Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evidence Feb 27 (Secs 25-51 Rule 130) Digests
Evidence Feb 27 (Secs 25-51 Rule 130) Digests
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the charges, Tamargo filed an appeal to PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: Tamargo argues that, based on the
the Department of Justice (DOJ). 17 On May 30, 2005, the DOJ, independent assessment of Judge Daguna, there was probable cause
through then Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez, reversed the dismissal and
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 6 of 65
based on the earlier a davit of Columna. She considered all the Informations for murder against them were issued with grave abuse of
pieces of evidence but did not give credit to Columna's recantation. discretion.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: Respondents counter that Judge Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. The rule on res inter alios
Daguna committed grave abuse of discretion by limiting her acta provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
evaluation and assessment only to evidence that supported probable declaration, or omission of another. Consequently, an extrajudicial
cause while completely disregarding contradicting evidence. They confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible against
also contend that Columna's extrajudicial confession was inadmissible his or her co-accused and is considered as hearsay against them.
against respondents because of the rule on res inter alios acta. The reason for this rule is that: on a principle of good faith and mutual
convenience, a man's own acts are binding upon himself, and are
ISSUE: Whether Columna’s March 8 affidavit may be admissible as evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it
evidence against his co-accused in view of the rule on admission by would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that
co-conspirator? a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers;
and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither
RULING: NO, Columna’s March 8 affidavit may not be admissible ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him.
as evidence against his co-accused, in view of the rule on An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by
admission by co-conspirator. Considering the paucity and a conspirator under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court:
inadmissibility of the evidence presented against the
respondents, it would be unfair to hold them for trial. Once it is Admission by conspirator. — The act or declaration of a conspirator
ascertained that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in
belief as to the guilt of the accused, they should be relieved from evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by
the pain of going through a full blown court case. When, at the evidence other than such act or declaration.
outset, the evidence offered during the preliminary investigation
is nothing more than an uncorroborated extrajudicial confession This rule prescribes that the act or declaration of the conspirator
of an alleged conspirator, the criminal complaint should not relating to the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in
prosper so that the system would be spared from the evidence against co-conspirators provided that the conspiracy is
unnecessary expense of such useless and expensive shown by independent evidence aside from the extrajudicial
litigation. The rule is all the more significant here since confession. Thus, in order that the admission of a conspirator may be
respondent Licerio Antiporda remains in detention for the received against his or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that (a) the
murder charges pursuant to the warrant of arrest issued by conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself
Judge Daguna. (b) the admission relates to the common object and (c) it has been
made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.
Indeed, at that stage of the proceedings, the duty of Judge Daguna Otherwise, it cannot be used against the alleged co-conspirators
was only to satisfy herself whether there was probable cause or without violating their constitutional right to be confronted with the
sufficient ground to hold respondents for trial as co-conspirators. witnesses against them and to cross-examine them.
Given that she had no sufficient basis for a finding of probable cause
against respondents, her orders denying the withdrawal of the
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 7 of 65
Here, aside from the extrajudicial confession, which was later on ISSUE: Whether Reyes’ testimony is admissible and may be used
recanted, no other piece of evidence was presented to prove the against his co-conspirators?
alleged conspiracy. There was no other prosecution evidence, direct
or circumstantial, which the extrajudicial confession could corroborate. RULING: YES, Reyes’ testimony is admissible and may be used
Therefore, the recanted confession of Columna, which was the sole against his co-conspirators. The rule that "The act or declaration
evidence against respondents, had no probative value and was of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its
inadmissible as evidence against them. existence, may be given in evidence other than such act or
declaration,” applies only to extra-judicial acts or declaration,
but not to testimony given on the stand at the trial, where the
defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
And while the testimony of accomplices or confederates in crime
is always subject to grave suspicion, “coming as it does from a
• THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. polluted source," and should be received with great caution and
CENON SERRANO alias PIPING, ET AL., defendants. doubtingly examined, it is nevertheless admissible and
DOMINGO CADIANG, SANTIAGO YUMUL and FILEMON competent. The trial court did not err in convicting the
CENZON, defendants-appellants. [G.R. No. L-7973. April appellants. For lack of sufficient number of votes to impose the
27, 1959.] -> death penalty, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the
proportionate costs against the appellants.
FACTS: Respondents Eulogio Serrano, Cenon Serrano, Anastacio
Reyes et al. were charged with the crime of murder for killing Pablo
Navarro in conspiracy with each other. The accused denied all
allegations and presented different alibis. During the trial of the case Sec. 31. Admission by privies
before the lower courts, Anastacio Reyes was discharged to testify as
a witness for the prosecution. Reyes narrated before the court the Sec. 32. Admission by silence
events that took place from the time he and his co-conspirators
plotted the killing up until the body of the victim was hid.
FACTS: An information dated February 15, 1985 was filed in the "Section 23. Admission by silence. — Any act or declaration made in
Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, La Union charging the accused the presence and within the observation of a party who does or says
Bonifacio Ciobal, Eusebio Ebreo, Ester Pajimola, Ricardo Lim, nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for
Ricardo Miranda, and Eddie Pajimola of the crime of qualified theft. action or comment if not true, may be given in evidence against him."
TRIAL COURT RULING: Rendered a decision convicting the accused To be admissible as an admission by silence the following requisites
of the offense charged in this manner: "WHEREFORE, finding the must concur as correctly stated by the prosecution —
accused Bonifacio Ciobal, Eusebio Ebreo, Ester Pajimola, Ricardo
Lim, Ricardo Miranda and Eddie Pajimola guilty of the crime of "(a) He must have heard or observed the act or declaration of the
qualified theft as charged in the information beyond reasonable doubt other person;
as principals, they are hereby sentenced to suffer RECLUSION
PERPETUA; to indemnify the offended party the amount of (b) He must have had the opportunity to deny it (People v. Ranario, 49
P118,855.21 jointly and severally; and to pay the costs. Considering Phil. 220);
the penalty imposed, let the record of this case be forwarded to the
Supreme Court for review." (c) He must have understood the statement;
On May 2, 1988, Ciobal filed a motion for reconsideration thereof
(d) He must have an interest to object as he would naturally have
questioning the imposition of the penalty alleging that it should only be
done if the statement was not true;
12 years and 1 day to 14 years, 5 months and 1 day of reclusion
temporal. This was denied by the trial court. Later on, Ciobal filed two
(e) The facts are within his knowledge; and
successive motions - a motion for new trial and motion to admit
additional evidence, which was still denied by the trial court. Lastly, (f) The fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence is
Ciobal filed a motion to avail of the new amendment to Rule 119, material to the issue."
Section 15 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which was still denied
by the trial court. ISSUE: Whether an admission by silence is applicable in this case?
The evidence for the prosecution must rise or fall on the sole RULING: NO, an admission by silence is inapplicable in this
testimony of the offended party Benjamin Galvez as found by the case. Galvez had not established through his testimony that all
court a quo. It is not contradicted as the accused were not allowed to these requisites provided by Section 23 of Rule 130 are present.
present their evidence. Nevertheless, it is uncorroborated. Moreover, He did not state that the other appellants were present and heard
coming as it is from an interested party his testimony should not be the admissions against them; that they had the opportunity to
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 9 of 65
deny the same; that they must have understood the statement; This appeal is taken by Fulgencio Ranario from the judgment of the
and that the facts are within their knowledge. Indeed, even Court of First Instance of Bohol, finding him, together with the
appellant Ciobal who allegedly admitted his participation denied accused Leon Caday, guilty of the crime of murder and sentencing
the alleged imputation of appellant Lim that he placed gasoline in him to life imprisonment, with the accessory penalties, to pay, jointly
2 containers. Absent such evidence an admission by and severally with said Leon Caday, to the heirs of the deceased
silence cannot be attributed to the other appellants. Agustin Galanida y Abuel the sum of P1,000 by way of indemnity, and
one-half of the costs of the action.
ISSUE: Whether the admission by silence is applicable in this case?
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 10 of 65
third wound, a bruise, on the upper lip, produced by a blow with a
clenched fist. The two wounds first described were inflicted with a
• THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO DELA dagger or like weapon.
CRUZ and FELIX SORIANO, defendants-appellants. [G.R. Later on, an information for the crime of murder was filed with the
No. L-5871. December 17, 1910.] -> Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, charging Pedro de la Cruz,
Felix Soriano, and Alejo Root.
FACTS: On the night of August 1, 1909, respondents Pedro de la
Cruz, Felix Soriano and Alejo Root, went to the house of the CFI RULING: Convicting the accused of the crime of homicide and
Chinaman, Juan Marquez and entered the house, inquiring for two sentenced them to the penalty of seventeen years and four months of
individuals - mestizos with mustaches who, they said, had insulted reclusion temporal,to pay jointly and severally an indemnity of P1,000
Sergeant Cruz. These two men who were being sought were Primo to the heirs of the deceased, to the corresponding accessory
Avedillo and Cirilo Enriquez and they had been in the said house a penalties, and to the payment of the costs.
few moments before. The landlord's daughters, Elena and Valentina
Marquez, told the searchers that Avedillo and Enriquez had already ISSUE: Whether the admission by silence is applicable in this case?
gone, so the said Cruz and Soriano left, accompanied by Alejo Root,
who had not entered but remained on the lot, in search of the said RULING: YES, the admission by silence is applicable in this
mestizos. Afterwards, Alejo Root came face to face with the mestizo case. Although Alejo Root did not appeal from the judgment
Primo Avedillo, who was then leaning with his arms against the fence rendered in this cause, in view of the fact that, in incriminating
of the lot on which the house stood, and immediately gave him a his codefendants, Cruz and Soriano, he at the same time
heavy blow on the mouth with his fist. On account of this assault confessed to his having attacked the deceased and wounded him
Avedillo started to run and Cirilo Enriquez followed him, dispersing at with a dagger, such statements undoubtedly tend to prove that
the same time the other parties who were assembled there for the his said two codefendants actually pursued the deceased,
serenade; the latter, on account of the suddenness of the assault, Avedillo, and afterwards overtook him, and that while they held
were unable to observe how it occurred nor what else happened, for him fast, stretched out on the ground as he was, Root leaped
three of them, Juan Candido, Tomas Francisco, and Pablo Candido, upon the assaulted man and wounded him with a dagger; from
present during the disorder, on seeing the blow given to Avedillo, all of which testimony it is concluded that the three defendants
started to run, and Cirilo Enriquez alone stated that, on running acted together in common accord with unity of purpose and
behind the deceased, he saw the three Scout soldiers, one of them action in order to attack the deceased. It is to be noted that, as
Sergeant Cruz, catch Avedillo, and that, while two of them held him antecedents of the criminal act, the three defendants went
fast and struck him, the other stabbed him to death with a weapon together in their quest for the party who they claimed had
with which he was provided. In fact, according to the examination and insulted the first sergeant of their company, and thus they went
autopsy made on the following day by Dr. J. B. Clayton, of the military to the house of Juan Marquez, and, as they did not find the said
medical corps, the body of the deceased bore three wounds, one near party there, they continued their search with intentions which
the eighth rib, which slightly injured the stomach and severed a few doubtless were neither peaceable nor lawful, and then together
veins, including a large one which could not be exactly determined on approached several persons who were playing musical
account of the coagulation of blood; another, three inches and a half instruments, whom, without any cause whatever, they illtreated,
deep, near the fifth rib, which pierced the pericardium and the left on which occasion Root struck the deceased, Avedillo, a blow on
ventricle of the heart and must have caused instant death; and the the mouth, and the latter, as well as others, the musicians, on
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 11 of 65
running away without defending themselves, were pursued by Rufino Palarca were also secured. So an information was led on
the appellants determinedly until they overtook Avedillo and held March 9, 1950. This was amended on March 10, 1950. The persons
him fast and laid him out on the ground; in this situation Alejo accused were the three above-mentioned who has confessed, and
Root, who came immediately behind his two co-accused, took Heracleo Limbaco and the respondent Tia Fong alias Ah Sam. Both
part in the assault. The two appellants, therefore, are Limbaco and Ah Sam denied complicity in the crime. At the trial, the
unquestionably co-perpetrators of the murder, as they took a other defendants repudiated the confessions they had made. During
direct part in the commission of the crime which was the course of the trial, it was found out that Ah Sam was in
consummated by their participation, inasmuch as, had they not partnership with Wong Kiat and other Chinamen. Ah Sam separated
caught, held, and stretched out on the ground the deceased, from Wong Kiat and the others and established a store of his own. Ah
Primo Avedillo, perhaps the latter might have been able to Sam complained that his business was dying because Wong Kiat, the
escape out of the reach of the said Root, who apparently was the father of the deceased, and his companions would not sell him bread
only one of the aggressors who was armed. to sell in his store. Ah Sam after a while said it is better that Wong Kiat
and Lian Kaw be whipped.
CFI RULING: Finding the said Ah Sam, Maximo Alcantar, Florencio
Bahala and Rufino Palarca guilty of homicide and sentencing each of
them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of from eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor to fourteen (14) years and eight (8)
months of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
• THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Lian Kaw in the amount of P3,000 and to pay the costs.
TIA FONG alias AH SAM, defendant-appellant. [G.R. No.
L-7615. March 14, 1956.] -> The evidence mainly relied upon for the conviction of Ah Sam is his
silent participation in the reenactment of the crime by his co- accused
FACTS: It appears that early in the morning of February 21, 1950 the Florencio Bahala, Maximo Alcantar and Ru no Palarca. With the
Municipal Mayor of Mambaiao, Misamis Oriental, was informed that a confessions of these three accused on hand, Lt. Chavez and a
dead body was lying in the coconut plantation of one by the name of subordinate of his, Sgt. Fernandez, asked the accused to reenact the
Juan Neri in said municipality. The Mayor and some of his policemen crime and photography of the acts reenacted were caused to be
and the President of the Sanitary Division went to the place indicated, taken. In all the most important incidents and details of the
and there they found the dead body of a Chinaman named Lian Kao, commission of the crime. Ah Sam took part, although silently, under
28 years of age, son of Chinaman Wong Kiat. The authors of the the direction of the Constabulary and his three co-accused.
crime could not be immediately determined until a lieutenant of the
Constabulary by the name of Alberto N. Chavez was detailed to In Exhibit "Q" Tia Fong reenacted his position while waiting for his co-
conduct the investigation. He began making inquiries in and about the accused. In Exhibit "R" he reenacted his own position when he and
place. He suspected Florencio Bahala, who was living in the his co-accused were talking together planning the commission of the
neighborhood, and subjected him to a rigid questioning. He noticed crime. In Exhibit "S" Ah Sam also reenacted his own position or
that his statements did not agree with those of his common- law wife. participation while he and his co-accused were waiting for Erak
After some time Chavez succeeded in convincing him, through the (Heracleo Limbaco), who had gone out to look for the intended victim
help of the wife, to own his part in the crime. Bahala made a and present him to them. In Exhibit "K" Ah Sam also reenacted his
confession on March 9, 1950. The confession of Maximo Alcantar and
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 12 of 65
own position in relation to the other accused when Erak accompanied of the offense for which he is charged, he would have protested
the victim and the other accused followed them - Erak and the victim. being made to take part in the reenactment thereof; he would
have informed the public officials at the time of the reenactment,
Exhibit "M" represents the positions of all the accused, Ah Sam or immediately prior thereto, that he did not actually take part in
included, as the victim fell unconscious after he had been assaulted. the commission of the offense. We, therefore, find that the trial
In this same exhibit, Ah Sam reenacted the part he took in untying the court committed no error in taking into account appellant's
belt of the victim. In Exhibit "N" Ah Sam played his own part, showing participation in the reenactment as voluntary and in considering
the method in which he strangled the victim. Exhibit "U" is the it as evidence against him. The circumstances or evidence
photograph of the manner in which appellant tied the belt which he submitted against the appellant in this case are as follows: he
took from the victim's waist and with which the latter was strangled, was the only one among the accused who had a motive for
while Exhibit "W" reenacts the distribution of the money by him to his causing the death of Lian Kaw; had he not actually participated
co-accused. in the commission of the offense he would have been able to
introduced positive evidence that he was either not present
The witnesses for the prosecution especially Lt. Chavez, testified that or was somewhere else and, therefore, could not have taken part
Ah Sam took part in the reenactment of the crime and without any in the said crime; the confession of his co-accused as to the
opposition on his (Ah Sam's) part. He (Ah Sam) neither opposed nor reason for the killing and as to the manner in which the offense
denied to take part. was committed corroborates or indicates the probability of the
appellant having participated therein; and his silent
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: Ah Sam testified that before the acquiescence in taking part in the reenactment and his voluntary
reenactment of the crime he was told before hand to obey whatever and ready participation therein produce conviction as to his
instructions Sgt. Fernandez would give, and that he (Ah Sam) tried his actual participation in the commission of the offense. The above
best to obey said instructions. According to him, Sgt. Fernandez circumstances convince us that the appellant Ah Sam
would first read the paper (confession of his co-accused), then direct participated in the commission of the crime, inducing his co-
the accused to assume the positions, and lastly ordered pictures to be accused to help him perpetrate it, he himself actually taking
taken. Ah Sam further declared that he just followed the directions direct part therein. We find, therefore, that the trial court
given by Sgt. Fernandez because he had already been maltreated. committed no error in finding him guilty as charged.
The supposed maltreatment consisted in having been boxed in the
solar plexus as a result of which he involuntarily urinated. The judgment appealed from is hereby modified and instead of
homicide the appellant Tia Fong alias Ah Sam is found guilty of
ISSUE: Whether the admission by silence is applicable in this case? murder, without any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The
sentence imposed upon him by the trial court is therefore raised to
RULING: YES, the admission by silence is applicable in this that of reclusion perpetua.
case. It is to be noted that the implication of guilt in the case at
bar is not derived from mere silence; it is inferred from
appellant's silent acquiescence in participating in the
reenactment of the crime. More than mere silence, appellant
committed positive acts without protest or denial when he was
free to refuse. Had he not actually participated in the commission
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 13 of 65
the statements therein contained are untrue, Balaguer and IBC-13 in
effect admitted the matters stated therein, pursuant to the rule on
• FRANCISCO N. VILLANUEVA, petitioner, vs. VIRGILIO P. admission by silence in Sec. 32, Rule 130, and the disputable
BALAGUER and INTERCONTINENTAL BROADCASTING presumption that acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing
CORPORATION CHANNEL-13, respondents. [G.R. No. acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact.
180197. June 23, 2009.] ->
ISSUE: Whether the admission by silence is applicable in this case?
FACTS: On March 31, 1992, petitioner Francisco N. Villanueva, then
Assistant Manager for Operations of Intercontinental Broadcasting RULING: NO, the admission by silence is inapplicable in this
Corporation-Channel 13 (IBC-13) was dismissed from employment on case. One cannot prove his claim by placing the burden of proof
the ground of loss of con dence for purportedly selling forged certi on the other party. Indeed, "(a) man cannot make evidence for
cates of performance. Contesting his termination, petitioner led a himself by writing a letter containing the statements that he
complaint for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations wishes to prove. He does not make the letter evidence by
Commission. sending it to the party against whom he wishes to prove the facts
During the pendency of the labor case, news articles about [stated therein]. He no more can impose a duty to answer a
irregularities in IBC-13 were published in the July 18, 1992 issue of charge than he can impose a duty to pay by sending goods.
the Manila Times and the Philippine Star, and in the July 19, 1992 Therefore a failure to answer such adverse assertions in the
issue of the Manila Bulletin. absence of further circumstances making an answer requisite or
natural has no effect as an admission”. Moreover, the rule on
In these news articles, respondent Virgilio P. Balaguer, then President admission by silence applies to adverse statements in writing if
of IBC-13, was quoted to have said that he uncovered various the party was carrying on a mutual correspondence with the
anomalies in IBC-13 during his tenure which led to the dismissal of an declarant. However, if there was no such mutual
operations executive for selling forged certificates of performance. correspondence, the rule is relaxed on the theory that while the
party would have immediately reacted by a denial if the
On September 25, 1992, Villanueva filed before the Regional Trial statements were orally made in his presence, such prompt
Court of Quezon City a complaint for damages against response can generally not be expected if the party still has to
Balaguer, which was later amended by impleading IBC-13 as resort to a written reply. In the same manner, we also cannot
additional defendant. assume an admission by silence on the part of Balaguer by
virtue of his failure to protest or disclaim the attribution to him
RTC RULING: Villanueva is entitled to an award of damages. by the newspapers that he is the source of the articles. As
explained above, the rule on admission by silence is relaxed
LA RULING: Rendered a Decision finding Villanueva's dismissal as when the statement is not made orally in one's presence or when
illegal. one still has to resort to a written reply, or when there is no
mutual correspondence between the parties. As for the
NLRC RULING: Affirmed LA’s decision. publications themselves, newspaper articles purporting to state
what the defendant said are inadmissible against him, since he
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: Villanueva argues that by not cannot be held responsible for the writings of third persons. As
responding to the above letter which expressly urged them to reply if correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, "while the subject
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 14 of 65
news items indicated that Balaguer was the source of the interview. Also presented as a witness was Dr. Bandonill, medico-
columnists, proving that he truly made such statements is legal expert of the NBI, who testified that it was possible that the
another matter”. Villanueva failed to prove that Balaguer did lacerations on the victim could have been caused by something blunt
make such statements.Notably, Villanueva did not implead the other than the male organ. Raised in this appeal was the admissibility
editorial staff and the publisher of the alleged defamatory of two confessions made before SPO1 Espinoza and Manuel which
articles. Contrary to Villanueva's assertion, he should have at appellant claimed to have been obtained from him in violation of
least presented the authors of the news articles as witnesses to Section 12 (1), Article III of the Constitution.
prove his case against Balaguer and IBC-13 in the absence of an
express admission by the latter that the subject news articles TRIAL COURT RULING: Domantay is guilty as charged and was
have been caused by them. sentenced to death.
ISSUE: Whether the extra-judicial confession made by Domantay to
Manuel is admissible in evidence?
Sec. 33. Confession
RULING: YES, the extra-judicial confession made by Domantay
to Manuel is admissible in evidence. Accused-appellant was
interviewed while he was inside his cell. The interviewer stayed
• PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. outside the cell and the only person besides him was an uncle of
BERNARDINO DOMANTAY, @ "JUNIOR OTOT," accused- the victim. Accused-appellant could have refused to be
appellant. [G.R. No. 130612. May 11, 1999.] -> interviewed, but instead, he agreed. He answered questions
freely and spontaneously. According to Celso Manuel, he said he
was willing to accept the consequences of his act. Domantay's
FACTS: 29-year-old respondent Bernardino Domantay was charged extrajudicial confession is corroborated by evidence of corpus
with rape with homicide for the death of 6-year-old Jennifer Domantay, delicti, namely, the fact of death of Jennifer Domantay. In
whose body was found in a bamboo grove with 38 stab wounds at the addition, the circumstantial evidence furnished by the other
back and whose hymen was completely lacerated on the right side, prosecution witnesses dovetails in material points with his
though found fully clothed in blue shorts and white shirt. confession. He was seen walking toward the bamboo grove,
followed by the victim. For the foregoing reasons, the Court is
Conviction was based primarily on the testimonies of SPO1 Espinoza convinced of accused-appellant's guilt with respect to the killing
and Celso Manuel, a radio reporter. SPO1 Espinoza testified that of the child. Even assuming that Jennifer had been raped, there
appellant confessed to the killing of Jennifer and disclosed to him the is no sufficient proof that it was accused-appellant who had
location of the bayonet used which was submitted as evidence for the raped her. He did not confess to having raped the victim. From
prosecution. According to him, appellant waived assistance of counsel the foregoing, we cannot find that accused-appellant also
but the waiver was not put in writing nor made in the presence of committed rape. In the special complex crime of rape with
counsel. On the other hand, Manuel declared that appellant, in an homicide, both the rape and the homicide must be established
interview, admitted the brutal killing of Jennifer; that he was just beyond reasonable doubt.
outside the cell when he interviewed appellant accompanied by his
uncle inside the jail, that the nearest policemen were about 2-3 Celso Manuel admitted that there were indeed some police officers
meters from him and that no lawyer assisted appellant during the around because about two to three meters from the jail were the
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 15 of 65
police station and the radio room. We do not think the presence of the In contrast, in the case at bar, there is no circumstantial evidence from
police o cers exerted any undue pressure or in uence on accused- which to infer that accused-appellant sexually abused the victim. The
appellant and coerced him into giving his confession. only circumstance from which such inference might be made is that
accused-appellant was seen with the victim walking toward the place
Although he testified that he had interviewed inmates before, there is where the girl's body was found. It is noteworthy that the deceased
no evidence to show that Celso was a police beat reporter. Even was fully clothed in blue shorts and white shirt when her body was
assuming that he was, it has not been shown that, in conducting the brought to her parent's house immediately after it was found.
interview in question, his purpose was to elicit incriminating Furthermore, there is a huge bloodstain in the back portion of her
information from Domantay. To the contrary, the media are known to shorts. This must be because she was wearing this piece of clothing
take an opposite stance against the government by exposing official when the stab wounds were inflicted or immediately thereafter, thus
wrongdoings. cdasia allowing the blood to seep into her shorts to such an extent. As
accused-appellant would naturally have to pull down the girl's lower
Indeed, there is no showing that the radio reporter was acting for the garments in order to consummate the rape, then, he must have,
police or that the interview was conducted under circumstances where regardless of when the stab wounds were inflicted, pulled up the
it is apparent that Domantay confessed to the killing out of fear. As victim's shorts and undergarments after the alleged rape, otherwise,
already stated, the interview was conducted on October 23, 1996, 6 the victim's shorts would not have been stained so extensively. Again,
days after Domantay had already confessed to the killing to the this is contrary to ordinary human experience.
police.
Domantay's extrajudicial confession is corroborated by evidence of
corpus delicti, namely, the fact of death of Jennifer Domantay. In
addition, the circumstantial evidence furnished by the other
prosecution witnesses dovetails in material points with his confession.
He was seen walking toward the bamboo grove, followed by the
victim. Later, he was seen standing near the bamboo grove where the
child's body was found. Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
provides:
The appellants interpose the defense of alibi, insisting that they could
not have committed the crime because on the day in question,
particularly that time of the night, they were elsewhere.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: Respondent’s counsel claims that • THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
there is no conclusive evidence of the death of the deceased, MOROS ANSANG, ET AL., defendants. MORO ANSANG
because his body was never found, neither was the place where he and MORO JUBAIL, defendants-appellants. [G.R. No.
was supposed to have been buried indicated, the corpus delicti was L-4847. May 15, 1953.] ->
not established.
FACTS: Moros Ansang, Jubail and Jaho were accused of multiple
ISSUE: Whether the corpus delicti was established in this case? murder of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga.
Sometime in October, 1949, Ansang complained to the Chief of Police
RULING: YES, the corpus delicti was established in this case. In of Maluso that Moro Berto was taking away the coconuts from his
a case of murder or homicide, it is not necessary to recover the (Ansang's) plantation. The chief of police told him to complain to the
body or to show where it can be found. There are cases like provincial scal. Ansang was unable to see said officer. Berto
death at sea, where the finding or recovery of the body is continued picking up the coconut fruits, claiming that he was the
impossible. It is enough that the death and the criminal agency owner of the plantation.
causing it be proven. There are even cases where said death and
the intervention of the criminal agency that caused it may be On October 7, 1949, Jubail, the foster son of Ansang, went to the
presumed or established by circumstantial evidence. There is seashore of Sangbay, Basilan City, Zamboanga, and there saw Moros
nothing in the record to show that the witnesses for the Berto, Abdani, Eka, and Kasim, loading seven sacks of copra
prosecution had any reason for falsely imputing this serious gathered from the plantation Jubail asked Berto what was he going to
crime of murder to them. Of course, appellant Alejo Sanchez do with the copra. The latter answered that he would take it to the
insinuates that Arsenio Bucad had a motive to testify against him town of Isabela that same day. Berto and his three companions sailed
because he (Alejo) was a witness against him in a criminal case for said place. A few days afterwards, Moro Abdul Samad saw Jubail
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 20 of 65
with Jaho, boarding another vinta, Jubail carrying with him three home Jaho-he was invited by Jubail to go fishing with dynamite. He acted as
made bombs or hand grenades. When Moro Wahina asked what helmsman and upon instruction of Jubail, they followed the vinta of
those objects were, Jubail answered that they were home made Berto. When they came near it, to his surprise, he saw that Jubail was
bombs which they were going to use for fishing. Afterward Jubail and throwing bombs or hand grenades at said vinta. He told Jubail that
Jaho sailed away. When they returned to Sangbay, Samad and had he known that that was the purpose, he would not have
Wahina noticed that they no longer had bombs, and that they did not accompanied him. Before going with Jubail, he believed that they
bring any fish. From that time, Berto, Abdani, Eka, and Kasim have were going to fish and had no idea at all that Jubail intended to
not been seen or heard from by anybody. Abdul Samad saw pieces of commit a serious crime.
Berto's vinta on the seashore of the Island of Pilas.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: Respondent’s counsel contend that
When the authorities were apprised of the disappearance of Berto and a conviction cannot be based on an extrajudicial confession without
his three companions, and the discovery of the wreckage of Berto's proof of the corpus delicti, independent of the confession.
vinta, they began to make an investigation, and arrested Ansang,
Jubail, and Jaho. ISSUE: Whether the extra-judicial confessions made by Ansang,
Jubail and Jaho established the corpus delicti?
TRIAL COURT RULING: Moro Jaho was acquitted, but Ansang and
Jubail were found guilty, and each was sentenced to suffer reclusion RULING: YES, the extra-judicial confessions made by Ansang,
perpetua, to pay the heirs of each victim jointly and severally an Jubail and Jaho established the corpus delicti. Jubail was the
indemnity of P2,000, to suffer the accessory penalties of the law, and foster son of Ansang, who had a grudge against Berto. Jubail
each to pay one-third of the costs. and Jaho were seen by Samad and Wahina sailing from the shore
of Sangbay, Jubail carrying three hand grenades. When asked
At the trial of the case, Ansang, Jubail, and Jaho did not assail the where they were going, Jubail answered that they were going to
validity of their respective confessions, con ning themselves to a fish. Berto and his companions have never returned from the
general denial of the crime charged. They did not say that they were trip and have never been seen or heard of by anybody. When
forced, tortured or given a promise to induce them to make and sign Jubail and Jaho returned, they no longer had hand grenades nor
their confessions. did they bring any fish. The pieces of the wreckage of Berto's
vinta were seen on the shore of the Island of Pilas. Berto and his
Ansang-ordered his foster son Jubail to follow them and kill them. companions must have met a violent death due to the
commission of a crime.
Jubail-upon order of his foster father, he gathered three home made
bombs and invited Jaho to sail with him, telling the latter that they
were going to sh. With Jaho as helmsman, they followed the vinta of
Berto, which had sailed ahead. Upon reaching a point about seven
brazas distant from Berto's vinta, he, Jubail, ignited the bombs one by
one and threw them successively at Berto's vinta, causing its
destruction and the disappearance of the four passengers. Then they
sailed back and kept silent as to what they had done.
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 21 of 65
• THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RULING: YES, the testimonies made by Quiogue and Gelitia and
AQUILINO NIEM, ET AL., defendants-appellants. [CA No. the discovery of the robbed items sufficiently established the
521 . December 20, 1945.] -> corpus delicti. Genaro Gelitia spoke the truth not only because
he appears to have no motive in testifying falsely but because
FACTS: In the sitio of Balanoy, barrio of Mabacan, municipality of there is corroboration in the discovery in appellant's house of
Calauan, Province of Laguna, along an uninhabited railroad truck, two of the articles robbed. Upon the other hand, the candid
Toribio Quiogue and Genaro Gelitia were held up at about noon of admission of Toribio Quiogue that he could identify only Filemon
January 18, 1945, by four waylaying men, three of whom were armed Niem, far from being a detracting circumstance, serves to make
with revolvers and one with a knife. At the subsequent investigation the evidence for the prosecution more truthful and persuasive.
conducted by Constabulary Sergeant Julian Artillaga, Genaro Gelitia Indeed, Toribio's failure to recognize all the appellants may be
easily identi ed the herein appellants, among many persons shown to due to his inferior perceptive power or to the fact that he was not
shim, as the four individuals who robbed him and his companion in so good a position as to view all the appellants well enough to
Toribio Quiogue, of their clothes and other personal belongings worth be remembered for some time. The SC cannot accept appellant's
P116.41; and in the search made in the house of Aquilino Niem with speculative contention that the initials "G. G." appearing on the
whom the other appellants lived, the belt buckle (Exhibit C) and the belt buckle was a probable fabrication and that Genaro Gelitia,
pandan bag (Exhibit D) taken away by the appellants, were being illiterate, could not have read said initials. Said buckle had
recovered. More speci cally, Genaro Gelitia testified in positive terms been positively identified by its owner and it is not unusual for
that he was confronted and ordered to undress by Benito Niem and even an illiterate to recognize his property by any familiar
Jose Buenafe, the latter holding a revolver and the former a knife, and distinguishing mark. Contrary to appellant's allegation, there is
that, in the meantime. Filemon Niem poked his revolver at Toribio satisfactory proof that all the appellants were armed and the
Quiogue's side while Aquilino Niem acted as guard holding a revolver. articles specified in the information had really been taken away
Although Toribio Quiogue was also able to identify Filemon Niem, he by them. The fact that only the knife (Exhibit A), the belt buckle
was frank enough to admit that he could not recognize the other (Exhibit C), and the pandan bag (Exhibit D) had been produced
three. before the court does not prove any deficiency in the evidence
for the prosecution regarding the corpus delicti, but merely
CFI RULING: Convicting the herein appellants, Aquilino Niem, indicates the speed with which the appellants were able to
Filemon Niem, Benito Niem, and Jose Buenafe, of the crime of conceal or dispose of their weapons and the other articles
robbery in band committed in an uninhabited place and sentencing robbed.
them to the indeterminate penalty ranging from two years and four
months o f prision correccional to seven years, ten months and
twenty-one days of prision mayor; to indemnify the offended parties,
Toribio Quioque and Genaro Gelitia, jointly and severally, in the
respective sums of P89 and P27.41, without subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.
ISSUE: Whether the testimonies made by Quiogue and Gelitia and
the discovery of the robbed items sufficiently established the corpus
delicti?
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 22 of 65
• THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. whether or not feloniously caused. The confession Exhibit F
BIENVENIDO NOCUM, defendant-appellant. [G.R. No. served to identify the person who fired those shots and
L-482. February 25, 1947.] -> committed the offense. The SC does not feel any inclination to
reject such confession, because the uncorroborated and
FACTS: About 9 o'clock in the evening of November 21, 1945, there implausible testimony of Nocum, alleging he had been
was a fistic fight between Federico Bautista and Vicente Aurencio at manhandled before signing this document, about which he knew
the corner of Mayhaligue and Magdalena Streets, City of Manila. nothing, could not definitely overcome the positive assertions of
Desiring to stop the encounter, respondent Bienvenido Nocum Pablo Montilla of the Manila Police Department (before whom
shouted at the combatants. As these paid him no attention, he drew a Exhibit F had been executed) that no force or intimidation had
45 caliber pistol and shot twice in the air. The bout continued, been employed on Nocum, who willingly signed it "after
however; so Nocum fired another shot at the ground, but propounding to him all the questions and explaining to him the
unfortunately the bullet ricocheted and hit Eugenio Francisco, an contents" thereof. The impartiality of that officer of the law has
innocent by-stander, resident of the place. The wounded man was not been shaken by the lone testimony of Nocum, which, as
promptly carried to the St. Luke's Hospital where he expired soon explained in the People's brief, deserves no credence. Nocum
after. The above paragraph is a composite and abridged statement of said in court that he signed Exhibit F when Montilla told him "it
the declarations of several witnesses (Jesus Santos, Vicente and was simply a proof that they arrested me" (p. 27, t. s. n.). This is
Juan Aurencio and Ramon Gagui) in connection with Nocum's inconsistent with the alleged third-degree methods. If he was
confession which is marked as Exhibit F. forced, deceit was unnecessary. And yet, he could not be
For having discharged a gun and accidentally killed Eugenio deceived thusly, because he was no illiterate, being seventh
Francisco, Nocum, was tried in the Court of First Instance of Manila, grader. Anyway, the trial judge had the chance to see the
before the Honorable Alfonso Felix, judge. Found guilty of homicide opposing witnesses, and to observe their demeanor on the
through reckless negligence, Nocum appealed in due course. stand.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: Nocum’s attorney, assailing the The mishap should be classed as homicide through reckless
validity of said confession on the ground of involuntariness, contends imprudence, the slaying having been unintentional (cf. People vs.
in this Court that inasmuch as the corpus delicti had not been Sara, 55 Phil., 939; and United States vs. Reodique, 32 Phil., 468). It
demonstrated by evidence detours that document, his client should be is apparent Nocum willfully discharged his gun — for which he
absolved, pursuant to several pertinent decisions. exhibited no license, by the way — without taking the precautions
demanded by the circumstance that the district was populated, and
ISSUE: Whether the extra-judicial confession which was marked as the likelihood that his bullet would glance over the hard pavement of
Exhibit F made by Nocum is admissible? the Manila thoroughfare.
• PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. In this Court, only accused Ceferino Guneda is appealing from the
ROGER VICTOR @ "Ger" and "Gerry", ROBERTO RTC Decision, which adjudged him guilty of the crime of Robbery with
MONTEBON @ "Bobby" and "Bento" and CEFERINO Homicide.
GUNEDA @ "Prino", defendants, CEFERINO GUNEDA @
"Prino", defendant-appellant. [G.R. Nos. 75154-55. RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: In arguing that the evidence
February 6, 1990.] -> presented by the prosecution does not establish his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, Guneda assails the extra-judicial confessions of his
FACTS: Two criminal cases were jointly tried in this case. A joint co-accused Roger Victor and Roberto Montebon (Exhibits "Y" and "Z",
Decision was rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Argao, respectively) as inadmissible for having been obtained through force,
Cebu, in Criminal Case No. AR-912 for Robbery with Homicide, and threats and intimidation. Guneda also alleges that the testimony of his
Criminal Case No. AR-913 for Illegal Possession of Firearm and co-accused Roger Victor, affirming the latter's extra-judicial
Ammunitions. confession, is not to be believed for being filled with inconsistencies
In Criminal Case No. AR-912, the Regional Trial Court found: a) Both and that such affirmation, taken together with the extra-judicial
Roberto Montebon and Ceferino Guneda guilty beyond doubt of the confessions abovementioned, may not be used in evidence against
crime of Robbery with Homicide. They were both sentenced to suffer him pursuant to Sections 27 and 29, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court,
Reclusion Perpetua, and the accessory penalties provided for by law; which provide:
and b) Roger Victor guilty beyond doubt of the offense of simple
Robbery, with two mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty to RULE 130. Sec. 27 — ADMISSION BY CONSPIRATOR. The act or
Robbery and testifying as to true facts in favor of the State. He was declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment of from six (6) existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after
months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to four the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or
(4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as declaration.
maximum, and to suffer the accessory penalties provided for by law.
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 27 of 65
RULE 130. Sec. 29 — CONFESSION. The declaration of an accused spontaneous and made without compulsion to the point of being self-
expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged may be incriminating despite proper advice from counsel.
given in evidence against him.
This Court has exercised utmost caution in those cases where the
ISSUE: Whether the judicial confession of Victor and the extra-judicial conviction is based on the testimony of a discharged co-accused. In
confession of Montebon is admissible as evidence? the case at bar, however, the witness, Roger Victor, was not
discharged as co-accused and yet he testified as to his and his co-
RULING: YES, the judicial confession of Victor and the extra- accused's participation in the crime. He was, in fact, convicted of
judicial confession of Montebon is admissible as evidence. At Robbery. Moreover, his testimony was made during presentation of
this juncture, it must be pointed out that Section 27 refers only to evidence by the defense, not by the prosecution. It was only during
the extra-judicial statement or admission of a conspirator. When the presentation of rebuttal evidence that he was again called to
such extra-judicial statement is confirmed at the trial, it ceases to testify, this time, by the prosecution. The credibility of his testimony
be hearsay. It becomes, instead, a judicial admission being a having remained unimpeached, such testimony, therefore, carries
testimony of an eyewitness admissible in evidence against those great weight in the determination of appellant Ceferino Guneda's guilt.
it implicates. The extra-judicial confession of Roger Victor
(Exhibit "Y") was re-iterated and affirmed by him in open court, Second, the testimony of Roger Victor is replete with details that only
during the trial. Thus, such confession partakes of the nature of a participant in the crime could have known, such as, how and when
a judicial testimony admissible in evidence not only against the Guneda proposed the commission of the crime (TSN, 26 September,
declarant but even against his co- accused, Ceferino Guneda. 1985, pp. 26-29), how they first tried to rob Myles Castle (TSN, 26
Finally, there is the extra-judicial confession of Roberto September 1985, pp. 8-10); where they first examined the articles
Montebon (Exhibit "Z"), sworn to by him before Judge Alfredo taken from the victim Charles Turner (Ibid, p. 33-35); how Turner was
Buenconsejo of the Municipal Trial Court of Boljoon, during the killed; and who took custody of the loot (Ibid, pp. 29-35). All such
Preliminary Investigation, which confession points to Guneda as details underscore the credibility of Victor's testimony (People v. San
the mastermind. While the general rule is that an extra-judicial Miguel, L-30722, 31 July 1981, 106 SCRA 290).
confession of an accused is binding only upon himself and is not
admissible against his co-accused, it has been held that such a Third, the testimony of Roger Victor is corroborated in its material
confession is admissible against a co-accused where the points by other evidence on record, to wit: the testimony of Captain
confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the Gerry Barias and Patrolman Marcos Florida that the weapon used in
probability of participation by the co-conspirator. The judicial killing and the articles taken from the victim were in the possession of
confession of Roger Victor as corroborated by the other Roberto Montebon when he was arrested (TSN, 24 July 1985, pp.
evidence, establishes the guilt of accused-appellant Guneda 15-16; 31 May 1985, pp. 9-30); the testimony of Artemio Panganiban
beyond reasonable doubt. Jr., Supervising Ballistician of the NBI, that the .38 caliber "paltik"
revolver taken from Roberto Montebon was the same weapon which
First of all, the voluntariness of the testimony is beyond question. fired the cartridge found in the possession of Roger Victor (TSN, 27
Roger Victor was presented by his own counsel as witness in his June 1985, pp. 11-56); the testimony of Carlito Lozada, the Sensaldo
(Roger Victor's) own behalf at the hearing of 26 September 1985. The bus conductor, that Roger Victor and Roberto Montebon boarded his
direct examination conducted reveals that his testimony was bus at Boljoon enroute to Cebu City (TSN, 26 June 1985, pp. 8-10);
the testimony of Juanita Guneda Victor, wife of Roger Victor and a
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 28 of 65
relative of accused-appellant Ceferino Guneda, that the latter and her 12(1), Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution. The dead body of Brenda
husband knew each other and that they would often go to the market Candelaria was found in the Municipality of Guiguinto, Bulacan.
of Boljoon where according to Roger Victor, Guneda proposed the But Velarde, a resident of Barangay Tikay, Municipality of
commission of the crime (TSN, 26 July 1985, pp. 14-22); and, lastly, Malolos was brought to and detained in the Malolos Police
the testimony of Josefina Romero, corroborating that of Victor, that Station, where he was investigated by the Malolos police. It is
both the latter and Montebon were among the customers in her store significant to point out that, during the cross-examination and
in the afternoon of 16 October 1984, before the crime was committed. perhaps in total confusion, the investigator even went so far as
All these testimonies corroborate Victor's and serve to strengthen his to state that Atty. Domingo had not acted as Velarde's lawyer. If
credibility. this were so, then Velarde had absolutely no counsel when his
extra-judicial confession was taken. In whatever way we may
Guided by the requirements of credibility and corroboration on look at the situation, it is clear that, in palpable violation of the
material points in the appreciation of the evidence on record, we hold Constitution, Velarde was not assisted by a competent and
that the testimony of Roger Victor is sufficient to warrant the independent counsel during the custodial investigation and the
conviction of accused-appellant Ceferino Guneda. taking of his extra-judicial confession. Hence, the Court is duty-
bound to disregard it.
Article III Section 12 (1) of the Constitution provides:
FACTS: On the bases of the circumstantial evidence and the extra- The Court agreed with the trial court. Atty. Danilo Domingo cannot be
judicial confession of the accused Crispin Velarde, the Regional Trial considered as an independent counsel. He was the mayor of Malolos
Court of Malolos, Bulacan convicted Velarde of the crime of rape with at the time. As such, he exercised "operational supervision and
homicide and the supreme penalty of death was imposed upon him. control" over the PNP unit in that municipality. Moreover, during the
investigation, Atty. Domingo failed to act as the independent and
In this automatic review, Velarde contended that the extrajudicial competent counsel envisioned by the Constitution. He failed to give
confession taken during the investigation was inadmissible in any meaningful advice to protect the rights of appellant. The former
evidence. did not even bother to inform the latter of the consequences of his
extrajudicial confession.
ISSUE: Whether the extra-judicial confession made by Velarde is
admissible as evidence? Further, in case of doubt, the scales must be tipped in favor of the
accused. Circumstantial evidence as a basis for criminal conviction
RULING: NO, the extra-judicial confession made by Velarde is should be weighed and accepted with great caution. Jurisprudence
inadmissible as evidence, as it is a clear violation of Section teaches that it is preferable for the guilty to remain unpunished than
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 29 of 65
for the innocent to suffer unjustly — in this case, to be sentenced to Avila stabbed Saminado when the latter was seated in the comfort
die by lethal injection. Thus, without the extrajudicial confession, the room and his back was turned to Avila, while Tampus stabbed the
circumstantial evidence becomes utterly insufficient to pass the test of victim on the chest and neck (Exh. J dated January 14, 1976). Two
moral certainty. Accordingly, Crispin Velarde was acquitted on days after the killing, or on January 16, another prison guard
reasonable doubt. investigated Tampus and Avila and obtained their extrajudicial
confessions wherein they admitted that they assaulted Saminado
(Exh. A and C).
5. Testimonial knowledge FACTS: On September 27, 1972, petitioner Savory Luncheonette filed
Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; a complaint charging respondent LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG
hearsay excluded PILIPINO, with unfair labor practice for having violated certain
provisions of Republic Act 875 (Industrial Peace Act). To sustain its
charges, Savory presented Atty. Emiliano Morabe as a witness. Atty.
Morabe had allegedly taken charge of the labor-management
problems of Savory and had thereby acquired first-hand knowledge of
the facts of the labor dispute. Accordingly, the cross-examination of
Atty. Morabe was re-scheduled for several times, but when such date
arrived, Atty. Amante (LAKAS’ counsel) did not appear and so the
cross-examination was once more transferred to March 17, 1973, with
the warning from the court that "should the respondents still fail to
cross-examine Atty. Morabe, the right to cross-examine him will be
deemed waived."
Later on, Atty. Morabe succumbed to a heart attack on March 31,
1973. On April 12, 1973, LAKAS PILIPINO filed a motion to strike out
the direct testimony of Atty. Morabe from the records on the ground
that since cross-examination was no longer possible, such direct
testimony "could no longer be rebutted." On June 14, 1973, private
respondents filed another motion seeking the recall of Savory's
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 32 of 65
witness Bienvenida Ting for further cross-examination. Mrs. Ting was examination but through fault of his own failed to cross-examine
presented as a witness by Savory on March 27, 1973 and was cross- the witness.
examined by the private respondents on June 4, 1973. In an Order
dated May 3, 1974, respondent court granted the two motions. The SC ruled that the right of a party to confront and cross-examine
Thereupon, Savory filed a motion for reconsideration of the said order opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or civil in
but the same was denied in a resolution en banc dated July 5, 1974. nature, or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-
judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: Savory now strongly asserts that However, the right is a personal one which may be waived expressly
respondent Court acted with grave abuse of discretion when the latter or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of
ordered that the direct testimony of its principal witness, Atty. Morabe, cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had the opportunity to
be stricken off the record for "(T)o strike out the testimony of Atty. cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily
Morabe after the respondents had been given su cient and repeated forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct
opportunities to cross-examine him, and after they have practically examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the
waived their right to cross-examine him is unjust and unfair. It is not record. The conduct of a party which may be construed as an implied
warranted by our rules of procedure and would place a premium on waiver of the right to cross-examine may take various forms. But the
respondents' repeated failure and refusal to cross-examine the common basic principle underlying the application of the rule on
witness. Respondents should not be allowed to pro t and bene t from implied waiver is that the party was given the opportunity to confront
their own neglect and omission. and cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to take advantage
of it for reasons attributable to himself alone.
ISSUE: Whether Atty Morabe’s testimony should be stricken off the
record?
RESPONDENTS' CONTENTION: Serenas and Labad question the Note however that based on the testimonies of witnesses, there was
alleged dying declaration of the victim in that they were not sufficiently no direct evidence linking appellant Joel to the crime. With respect to
identified as the persons responsible for Niño's death. Serenas and Joe-An, the lower courts properly appreciated the presence of
Labad anchor their argument on the utterance of the word "Joe-An" treachery in qualifying the crime to murder.
when the victim was asked on who stabbed him. Serenas and Labad
advance that the victim may have been referring to some other
person. Moreover, the victim did not even mention "Joel" or "Joel
Labad," the other suspect.
FACTS: On the night of December 14, 1989, Rodel Yarza was ISSUE: Whether Rodel’s dying declaration is admissible as evidence?
seriously stabbed. Yarza was originally brought to Mary Johnson
Hospital for treatment and was transferred that same evening to the RULING: YES, Rodel’s dying declaration is admissible as
emergency room of Jose Reyes Memorial Hospital where he was evidence. The Supreme Court held that the law does not require
operated on. Yarza, however, died the following morning. that the declarant explicitly state his perception that he has given
Respondents Renato Bautista, Arman Hernandez, Arnold Mendoza up the hope of life. It is enough if, from the circumstances, it can
and Jess Sabarin were charged with murder. Bautista pleaded not be inferred with certainty that such must have been his state of
guilty and interposed the defense of denial claiming that Rodel, the mind. The fact that the deceased did not expire right after his
deceased, hit him with a bottle on the left side of his head with no declaration to his wife will not alter the probative force of his
apparent reason and that it was his three co-accused who assaulted dying declaration since it is not indispensable that a declarant
Rodel. expires immediately thereafter. It is the belief in impending death
and not the rapid succession of death, in point of fact, that
Charlie Yarza, who testified for the prosecution, positively identified renders the dying declaration admissible. The hope to survive,
Bautista as the person who stabbed his cousin (Rodel) at Moriones as we know, springs eternal in the human heart, but then the
Street after being chased by all four accused. The widow of the victim knew in this case that his life was, notwithstanding
deceased, Zenaida Yarza, testifying also for the prosecution, declared medical intervention, slowly ebbing away. Moreover, the fact that
that her husband who then was very pale, profusely perspiring and Rodel Yarza did not expire right after his declaration to his wife
very weak told her that it was Bautista who stabbed him. Zenaida also at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of December 14, 1989, but
testified that the Bautista’s father told her that on that night Bautista survived until 2:30 o'clock the following morning, or about four
went home, took a knife and ran away, and that he offered to defray (4) hours from the time he made the declaration, will not alter the
the medical expenses of Rodel. Giving more weight on the dying probative force of his dying declaration since it is not
declaration of the deceased, the trial court rendered judgment of indispensable that a declarant expires immediately thereafter. It
conviction. is the belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of
death, in point of fact, that renders the dying declaration
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS: Bautista maintains that the admissible. Added to the statement of the deceased, which
testimony of Zenaida Yarza to the effect that the victim told her that it deserved the highest credence, is the fact that it was only Renato
was accused-appellant who stabbed him should not be admitted as a Bautista who had the motive to kill the victim considering that,
dying declaration simply because it was not made "under a according to the defense, the victim hit accused-appellant with a
consciousness of impending death," which is the most important and bottle on the left side of the head while the latter was playing
decisive requisite for a statement to qualify as a dying declaration. cards with his friends. This act of violence is more than sufficient
Also, Bautista insists that had the victim believed that his death was to have impelled accused-appellant to get back at the victim.
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 39 of 65
• PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ISSUE: Whether the utterances made by Januario is considered as
SONNY GATARIN y CABALLERO @ "JAY-R" and dying declaration and may be admissible as evidence?
EDUARDO QUISAYAS, accused, EDUARDO QUISAYAS,
accused-appellant. [G.R. No. 198022. April 7, 2014.] -> RULING: NO, the utterances made by Januario is not considered
as dying declaration, yet it is admissible as evidence by
FACTS: Appellant and accused Sonny Gatarin y Caballero were res gestate. In the case at bar, it appears that not all the
charged in an Information with Robbery with Homicide. The requisites of a dying declaration are present. From the records,
prosecution presented the testimonies of the following witnesses: (1) no questions relative to the second requisite was propounded to
Maria Castillo, Januario (the victim)'s wife; (2) Howel Umali (Umali), Januario. It does not appear that the declarant was under the
who allegedly saw how Gatarin mauled Januario; (3) SPO3 Gregorio consciousness of his impending death when he made the
G. Mendoza (SPO3 Mendoza) of the Mabini Police Station, who saw statements. The rule is that, in order to make a dying declaration
Januario lying on the floor and Gatarin running away from the crime admissible, affixed belief in inevitable and imminent death must
scene, and testified on the dying declaration of Januario; (4) Dr. be entered by the declarant. It is the belief in impending death
Catalino Ike A. Rasa Jr. (Dr. Rasa), who attended to Januario when and not the rapid succession of death in point of fact that
he was brought to the hospital; and (5) PO1 Rogelio Dizon Coronel renders a dying declaration admissible. The test is whether the
(PO1 Coronel), who saw Gatarin running fast near the crime scene declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and looked on
and who, likewise, testified on Januario's ante mortem statement. death as certainly impending. Thus, the utterances made by
RTC RULING: Rendered a Decision against Gatarin. It gave Januario could not be considered as a dying declaration.
credence to the testimony of Maria Castillo not only as to the fact of
taking money from Januario but also the amount taken. The fact of However, even if Januario's utterances could not be appreciated as a
death was, likewise, found by the court to have been adequately dying declaration, his statements may still be appreciated as part of
proven by the testimony of Dr. Rasa. Though there was no evidence the res gestae. Res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and
whether the unlawful taking preceded the killing of Januario, the court declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its
held that there was direct and intimate connection between the two character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the
acts. As to the identity of the perpetrators, the court considered the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication. The
victim's response to SPO3 Mendoza's question as to who committed test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestaeis,
the crime against him as part of the res gestae, which is an exception therefore, whether the act, declaration, or exclamation, is so
to the hearsay rule. As to appellant's defense of alibi, the court gave interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it
more weight to the prosecution's rebuttal evidence that indeed the characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and
former was an actual resident of Mabini, Batangas. also whether it clearly negates any premeditation or purpose to
manufacture testimony. The requisites for admissibility of a
CA RULING: Affirmed the RTC decision. Contrary, however, to the declaration as part of the res gestae concur herein. When Januario
RTC's conclusion, the appellate court considered Januario's gave the identity of the assailants to SPO3 Mendoza, he was referring
statement to SPO3 Mendoza, that the accused were the ones who to a startling occurrence which is the stabbing by appellant and his
stabbed him and took his wallet, not only as part of res gestae but co-accused. At that time, Januario and the witness were in the vehicle
also as a dying declaration. that would bring him to the hospital, and thus, had no time to contrive
his identication of the assailant. His utterance about appellant and his
co-accused having stabbed him, in answer to the question of SPO3
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 40 of 65
Mendoza, was made in spontaneity and only in reaction to the Q Where did this happened? (sic) date and hour?
startling occurrence. Definitely, the statement is relevant because it
identified the accused as the authors of the crime. Verily, the killing of A In barangay Lorenzo Tan, Tangub City at about 8:30 o'clock in the
Januario, perpetrated by appellant, is adequately proven by the night on Oct. 1, 1982.
prosecution.
Q How many persons fired at you?
A There were four persons that gunned me.
Q Do you know anyone of the four that fired their guns at you?
• THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. A Yes, it is Lamber Tanaman who is from Lorenzo Tan, Tangub City.
NORBERTO TANAMAN alias LAMBER TANAMAN alias
LAMBERTO TANAMAN, VICTORIANO SEBIAL, PEDRO Q What was the reason why they gunned you down?
BULOCBULOC, ALFREDO BANAAG and GLICERIO
BANAAG, accused, NORBERTO TANAMAN alias LAMBER A Because he favored Luis Sebial when his cow was lost.
TANAMAN alias LAMBERTO TANAMAN, accused-
appellant. [G.R. No. L-71768. July 28, 1987.]-> Q What do you feel about your wounds, will you be saved.
FACTS: On November 4, 1998, herein petitioners Alejandra Lazaro ISSUE: Whether Basilisa's sworn statement which was duly notarised
filed against herein respondents Modesta Agustin a complaint for is a declaration against interest?
partition with the MTCC of Laoag City.
RULING: NO, Basilisa's sworn statement which was duly
MTCC RULING: Dismissing the complaint and denying petitioners' notarised is an admission against interest. Indeed, there is a vital
prayer for partition. It ruled, among others, that no evidentiary value distinction between admissions against interest and declarations
could be given to the affidavit allegedly executed by Basilisa, wherein against interest. Admissions against interest are those made by
she purportedly acknowledged her co- ownership of the subject a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or identi ed in legal
property with her siblings Alberto, Leoncio and Alejandra, because the interest with such party, and are admissible whether or not the
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 48 of 65
declarant is available as a witness.15 Declarations against • PEPITO CAPILA Y YRUMA, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF
interest are those made by a person who is neither a party nor in THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. [G.R. No. 146161. July 17,
privity with a party to the suit, are secondary evidence, and 2006.] ->
constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. They are admissible
only when the declarant is unavailable as a witness. 16 In the FACTS: On August 24, 1993, an Information for robbery was led with
present case, since Basilisa is respondents' predecessor-in- the Regional Trial Court, Branch 148, Makati City, against petitioner
interest and is, thus, in privity with the latter's legal interest, the Pepito Capila y Yruma, his brother Bonifacio Capila y Yruma,
former's sworn statement, if proven genuine and duly executed, Deogenio Caparoso y Porfero, and Dimas dela Cruz y Lorena.
should be considered as an admission against interest. A TRIAL COURT RULING: Rendered its Decision acquitting all the
cursory reading of the subject sworn statement also reveals that accused, except Pepito.
it refers to a parcel of land denominated as Lot No. 10678 while
the property being disputed is Lot No. 10676.17 On this basis, it CA RULING: Affirming the assailed judgment of the trial court.
cannot be concluded with certainty that the property being
referred to in the sworn statement is the same property claimed ISSUE: Whether Dimas’ statement is considered res gestae?
by petitioners. Although the questioned sworn statement is a
public document having in its favor the presumption of RULING: YES, Dimas’ statement is considered res gestae. We are
regularity, such presumption was adequately refuted by in accord with the Court of Appeals in its conclusion that all the
competent witnesses requisites of the rule on res gestae are present. The principal act,
which by any measure is undoubtedly a startling occurrence, is
the robbery of which petitioner is being charged. Immediately
after the robbery, Dimas dela Cruz, the security guard then on
Sec. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree duty, informed Ariel that one of the perpetrators is herein
petitioner. Dimas likewise reported at once the incident to the
• People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 154278, 27 December 2002 police and to the security agency. When questioned by SPO4
Maximo, Dimas, who was still shocked, named petitioner herein
Sec. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree as one of the robbers. His statements to Ariel and SPO4 Maximo
were made before he had the time and opportunity to concoct
Sec. 41. Common reputation and contrive a false story. We note that Dimas personally knows
petitioner considering that both worked in the same security
Sec. 42. Part of the res gestae agency and assigned in the same office.
Further, immediately after the robbers ed, dela Cruz informed Ariel • CELESTINO MARTURILLAS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF
Arellano (the bank representative detailed at the Meralco o ce) that THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. [G.R. No. 163217. April 18,
appellant was one of those who robbed the office (pp. 15-17, TSN, 2006.] ->
January 31, 1994). In other words, statement of dela Cruz was
spontaneous as correctly observed by the trial court. FACTS: Petitioner Celestino Marturillas was charged with homicide in
an Information 7 dated November 5, 1998, worded as follows: "[T]hat
Third. The statement of dela Cruz refers to the robbery or incident on or about November 4 1998, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and
subject matter of this case. within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned
accused, armed with a gun, and with intent to kill, wilfully, unlawfully
A careful scrutiny of the records shows that the prosecution relied and feloniously shot one Artemio Pantinople, thereby inflicting fatal
heavily on the testimony of SPO4 Maximo that immediately after the wound upon the latter which caused his death."
incident, Dimas reported to him that one of the robbers is Pepito. The ISSUE: Whether Artemio’s statement also constitutes res gestae?
Court of Appeals, in affirming the court a quo's judgment convicting
petitioner, ruled that Dimas' statement is part of the res gestae. RULING: YES, Artemio’s statement also constitutes res
gestae. All these requisites are present in this case. The principal
act, the shooting, was a startling occurrence. Immediately after,
The rule on res gestae is provided under Section 42, Rule 130 of the while he was still under the exciting influence of the startling
Revised Rules of Court, thus: occurrence, the victim made the declaration without any prior
opportunity to contrive a story implicating Marturillas. Also, the
SEC. 42. Part of the res gestae. — Statements made by a person declaration concerned the one who shot the victim. Thus, the
while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or latter's statement was correctly appreciated as part of the res
subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be gestae. Aside from the victim's statement, which is part of the
given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also statements res gestae, that of Ernita — "Kapitan, ngano nimo gipatay ang
accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a akong bana?' ("Captain, why did you shoot my husband?") —
legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae. may be considered to be in the same category. Her statement
was about the same startling occurrence; it was uttered
For the admission of the res gestae in evidence, the following spontaneously, right after the shooting, while she had no
requisites must be met: (1) that the principal act or the res gestae be opportunity to concoct a story against petitioner; and it related
a startling occurrence; (2) the statement is spontaneous or was made to the circumstances of the shooting.
before the declarant had time to contrive or devise, and the statement
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 50 of 65
• PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. The case against Benedict Guerrero was ordered archived by the
DANILO FELICIANO, JR., JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA, court until his apprehension.
CHRISTOPHER SOLIVA, WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, and
ROBERT MICHAEL BELTRAN ALVIR , accused- CA RULING: Affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court.
appellants. [G.R. No. 196735. May 5, 2014.]->
ISSUE: Whether the bystanders’ statement is considered res gestae?
FACTS: On December 8, 1994, seven (7) members of the Sigma Rho RULING: YES, the bystanders’ statement is considered res
fraternity were eating lunch at the Beach House Canteen, near the gestae. Although admissible, have little persuasive value since
Main Library of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, when they the bystanders could have seen the events transpiring at
were attacked by several masked men carrying baseball bats and different vantage points and at different points in time. Even
lead pipes. Some of them sustained injuries that required Frisco Capilo, one of the bystanders at the time of the attack,
hospitalization. One of them, Dennis Venturina, died from his testified that the attackers had their masks on at first, but later
injuries. A case was filed against several members of the Scintilla on, some remained masked and some were unmasked. When the
Juris fraternity, namely, Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Julius Victor L. Medalla, bystanders' testimonies are weighed against those of the victims
Warren L. Zingapan, Robert Michael Beltran Alvir, Christopher L. who witnessed the entirety of the incident from beginning to end
Soliva, Reynaldo G. Ablanida, Carlo Jolette Fajardo, George Morano, at close range, the former become merely corroborative of the
Raymund E. Narag, Gilbert Merle Magpantay, Benedict Guerrero, and fact that an attack occurred. Their account of the incident,
Rodolfo Peñalosa, Jr. with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, therefore, must be given considerably less weight than that of
Branch 219. the victims. According to the testimony of U.P. Police Officer
Prosecution witnesses saw about ten (10) men charging toward them. Salvador, when he arrived at the scene, he interviewed the
The men were armed with baseball bats and lead pipes, and their bystanders who all told him that they could not recognize the
heads were covered with either handkerchiefs or shirts. A witness attackers since they were all masked. This, it is argued, could be
positively identified Danilo Feliciano, Jr. as he was beating Venturina evidence that could be given as part of the res gestae. There is
up with a lead pipe while Raymund E. Narag was aiming to hit no doubt that a sudden attack on a group peacefully eating lunch
Venturina. Venturina was transferred from the U.P. Infirmary to St. on a school campus is a startling occurrence. Considering that
Luke’s Hospital on December 8, 1994 and died two days later. the statements of the bystanders were made immediately after
the startling occurrence, they are, in fact, admissible as evidence
The defense employed the defense of alibi. given in res gestae.
ISSUE: Whether the fax messages constitute as res gestae. SO, HE WAS SURPRISED N CAME TO BRIDGE N FOUND 2/O NOT
CARRY OUT HIS WATCH DUTY.
RULING: NO, the fax messages does not constitute as res MASTER SCOLD HIM ABOUT THIS N CORRECT HIS ERROR BUT
gestae. Assuming that Talidano's negligence — which allegedly HE RESIST [SIC] THAT HE IS RIGHT AND THEN SAID THAT HE
caused the ship to deviate from its course — is the startling WILL COME BACK HOME.
occurrence, there is no showing that the statements contained in
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 52 of 65
LLB4302
Sec. 43. Entries in the course of business CA RULING: Set aside the 19 January and 22 March 2004
Resolutions of the NLRC and reinstated the 18 June 2003 Decision of
the Labor Arbiter.
Jose, Jr. did not show that the Court of Appeals’ ruling is violative of
any law or jurisprudence. Section 43, Rule 130, of the Rules of Court
states: SEC. 43. Entries in the course of business. — Entries made
at, or near the time of the transactions to which they refer, by a person
deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts
therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such
person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the
performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business
or duty.
In Canque v. Court of Appeals, the Court laid down the requisites for
admission in evidence of entries in the course of business: (1) the
person who made the entry is dead, outside the country, or unable to
testify; (2) the entries were made at or near the time of the
transactions to which they refer; (3) the person who made the entry
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 55 of 65
• LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. ISSUE: Whether there is a need to present the Consolidated Billing
MONET'S EXPORT AND MANUFACTURING CORP., Statement?
VICENTE V. TAGLE, SR. and MA. CONSUELO G. TAGLE,
respondents. [G.R. No. 184971. April 19, 2010.] -> RULING: YES, there is a need to present the Consolidated Billing
Statement.But a bank statement, properly authenticated by a
FACTS: On June 25, 1981 petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines competent bank officer, can serve as evidence of the status of
(Land Bank) and respondent Monet's Export and Manufacturing those accounts and what Monet and the Tagles still owe the
Corporation (Monet) executed an Export Packing Credit Line bank. Under Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, entries
Agreement (Agreement) under which the bank gave Monet a credit prepared in the regular course of business are prima facie
line of P250,000.00, secured by the proceeds of its export letters of evidence of the truth of what they state. The billing statement
credit, promissory notes, a continuing guaranty executed by reconciles the transaction entries entered in the bank records in
respondent spouses Vicente V. Tagle, Sr. and Ma. Consuelo G. Tagle the regular course of business and shows the net result of such
(the Tagles), and a third-party mortgage executed by one Pepita C. transactions. Entries in the course of business are accorded
Mendigoria. Land Bank renewed and amended this credit line unusual reliability because their regularity and continuity are
agreement several times until it reached a ceiling of P5 million. calculated to discipline record keepers in the habit of precision.
Land Bank claims that by August 31, 1992 Monet's obligation under If the entries are financial, the records are routinely balanced and
the Agreement had swelled to P11,464,246.19. Since Monet failed to audited. In actual experience, the whole of the business world
pay despite demands, the bank led a collection suit against Monet function in reliance of such kind of records.
and the Tagles before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. 1 In
their answer, Monet and the Tagles claimed that Land Bank had In reverting back to Exhibit 39, which covers just one of many
refused to collect the US$33,434.00 receivables on Monet's export promissory notes that Monet and the Tagles executed in favor of Land
letter of credit against Wishbone Trading Company of Hong Kong Bank, the RTC and the CA have shown an unjusti ed obstinacy and a
while making an unauthorized payment of US$38,768.40 on its import lack of understanding of what the Court wanted done to clear up the
letter of credit to Beautilike (H.K.) Ltd. This damaged Monet's issue of how much Monet and the Tagles still owed the bank.
business interests since it ran short of funds to carry on with its usual The bank lawyer who claimed that Land Bank had no further evidence
business. In other words, Land Bank mismanaged its client's affairs to present during the hearing was of course in error and it probably
under the Agreement. warranted a dismissal of the bank's claim for failure to prosecute. But
the bank's motion for reconsideration, asking for an opportunity to
RTC RULING: Rendered a decision that, among other things, present evidence of the status of the loans, opened up a chance for
recognized Monet and the Tagles' obligations to Land Bank in the the RTC to abide by what the Court required of it. It committed error,
amount reflected in Exhibit 39, the bank's Schedule of Amortization together with the CA, in ruling that a reopening of the hearing would
from its Loans and Discount Department, but sans any penalty. The serve no useful purpose.
RTC ordered petitioners to pay Land Bank the same.
The CA of course places no value on the Consolidated Billing
CA RULING: Rendered judgment on October 9, 2003, affirming the Statement that Land Bank would have adduced in evidence had the
RTC decision. RTC granted its motion for reconsideration and reopened the hearing.
Apparently, both courts believe that Land Bank needed to present in
evidence all original documents evidencing every transaction between
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 56 of 65
Land Bank and Monet to prove the current status of the latter's loan Also, since SFMS Evangelista merely testified based on what
accounts. those records contained, his testimony was hearsay evidence
twice removed, which was one step too many to be covered by
the official-records exception to the hearsay rule. SFMS
Evangelista's testimony of nonpayment of forest charges was,
furthermore, based on his failure to find official receipts
Sec. 44. Entries in official records corresponding to billings sent to PICOP. As stated above, PICOP
attached official receipts in its Addendum to Motion for
• HON. HEHERSON ALVAREZ substituted by HON. ELISEA Reconsideration to this Court. While this course of action is
G. GOZUN, in her capacity as Secretary of the Department normally irregular in judicial proceedings, we merely stated in
of Environment and Natural Resources, petitioner, vs. the assailed Decision that "the DENR Secretary has adequately
PICOP RESOURCES, INC., respondent. [G.R. No. 162243. proven that PICOP has,at this time, failed to comply with
December 3, 2009.] -> administrative and statutory requirements for the conversion of
TLA No. 43 into an IFMA”, and that "this disposition confers
FACTS: PICOP filed with the DENR an application to have its Timber another chance to comply with the foregoing requirements”. In
License Agreement (TLA) No. 43 converted into an IFMA. view of the foregoing, we withdraw our pronouncement that
PICOP filed before the (RTC) City a Petition for Mandamus against PICOP has unpaid forestry charges, at least for the purpose of
then DENR Sec Alvarez for unlawfully refusing and/or neglecting to determining compliance with the IFMA requirements.
sign andexecute the IFMA contract of PICOP even as the latter has
complied with all the legal requirements for the automatic conversion SFMS Evangelista, while not relying on the Memoranda of Orlanes
of TLA No. 43, as amended, into an IFMA. The cause of action of and Arayan, nevertheless relied on records, the preparation of which
PICOP Resources, Inc. (PICOP) in its Petition for Mandamus with the he did not participate in.78 These records and the persons who
trial prepared them were not presented in court, either. As such, SFMS
court is clear: the government is bound by contract, a 1969 Document Evangelista's testimony, insofar as he relied on these records, was on
signed by then President Ferdinand Marcos, to enter into an matters not derived from his own perception, and was, therefore,
Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA) with PICOP hearsay.
Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which speaks of entries in
ISSUE: Whether Section 44 may be invoked to excuse the testimony official records as an exception to the hearsay rule, cannot excuse the
of SFMS Evangelista? testimony of SFMS Evangelista. Section 44 provides:
RULING: NO, Section 44 may be invoked to excuse the testimony SEC. 44. Entries in official records. — Entries in official records made
of SFMS Evangelista. The presentation of the records themselves in the performance of his duty by a public o cer of the Philippines, or
would, therefore, have been admissible as an exception to the by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law,
hearsay rule even if the public officer/s who prepared them was/ are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
were not presented in court, provided the above requisites could
be adequately proven. In the case at bar, however, neither the In Africa v. Caltex, 79 we enumerated the following requisites for the
records nor the persons who prepared them were presented in admission of entries in o cial records as an exception to the hearsay
court. Thus, the above requisites cannot be su ciently proven. rule: (1) the entries were made by a public o cer or a private person in
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 57 of 65
the performance of a duty; (2) the performance of the duty is There are three requisites for admissibility under the rule just
especially enjoined by law; (3) the public o cer or the private person mentioned: (a) that the entry was made by a public officer, or by
had su cient knowledge of the facts stated by him, which must have another person specially enjoined by law to do so; (b) that it was
been acquired by him personally or through official information. made by the public officer in the performance of his duties, or by such
other person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law;
and (c) that the public officer or other person had sufficient knowledge
of the facts by him stated, which must have been acquired by him
personally or through official information (Moran, Comments on the
Rules of Court, Vol. 3 [1957] p. 398).
• THE SPOUSES BERNABE AFRICA and SOLEDAD C. (1) The material facts recited in the reports of fire department, as to
AFRICA and the HEIRS OF DOMINGA ONG, petitioners- the cause and circumstances of the fire were not within the personal
appellants, vs. CALTEX (PHIL.) INC., MATEO BOQUIREN knowledge of the officers who conducted the investigation. Was
and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents- knowledge of such facts, however, acquired by them through official
appellees. [G.R. No. L-12986. March 31, 1966.] -> information? As to some facts the sources thereof are not even
identified. Others are attributed to Leopoldo Medina, referred to as an
FACTS: On March 18, 1948 in the afternoon, a fire broke out at the employee at the gas station were the fire occurred; to Leandro Flores,
Caltex service station at the corner of Antipolo street and Rizal driver of the tank truck from which gasoline was being transferred at
Avenue, Manila. It started while gasoline was being hosed from a tank the time to the underground tank of the station; and to respondent
truck into the underground storage, right at the opening of the Mateo Boquiren, who could not, according to Exhibit V- Africa, give
receiving tank where the nozzle of the hose was inserted. The fire any reason as to the origin of the fire. To qualify their statements as
spread to and burned several neighboring houses, including the "official information" acquired by the officers who prepared the
personal properties and effects inside them. Their owners, among reports, the persons who made the statements not only must have
them petitioners here, sued respondents Caltex (Phil.), Inc. and personal knowledge of the facts stated but must have the duty to give
Mateo Boquiren, the first as alleged owner of the station and the such statements for record.
second as its agent in charge of operation. Negligence on the part of
both of them was attributed as the cause of the fire. The reports in question do not constitute an exception to the hearsay
The trial court and CA found petitioners failed to prove negligence. rule; the facts stated therein were not acquired by the reporting
officers through official information, not having been given by the
ISSUE: Whether reports submitted by (1) the fire department and (2) informants pursuant to any duty to do so.
police officer may properly be considered as an exception to the
hearsay rule? (2) The foregoing report, having been submitted by a police officer in
the performance of his duties on the basis of his own personal
RULING: The reports submitted by the fire department is not an observation of the facts reported, may properly be considered as an
exception to the hearsay rule, while the ones submitted by the police exception to the hearsay rule
officer may properly be considered as an exception to the hearsay
rule.
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 58 of 65
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: Malayan Insurance contends that,
even without the presentation of the police investigator who prepared
• MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. , petitioner, vs. RODELIO the police report, said report is still admissible in evidence, especially
ALBERTO and ENRICO ALBERTO REYES, since respondents failed to make a timely objection to its presentation
respondents. [G.R. No. 194320. February 1, 2012.]-> in evidence. 16 Respondents counter that since the police report was
never confirmed by the investigating police officer, it cannot be
FACTS: At around 5 o'clock in the morning of December 17, 1995, an considered as part of the evidence on record.
accident occurred at the corner of EDSA and Ayala Avenue, Makati
City, involving four (4) vehicles, to wit: (1) a Nissan Bus operated by ISSUE: Whether the police report conformed with the requisites of
Aladdin Transit with plate number NYS 381; (2) an Isuzu Tanker with Section 44?
plate number PLR 684; (3) a Fuzo Cargo Truck with plate number
PDL 297; and (4) a Mitsubishi Galant with plate number TLM 732. 4 RULING: NO, the police report lacked the third requisite of
Previously, particularly on December 15, 1994, Malayan Insurance Section 44. Nonetheless, the police report is still admissible in
issued Car Insurance Policy No. PV-025-00220 in favor of First evidence, since the respondents failed to make a timely
Malayan Leasing and Finance Corporation (the assured), insuring the objection to the police report's presentation in evidence; thus,
aforementioned Mitsubishi Galant against third party liability, own they are deemed to have waived their right to do so. Notably, the
damage and theft, among others. Having insured the vehicle against presentation of the police report itself is admissible as an
such risks, Malayan Insurance claimed in its Complaint dated October exception to the hearsay rule even if the police investigator who
18, 1999 that it paid the damages sustained by the assured prepared it was not presented in court, as long as the above
amounting to PhP700,000. requisites could be adequately proved. Here, there is no dispute
that SPO1 Dungga, the on-the-spot investigator, prepared the
Maintaining that it has been subrogated to the rights and interests of report, and he did so in the performance of his duty. However,
the assured by operation of law upon its payment to the latter, what is not clear is whether SPO1 Dungga had sufficient
Malayan Insurance sent several demand letters to respondents personal knowledge of the facts contained in his report. Thus,
Rodelio Alberto (Alberto) and Enrico Alberto Reyes (Reyes), the the third requisite is lacking.
registered owner and the driver, respectively, of the Fuzo Cargo
Truck, requiring them to pay the amount it had paid to the assured. In Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, 23 this Court reiterated the requisites
When respondents refused to settle their liability, Malayan Insurance for the admissibility in evidence, as an exception to the hearsay rule
was constrained to file a complaint for damages for gross negligence of entries in o cial records, thus: (a) that the entry was made by a
against respondents. 7 public o cer or by another person specially enjoined by law to do so;
(b) that it was made by the public o cer in the performance of his or
RTC RULING: Ruled in favor of Malayan Insurance and declared her duties, or by such other person in the performance of a duty
respondents liable for damages specially enjoined by law; and (c) that the public o cer or other person
had su cient knowledge of the facts by him or her stated, which must
CA RULING: Reversed and set aside the Decision of the trial court have been acquired by the public officer or other person personally or
and ruled in favor of respondents through official information.
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 59 of 65
were not duly authenticated and that the witness (Del Rosario) did not
Sec. 45. Commercial lists and the like have personal knowledge on the contents of the writings and neither
was he an expert on the subjects thereof.
• PNOC SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CA argued that the documents were sufficient and exempt from the
petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and hearsay rule as they are part of “commercial lists” defined in sec.45
MARIA EFIGENIA FISHING CORPORATION, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence in so far as they fall under
respondents. [G.R. No. 107518. October 8, 1998.]-> the “or other published compilation” phrase of the rule.
FACTS: On the morning of September 21, 1977, M/V Maria Efigenia Section 45. Commercial lists and the like. — Evidence of statements
XV (of the private respondent) was navigating the waters near of matters of interest to persons engaged in an occupation contained
Fortune Island in Nasugbu, Batangas on its way to Navotas, Metro in a list, register, periodical, or other published compilation is
Manila when it collided with the vessel “Petroparcel”, owned at that admissible as tending to prove the truth of any relevant matter so
time by Luzon Stevedoring Corporation (LSC).The Board of Marine stated if that compilation is published for use by persons engaged in
Inquiry found the Petroparcel at fault for the collision and based on that occupation and is generally used and relied upon by them
this and after unsuccessful demands on petitioner, private respondent therein.
sued LSC and Petroparcel captain Edgardo Doruelo for actual and
compensatory damages. During the pendency of the proceedings, ISSUE: Whether the documents fall under the exception to the
PNOC Shipping Transport Corporation acquired ownership of hearsay evidence rule under sec. 45 rule 130 of the Revised Rules on
Petroparcel and replaced LSC in the trial. Evidence
CFI RULING: Ruled in favor of private respondent, awarding it: the RULING: NO, the documents does not fall under the exception to
sum of P6,438,048.00 representing the value of the fishing boat with the hearsay evidence rule under sec. 45 rule 130 of the Revised
interest of 6% per annum; P50,000 attorney’s fees and the cost of Rules on Evidence. The documents presented by private
suit. The basis of said amount was the testimony of the general respondent were regarded as hearsay evidence. Del Rosario
manager of Maria Efigenia Fishin Corporation,Edilberto del Rosario could not have testified on the veracity of the documents as he
and several documentary evidence that included: ownership was not the author of them. He can only testify as to facts of his
certificate, price quotations, and invoices issued at the request of Del personal knowledge. As such, the price quotations were
Rosario. It also ruled that PNOC-STC was unable to contest such considered ordinary private writings which under the Revised
evidence with only the testimony of its senior estimator Lorenzo Rules of Court should be proffered along with the testimony of
Lazaro as sole witness and without any documentary evidence. the writers thereof. One of the exemptions to the hearsay
evidence rule under Sec.37-47 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules
CA RULING: Affirmed the CFI decision ruling that where a lower court on Evidence is “commercial lists”. However, the quotations do
is confronted with evidence which appears to be of doubtful not fall under “other published compilation” mentioned in the
admissibility, the judge should declare in favor of admissibility rather said exemption as they are not published in any list, register,
than of non-admissibility. periodical, or other compilation. They are also not standard
handbooks or periodicals containing data of everyday
On appeal to the SC, petitioner argued, among other things, that the professionals need and relied upon in the work of occupation.
documents were not sufficient evidence to support the extent and They are merely letters responding to the queries of Del Rosario.
actual damages incurred by private respondent. The price quotations
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 60 of 65
RULING: YES, the admission of Bane’s deposition may be used
Sec. 46. Learned treatises invoking Section 47. For the admission of a former testimony or
deposition, Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court simply
Sec. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding requires, inter alia, that the witness or deponent be "deceased or
unable to testify." On the other hand, in using a deposition that
• REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. was taken during the pendency of an action, Section 4, Rule 23
SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), JOSE L. AFRICA of the Rules of Court provides several grounds that will justify
(substituted by his heirs), MANUEL H. NIETO, JR., dispensing with the actual testimony of the deponent in open
FERDINAND E. MARCOS (substituted by his heirs), court and specifies, inter alia, the circumstances of the
IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., JUAN deponent's inability to attend or testify, as follows: (3) that the
PONCE ENRILE, and POTENCIANO ILUSORIO (substituted witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, sickness,
by his heirs), respondents. -> infirmity, or imprisonment[.] [emphases ours] The phrase
"unable to testify" appearing in both Rule 23 and Rule 130 of the
FACTS: On July 22, 1987, the petitioner Republic of the Philippines, Rules of Court refers to a physical inability to appear at the
through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), witness stand and to give a testimony.127 Hence
led a complaint (docketed as Civil Case No. 0009) against Jose L. notwithstanding the deletion of the phrase "out of the
Africa, Manuel H. Nieto, Jr., Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Philippines," which previously appeared in Section 47, Rule 130
Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., Juan Ponce Enrile, and Potenciano Ilusorio of the Rules of Court, absence from jurisdiction 128 — the
(collectively, the respondents) for reconveyance, reversion, petitioner's excuse for the non-presentation of Bane in open
accounting, restitution, and damages before the Sandiganbayan. The court — may still constitute inability to testify under the same
petitioner alleged, inter alia, that the respondents illegally manipulated rule. This is not to say, however, that resort to deposition on this
the purchase of the major shareholdings of Cable and Wireless instance of unavailability will always be upheld.Where the
Limited in Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI), which deposition is taken not for discovery purposes, but to
shareholdings respondents Jose Africa and Manuel Nieto, Jr. held for accommodate the deponent, then the deposition should be
themselves and, through their holdings and the corporations they rejected in evidence.
organized, bene cially for respondents Ferdinand E. Marcos and
Imelda R. Marcos. 4 Although the testimony of a witness has been given in the course of a
Civil Case No. 0009 is the main case subject of the present former proceeding between the parties to a case on trial, this
petition.Victor Africa (Africa), son of the late Jose L. Africa, was not testimony alone is not a ground for its admission in evidence. The
impleaded in and so is plainly not a party to Civil Case No. 0009. 5 witness himself, if available, must be produced in court as if he were
testifying de novo since his testimony given at the former trial is mere
Civil Case No. 0009 spawned numerous incidental cases, 6 among hearsay. The deposition of a witness, otherwise available, is also
them, Civil Case No. 0130. 7 The present respondents were not made inadmissible for the same reason.
parties either in Civil Case No. 0130.
Indeed, the Sandiganbayan's reliance on the Bane deposition in the
ISSUE: Whether the admission of Bane’s deposition may be used other case (Civil Case No. 0130) is an argument in favor of the
invoking Section 47? requisite unavailability of the witness. For purposes of the present
case (Civil Case No. 0009), however, the Sandiganbayan would have
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 61 of 65
no basis to presume, and neither can or should we, that the previous Forbes corner G. Tuazon Street towards Nagtahan when it suddenly
condition, which previously allowed the use of the deposition, remains ramped on an island divider, bumping Rochelle Lanete who was
and would thereby justify the use of the same deposition in another crossing the street. As a result of the impact, Rochelle was thrown
case or proceeding, even if the other case or proceeding is before the into the middle of the road on her back.1 Thereafter, Leonardo
same court. Since the basis for the admission of the Bane deposition, Mendez' speeding blue Toyota Corona car with plate number
in principle, being necessity, the burden of establishing its existence PES-764 ran over Rochelle's body. Bystanders — armed with stones
rests on the party who seeks the admission of the evidence. This and wooden clubs — followed Mendez' car until it stopped near the
burden cannot be supplanted by assuming the continuity of the Nagtahan Flyover.2 Francisco Cielo, a newspaper delivery boy,
previous condition or conditions in light of the general rule against the pleaded with the bystanders not to hurt Mendez. Cielo went inside
non-presentation of the deponent in court. Mendez' car, sat beside him, got his driver's license, and ordered him
to move the car backwards. Mendez followed his order, but his car hit
the center island twice while backing up. 3 Cielo went out of the car
and approached the sprawled body of Rochelle; he and the petitioner
7. Opinion rule brought Rochelle's body inside Mendez' car. The three of them (the
petitioner, Cielo and Mendez) brought Rochelle to the UST Hospital, 4
where she died on February 6, 1993 due to septicemia secondary to
traumatic injuries. Both the RTC and CA convicted Tabao of reckless
Sec. 48. General rule imprudence resulting to homicide.
Sec. 49. Opinion of expert witness PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: Tabao likewise claims that the CA
violated Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court when it
disregarded the testimony of defense witness Police Senior Inspector
Danilo Cornelio who testified that the petitioner's car could not have
• EDWIN TABAO y PEREZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE bumped the victim because the latter's body was not thrown in line
PHILIPPINES, respondent. [G.R. No. 187246. July 20, with the car, but on its side. The petitioner argues that P/Sr. Insp.
2011.]-> Cornelio is highly qualified in the field of traffic accident investigation,
and as such, his statements are "backed-up by [the] principles of
applied physics, engineering, and mathematics."
FACTS: Edwin Tabao (petitioner) seeks reconsideration of our
Resolution, dated June 8, 2009, denying his petition for review on ISSUE: Whether P/Sr. Insp. Cornelio’s statement may be considered
certiorari for failure to show any reversible error in the assailed Court as an expert witness?
of Appeals (CA) decision to warrant the exercise of this Court's
discretionary appellate jurisdiction, and for raising substantially factual RULING: NO, P/Sr. Insp. Cornelio’s statement may not be
issues. DCATHS considered as an expert witness. The SC emphasize that P/Sr.
The evidence for the prosecution reveals the following facts: Insp. Cornelio was not an eyewitness to the incident; his
testimony was merely based on the Traffic Accident Report
At around 10:00 p.m. of January 21, 1993, the petitioner was driving prepared by SPO4 Edgar Reyes who himself did not witness the
his Toyota Corolla car bearing plate number PCH-111 along Governor incident. At any rate, nowhere in P/Sr. Insp. Cornelio's testimony
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 62 of 65
did he conclusively state that the petitioner could not have been Based on these initial examinations and the chest x-ray test that
involved in the incident. From the foregoing, it is clear that P/Sr. followed, Dr. Livelo diagnosed Edmer with "bronchopneumonia."[7]
Insp. Cornelio did not discount the possibility that the victim Edmer's blood was also taken for testing, typing, and for purposes of
could have been thrown on the side. He likewise admitted that administering antibiotics. Afterwards, Dr. Livelo gave Edmer an
the location of an accident victim in relation to the vehicle would antibiotic medication to lessen his fever and to loosen his phlegm.
also depend on the speed of the vehicle and the point of impact. Mrs. Cortejo did not know any doctor at SJDH. She used her Fortune
Care card and was thereafter assigned to Dr. Noel Casumpang (Dr.
Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court states that the Casumpang), a pediatrician also accredited with Fortune Care.
opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience or training, which he is shown to possess, may be At 5:30 in the afternoon of the same day, Dr. Casumpang for the first
received in evidence. The use of the word "may" signifies that the use time examined Edmer in his room. Using only a stethoscope, he
of opinion of an expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on confirmed the initial diagnosis of "Bronchopneumonia.” Mrs. Cortejo
the part of the courts. Allowing the testimony does not mean, too, that recalled entertaining doubts on the doctor's diagnosis. She
courts are bound by the testimony of the expert witness. The immediately advised Dr. Casumpang that Edmer had a high fever, and
testimony of an expert witness must be construed to have been had no colds or cough[10] but Dr. Casumpang merely told her that her
presented not to sway the court in favor of any of the parties, but to son's “blood pressure is just being active,"[11] and remarked that
assist the court in the determination of the issue before it, and is for "that's the usual bronchopneumonia, no colds, no phlegm."
the court to adopt or not to adopt depending on its appreciation of the
attendant facts and the applicable law. Dr. Casumpang next visited and examined Edmer at 9:00 in the
morning the following day.
Mrs. Cortejo also alerted Dr. Casumpang about the traces of blood in
Edmer's sputum. Despite these pieces of information, however, Dr.
Casumpang simply nodded, inquired if Edmer has an asthma, and
reassured Mrs. Cortejo that Edmer's illness is... bronchopneumonia.
• NOEL CASUMPANG, RUBY SANGA-MIRANDA and SAN
JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL, petitioners, vs. NELSON At around 11:30 in the morning of April 23, 1988, Edmer vomited
CORTEJO, respondent. [G.R. No. 171127. March 11, "phlegm with blood streak"[15] prompting the respondent (Edmer's
2015.] -> father) to request for a doctor at the nurses' station.
Dr. Miranda advised Edmer's parents that the blood test results PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: petitioners tried to discredit Dr.
showed that Edmer was suffering from "Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever." Jaudian’s expert testimony on the ground that he lacked the proper
training and fellowship status in pediatrics.
Dr. Casumpang arrived at Edmer's room and he recommended his
transfer to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), to which the respondent... ISSUE: Whether Dr Jaudian is qualified as an expert witness?
consented. Since the ICU was then full, Dr. Casumpang suggested to
the respondent that they hire a private nurse. The respondent, RULING: YES, Dr Jaudian is qualified as an expert witness. In the
however, insisted on transferring his son to Makati Medical Center. case and the facts before us, we find that Dr. Jaudian is
After the respondent had signed the waiver, Dr. Casumpang, for the competent to testify on the standard of care in dengue fever
last time, checked Edmer's condition, found that his blood pressure cases. Although he specializes in pathology, it was established
was stable, and noted that he was "comfortable." during trial that he had attended not less than 30 seminars held
by the Pediatric Society, had exposure in pediatrics, had been
The respondent requested for an ambulance but he was informed that practicing medicine for 16 years, and had handled not less than
the driver was nowhere to be... found. This prompted him to hire a 50 dengue related cases. As a licensed medical practitioner
private ambulance that cost him P600.00. At 12:00 midnight, Edmer, specializing in pathology, who had practical and relevant
accompanied by his parents and by Dr. Casumpang, was transferred exposure in pediatrics and dengue related cases, we are
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 64 of 65
convinced that Dr. Jaudian demonstrated sufficient familiarity the report and testimony of a document examiner of the National
with the standard of care to be applied in dengue fever cases. Bureau of Investigation.
Furthermore, we agree that he possesses knowledge and
experience sufficient to qualify him to speak with authority on ISSUE: Whether there is a need for an opinion of a handwriting expert
the subject. The competence of an expert witness is a matter for in this case?
the trial court to decide upon in the exercise of its discretion. The
test of qualification is necessarily a relative one, depending upon RULING: NO, there is no need for an opinion of a handwriting
the subject matter of the investigation, and the tness of the expert in this case. The opinion of handwriting experts are not
expert witness. In our jurisdiction, the criterion remains to be necessarily binding upon the court, the expert's function being
the expert witness’ special knowledge experience and practical to place before the court data upon which the court can form its
training that qualify him/her to explain highly technical medical own opinion. This principle holds true especially when the
matters to the Court. question involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity,
which can be determined by a visual comparison of specimens
of the questioned signatures with those of the currently existing
ones. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the
testimonies of handwriting experts, because the judge must
conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature
in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its
• BETTY GEPULLE-GARBO, represented by Attorney-in- authenticity. Here, both the RTC and CA found that Albacea did
Fact, MINDA G. ROSALES (now represented by her new not explain the manner of examination of the specimen
Attorney-in-Fact, GARY LLOYD G. ROSALES), petitioner, signatures in reaching his conclusion. Albacea did not point out
vs. SPOUSES VICTOREY ANTONIO GARABATO and distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and
JOSEPHINE S. GARABATO, respondents. [G.R. No. between genuine and false specimens of writing which would
200013. January 14, 2015.]-> ordinarily escape notice or detection by an untrained observer.
The Court also aptly ruled that courts are not bound by expert
testimonies especially that the examination was upon the
initiative of Nick and Betty and they had complete control on
FACTS: This case pertains to a Deed of Sale over a parcel land in what documents and specimens to be examined by the NBI.
Pasay City, originally owned by Spouses Eduviges and Nick Garbo. In Betty, in coming before us, had the onus of showing that the
March 1977, Eduviges, with the supposed consent and signature of signatures were forged. She fell short of demonstrating that her
Nick, sold said lot to their daughter, Florence. Florence registered the case fell within the limited exceptions for disturbing
property in her name in October 1996. In 1996, Florence sold said lot conclusiveness of factual findings of lower courts.
to respondents Spouses Garabato. Thereafter, Eduviges, Nick and
Florence died.
Petitioner Betty Gepulle-Garbo, Nick’s second wife after the death of
Eduviges in 1978, alleges that the sale between Eduviges and
Florence in March 1977 was void as Eduviges’ and Nick’s signatures
therein were forged. To support her allegation, petitioner presented
EVIDENCE FEB 27 ASSIGNMENT Secs 25-51, Rule 130 Digests Page 65 of 65
• NILO B. ROSIT, petitioner, vs. DAVAO DOCTORS sufficient that the operation which resulted in the screw hitting
HOSPITAL and DR. ROLANDO G. GESTUVO, Rosit’s molar was, indeed, performed by Dr. Gestuvo. Lastly, the
respondents. [G.R. No. 210445. December 7, 2015.] -> third element, it was not shown that Rosit’s lung disease could
have contributed to the pain. What is clear is that he suffered
FACTS: Petitioner Noli Rosit figured in a motorcycle accident where because one of the screws that Dr. Gestuvo installed hit Rosit’s
he fractured his jaw. He was referred to respondent Dr. Rolando molar. Clearly then, the res ipsa loquitur doctrine finds
Gestuvo, a specialist in mandibular injuries, who operated on Rosit. application in the instant case and no expert testimony is
As the operation required the smallest screws available, Dr. Gestuvo required to establish the negligence of defendant Dr. Gestuvo.
cut the screws on hand to make them smaller. Dr. Gestuvo knew that
there were smaller titanium screws available in Manila, but did not so To establish medical negligence, the Court has held that an expert
inform Rosit supposing that the latter would not be able to afford the testimony is generally required to define the standard of behaviour by
same. which the court may determine whether the physician has properly
Following the procedure, Rosit could not properly open and close his performed the requisite duty toward the patient. But, although
mouth and was in pain. Xrays showed that his jaw was aligned by the generally, expert medical testimony is relied upon in malpractice suits
screws used on him touched his molar. Dr. Gestuvo referred Rosit to to prove that a physician has done a negligent act or that he has
Dr. Pangan, a dentist who then opined that another operation is deviated from the standard medical procedure, when the doctrine of
necessary and that it is to be performed in Cebu. Rosit went to Cebu res ipsa loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical
and underwent the operation successfully. testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the
proof of negligence. The exception may be availed of if the following
On his return to Davao, Rosit demanded the Dr. Gestuvo reimburse requisites concur:
him for the cost of the operation and the expenses incurred in Cebu
amounting to P140,000. Dr. Gestuvo refused to pay. Thus, Rosit filed 1. The accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur
a civil case for damages. RTC adjudged Dr. Gestuvo negligent unless someone is negligent
holding that res ipsa loquitur principle applies, thus, expert medical 2. The instrumentality or agency that caused the injury was under
testimony may be dispensed with because the injury itself provides the exclusive control of the person charged
the proof of negligence. CA reversed the decision. Hence, this appeal. 3. The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary
action or contribution of the person injured
ISSUE: Whether there is no need for an expert testimony when the
res ipsa locitur doctrine is applicable?
RULING: YES, there is no need for an expert testimony when the Sec. 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses
res ipsa locitur doctrine is applicable. In this case, the essential
requisites for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur 8. Character evidence
are present. The first element was sufficiently established when
Rosit proved that one of the screws installed by Dr. Gestuvo Sec. 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions
struck his molar. An average man of common intelligence would
know that striking a tooth with any foreign object much less a
screw would cause severe pain. Anent the second element, it is