained are untrue% respondentse""ect ad!itted the !atters stated therein% pursuant to the rule on ad!iss+$ silence in Sec# 3;% ?ule 13% and the disputa+le presu!ption t

ac.uiescence resulted "ro! a +elie" that the thing ac.uiesced in ,con"or!a+le to the la, or "act#

Petitioner-s argu!ent lacks !erit# 6ne cannot pro&e his clai! +$ placing t+urden o" proo" on the other part$# "ailure to ans,er such ad&eassertions in the a+sence o" "urther circu!stances !aking an ans,re.uisite or natural has no e""ect as an ad!ission#D

oreo&er% the rule on ad!ission +$ silence applies to ad&erse state!ents,riting i" the part$ ,as carr$ing on a !utual correspondence ,ith declarant# 5o,e&er% i" there ,as no such !utual correspondence% the rulerelaed on the theor$ that ,hile the part$ ,ould ha&e i!!ediatel$ reacteda denial i" the state!ents ,ere orall$ !ade in his presence% such pro!response can generall$ not +e epected i" the part$ still has to resort to,ritten repl$#

Be also cannot assu!e an ad!ission +$ silence on the part o" 0alaguer&irtue o" his "ailure to protest or disclai! the attri+ution to hi! +$ ne,spapers that he is the source o" the articles# s eplained a+o&e% the ron ad!ission +$ silence is relaed ,hen the state!ent is not !ade orall$one-s presence or ,hen one still has to resort to a ,ritten repl$% or ,hthere is no !utual correspondence +et,een the parties#

s "or the pu+lications the!sel&es% ne,spaper articles purporting to st,hat the de"endant said are inad!issi+le against hi!% since he cannot held responsi+le "or the ,ritings o" third persons# s correctl$ o+ser&ed the Court o" ppeals% D,hile the su+@ect ne,s ite!s indicated that 0alag,as the source o" the colu!nists% pro&ing that he trul$ !ade such state!eis another !atter#D Petitioner "ailed to pro&e that 0alaguer did !ake sustate!ents#

/ota+l$% petitioner did not i!plead the editorial sta"" and the pu+lisher o" talleged de"a!ator$ articles# Contrar$ to petitioner-s assertion% he should haat least presented the authors o" the ne,s articles as ,itnesses to pro&e case against respondents in the a+sence o" an epress ad!ission +$ tlatter that the su+@ect ne,s articles ha&e +een caused +$ the!#

Petitioner also clai!s that respondents ha&e ad!itted that the$ held a precon"erence and caused the pu+lication o" the ne,s articles% +ased on t"ollo,ing testi!on$ o" 0alaguer#

TTH# 4/4E:

6ka$% Let !e ask another .uestion# /o, r# 0alaguer this pu+licatre"erred to so called ano!alies o" 19= to 199 no, ho, a+out ter!ination#

: 1991#

TTH# 4/4E:

Hes#

BT/4SS:


4/46

think the ter!ination o" r# illanue&a has nothing to do ,ith that presstate!ent release +ecause the period that co&ers that report is "ro! speci"icate 19= to 199# (TS/% < /o&e!+er ;% p# 19)

d!issions% ho,e&er% should +e clear and una!+iguous ,hich can hardl$ +eaid o" 0alaguer-s a+o&e testi!on$# " 0alaguer intended to ad!it thellegation that he conducted a press con"erence and caused the pu+lication

" the ne,s articles% he could ha&e done so# nstead% 0alaguer speci"icall$enied these allegations in paragraphs and > o" his ns,er#

;) Petitioner net argues that 0C'13-s Cross'Clai! against 0alaguer is and!ission +$ 0C'13% ,hich is ad!issi+le against 0alaguer pursuant to Sec#9% ?ule 13 as an ad!ission +$ a co'partner or an agent#

etitioner is !istaken# 0C'13-s cross'clai! against 0alaguer e""ecti&el$reated an ad&erse interest +et,een the!# 5ence% the ad!ission o" onee"endant is not ad!issi+le against his co'de"endant# 0esides% as alread$iscussed% the alleged acts i!puted to 0alaguer ,ere ne&er pro&en to ha&eeen co!!itted% !uch less !aliciousl$% +$ 0alaguer# alice or +ad "aith

!plies a conscious and intentional design to do a ,rong"ul act "or aishonest purpose or !oral o+li.uit$# Such !ust +e su+stantiated +$&idence#;

n su!% ,e "ind that petitioner "ailed to discharge his +urden o" proo"# /oatis"actor$ e&idence ,as presented to pro&e +$ preponderance o" e&idencehat respondents co!!itted the acts i!puted against the!# s such% there iso !ore need to discuss ,hether the assailed state!ents are de"a!ator$#

G.R. No. 14480 A(&l 21, 201

ARRA NIC#EL MINING AN EVELOPMENT CORP., TESORO MININGAN EVELOPMENT, INC., '/ MCART!+R MINING, INC., P$%&%&o'$(*,*. REMONT CONSOLIATE MINES CORP., ?espondent#

CTS:

o!eti!e in Iece!+er ;=% respondent ?ed!ont Consolidated inesCorp# (?ed!ont)% a do!estic corporation organiGed and eisting under

hilippine la,s% took interest in !ining and eploring certain areas o" thero&ince o" Pala,an# "ter in.uiring ,ith the Iepart!ent o" 4n&iron!ent andatural ?esources (I4/?)% it learned that the areas ,here it ,anted tondertake eploration and !ining acti&ities ,here alread$ co&ered +$ ineralroduction Sharing gree!ent (PS) applications o" petitioners /arra%esoro and crthur#

6n anuar$ ;% ;


5/46

ecs# ;9 and 31% ?ule 13 o" the ?e&ised ?ules o" Court pro&ide:

ec# ;9# d!ission +$ co'partner or agent#' The act or declaration o" aartner or agent o" the part$ ,ithin the scope o" his authorit$ and during theistence o" the partnership or agenc$% !a$ +e gi&en in e&idence againstuch part$ a"ter the partnership or agenc$ is sho,n +$ e&idence other thanuch act or declaration itsel"# The sa!e rule applies to the act or declaration

" a @oint o,ner% @oint de+tor% or other person @ointl$ interested ,ith the part$#

ec# 31# d!ission +$ pri&ies#' Bhere one deri&es title to propert$ "ro!nother% the act% declaration% or o!ission o" the latter% ,hile holding the title%

n relation to the propert$% is e&idence against the "or!er#

etitioners clai! that +e"ore the a+o&e'!entioned ?ule can +e applied to aase% Dthe partnership relation !ust +e sho,n% and that proo" o" the "act !uste !ade +$ e&idence other than the ad!ission itsel"#D Thus% petitionersssert that the C erred in "inding that a partnership relationship eistset,een the! and 0 +ecause% in "act% no such partnership eists#

ccording to the Supre!e Court% a partnership is de"ined as t,o or !oreersons ,ho +ind the!sel&es to contri+ute !one$% propert$% or industr$ to ao!!on "und ,ith the intention o" di&iding the pro"its a!ong the!sel&es# 6nhe other hand% @oint &entures ha&e +een dee!ed to +e DakinD to partnershipsince it is di""icult to distinguish +et,een @oint &entures and partnerships#hus:

The relations o" the parties to a @oint &enture and the nature o" theirssociation are so si!ilar and closel$ akin to a partnership that it is ordinaril$eld that their rights% duties% and lia+ilities are to +e tested +$ rules ,hich arelosel$ analogous to and su+stantiall$ the sa!e% i" not eactl$ the sa!e% ashose ,hich go&ern partnership# n "act% it has +een said that the trend in thea, has +een to +lur the distinctions +et,een a partnership and a @ointenture% &er$ little la, +eing "ound applica+le to one that does not appl$ tohe other#

hough so!e clai! that partnerships and @oint &entures are totall$ di""erent

ni!als% there are &er$ "e, rules that di""erentiate one "ro! the otherA thus%oint &entures are dee!ed DakinD or si!ilar to a partnership# n "act% in @ointenture agree!ents% rules and legal incidents go&erning partnerships arepplied#

ccordingl$% culled "ro! the incidents and records o" this case% it can +e

ssu!ed that the relationships entered +et,een and a!ong petitioners and0 are no si!ple D@oint &enture agree!ents#D s a rule% corporations are

rohi+ited "ro! entering into partnership agree!entsA conse.uentl$%orporations enter into @oint &enture agree!ents ,ith other corporations orartnerships "or certain transactions in order to "or! Dpseudo partnerships#D

6+&iousl$% as the intricate ,e+ o" D&enturesD entered into +$ and a!ong

etitioners and 0 ,as eecuted to circu!&ent the legal prohi+itiongainst corporations entering into partnerships% then the relationship createdhould +e dee!ed as Dpartnerships%D and the la,s on partnership should +epplied# Thus% a @oint &enture agree!ent +et,een and a!ong corporations

!a$ +e seen as si!ilar to partnerships since the ele!ents o" partnership areresent#

Considering that the relationships "ound +et,een petitioners and 0 areonsidered to +e partnerships% then the C is @usti"ied in appl$ing Sec# ;9%

?ule 13 o" the ?ules +$ stating that D+$ entering into a @oint &enture% 0a&e a @oint interestD ,ith /arra% Tesoro and crthur#

T!E PEOPLE OF T!E P!ILIPPINES, Pl&'%&99A$ll$$, ). RICAROATENCIO, SILVESTRE COLISAO, '/ OMINGO ATENCIO, $9$'/'%

FCTS:

0oni"acio 7re!io agreed to ha&e a good ti!e ,ith ?icardo tencio% Io!intencio and Sil&estre Colisao% accused in this case#

Bhen the$ reached the &icinit$ o" the house o" 7erardo ?apsing% ?icarin"or!ed 0oni"acio that the$ ,ere going to ro+ ?apsing% +ecause the lathad !one$#

0oni"acio o+@ected to the plan% reasoning that ?apsing is a relati&e o" "ather# 0ut ?icardo ,arned hi! that he +etter go ,ith the group% and i" (0oni"acio) ,ould in"or! on the!% he ,ould +e in a +ad "i#

5ence% 0oni"acio had to go ,ith the trio#

0oni"acio ,as instructed +$ ?icardo to sta$ on the ground ,hile the oththree (?icardo% Io!ingo and Sil&estre) ,ould go up the house o" 7era?apsing# Then% a"ter the$ had gone around the house three ti!es a+eca!e assured that the in!ates therein ,ere asleep% the$ entered throuthe kitchen door a"ter re!o&ing its +a!+oo +olt# Therea"ter% 0oni"acio heathe &oices o" t,o gro,n'ups and a child "ro! the house% "ollo,ed +$ hackor chopping sounds# "raid% he le"t the place and ,ent ho!e#

t a+out < o-clock o" the "ollo,ing !orning% Constancia alido% ,i"e7erardo ?apsing% returning "ro! the house o" a !arried daughter ,here shad slept the night +e"ore% "ound her hus+and% his nephe, Se+astian atheir helper Ianiel ?osita% all dead in their house% and their perso+elongings stre,n a+out the "loor#

?icardo tencio% ,ho ,as in&estigated +$ the police authorities o" 0o+on a suspect% su+scri+ed to a state!ent +e"ore the ustice o" the Peace% udalila% con"essing to the co!!ission o" the cri!e% together ,ith his thr

co!panions#

5o,e&er% tencio ga&e another state!ent to SOSgt# uanito Hrigin&estigator o" the 9=th PC Co!pan$% and su+scri+ed to +e"ore actunicipal a$or Protacio Poso o" 0o+on% ,herein he clai!ed to haco!!itted the cri!e alone and eplaining that he had pre&iousl$ +la!ed co!panions out o" personal ani!osit$#

The trial Court rendered @udg!ent against the three accused% "inding thguilt$ as charged% o" ro++er$ ,ith triple ho!icide attended +$ "i&e aggra&atcircu!stances e&ident pre!editation% treacher$% d,elling% nocturnit$% athe cri!e ha&ing +een co!!itted +$ a +and ,ithout an$ !itigatcircu!stance#

Muestion has +een raised against the lo,er Court-s "inding that Io!intencio and Sil&estre Colisao ,ere co'conspirators o" ?icardo tencio+eing asserted that there ,as no ade.uate proo" o" the eistence o" conspirac$% as pro&ided in Section ;< (no, Sec# 3) o" the ?e&ised ?ule 1o" the ?ules o" Court#

5ere% the accused ,ere contending that the lone testi!on$ o" ,itne0oni"acio 7re!io ,as insu""icient to con&ict the! +ecause according to S3:

Section 3# d!ission +$ conspirator# The act or declaration o"conspirator relating to the conspirac$ and during its eistence% !a$ +e gi&in e&idence against the co'conspirator a"ter the conspirac$ is sho,n e&idence other than such act o" declaration#


6/46

SS84:

B6/ the lone testi!on$ o" prosecution-s ,itness% 0oni"acio 7re!io isd!issi+le as e&idence to pro&e conspirac$

?8L/7:

H4S

he rule that QThe act or declaration o" a conspirator relating to theonspirac$ and during its eistence% !a$ +e gi&en in e&idence against the co'onspirator a"ter the conspirac$ is sho,n +$ e&idence other than such act oreclaration%- applies onl$ to etra@udicial acts or declaration% +ut not toesti!on$ gi&en on the stand at the trial% ,here the de"endant has thepportunit$ to cross' ea!ine the declarant#D Bhen 0oni"acio 7re!io% in thisase% took the ,itness stand and testi"ied on the participations o" Io!ingo

tencio and Sil&estre Colisao in the cri!e% he ,as not !aking an

d!ission or declaration as a co'conspiratorA he ,as an e$e',itnessdenti"$ing the! in connection ,ith the incident% and ,hose testi!on$ coulda&e +een shaken +$ cross'ea!ination or dispro&ed +$ other e&idence# s

happened here% 0oni"acio-s testi!on$ pointing to the eistence o"onspirac$ a!ong ?icardo tencio% Io!ingo tencio and Sil&estre Colisao%e!ained and ,ithstood cross'ea!inations +$ the separate counsel "or theccused#

!EARSA- EVIENCE AN ECEPTIONS

MARISSA R. +NC!+AN, P$%&%&o'$(, )*. ANTONIO J.P. LO5AA, ANITAO5AA '/ T!E REGISTER OF EES OF CE"+ CIT-, R$*o'/$'%*.

CTS:

isters nita LoGada Slaughter and Peregrina LoGada Sari+a$ ,ere theegistered co'o,ners o" t,o lots in Ce+u Cit$#

he sisters% ,ho ,ere +ased in the 8nited States% sold the lots to theirephe, ntonio #P# LoGada (ntonio) under a Ieed o" Sale# r!ed ,ith apecial Po,er o" ttorne$ "ro! nita% Peregrina ,ent to the house o" theirrother% Ir# ntonio LoGada (Ir# LoGada)% located at 3>= Facult$ &enue%ong 0each Cali"ornia#9

Ir# LoGada agreed to ad&ance the purchase price o" 8SR3=

Thus% a !an-s acts% conduct% and declaration% ,here&er !ade% i" &oluntaare ad!issi+le against hi!% "or the reason that it is "air to presu!e that thcorrespond ,ith the truth% and it is his "ault i" the$ do not#=

5o,e&er% as a "urther .uali"ication% o+@ect e&idence% such as the &ideotapethis case% !ust +e authenticated +$ a special testi!on$ sho,ing that it ,a"aith"ul reproduction#< Lacking this% the court ecluded as e&idence t&ideotaped state!ent o" nita#


7/46

# Petitioner su+!its a cop$ o" Peregrina-s !edical records to sho, that she,as con"ined at the artin Luther 5ospital "ro! Fe+ruar$ ;


8/46

SS84:

BO/ the Court o" ppeals co!!itted re&ersi+le error ,hen it un@usti"ia+l$isregarded petitioners e&idence sho,ing the supplied pu!ps as "akes andot o" DPeerlessD origin% on the ground that said e&idence is hearsa$#

The threshold issue raised is ,hether or not the "ire pu!ps supplied and

eli&ered +$ respondent to petitioner con"or!ed to the technicalpeci"ications o" the contract#)

4LI: /6#

?espondent reiterates that the e&idence presented +$ petitioner to pro&e thathe "ire pu!ps ,ere not genuine is inad!issi+le in e&idence "or +eingearsa$# ?espondent !aintains that% as sho,n +$ the e&idence on record%etitioner o,ed it P1%399%1#9 "or the "ire sprinkler supplies and "ire alar!$ste!#

etitioner insists that the "ire pu!ps supplied and installed +$ respondent arenot o" Peerless originD +ecause o" the "ollo,ing: (1) respondent "ailed toresent proo"s o" the genuineness o" the pu!psA (;) respondent "ailed to

ns,er petitioners letters re.uiring it to present the a"oresaid proo"s% thus%stoppel +$ silence appliesA and (3) the !anu"acturer o" the Peerless pu!pser+all$ in"or!ed Connel 0ros# that the su+@ect "ire pu!ps Dare not o"eerless origin#D

Bell'settled is the rule that the part$ alleging "raud or !istake in a transactionears the +urden o" proo"# The circu!stances e&idencing "raud are as &arieds the people ,ho perpetrate it in each case# t !a$ assu!e di""erent shapesnd "or!sA it !a$ +e co!!itted in as !an$ di""erent ,a$s# Thus% the la,e.uires that "raud +e esta+lished% not @ust +$ preponderance o" e&idence%ut +$ clear and con&incing e&idence#

n this case% petitioner relied on the principle o" estoppel +$ silence% as ,ells on Letter /o# LO93';


9/46

u""ering "ro! DCoronar$ rter$ Iisease and 4tensi&e nteriorseptal!iaD,ith the corresponding re!arks: DFor Iisa+ilit$% !pedi!ent 7rade 11;N)#D Feeling a+andoned and aggrie&ed ,ith 6SC and PSL% 0astol%hrough counsel% sent a /o&e!+er ;


10/46

d!ission ,hen La+or r+iter Lustria did not act on its otion to Iis!issled on ul$ ;>% ;1 on the ground o" 0astols "ailure to present additional&idence# /either did La+or r+iter Lustria gi&e it an opportunit$ to su+!itontrar$ e&idence +$ setting% at the &er$ least% another hearing# Thus% 6SConcludes that La+or r+iter Lustria acted ,antonl$% ,hi!sicall$ andapriciousl$ to its gra&e pre@udice +$ ad!itting and using the late su+!ission" 0astol as +asis "or his decision% and the C% in turn% gra&el$ erred inanctioning the La+or r+iter +$ granting 0astols petition "or certiorari# Be

annot agree# The nature o" the proceedings +e"ore the La+or r+iter is notnl$ non'litigious and su!!ar$% +ut the La+or r+iter is also gi&en great

ee,a$ to resol&e the caseA thus% he !a$ Da&ail hi!sel" o" all reasona+le!eans to ascertain the "acts o" the contro&ers$#D The +elated su+!ission o"

dditional docu!entar$ e&idence +$ 0astol a"ter the case ,as alread$u+!itted "or decision did not !ake the proceedings +e"ore the La+or r+iter!proper# The +asic reason is that technical rules o" procedure are notinding in la+or cases# ndeed% technical rules o" e&idence do not appl$ i" theecision to grant the petition proceeds "ro! an ea!ination o" its su""icienc$s ,ell as a care"ul look into the argu!ents contained in position papers andther docu!ents# nd neither can 6SC rel$ on lack o" due process# Thessence o" due process lies si!pl$ in an opportunit$ to +e heard% and not

hat an actual hearing should al,a$s and indispensa+l$ he held# Consideringhat 6SC indeed contested the late su+!ission o" 0astol +$ "iling its !ostehe!ent o+@ection thereto on /o&e!+er ; !e!+eactuall$ rati"ied the constitution and +$'la,s and the "act that ;= !e!+ea""ied their signatures on the docu!ents% !aking one signature a "orger$#

Finall$% 4agle ?idge contended that > e!plo$ees ,ho attended organiGational !eeting eecuted a""ida&its or Sinu!paang Sala$sa$ attestthat the$ arri&ed late at said !eetingA that the$ did not kno, that docu!ents the$ signed pertained to the organiGation o" a unionA and that thno, ,anted to +e ecluded "ro! the 8nion# The ,ithdra,al% 4agle ?id!aintained% reduced the union !e!+ership to ; or ;1% +elo, the !andat!ini!u! ;N !e!+ership re.uire!ent under rt# ;3(c) o" the La+or Co?eckoned "ro! 11; rank'and'"ile e!plo$ees o" 4agle ?idge% the re.uirnu!+er ,ould +e ;; or ;3 e!plo$ees#

To re+ut the allegations in the a""ida&its o" retraction o" the union !e!+e4?48 presented the Sa!a'Sa!ang Sinu!paang Sala$sa$ dated arch o" union !e!+ersA another Sa!a'Sa!ang Sinu!paang Sala$sa$% a+earing date arch ;% o" other union !e!+ersA and the S,orn State!dated arch 1= o" the 8nion-s legal counsel% tt$# Io!ingo T# fonue&These a""ida&its attested to the orderl$ and proper proceedings o" torganiGational !eeting on Iece!+er =% ;>#

I6L4 ?egional Iirector: 4agle ?idge-s petition "or cancellation ,as grant4?48 ,as delisted "ro! the roster o" legiti!ate la+or organiGations#

0ureau o" La+or ?elations (0L?): ?e&ersal# 4?48 shall re!ain in the roso" legiti!ate la+or organiGations#

C: Iis!issed 4agle ?idge-s ?#

SS84: B6/ the a""ida&its o" retraction are ad!issi+le in e&idence agaithe 8nion#

54LI:

The pro+ati&e &alue o" the a""ida&its cannot o&erco!e those o" the supporta""ida&its o" 1; union !e!+ers and their counsel as to the proceedings athe conduct o" the organiGational !eeting on Iece!+er =#

The = a""iants o" the a""ida&its o" retraction ,ere not presented in a hear+e"ore the 5earing 6""icer (I6L4 ?egional Iirector)% as re.uired under t

?ules !ple!enting 0ook o" the La+or Code co&ering La+or ?elatioSaid ?ules is e!+odied in Iepart!ent 6rder /o# (I6) '3 and took e""on arch 1>% ;3 to replace I6 9 o" 199


11/46


12/46

ntered in "a&or o" the "or!er% i" his e&idence is not su""icient to sustain hisause o" action#

ALLIE "AN#ING V* Sou%> P&9& Su(

G$' RBo' V* T&%&*

G.R. No. 178301 A(&l 2, 200

EOPLE OF T!E P!ILIPPINES, Pl&'%&99A$ll$$, )*. ROLANO

"o%o'D MALI"IRAN Au*$/, '/ "EVERL- TI"OTAN,Au*$/A$ll'%.

CTS:

?e$naldo Tan le"t his co!!on'la, ,i"e% ?osalinda FuerGas (?osalinda)% andheir t,o (;) children% essie and ?e$nalin% in Ia&ao% and ,ent to anila toeek greener pastures# Bhile in anila% ?e$naldo !et and had a relationship

,ith appellant# The$ e&entuall$ !arried in 191# ?e$naldo and appellantegot three (3) children ?ene&ie% ag'Carlo and a$ ?# n 19% ?e$naldosnd ?osalindas paths crossed again and the$ resu!ed their relationship#his led to the DsouringD o" ?e$naldos relationship ,ith appellantA and in991% ?e$naldo !o&ed out o" the con@ugal house and started li&ing again

,ith ?osalinda% although ?e$naldo !aintained support o" and paternal ties,ith his children#

6n Fe+ruar$ >% 199>% ?e$naldo and appellant ,ere in 7reenhills ,ith theirhildren "or their usual Sunda$ galli&ant# "ter "inishing lunch% ?e$naldoroceeded to the parking lot to get his red 5onda ccord% ,hile the rest o" hisa!il$ sta$ed +ehind and ,aited# !!ediatel$ therea"ter% the "a!il$ heard anplosion co!ing "ro! the direction ,here ?e$naldo parked his car#

ppellant and ?ene&ie got curious and proceeded to the parking lot# There%he$ sa, the 5onda ccord +urning% ,ith ?e$naldo l$ing +eside the dri&erseat% +urning% charred and +leeding pro"usel$# ?e$naldo ,as then rushed tohe Cardinal Santos edical 5ospital ,here he e&entuall$ died +ecause o"he se&ere in@uries he sustained#

n in"or!ation ,as "iled "or urder against ali+iran (alleged +o$"riend o"e&erl$A also a police!an) and another in"or!ation "or Parricide against

e&erl$#

Iuring trial% the prosecution presented 6s,aldo 0anaag (the "a!il$ dri&erAlso the one ,ho dro&e "or ali+iran and co!pan$ to plant the +o!+ in

?e$naldo-s car) and testi"ied that 0e&erl$ told hi! that she and ali+iran hadrelationship# 5e testi"ied that 0e&erl$ asked hi! to look "or a hired gun!an#hat ali+iran +la!es 0e&erl$ o" the reason ,h$ ?e$naldo is still ali&e and

hen &olunteered hi!sel" to re!ed$ the situation% that he ,ould seek a !anhat ,ould kill ?e$naldo he !ade an ea!ple o" a !an the$ killed and thre,n ntipolo D0anginD ,ith 0e&erl$% ali+iran and t,o other persons ,hoppear to +e police!an +ecause the$ ha&e so!ething +udging in their ,astesic ,hich is assu!ed to +e a gun% the$ ,ent to Pao!+ong 0ulacan &ia

ala+on# 5e heard that the$ ,ould "etch a !an in 0ulacan that kno,s ho, tolace a +o!+ in a &ehicle# /ear the sea the$ talked to a person thereat# Fro!ao!+ong the$ rode a +anca and ,ent to an islet ,here the planning ,as

discussed as to ho, !uch is the "ee and ho, the killing ,ill +e had# Thordered hi! to return +ack to the &ehicle and @ust "etched the!0inangonan#

6n Cross% he testi"ied that he ,ith 0e&erl$ ,ent to 5illtop Police Station a"etched ali+iran and co!pan$ to go to Pao!+ong 0ulacan# Bhen threached the +ridge near the sea% the$ rode a +anca% a+out si o" the! p

the one ro,ing the +oar to,ards an sland# n the sland% there ,as operson ,aiting# 5e sta$ed there "or @ust "or a+out ten (1) !inutes% aduring that period% at a+out one ar!s length he o&erheard their con&ersatconcerning a !an to +ring the +o!+ in the car#

The Prosecution also presented anet Pascual# She testi"ied that Iece!+er o" 199% 0e&erl$ ,as a+le to duplicate ?e$naldo-s ke$ at the ti,hen the$ ha&e shopped "or !an$ things% ?e$naldo asked her to +ring goods to the car in the co!part!ent as the kids ,ould still shop# "ter ha&done so% she proceeded to a ke$ duplicator in irra all and had the kduplicated# Therea"ter on the succeeding da$s or ,eeks% she ,as a+legi&e the duplicate to ali+iran# That the$ ,ould use the grenade sinali+iran has one in his house +ut his onl$ pro+le! is ho, to get inside tcar and place the grenade#

s to ,hen the killing ,ould take place% the ,itness heard that the$ ,ill doduring the +aptis! o" the child o" 7loria% ?olando ali+iran-s sister# Thchose that date so that the$ ,ould not +e suspected o" an$thing and tpictures ,ould +e taken in the +aptis! to re"lect that ali+iran took partthe sa!e# Iuring the ,ake% ,itness !et ali+iran and told her a!ong oththat on the da$ he placed a grenade on ?e$naldo-s car he sa, a securguard ro&ing and so ,hat he did ,as to hurriedl$ tie the ,ire in the grenad

s "ar as she kno,s% there ,ere "our or "i&e grenades placed# She told tsecret to another "riend so that in case so!ething happened to her% it ,as doing o" ali+iran and 0e&erl$#

6n Cross ea!ination% she ,as asked ,hether ali+iran did it alone% ssaid that he has a look out as ,hat ali+iran told hi!# Bhen con"ronted ,she ,as testi"$ing onl$ no,% she said she ,as +othered +$ her conscienc

s to ho, did she get the in"or!ation o" ke$ duplication% she said that it ,

told to her +$ 0e&erl$#

The Trial Court con&icted +oth the accused o" the cri!e charged# The a""ir!ed the con&iction# ?e$naldo did not appeal hence the @udg!entcon&iction as to hi! +ecause "inal and eecutor$# 6nl$ 0e&erl$ no, co!+e"ore the SC#

ppellant clai!s that the circu!stantial e&idence pro&en during trial osho,s that there ,as a possi+ilit$ that appellant !a$ ha&e conspired ,?olando% +ut ne&ertheless clai!s that it ca!e short o" pro&ing her g+e$ond reasona+le dou+t# She "urther argues that the testi!on$ o" 6s,a,as in so!e parts hearsa$ and replete ,ith inconsistencies# Speci"icaappellant contends that the testi!on$ o" 6s,aldo that Dhe o&erheardcon&ersation +et,een ali+iran (?olando) and 0e&erl$ (appellant) that th,ill "etch a !an in 0ulacan that kno,s ho, to place a +o!+ in a &ehicleDhearsa$# Like,ise% in her ?epl$ 0rie"% appellant clai!s that the testi!on$anet is hearsa$#

SS84: 1) B54T54? 6? /6T T54 BT/4SS- T4ST6/H S 54?S/6

;) B54T54? C6/CT6/ BS P?6P4? 0S4I 6/ C?C8ST/T4I4/C4 ($ou !a$ or !a$ not discuss this issue) ' H4S

54LI:

1) The testi!onies o" 6s,aldo and anet are not co&ered +$ the hearsrule#


13/46

he hearsa$ rule states that a ,itness !a$ not testi"$ as to ,hat he !erel$earned "ro! others either +ecause he ,as told% or he read or heard thea!e# This is deri&ed "ro! Section 3=% ?ule

3% ?e&ised ?ules o" Court% ,hich re.uires that a ,itness can testi"$ onl$ tohose "acts that he kno,s o" or co!es "ro! his personal kno,ledge% that is%hat are deri&ed "ro! his perception# 5earsa$ testi!on$ !a$ not +e recei&ed

s proo" o" the truth o" ,hat he has learned#

he la,% ho,e&er% pro&ides "or speci"ic eceptions to the hearsa$ rule# 6ne ishe doctrine o" independentl$ rele&ant state!ents% ,here onl$ the "act thatuch state!ents ,ere !ade is rele&ant% and the truth or "alsit$ thereo" is

!!aterial# The hearsa$ rule does not appl$A hence% the state!ents ared!issi+le as e&idence# 4&idence as to the !aking o" such state!ent is notecondar$ +ut pri!ar$% "or the state!ent itsel" !a$ constitute a "act in issuer +e circu!stantiall$ rele&ant as to the eistence o" such a "act# The ,itness

,ho testi"ies thereto is co!petent +ecause he heard the sa!e% as this is a!atter o" "act deri&ed "ro! his o,n perception% and the purpose is to pro&either that the state!ent ,as !ade or the tenor thereo"#

n this case% 6s,aldos testi!on$ that he o&erhead a con&ersation +et,een?olando and appellant that the$ ,ould "etch a !an in 0ulacan ,ho kne,

o, to place a +o!+ in a &ehicle is ad!issi+le% i" onl$ to esta+lish the "acthat such state!ent ,as !ade and the tenor thereo"# Like,ise% anet !a$esti"$ on !atters not onl$ uttered in her presence% since these !a$ +eonsidered as independentl$ rele&ant state!ents% +ut also personall$on&e$ed to her +$ appellant and ?olando#

) There is nothing on record to con&ince the Court to depart "ro! thendings o" the ?TC# 6n the contrar$% the testi!on$ o" anet as corro+orated$ 6s,aldo% though circu!stantial% lea&es no dou+t that appellant had in "actonspired ,ith ?olando in +ringing a+out the death o" her hus+and ?e$naldo#

s a rule o" ancient respecta+ilit$ no, !olded into tradition% circu!stantial&idence su""ices to con&ict% onl$ i" the "ollo,ing re.uisites concur: (a) there

s !ore than one circu!stanceA (+) the "acts "ro! ,hich the in"erences areeri&ed are pro&enA and (c) the co!+ination o" all the circu!stances is suchs to produce a con&iction +e$ond reasona+le dou+t#

S T6 PP4LL/TS FL75TO4S6/ 6F ??4ST:

Bhat sealed appellants "ate ,as that% as o+ser&ed +$ the ?TC% there ,erelread$ outstanding ,arrants o" arrest against appellant and ?olando asarl$ as Septe!+er 11% 199


14/46

he purpose o" all e&idence is to get at the truth# The reason "or the hearsa$ule is that the etra@udicial and uns,orn state!ent o" another is not the +est

!ethod o" ser&ing this purpose# n other ,ords% the great possi+ilit$ o" thea+rication o" "alsehoods% and the ina+ilit$ to pro&e their untruth% re.uires thathe doors +e closed to such e&idence# So long there"ore as a declarant is&aila+le as a ,itness% his etra@udicial state!ent should not +e heard#

Bhere% ho,e&er% the declarant is dead or has disappeared% his pre&ioustate!ents% out o" court% i" not inad!issi+le on other grounds% are the +est

&idence# 0ut the$ are not rendered inad!issi+le +$ the !ere "act that theeclarant is una&aila+le% so!ething else is necessar$# 6ne "act ,hich ,illatis"$ this necessit$ is that the declaration is or ,as against the declarantsnterest% and this is +ecause no sane person ,ill +e presu!ed to tell aalsehood to his o,n detri!ent#

G.R. No. 1111. S$%$$( 4, 17 !eters a,a$# P63 Pastor ran and hid +ehind a concr!arker% then !o&ed ,est,ard as i" to return to the police head.uarte8n"ortunatel$% in his atte!pt to "lee% P63 Pastor ,as shot in the "ace# 5e ,rushed to the 4astern Pangasinan Iistrict 5ospital# 6n Septe!+er =% 199P63 Pastor died "ro! the in@ur$ he su""ered#

P63 4r,il Pastor identi"ied 7alingan as the ro++er ,ho shot hi!# n te!ergenc$ roo! o" the 4astern Pangasinan Iistrict 5ospital% at around % Pastor !oaned !ight die# !ight die# in presence o" SP61 Conrado 5idalgo and SP6 4!ilio /agui# 5ence% PPastors state!ents ,ere taken do,n +$ SP61 5idalgo ,ho assisted PPastor in a""iing his thu!+!ark ,ith his o,n +lood:


17/46

M Bho shot $ou 0ong 7alingan% 219

6n Septe!+er ;=% 199>% +othered +$ her conscience% prosecution ,itnessat$ Pani!+aan decided to re&eal to police authorities ,hat she kne, a+out

he case# Iuring the trial% she testi"ied that she ,as present in all the "our!eetings in ,hich the plan to ro+ the asterline 7rocer$ ,as hatched#

rial court rendered its decision:

CM8TTL in "a&or o" the accused 7il Salagu+ang and ario Clotario aliasong#

a@# e!ilio co!iling% 7eraldo galingan and ?ick$ !endoGa ,ere guilt$ o" thepecial co!ple cri!e o" ro++er$ ,ith ho!icide#

SS84: B6/ P63 Pastor-s state!ent as to the na!e o" the assailant isonsidered as a d$ing declaration

?uling:

nder ?ule 13% Section 3< o" the ?ules o" Court% the declaration o" a d$ingerson ,ith the consciousness o" i!pending death !a$ +e recei&ed in an$ase ,herein his death is the su+@ect o" in.uir$% as e&idence o" the cause andhe surrounding circu!stances o" such death# There are "our re.uisites ,hich

!ust concur in order that a d$ing declaration !a$ +e ad!issi+le: (1) it !ustoncern the cri!e and surrounding circu!stances o" the declarants deathA;) at the ti!e it ,as !ade% the declarant ,as under the consciousness o" an!pending deathA (3) the declarant ,as co!petent as a ,itnessA and () theeclaration is o""ered in an$ cri!inal case "or ho!icide% !urder or parricide in

,hich the declarant ,as the &icti!#2;

1) The "irst re.uisite is present in the ante'!orte! state!ents o" deceased63 Pastor# Certainl$% the narration !ade +$ Pastor at the hospitals!ergenc$ roo! +e"ore SP61 5idalgo and SP6 /agui concerned theause and surrounding circu!stances o" the declarants death# The t,o

olice!en heard "ro! the declarants o,n lips his utterance o" the na!eong 7alingan as his assailant# This "act ,as e&en testi"ied to +$ theseolice!en#

;) The declarant% at the ti!e he ga&e the d$ing declaration% ,as conscious" his i!pending death# P63 Pastor kne, at the ti!e he ,as +einguestioned that his chances o" reco&er$ ,ere nil# n "act% he uttered the

,ords% !ight die# !ight die# to signi"$ his perception that death ,asorthco!ing#

3) P63 Pastor% at the ti!e he uttered the d$ing declaration% ,as co!petents a ,itness# This "act is too o+&ious to ,arrant "urther discussion#

) The d$ing declaration o" P63 Pastor ,as o""ered as e&idence in a cri!inal

ase "or ro++er$ ,ith ho!icide in ,hich the declarant ,as the &icti!#

ndu+ita+l$% P63 Pastors d$ing declaration is co!plete in the sense that it,as a "ull epression o" all that he ,anted to sa$ ,ith regard to theircu!stances o" his death# n ante'!orte! state!ent is e&idence o" theighest order#2;1 t is doctrinal that% ,hen a person is at the point o" death%&er$ !oti&e o" "alsehood is silenced#2;; The !ind is induced +$ thetrongest o" reasons to speak the truth the declarants i!pending !eeting

,ith his Creator#

G.R. No. 173608 No)$$( 20, 2008

JES+S GERALO '/ AMAO ARIATE, $%&%&o'$(* )*. PEOPLE OF TP!ILIPPINES, ($*o'/$'%.

Facts:

Petitioners esus 7eraldo and !ado riate ,ere charged ,ith 5o!icagainst the &icti! ?T58? 8# ?6/M8LL6 (shot ,ith a gun)

n a docu!ent dated ul$ 1% ;; and deno!inated as D""ida&itD> ,hich ,su+scri+ed and s,orn to +e"ore Clerk o" Court anuel # 0alasa% Sr# ul$ ;=% ;;% the &icti!s son rnel ga&e a state!ent in a .uestion aans,er st$le that herein petitioners esus 7eraldo and !ado riate ,ethe ones ,ho shot his "ather#

n another docu!ent dated ul$ % ;; also deno!inated as D""ida&i,hich ,as su+scri+ed and s,orn to also +e"ore the sa!e Clerk o" Cour0alasa on ul$ ;=% ;;% irasol also ga&e a state!ent in a .uestion aans,er st$le that her "ather uttered that herein petitioners shot hi!#

t the ,itness stand% irasol echoed her "athers declaration that D0ad@inand D!adoD shot hi!# rnel su+stantiall$ corro+orated irasols state!en

8pon the other hand% petitioners ga&e their side o" the case as "ollo,s:

Petitioner riate% a +aranga$ tanod o" 0unga% declared that 0arangKaga,ad 6!+o$ ?oG (?oG) ,oke hi! up at 3: a#!# o" ul$ 1% ;; ain"or!ed hi! that the &icti! ,as shot# 5e and ?oG thus +orro,ed a tric$cproceeded to the cri!e scene and% along ,ith others% +rought the &icti!the hospital ,here he ,as pronounced dead on arri&al# riate su+!itthi!sel" to a para""in test and tested negati&e "or gunpo,der residueOnitrate

Petitioner 7eraldo declared that he slept in his house located also0aranga$ 0unga% LanuGa at 9:3 p#!# o" une 3% ;; and ,oke up at

a#!# the "ollo,ing da$# t =:3 a#!#% on seeing !an$ people in the &icinit$the >'!eter a,a$ house o" one osita 0onga+ong ,here the &icti!s +o,as "ound% he in.uired and learned that the &icti! ,as shot# Police!su+se.uentl$ ,ent to his house and ad&ised hi! to take a para""in test# o+liged and ,as tested at the P/P Cri!e La+orator$ and ,as "ound negat"or gunpo,der residueOnitrates#9

n the course o" the testi!on$ o" riate% his counsel presented the P/Che!istr$ ?eport re"lecting the negati&e results o" the para""in test on hand 7eraldo#

?TC: con&icted accused guilt$ +e$ond reasona+le dou+t o" the cri!e5o!icide# 6n the nature and ,eight o" the d$ing declaration o" the &icti!% ttrial court o+ser&ed:

d$ing declaration !a$ +e oral or in ,riting# s a general rule% a d$declaration to +e ad!issi+le !ust +e !ade +$ the declarant ,hile heconscious o" his i!pending death# 5o,e&er% e&en i" a declarant did not !aa state!ent that he ,as on the +rink o" death% the degree and seriousnessthe ,ound and the "act that death super&ened shortl$ a"ter,ards !a$ considered as su+stantial e&idence that the declaration ,as !ade +$ t&icti! ,ith "ull realiGation that he ,as in a d$ing conditionA People &s# 4+ra;9= SC? 3>3#

4&en assu!ing that the declaration is not ad!issi+le as a d$ing declaratiit is still ad!issi+le as part o" the res gestae since it ,as !ade shortl$ a"the startling occurrence and under the in"luence thereo"% hence% under circu!stances% the &icti! e&identl$ had no opportunit$ to contri&e(8nderscoring supplied)


18/46

C: a""ir!ed ?TC ,ith !odi"ication%hence this appeal#

etitioners argue:

Bith due respect% herein petitioners disagree ,ith the holding o" theonora+le Court o" ppeals that Dt is not necessar$ that the &icti! "urther

denti"$ that D0ad@ingD ,as in "act esus 7eraldo or that D!adoD ,as !ado

riateD +ecause% 2so petitioners contend% it is the o+ligation o" therosecution to esta+lish ,ith !oral certaint$ that indeed the persons the$

denti"ied as the as the assailant o" rthur 6# ?on.uillo ,ere reall$ the ones,ho perpetrated the cri!e#

d!ittedl$% prosecution ,itnesses ,ere a+le to identi"$ positi&el$ hereinetitioners as the alleged assailant2s o" rthur 6# ?on.uillo# 0ut said

denti"ication is +ased on the assu!ption that the$ ,ere the &er$ sa!e0I/7 I6D andOor D0I/7 /I I6D re"erred to +$ theireceased "ather in his d$ing declaration#

Bhat the 5onora+le Court o" ppeals "ailed to consider is that% @ust +ecausehe &icti! declared that it ,as D0I/7 I6D andOor D0I/7 /I

I6D ,ho shot hi! does not necessaril$ "ollo, that herein petitioners,ere reall$ the perpetrators in the a+sence o" proo" that the D0I/7De"erred to +$ hi! is esus 7eraldo and that the DI6D is !ado riate# t

,ould ha&e +een a di""erent stor$ had the prosecution ,itnesses 2+een$e,itnesses +ecause proo" that the D0I/7 I6D andOor D0I/7

/I I6D re"erred to +$ the &icti! and the persons identi"ied +$ therosecution ,itnesses are the sa!e is unnecessar$#

erein petitioners +elie&e% that e&en assu!ing that there are no other0I/7D or DI6D in the +aranga$% still it does not "ollo, that theerson2s re"erred to +$ the d$ing declarant as his assailant ,ere esus

7eraldo alias D0I/7D and !ado riate alias DI6D# lthough% it isnconcei&a+le ho, the 5onora+le Court o" ppeals arri&ed at the saidonclusion that there are no other D0I/7 I6D andOor D0I/7

/I I6D in the +aranga$ a+sent an$ proo" to that e""ect "ro! therosecution#;;

ssue: B6/ the d$ing declaration o" the &icti! as recounted +$ the latter-son and daughter ,ould +e su""icient to sustain the accused-s con&iction "orhe cri!e o" ho!icide#

?uling:

d$ing declaration is ad!issi+le as e&idence i" the "ollo,ing circu!stancesre present: (a) it concerns the cause and the surrounding circu!stances o"he declarants deathA (+) it is !ade ,hen death appears to +e i!!inent andhe declarant is under a consciousness o" i!pending deathA (c) the declarant

,ould ha&e +een co!petent to testi"$ had he or she sur&i&edA and (d) the$ing declaration is o""ered in a case in ,hich the su+@ect o" in.uir$ in&ol&eshe declarants death#;3

here is no dispute that the &icti!s utterance to his children related to thedentities o" his assailants# s "or the &icti!s consciousness o" i!pendingeath% it is not necessar$ to pro&e that he stated that he ,as at the +rink o"eathA it su""ices that% @udging "ro!

he nature and etent o" his in@uries% the seriousness o" his condition ,as sopparent to hi! that it !a$ sa"el$ +e in"erred that such ante !orte!eclaration ,as !ade under consciousness o" an i!pending death#; The

ocation o" the &icti!s t,o gunshot ,ounds% his gasping "or +reath% and his&entual death +e"ore arri&ing at the hospital !eet this re.uire!ent#;>

has not +een esta+lished% ho,e&er% that the &icti! ,ould ha&e +eeno!petent to testi"$ had he sur&i&ed the attack# There is no sho,ing that head the opportunit$ to see his assailant# !ong other things% there is no

indication ,hether he ,as shot in "ront% the post'!orte! ea!ination repha&ing !erel$ stated that the points o" entr$ o" the ,ounds ,ere at the Drilu!+ar areaD and the Dright iliac area#D;= DLu!+arD !a$ re"er to Dthe loinsDDthe group o" &erte+rae l$ing +et,een the thoracic &erte+rae and sacru!%D;< or to Dthe region o" the a+do!en l$ing on either side o" tu!+ilical region and a+o&e the corresponding iguinal#D; DliacD relates to Diliu!%D ,hich is Done o" the three +ones co!posing either lateral hal" o" tpel&is +eing in !an +road and epanded a+o&e and narro,er +elo, ,her

@oins ,ith the ischiu! and pu+is to "or! part o" the acta+ulu!#D;9

t all e&ents% e&en i" the &icti!s d$ing declaration ,ere ad!issi+lee&idence% it !ust identi"$ the assailant ,ith certaint$A other,ise it loses signi"icance#3

Bhen there is dou+t on the identit$ o" the !ale"actors% !oti&e is essential their con&iction#33 The Court notes that in their a""ida&its supporting tcri!inal co!plaint% the &icti!s ,i"e and children irasol and rnel pro""ernot kno,ing an$ possi+le !oti&e "or petitioners to shoot the &icti!#3 t trial% no e&idence o" an$ !oti&e ,as presented +$ the prosecutiPetitioners de"ense o" denial and ali+i thus assu!es i!portance#

7#?# /o# 11; une ;9% ;1

PEOPLE OF T!E P!ILIPPINES, Pl&'%&99A$ll$$, )*. JONELFALA"RICA SERENAS AN JOEL LORICA LA"A, Au*$/A$ll'%*.

FCTS:

6n Iece!+er ;;% at around 1: o-clock in the e&ening% /ifo /o?a!os (/ifo) had @ust +rought his girl"riend% Iianne Charisse 7a&(Iianne)% ho!e in Sto# /ifo% Parafa.ue Cit$# 6n his ,a$ +ack to La 5uer

he passed +$ a +ridge connecting the +aranga$s o" Sto# /ifo and La 5ueThereat% /ifo ,as sta++ed and !auled#

Cesar ?a!os (Cesar)% /ifo-s +rother% ,as in the &icinit$ o" /# Io!inStreet in La 5uerta ,hen he heard a co!!otion on the +ridge# s he ,a+out to proceed to the +ridge% he !et /ifo and noticed that his +rother ,soaked in his o,n +lood# /ifo rela$ed to Cesar that he ,as sta++ed +$ o

n# Cesar i!!ediatel$ +rought /ifo to the hospital ,here the latter epithirt$ (3) !inutes later# t the police station% Cesar clai!ed that appellantold hi! that the$ !erel$ Dtook "anc$D on /ifo#

Iianne initiall$ related in her a""ida&it eecuted at the police station that cousin in"or!ed her o" a co!!otion on the +ridge# 8pon reaching the +ridshe !et a "riend ,ho told her that her +o$"riend% /ifo% ,as sta++ed a+rought to the hospital# She added that one da$ +e"ore the incident% she a

/ifo ,ere ,alking along the +ridge ,hen the$ passed +$ the groupappellants and heard oe'n utter the ,ords% D$ang !a!a na i$an% !ara, din si$a sa akin#D n her testi!on$ during the trial ho,e&er% she narrathat she actuall$ sa, oe'n sta++ing /ifo#

P63 ?a!oncito Lipana (P63 Lipana) ,as at the police station in La 5ueon Iece!+er ;; ,hen a ,o!an na!ed Iianne ca!e to reporsta++ing incident in&ol&ing her +o$"riend# P63 Lipana% together ,ith Pesus 0rigola (P6; 0rigola) and P63 arlon 7ol"o% i!!ediatel$ proceedto the cri!e scene# 8pon arri&ing thereat% the police sa, t,o !sca!pering a,a$ upon seeing the!# The$ chased the t,o !en% laidenti"ied as oe'n and oel# The police !anaged to catch the appellan,hile the$ ,ere hiding near a +angka under the +ridge# ppellants ,e+rought to the police station ,here Iianne identi"ied the! as the assailao" /ifo#


19/46

Ir# alentin T# 0ernales (Ir# 0ernales)% the !edico'legal o""icer ,ho issuedhe autops$ report% testi"ied that the &icti! ,as sta++ed t,ice at the +ack andhe assailant ,as situated ,ithin ar!-s length# The &icti! succu!+ed "ro!he sta+ ,ounds% +oth o" ,hich% are "atal# Ir# 0ernales also noted that there

,ere contuse a+rasions on di""erent parts o" the &icti!-s +od$#

ppellants in&oked denial and ali+i as their de"ense# oe'n% a resident o"

Ba,a% Sto# /ifo% alleged that he ,as at his house on Iece!+er ;;#Bhile he ,as taking his dinner% he sa, people running to,ards the +ridge#e ,ent out o" the house to check on ,hat had happened# 5e approached aroup o" people talking a+out the co!!otion# Therea"ter% he sa, the policend +aranga$ tanods arri&e# 5e ,as i!!ediatel$ handcu""ed and asked too ,ith the police# oe'n alleged that he ,as ph$sicall$ "orced +$ the policeo ad!it the killing o" /ifo# oe'n denied kno,ing the &icti! or his girl"riend%

Iianne% +ut ad!itted that oel is an ac.uaintance#

oel like,ise denied his participation in killing /ifo# 5e stated that he ,asleeping at around 11 p#!# on Iece!+er ;; ,hen he ,as a,akened +$n argu!ent in&ol&ing his !other and "our () !en outside his roo!# 5e thenot out o" the roo! and sa, P63 Lipana% P6; 0rigola% and t,o other policeassets#D The group in&ited hi! "or .uestioning# Bhen the t,o assetsuddenl$ gra++ed hi!% oel resisted +ut he ,as "orci+l$ +rought to the police

tation# 5e sa, Iianne at the station +ut the latter did not identi"$ hi! as theulprit# nstead% Iianne e&en sought his help to identi"$ the person ,ho killeder +o$"riend# This "act not,ithstanding% the police re"used to let hi! go# 5eesti"ied that he did not kno, the &icti! or Iianne personall$#

he ?TC rendered @udg!ent con&icting appellants% and ,ere sentenced tou""er the penalt$ o" ?4CL8S6/ P4?P4T8 pursuant to ?## 93= ,hichepealed the death penalt$ la,# 5o,e&er% pursuant to Sec# 3 thereo"% the$ areot eligi+le "or parole#

ending "ull credence to the testi!onies o" the prosecution ,itnesses% theial court concluded that the appellants conspired in assaulting and sta++ingifo# t ga&e "ull ,eight to the d$ing declaration uttered +$ /ifo to hisrother% as ,ell as the state!ent o" Iianne% ,ho allegedl$ ,itnessedppellants threaten /ifo the night +e"ore the incident# t also appreciated the

ggra&ating circu!stances o" treacher$ and e&ident pre!editation in theo!!ission o" the cri!e# Further!ore% the trial court regarded thencorro+orated testi!onies o" appellants to +e D"ull o" inconsistencies andn,orth$ o" ,eight and credence#D

he Court o" ppeals a""ir!ed ,ith !odi"ication the decision o" the ?TC +$,arding ee!plar$ da!ages in the a!ount o" P;>%##

SS84:

1) Bhether the testi!onies o" the ,itnesses are su""icient to pro&eppellants- guilt +e$ond reasona+le dou+t

;) Bhether or not /ifo-s d$ing declaration is ad!issi+le in the case at +ar

?8L/7:

o#

1) Be respect the "indings that onel Fala+rica Serenas is guilt$ +e$ondeasona+le dou+t o" !urder not +$ &irtue o" identi"ication +$ Iianne +ut assta+lished +$ the d$ing declaration o" the &icti!# 8pon the other hand% ,ee&erse the con&iction o" oel Lorica La+ad#

he trial court% as a""ir!ed +$ the Court o" ppeals% accorded "ull ,eight tohe testi!on$ o" the prosecution ,itness% Iianne% ,ho declared on the

,itness stand that she actuall$ sa, appellants !aul and sta+ the &icti!#

Iianne-s testi!on$ is dou+t"ul to sa$ the least# This Court is !ind"ul o" trule that i" there is an inconsistenc$ +et,een the a""ida&it and the testi!oo" a ,itness% the latter should +e gi&en !ore ,eight since a""ida&its +etaken e'parte are usuall$ inco!plete and inaccurate# Corollar$ to this is tdoctrine that% ,here the discrepancies are irreconcila+le and uneplainand the$ d,ell on !aterial points% such inconsistencies necessaril$ discrethe &eracit$ o" the ,itness clai!# The second rule is apt to the case at +ar#

/o,here in her a""ida&it did Iianne point to appellants as the perpetratorsthe cri!e# Fro! the tenor o" her a""ida&it% Iianne-s suspicion that appellaco!!itted the cri!e !erel$ arose "ro! the alleged threats !ade appellants on the &icti! the da$ +e"ore the incident#

Be cannot si!pl$ +rush aside the "act that ,hile Iianne pointed to tpersons ,ho threatened to do har! on the &icti!% she "ailed to identi"$ ,the perpetrators o" the cri!e are# To the !ind o" the Court% this o!issionIianne-s a""ida&it is so glaring on a !aterial point% i#e#% the "ailure to attri+uauthorship to the cri!e# There"ore% the testi!on$ o" Iianne altoget+eco!es suspect#

/e&ertheless% the prosecution-s case did not necessaril$ cru!+le# T&icti!-s d$ing declaration is a !ost telling e&idence identi"$ing oe'an#

(;) Hes#

ppellants .uestion the alleged d$ing declaration o" the &icti! in that th,ere not su""icientl$ identi"ied as the persons responsi+le "or /ifo-s dea

ppellants anchor their argu!ent on the utterance o" the ,ord Doe',hen the &icti! ,as asked on ,ho sta++ed hi!# ppellants ad&ance that t&icti! !a$ ha&e +een re"erring to so!e other person# oreo&er% the &icdid not e&en !ention DoelD or Doel La+ad%D the other suspect#

The 6S7 de"ends the &icti!-s d$ing declaration and insists that there ,as!istake that the &icti! ,as indeed re"erring to oe'n% considering that tlatter ,as "a!iliar to hi!#

s an eception to the rule against hearsa$ e&idence% a d$ing declarationante !orte! state!ent is e&idence o" the highest order and is entitledut!ost credence since no person a,are o" his i!pending death ,ould !aa careless and "alse accusation#

n order "or a d$ing declaration to +e held ad!issi+le% "our re.uisites !concur: "irst% the declaration !ust concern the cause and surroundcircu!stances o" the declarants deathA second% at the ti!e the declarat,as !ade% the declarant !ust +e under the consciousness o" an i!penddeathA third% the declarant is co!petent as a ,itnessA and "ourth% declaration !ust +e o""ered in a cri!inal case "or ho!icide% !urder% parricide% in ,hich the declarant is the &icti!#

ll re.uisites "or a d$ing declaration ,ere su""icientl$ !et +$ the state!en

the &icti! co!!unicated to Cesar# First% the state!ent pertained to /i+eing sta++ed% particularl$ pin'pointing oe'n as the perpetrator# Seco/ifo !ust ha&e +een "ull$ a,are that he ,as on the +rink o" deconsidering his +loodied condition ,hen Cesar !et hi! near the +ridgThird% the co!petence o" /ifo is

un.uestiona+le had he sur&i&ed the sta++ing incident# Fourth% /ifstate!ent ,as +eing o""ered in a cri!inal prosecution "or his !urder#

/ote ho,e&er that +ased on the testi!onies o" ,itnesses% there ,as direct e&idence linking appellant oel to the cri!e#

Bhile the police o""icers caught oel hiding under the +ridge% this incideappears to +e circu!stantial and cannot stand to pro&e oel-s co!plic,ithout an$ corro+orating e&idence# d!ittedl$% oel-s de"ense o" denial a


20/46

li+i are inherentl$ ,eak% ho,e&er% it is doctrinal that the ,eakness o" thee"ense cannot +e the +asis "or con&iction# The pri!ar$ +urden still lies ,ithhe prosecution ,hose e&idence !ust stand or "all on its o,n ,eight and ,ho

!ust esta+lish +$ proo" +e$ond reasona+le dou+t the guilt o" the accusede"ore there can +e con&iction# t this @uncture% ,e ac.uit appellant oel#

he Iecision o" the Court o" ppeals ,as 6IF4I# ppellant 6/4L

L0?C S4?4/S ,as "ound 78LTH o" the cri!e o" !urder and ,asentenced to su""er the penalt$ o" reclusion perpetua# For "ailure o" therosecution to esta+lish his guilt +e$ond reasona+le dou+t% appellant 64L6?C L0I ,as CM8TT4I#

G.R. No. 178272 M(> 1, 2011

EOPLE OF T!E P!ILIPPINES, A$ll$$, )*. RORIGO SALCEO l&*IGOL,D A$ll'%.

CTS:

he e&idence o" the prosecution "ollo,s:

7eraldino 7alido (7eraldino) testi"ied that at 9 oclock in the e&ening o"o&e!+er =% 199% ,hile he ,as in his house together ,ith his t,o +rothers%is +rother'in'la, and second cousin% the$ heard three (3) shouts "or helpo!ing "ro! the house o" 4"ren 7alido (4"ren)# The$ i!!ediatel$ ,ent to thelace and at the distance o" a+out < to !eters% he sa, appellant sta+ theicti! nal$n t,ice ,hile she ,as l$ing on her +ack# 5e ,as a+le to identi"$he appellant +ecause o" the torch +eing carried +$ the ,o!en near hi!#

"ren% li&e'in partner o" nal$n% testi"ied that appellant is kno,n as DIigolD inheir place# t 9 oclock in the e&ening o" /o&e!+er =% 199% he ,as at theouse o" his elder +rother 7eraldino% ,hich is a+out 1 !eters a,a$ "ro!is house# Bhile at the house o" his +rother% he heard a shout co!ing "ro!is niece% &$ ean 0orra# 8pon hearing &$% he i!!ediatel$ ran ho!e# Bhene arri&ed ho!e% he sa, his son sleeping% so he ,ent do,nstairs androceeded to the road ,here he !et his sister'in'la, holding a torch# 5e gottorch "ro! his sister'in'la,% ,ent ahead and looked "or nal$n# 5e "ound

nal$n l$ing and !oaning on the grass$ portion o" the side o" the road a+out !eters a,a$ "ro! their house# 5e li"ted nal$n and sa, +lood co!ingro! her +reast# 5e asked nal$n ,ho did it to her and nal$n ans,ered%Iigol#D 5e placed nal$n on the ground and tried to run a"ter the person ,hoid it to her% +ut he ,as restrained +$ his +rother#

Ir# 4dgardo a+asa testi"ied that he conducted an autops$ on the +od$ o"nal$n# 5e "ound nine (9) sta+ ,ounds in the +od$ o" nal$n# T,o o" the sta+,ounds penetrated the heart% !aking it i!possi+le "or the &icti! to sur&i&e#

e also testi"ied that nal$ns uterus ,as enlarged at = to < !onths gestation,ith a dead !ale "etus# 5e "urther testi"ied that the ,ounds appear to ha&eeen in"licted +$ a single sharp +laded and pointed instru!ent#

pon the other hand% the de"ense adduced the testi!onies o" the appellant%eli!on Salcedo% arcelina Lecta and ario anatoc# ppellants !aine"ense is ali+i#

he ?TC o" San iguel% ordan% 7ui!aras rendered a Iecision "indingppellant guilt$ +e$ond reasona+le dou+t o" the cri!e o" !urder#

ppellant "iled a /otice o" ppeal and the case ,as ele&ated to the C "ore&ie,# The C rendered a Iecision a""ir!ing ,ith !odi"ication the decision" the ?TC# t ruled that the appellant is guilt$ o" !urder .uali"ied +$ a+use o"

superior strength# The appellant% through the Pu+lic ttorne$s 6""ice (Pappealed the Iecision o" the C to the Supre!e Court#

SS84:

Bhether or not nal$n-s state!ent can +e considered a d$ing declarat+ased on ?ule 13 o" the ?ules o" Court

?8L/7:

Section 3


21/46

here is the least chance "or the accused to +e present at the cri!e scene%he de"ense o" ali+i !ust "ail#

B54?4F6?4% the appeal ,as ISSS4I# The Iecision o" the Court o"ppeals ,as FF?4I ,ith 6IFCT6/S# ppellant ?odrigo Salcedo%lias Iigol% ,as "ound guilt$ +e$ond reasona+le dou+t o" the cri!e o" !urder%nd ,as sentenced to su""er the penalt$ o" ?eclusion Perpetua ,ithout an$

ene"it o" parole under ?## /o# 93=#

EOPLE OF T!E P!ILIPPINES, l&'%&99$ll$$, )*. A"+NIOROL+NA, u*$/$ll'%.

CTS:

n an n"or!ation% eight () persons including accused ?oluna ,ere charged,ith the cri!e o" Kidnapping ,ith urder# The other se&en ,ere at'large#

he prosecution presented t,o (;) ,itnesses% na!el$% Conrado So!+ilonnd 0uena&entura /ogalada% +oth o" ,ho! ,ere residents o" +aranga$!guhan% 0a$+a$% Le$te#

C6/?I6 S60L6/ testi"ied that on a$ ; () (3)% ?ule 131 o" the ?ules o" Court ,ould appl$% +ut onl$ insoas to esta+lish the presu!pti&e death o" oronia#

Bhether accused'appellant is responsi+le "or the death o" oronia isdi""erent !atter#

The ?ules did not authoriGe that "ro! this disputa+le presu!ption o" deathshould +e "urther presu!ed that the person ,ith ,ho! the a+sentee ,as lseen shall +e responsi+le "or the su+se.uent uneplaina+senceOdisappearance o" the latter#

t is a ,ell'entrenched principle in cri!inal la, that an accused is presu!innocent until pro&en other,ise# /o less than proo" +e$ond reasona+le dois re.uired to con&ict hi!# 6n the ,hole% the e&idence adduced +$ tprosecution ,ould not pro&e +e$ond a shado, o" a dou+t that accuseappellant should +e con&icted "or the serious cri!e o" kidnapping ,!urder#

ISP6ST4 P6?T6/:

Since none o" the circu!stances !entioned in rticle ;=< o" the ?e&isPenal Code (kidnapping ,ith serious illegal detention) ,as pro&ed and othe "act o" kidnapping o" natalio oronia ,as esta+lished% ,e "ind that cri!e co!!itted is slight illegal detention under rticle ;= o" the ?e&isPenal Code# n the eecution o" the cri!e% !ore than three (3) ar!!ale"actors acted together in its co!!ission# Thus% since the geneaggra&ating circu!stance o" +and 11 attended the co!!ission o" the criand there +eing no !itigating circu!stance present% the penalt$ o" recluste!poral in its !ai!u! period as !ai!u! and prision !a$or as !ini!should +e i!posed on accused'appellant# 1;


22/46

EOPLE OF T!E P!ILIPPINES, l&'%&99$ll$$, )*. ALE PARONESA'/ JOSEP! "IARE DJOJOD "IARE, u*$/$ll'%*.

CTS:

he t,o accused% Padrones and 0iare% appealed "ro! the @udg!ent o" the?egional Trial Court% 1 "inding the! guilt$ +e$ond reasona+le dou+t "or the

!urder o" LorenGo Sison#

he a+o&e con&iction ,as +ased principall$ on the testi!on$ o" an alleged$e,itness% ntonio Llaneta% the testi!on$ o" Ir# ose elas.ueG% and anlleged ante'!orte! state!ent o" the late LorenGo Sison#

he records o" the case disclose that the &icti! ,as at the 7? Fa!il$Iisco and ?estaurant 7? "or +re&it$)% at Surallah% South Cota+ato%ele+rating his +irthda$ o&er +eer and re"resh!ent ,ith a+out "ourteenephe,s and nieces% 3 ,hereupon the t,o accused'appellants arri&ed% one"ter the other# oseph 0iare arri&ed at a+out 1;:3 or one oclock in the

!orning o" ugust % 19=% and a+out ten !inutes later% le Padronesppeared#

he t,o accused ,ere "riends ,ho had not !et "or si !onths# The$changed pleasantries and separated therea"ter# Padrones sat at a ta+le

,here he !et certain ,o!en ,ith one o" ,ho! he danced# 0iare !ean,hileat alone on another ta+le#

he &icti! then approached Padrones% s.ueeGed his !outh% and utteredhallenging ,ords: Dre $ou not a"raid o" the SisonsD = (n apparente"erence to the Sisons o" South Cota+ato% a "a!il$ ,ith a long histor$ o"ocal and national political authorit$ and clout)#

adrones +locked the &icti!s hand and alleged that he sa, a kni"e shining!idst +linking disco lights#< 5e like,ise alleged that the icti! +eganttacking hi! ,ith his kni"e% ,hich he ,as a+le to parr$ ,ith his le"t hand#

ntonio Llaneta% ,ho ,as ,ith the &icti!% struck hi! (Padrones) on the le"theek#

Bhen the +ra,l ended% 0iare +rought Padrones to the latter-s ho!e#

6n ugust =% 19=% the authorities co!!enced "rustrated ho!icide chargesgainst le Padrones onl$#

6n ugust 13% 19=% LorenGo Sison signed a hand,ritten state!ent in hisospital +ed to the Surallah police accusing Padrones o" ha&ing in"licted oneta+ ,ound on hi!# 5e also i!plicated 0iare and charged hi! ,ith sta++ingi! once# 1>

6n ugust ;1% 19=% he epired on account o" respirator$ "ailure and internalleeding#

iscal saac oran o" the Pro&incial Fiscals o""ice "iled an a!endedn"or!ation accusing +oth accused o" !urder% .uali"ied +$ treacher$ and&ident pre!editation#

?TC con&icted +oth accused o" !urder#

?TC-s "indings:

1) the t,o accused'appellants ,ent to 7? on ugust 3% 19= in a ,ell'lanned conspirac$ to eli!inate the deceasedA (;) the$ pretended that the$ad @ust !et there +$ chance% +ut had all along plotted to kill the &icti!A (3)he accused'appellant% oseph 0iare% deli+eratel$ positioned hi!sel" so thatno one o" the se&eral co!panions o" the &icti! ,ho cele+rated his +irthda$

could render succor or sa&e hi!AD ;1 () the deceased could not hathreatened the accused% le Padrones% or accost hi! challengingl$% +ecauD2dluring ones +irthda$ one is engrossed ,ith his "riends and no dou+t ne&er (sic) think or prepare "or an$ trou+leA ;; and that (>) Padrones conot ha&e +een the &icti! o" a !auling +ecause Dhe did not su+!it 2hi!s"or treat!ent# (read the "ull tet ka$ linga, ang "indings sa ?TC :p )

SS84:

1# B6/ the hand,ritten state!ent o" deceased Sison is ad!issi+le e&idence# /6

;# B6/ 0iare shall +e con&icted /6

?8L/7:

1# t constitutes hearsa$ e&idence and is inad!issi+le#

The &icti!s alleged ante!orte! state!ent is not in "act% an ante!ortestate!ent# 1 t ,as eecuted on ugust 13% 19=% ,hen the deceased don ugust ;1% 19=# d$ing declaration% to +e one% !ust ha&e +een Dunde

the consciousness o" an i!pending death# ; t the ti!e he rendered it% could not sa$ that he ,as on the pangs o" death% +ased on his actucondition at that ti!e% and that he +elie&ed that death ,as soon at hand# 3

t +ears to stress that a !ere cursor$ ea!ination o" the three signaturappearing on the three'page state!ent% in +old and clear strokes ,ith t,othe! occup$ing "our inches o" the page% and in grand "lourishes% pronouncand considered +$ the trial @udge as a d$ing declaration% precludes aindication that the signer thereo" ,as under an i!pending death# Furtherthe deceased ,ere trul$ on the point o" death% he could not ha&e had tstrength to a""i three signatures as a+o&e descri+ed#

;# The testi!on$ o" ntonio Llaneta suggests that +oth accused lunged at

&icti! once each gi&ing rise to t,o in@uries#

n the stand% Llaneta testi"ied that he J+elie&ed that it ,as o@o 0iare ,,as the other person ,ho sta++ed Sison since he ,as near ,ith their grou

Bhile he ,as categorical that le Padrones did in"lict a sta++ing ,ound LorenGo Sison% he could not sa$ the sa!e thing as "ar as oseph 0iare ,concerned# t ,as his opinion or +elie" that 0iare did !ake a thrust on t&icti!% +ut e&identl$ that ,as his opinion# 6ur la, on e&idence% ho,e&ecludes opinions% as a general rule% and allo,s onl$ "acts# 33 Bhati!portant is that he did not see 0iare in the act o" thrusting his kni"e#

t is also note,orth$ that in his s,orn state!ent to the police 3 eecuted !orning a"ter the incident% Llaneta did not i!plicate 0iare% +ut con"ess

ha&ing seen Padrones onl$% sta++ing the &icti! t,ice# n addition% tprosecution itsel" ne&er pressed hi!% Llaneta% in na!ing 0iareA apparentl$ tlatters na!e cropped up upon the &er$ prodding o" the trial @udge# The recindeed sho,s that upon 5is 5onors .uestioning% Dn $our dou+t% ,ho ,that personD 3> the de"ense o+@ected% DBe o+@ect% he said he ,as not sur3= although 5is 5onor o&erruled the latter: DLet that +e on record# D 3%# plus costs is FF?4I ,the !odi"ication that the penalt$ i!posed should +e as it is correctedreclusion perpetua% and the a,ard o" actual da!ages is deleted#

GR No. 1613 =M(> 3, 200?

MARIA JEANETTE C. TECSON '/ FELI ". ESIERIO, JR. ). T>$COMELEC, RONAL ALLAN #ELL- POE =H FERNANO POE, JR.?'/ VICTORINO . FORNIER

GR No. 16163 =M(> 3, 200?


26/46

OILO ANTONIO VELE5 ). RONAL ALLAN #ELLE- POE, HERNANO POE, JR.

GR No. 16182 =M(> 3, 200?

VICTORINO . FORNIER ). COMELEC '/ RONAL ALLAN #ELLE-OE, ALSO #NON AS FERNANO POE JR.

T87% #

1 Iece!+er ;3: ?espondent ?onald llan Kell$ Poe% also kno,n asernando Poe% r# (hereina"ter DFPD)% "iled his C6C "or the position o"resident o" the Philippines under the Koalis$on ng /agkakaisang Pilipino

K/P) Part$# n his C6C% FP% representing hi!sel" to +e a natural'+ornitiGen o" the Philippines% stated his na!e to +e DFernando r#%D or D?onald

llanD Poe% his date o" +irth to +e ; ugust 1939 and his place o" +irth to +eanila#

ictorino # Fornier% petitioner in 7? /o# 1=1; initiated a petition tois.uali"$ FP upon the thesis that FP !ade a !aterial !isrepresentation inis C6C +$ clai!ing to +e a natural'+orn Filipino ,hen in truth% his parents

,ere "oreignersA his !other% 0essie Kelle$ Poe% ,as an !erican% and hisather% llan Poe% ,as a Spanish national% +eing the son o" LorenGo Pou% apanish su+@ect# 7ranting that llan Poe ,as a Filipino% he could not ha&eans!itted his Filipino citiGenship to FP% the latter +eing an illegiti!ate child" an alien !other# Petitioner +ased the allegation o" the illegiti!ate +irth o"espondent on t,o assertions ' "irst% llan Poe contracted a prior !arriage tocertain +e"ore his !arriage to 0essie Kelle$ and% second% e&en i" no such

rior !arriage had eisted% llan Poe% !arried 0essie Kell$ onl$ a $ear a"terhe +irth o" respondent#

C64L4C: Iis!issed Fornier-s petition# 5is ? ,as denied +$ theC64L4C en +anc#

he other petitions% 7? /o# 1=13 and 7? /o# 1=1=3 +oth challenged theurisdiction o" the C64L4C and asserted that% under rticle % Section %aragraph


27/46

GR No. 121027 =July 31, 17?

CORA5ON E5OLLER TISON '/ RENE R. E5OLLER ). CA '/EOORA OMINGO

?47LI6% #

he dispute in&ol&es a parcel o" land ,ith a house and apart!ent located atan Francisco del onte% MueGon Cit$ and ,hich ,as originall$ o,ned +$

he spouses artin 7uerrero and Teodora IeGoller 7uerrero# PetitionersCoraGon and ?ene are the niece and nephe,% respecti&el$% o" the deceased

eodora ,ho is the sister o" petitioners- "ather% 5er!ogenes# Teodora died onarch >% 193 and ,as sur&i&ed onl$ +$ her hus+and% artin 7uerrero andetitioners# Petitioners "ather% 5er!ogenes% died on 6cto+er 3% 19


28/46

Bhen the credi+ilit$ o" a ,itness is sought to +e i!peached +$ proo" o" hiseputation% it is necessar$ that the reputation sho,n should +e that ,hichisted +e"ore the occurrence o" the circu!stances out o" ,hich the litigationrose% or at the ti!e o" the trial and prior thereto% +ut not at a period re!oteo! the co!!ence!ent o" the suit# This is +ecause a person o" derogator$haracter or reputation can still change or re"or! hi!sel"#

CTS:

he instant case ste!!ed "ro! t,o (;) separate co!plaints "iled respecti&el$$ agdalena 7apuG% "ounderOdirectress o" the Dother and Child Learning

Center%D and Liga$a nna,i% a pu+lic school teacher at Fort Iel Pilarle!entar$ School% against respondent Ir# ll$son 0elagan% Superintendent" the Iepart!ent o" 4ducation% Culture and Sports (I4CS)% all "ro! 0aguio

Cit$# agdalena charged respondent ,ith seual indignities and harass!ent%,hile Liga$a accused hi! o" seual harass!ent and &arious !al"easances#

agdalena-s s,orn co!plaint alleges that so!eti!e in arch 199% she "iledn application ,ith the I4CS 6""ice in 0aguio Cit$ "or a per!it to operate are'school# 6ne o" the re.uisites "or the issuance o" the per!it ,as the

nspection o" the school pre!ises +$ the I4CS Ii&ision 6""ice# Since the""icer assigned to conduct the inspection ,as not present% respondent

olunteered his ser&ices# So!eti!e in une 199% respondent ando!plainant &isited the school# n the course o" the inspection% ,hile +oth

,ere descending the stairs o" the second "loor% respondent suddenl$ placedis ar!s around her shoulders and kissed her cheek# Iu!+"ounded% she

!uttered% DSir% is this part o" the inspection Pati +a na!an ka$o sa I4CS,ala ng &aluesD ?espondent !erel$ sheepishl$ s!iled# t that ti!e% there,ere no other people in the area# Se&eral da$s later% agdalena ,ent to theI4CS Ii&ision 6""ice and asked respondent% DSir% ku!usta $ung applicationoD 5is repl$ ,as Dag'date !una ta$o#D She declined% eplaining that shes !arried# She then le"t and reported the !atter to I4CS ssistantuperintendent Peter /ga+it#

6n the part o" Liga$a nna,i% she alleged in her co!plaint that on "oureparate occasions% respondent touched her +reasts% kissed her cheek%ouched her groins% e!+raced her "ro! +ehind and pulled her close to hi!%

is organ pressing the lo,er part o" her +ack#

he I4CS conducted a @oint in&estigation o" the co!plaints o" agdalenand Liga$a# ?espondent clai!ed that the nu!erous cases "iled against

agdalena cast dou+t on her character% integrit$% and credi+ilit$# 5eresented e&idence sho,ing that during 19'1991% agdalena ,as charged

,ith ;; cri!inal cases &ar$ing "ro! oral de"a!ation% un@ust &eation% slighth$sical in@uries and !alicious !ischie"# lso% he presented e&idence o" ;3o!plaints against agdalena "iled ,ith the 0aranga$ Chair!en o" 0aranga$

7a+riela Silang and 0aranga$ 5illside% +oth in 0aguio Cit$% o" like o""enses#

he I4CS Secretar$ rendered a oint Iecision "inding respondent guilt$ o"our () counts o" seual Dindignities or harass!entsD co!!itted againstiga$aA and t,o (;) counts o" Dseual ad&ances or indignitiesD against

agdalena# 5e ,as ordered dis!issed "ro! the ser&ice#

pon appeal% the Ci&il Ser&ice Co!!ission (CSC)% pro!ulgated a ?esolution""ir!ing the Iecision o" the I4CS Secretar$ in the case "iled +$ agdalenaut dis!issing the co!plaint o" Liga$a#

SS84: B54T54? C6PL//7 BT/4SS% 7IL4/ 7P8E% SC?4I0L4# ' H4S

4LI:

7enerall$% the character o" a part$ is regarded as legall$ irrele&ant ineter!ining a contro&ers$# 6ne statutor$ eception is that relied upon +$

respondent% i#e#% Section >1 (a) 3% ?ule 13 o" the ?e&ised ?ules 4&idence% ,hich ,e .uote here:

DS4C# >1# Character e&idence not generall$ ad!issi+leA eceptions#

(a) n Cri!inal Cases:

(3) The good or +ad !oral character o" the o""ended part$ !a$ +e pro&ed tends to esta+lish in an$ reasona+le degree the pro+a+ilit$ or i!pro+a+ilit$the o""ense charged#D

t ,ill +e readil$ o+ser&ed that the a+o&e pro&ision pertains onl$ to cri!icases% not to ad!inistrati&e o""enses# nd e&en assu!ing that this technirule o" e&idence can +e applied here% still% ,e cannot sustain respondenposture#

/ot e&er$ good or +ad !oral character o" the o""ended part$ !a$ +e pro&under this pro&ision# 6nl$ those ,hich ,ould esta+lish the pro+a+ilit$ i!pro+a+ilit$ o" the o""ense charged# This !eans that the character e&iden!ust +e li!ited to the traits and characteristics in&ol&ed in the t$pe o" o""encharged# Thus% on a charge o" rape ' character "or chastit$% on a chargeassault ' character "or peacea+leness or &iolence% and on a chargee!+eGGle!ent ' character "or honest$# n one rape case% ,here it ,esta+lished that the alleged &icti! ,as !orall$ loose and apparentl$ uncara+out her chastit$% ,e "ound the con&iction o" the accused dou+t"ul#

n the present ad!inistrati&e case "or seual harass!ent% respondent did o""er e&idence that has a +earing on agdalena-s chastit$# Bhat presented are charges "or gra&e oral de"a!ation% gra&e threats% un@&eation% ph$sical in@uries% !alicious !ischie"% etc# "iled against her# Certaithese pieces o" e&idence are inad!issi+le under the a+o&e pro&is+ecause the$ do not esta+lish the pro+a+ilit$ or i!pro+a+ilit$ o" the o""encharged#

6+&iousl$% in in&oking the a+o&e pro&ision% ,hat respondent ,as tr$ingesta+lish is agdalena-s lack o" credi+ilit$ and not the pro+a+ilit$ or i!pro+a+ilit$ o" the charge# n this regard% a di""erent pro&ision applies#

Credi+ilit$ !eans the disposition and intention to tell the truth in the testi!ogi&en# t re"ers to a person-s integrit$% and to the "act that he is ,orth$+elie"# ,itness !a$ +e discredited +$ e&idence attacking his genereputation "or truth% or integrit$# Section 11% ?ule 13; o" the sa!e ?e&is?ules on 4&idence reads:

DS4C# 11# !peach!ent o" ad&erse part$-s ,itness# ,itness !a$ i!peached +$ the part$ against ,ho! he ,as called% +$ contradicte&idence% +$ e&idence that his general reputation "or truth% honest$%integrit$ is +ad% or +$ e&idence that he has !ade at other ti!es state!e

inconsistent ,ith his present testi!on$% +ut not +$ e&idence o" particu,rong"ul acts% ecept that it !a$ +e sho,n +$ the ea!ination o" the ,itneor the record o" the @udg!ent% that he has +een con&icted o" an o""ense#D

lthough she is the o""ended part$% agdalena% +$ testi"$ing in her o+ehal"% opened hersel" to character or reputation attack pursuant to tprinciple that a part$ ,ho +eco!es a ,itness in his o,n +ehal" places hi!sin the sa!e position as an$ other ,itness% and !a$ +e i!peached +$ attack on his character or reputation#

Bith the "oregoing dis.uisition% the Court o" ppeals is correct in holding tthe character or reputation o" a co!plaining ,itness in a seual charge iproper su+@ect o" in.uir$# This leads us to the ulti!ate .uestion agdalena-s derogator$ record su""icient to discredit her credi+ilit$


29/46

care"ul re&ie, o" the record $ields a negati&e ans,er#

irst% !ost o" the t,ent$'t,o (;;) cases "iled ,ith the TC o" 0aguio Cit$elate to acts co!!itted in the -s% particularl$% 19> and 19=# Bith respecto the co!plaints "iled ,ith the Chair!en o" 0aranga$ 7a+riela Silang andaranga$ 5illside% the acts co!plained o" took place in 19


30/46

Callanga# Fro! there% he sa, LoGano and Tu+is enter the said house# "ter ae, !inutes% he sa, LoGano and Tu+is co!e out o" the house carr$ing t,ores ,hich the$ placed inside the +aggage co!part!ent o" the To$ota

Cressida# 5e called his "ello, tanods and the$ intercepted the Cressida# The,o tires ,ere reco&ered and LoGano and Callanga ,ere arrested# Tu+is ,as+le to escape# Therea"ter% PaG 7onGales ,as su!!oned to the 0aranga$

6""ice ,here she identi"ied the t,o tires as the sa!e tires ,hich ,ere stoleno! her#

C: The stolen tires ,ere reco&ered in the possession o" accused Luis ChitooGano% Billie Callanga and LorenGo Tu+is# There can +e no otheronclusion that the$ are the thie&es# 5ence% the$ ,ere "ound guilt$ to thehe"t#

6n appeal% ccused'appellant posits the &ie, that since +oth ,itnesses (PaG7onGales and ose LaGaro r#) had no personal kno,ledge that the said tires,ere reco&ered in the possession o" the accused% their testi!onies are purel$earsa$% hence ,ithout an$ pro+ati&e &alue# C ne&ertheless con&icted theccused# 5ence this case#

ssue: B6/ the ,itness- testi!onies are ad!issi+le

eld:

H4S% as an eception to the hearsa$ rule#

he Court o" ppeals did not err in con&icting accused LoGano and his co'ccused# The$ are guilt$ +e$ond reasona+le

Testimonial Privilege- Hearsay

Documents

Transcript of Testimonial Privilege- Hearsay