Pp vs. Martin (Jan. 30, 2008) Santos vs. Lumbao (Mar.
28, 2007)
Facts:
Appellant Martin was charged for allegedly raping his 10 yr. Old
mentally retarded daughter. Prosecution presented as witnesses the victim
and Dr. Belgira who examined her. During trial, the victim testified as to
what her father did to her. Dr. Belgira assessed the mental condition of the
victim and concluded that she was mentally deficient. He also conducted a
physical examination and found a deep, healed laceration on her hymen.
RTC found the accused guilty of qualified rape which was affirmed by the
CA. Martin questions the decision and credibility of the victim witness. He
also contends that her testimony was ambiguous and insufficient to sustain
his conviction.
Issue:
Is the lone testimony of the victim in the crime of rape enough to
sustain a conviction?
Held:
Yes.
It is a well-settled rule that the lone testimony of the victim in the
crime of rape, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction. This is because
by the very nature of the offense, the only evidence that can often be relied
upon is the victim’s own declaration.
The victim, despite her age and retardation, was still able to
communicate her experience in a sufficiently coherent and detailed manner.
Her narration was as natural and straightforward as could be. She never
wavered in her testimony. Furthermore, an innocent child’s testimony
should be given full weight and credit. Being young and guileless, she had no
ill-motive to falsely testify and impute such a serious crime against her own
father.
Facts:
Rita Santos, owner of a 107 sq. m. Lot, sold the same to the spouses
Lumbao. After acquiring the said property, respondents took actual
possession thereof and erected a house which they occupied. They sent a
formal letter of demand to the heirs of Santos to reconvey the property to
them when said heirs partitioned the property after Rita’s death. Eventually,
respondents filed a Complaint for Reconveyance. Petitioners filed their
Answer denying the allegations. RTC ruled in favor of petitioners. CA
reversed and ordered reconveyance of the property to respondents.
Petitioner questions the decision.
Issue:
Are the admissions made by a party in a pleading binding and
conclusive upon him?
Held:
Yes.
As a general rule, facts alleged in a party’s pleading are deemed
admissions of that party and are binding upon him.
An Answer is a mere statement of fact which the party filing it
expects to prove, but it is not evidence. So, in spite of the presence of
judicial admissions in a party’s pleading, the trial courts are still given
leeway to consider other evidences presented.
In the case at bar, petitioners had not adduced any other evidence
to override the admission made in their Answer stating that they actually
signed the Deed of Sale. Hence, the general rule applies.
 Ramos vs. Dizon (Aug. 07, 2006)
Facts:
Respondents are the owners of an undivided ½ portion of a parcel
of land which was sold to petitioner by their agent Domingo. The latter
failed to redeem the property within 5 months as agreed in the Deed of
Sale, thus ownership was consolidated to petitioner. Respondent filed an
Answer to the Petition for Consolidation of Ownership alleging that the SPA
was executed for the purpose of securing a loan, using his share in the land
as security. As the agent exceeded his authority, the SPA was revoked. RTC
granted the petition which was affirmed by the CA.
Issue:
Do admissions in pre-trial briefs require proof?
Held:
No.
Admissions in pre-trial briefs are judicial admissions and well-settled
is the rule that an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the
course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.
Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that respondent’s exhibits were
not formally offered prior to the rendition of the RTC decision, the trial
court judge committed no error when he admitted and considered them in
the resolution of the case. After all, the pre-trial forms part of the
proceedings and matters dealt with therein may not be brushed aside in the
process of decision making. Otherwise, the real essence of compulsory pre-
trial would be worthless.
Sarraga vs. Banco Filipino (393 SCAR 566)
Facts:
Spouses Sarraga were the absolute owners of 3 parcels of land
which they mortgaged to respondent bank as security for a loan. They
defaulted in the payment so the bank foreclosed the mortgage but
petitioners were able to redeem the properties upon payment of the
repurchase price in full. However, respondent filed a Petition for Quieting of
title. Petitioners filed their Answer through Atty. Dumlao who suffered a
mild stroke, so they hired Atty. Bagabuyo. RTC ordered petitioners to
relinquish and surrender possession of the property. They failed to filed an
appeal on time so they filed a petition for Relief of Judgment. This was
denied by the CA.
Issue:
Does negligence of counsel bind the client?
Held:
Yes.
Admissions by counsel are generally conclusive upon a client. Even
the negligence of counsel binds the client.
Petitioners were represented by 2 lawyers, thus, negligence of
either or both binds their clients. However, there are recognized exceptions
to wit: (1) where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives client of
due process; (2) when its application will result in outright deprivation of
client’s liberty or property; or (3) where the interests of justice so require.
In the case at bar, it is obvious that Atty. Bagabuyo was negligent
which prevented petitioners from filing a timely Notice of Appeal. He knew
that his clerk has no work experience in a law firm, he should have
supervised her performance. His negligence deprived petitioners of their
right to their property, hence, this is one of the exceptions. Undoubtedly,
the trial court gravely abused its discretion when it denied the Petition.
 Alfelor vs. Halasan (Mar. 31, 2006)
Facts:
The children and heirs of the late spouses Alfelor filed a Complaint
for Partition. Respondent Josefina Halasan filed a Motion for Intervention
alleging that she has legal interest being the surviving spouse of Jose Alfelor,
one of the children of the spouses. She claims that her husband’s second
marriage to Teresita Alfelor-one of the petitioners, was void for having been
contracted during a previous marriage. Petitioners filed their Reply-In-
Intervention where Teresita declared that she knew “of the previous
marriage of the late Jose to Josefina.” She further revealed that Jose told
her that he did not have his previous marriage annulled because he believed
in good faith that Josefina was already dead since he haven’t heard any
news from her for 10 yrs. RTC denied the Motion ruling that respondent was
not able to prove her claim. CA reversed the ruling and ordered the trial
court to admit the intervenor’s Motion.
Issue:
Can an admission made in a pleading be controverted by the party
making such admission?
Held:
No.
A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge that fact
as judicial admissions are a waiver of proof, production of evidence is
dispensed with.
In the case at bar, Teresita and her co-heirs admitted the existence
of the first marriage in their Reply-In-Intervention. Likewise, she admitted
during her testimony that she knew of her husband’s previous marriage
with Josefina. These admissions constitute a “deliberate, clear and
unequivocal” statements, made in the course of judicial proceeding, such
statements qualify as judicial admissions.
Estrada vs. Desierto (356 SCRA 108)
Facts:
Petitioner is the elected President of the Philippines accused by his
long time friend Gov. Singson, of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng
lords. Calls and rallies for his resignation exploded in various parts of the
country which led to Chief Justice Davide administering the oath to Arroyo
as the new President. Estrada issued a press statement expressing his
doubts about the legality of Arroyo’s proclamation and said that he did not
wish to be a factor that will prevent the restoration of unity and order; that
he was leaving the Palace, the seat of Presidency for the sake of peace and
order. According to Angara, he asked Senate Pres. Pimentel to advise
Estrada to consider the option of “dignified resignation” which the latter did
not object but simple said that he would never leave the country.
Issue:
Can Estrada’s silence on the suggestion be taken as adoptive
admission by him?
Held:
Yes.
An adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to a statement/action by
another person when it is reasonable to treat that party’s reaction as an
admission of something stated/implied by the other person. By adoptive
admission, a third person’s statement becomes the admission of the party
embracing/espousing it. Estrada’s silence can be taken as an adoptive
admission by him. Besides, he had several opportunities to object to the
admissibility of the Angara Diary, but did not do so seasonably. The Diary
also contains direct statements of Estrada which could be categorized as
admissions of his resignation from office like his proposal for a snap election
where he is not a candidate, and the statements ”pagod na pagod na ako...
I just want to clear my name then I will go.”
 Pp vs. Sasota (91 PHIL 111)
Facts:
Emerito Sasota and others were accused of murder for killing Sabino
Bucad. The witnesses for the prosecution testified that Bucad was taken
from his house by 4 armed men and thereafter was never seen again or
heard from. They point to appellant and his companions who took Bucad,
ill-treating him all the way to the lake, took him for a boat ride upon
reaching the lake and while sailing, continued to ill-treat him until he cried
no more. They presumed that his body was secretly disposed of. Accused
interposed the defense of alibi and claims that in as much as there is no
conclusive evidence of the death of the deceased because his body was
never found, the corpus delicti was not established. CFI found him guilty.
Issue:
Is it necessary to recover the body or to show where it can be found
in a case of murder/homicide?
Held:
No.
There are cases like death at sea, where the finding/recovery of the
body is impossible. It is enough that the death and the criminal agency
causing it be proven. There are even cases where said death and the
intervention of the criminal agency that caused it may be
presumed/established by circumstantial evidence like the impossibility of
rescue, the extent of wounds or the deceased’s condition of health.
Pp vs. Agsunod (306 SCRA 612)
Facts:
Agsunod, a farmer, and his 5 companions were armed with armalite
rifles arrived at the house of the victim Rodolfo Sebastian, a barangay
councilman. Agsunod and his companions fired at Sebastian killing him on
the spot. 10 months later, appellant was arrested and positively identified
by the wife and son of the victim as among the killers. An Information was
filed charging Agsunod with the crime of murder. Prosecution presented as
witnesses the wife and son of the victim and the barangay captain.
Appellant filed a Motion for Leave to file a Demurrer to Evidence which was
granted and alleged that the prosecution failed to prove the cause of death
of the victim nor was there a police report of the incident, hence accused
was entitled to an acquittal. RTC found him guilty.
Issue:
In a case of murder/homicide, is it necessary to recover the body or
to show where it can be found?
Held:
No.
The Certificate of death of Sebastian indicates the cause of death as
“shock, multiple gunshot wounds on the body” which is consistent with the
testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses and the circumstances attending
the killing of the victim. In this case, the corpus delicti was duly proven.
Corpus delicti means the fact of a specific injury/loss sustained, and
in murder, the fact of death is the corpus delicti.
Corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime which may
be proved by the testimony of eyewitnesses who saw it.
 Pp vs. Roluna (Mar. 24, 1994)
Facts:
Abundio Roluna and 7 others were charged with the crime of
kidnapping with murder of Anatolio Moronia. Prosecution presented 2
witnesses who testified that they saw the victim being taken by Roluna and
his companions who were carrying firearms, and from that time on,
Moronia was never seen or heard from. Roluna hoisted the defense of
denial and alibi. RTC found him guilty. Appellant argues that the corpus
delicti was not duly proven by the prosecution considering that the body of
the victim was never found, that his questionable and unexplained absence
and disappearance should not be blamed on him for the alleged victim may
still be alive.
Issue:
Were the 2 aspects of corpus delicti proved in this case?
Held:
No.
Insofar as the death of Moronio is concerned, the fact that he was
last seen with his hands tied at the back and accompanied by 8 armed men
undoubtedly shows that his life was then in danger. Coupled with the fact
that he has been absent and unheard from for 6 yrs., a presumption of his
death is sufficiently raised.
However, the circumstances presented by the prosecution would
not be enough to hold appellant responsible for such death. The witnesses
only testified that they merely saw the victim being tied and taken by the
armed men. There was nothing done to him as to warrant a reasonable
conclusion that he was killed by the armed men.
Therefore, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is established
that the victim is presumptively dead, but accused is not responsible
therefor.
Pp vs. Ansang (93 PHIL 44)
Facts:
Ansang, Jubail and Jaho were accused of multiple murder. Ansang
complained that Berto was taking away the coconuts from his plantation.
Abdul Samad saw Jubail and Jaho board a vinta and carried with them 3
home-made bombs which they claimed to be used for fishing. But when
they returned, Samad noticed that they no longer have the bombs and they
did not bring any fish. From that time, Berto and 3 others who were seen
loading sacks of copra in a vinta from Ansang’s plantation have not been
seen or heard from. Abdul also saw some pieces of Berto’s vinta on the
seashore. The 3 accused were arrested and found guilty by the CFI.
Appellants now contend that the conviction cannot be based on an
extrajudicial confession without proof of the corpus delicti.
Issue:
Was corpus delicti shown in this case?
Held:
Yes.
The appellants while riding on a vinta ignited home-made bombs
and threw them at the victims in another boat. While the parts of the boat
were later found, the passengers were never seen again. Holding that he
corpus delicti was shown by the facts and that the victims died, the court
correctly convicted the appellants of multiple murder.
 Pp vs. Cabiles (284 SCRA 199)
Facts:
Panfilo Cabiles was accused and found guilty of robbery with rape.
Prosecution presented the testimonies of Marites the owner of the house
that was robbed and of Luzviminda, the housemaid who was raped. Cabiles
testified that he was arrested without knowing the reason for his arrest and
that he was forced by the policemen at the station to execute a sworn
statement containing a confession to the commission of the crime. He said
that he did not read it but was just forced to sign it and that he was not
assisted by counsel during that time. He claims that his verbal admissions
are inadmissible against him.
Issues:
1. Is the written confession valid and admissible?
2. Are his verbal admissions admissible?
Held:
1. No.
There are four fundamental requirements needed for admissibility
of a confession to wit: (1) must be voluntary; (2) made with assistance of
counsel; (3) must be express; and (4) must be in writing. Accused was forced
to execute the sworn statement containing his confession and without the
assistance of counsel, therefore inadmissible, even if it speaks the truth.
2. Yes.
His verbal confessions before Marites were given in an ordinary
manner, and not elicited through questioning by authorities. Constitutional
procedures on custodial investigations do not apply to spontaneous
statements. Hence, such verbal confession is admissible even when done
without the assistance of counsel.
Aquino vs. Paiste (Jun. 25, 2008)
Facts:
Petitioner convinced respondent to buy a gold bar owned by an
Igorot named Arnold. After she was shown a sample, she agreed to go to a
pawnshop to have it tested. She was told that it was genuine. However, she
informed them that she had no money to pay P60,000. On petitioner’s
insistence, she bought the gold bar for P50,000. Thereafter, she had the
gold bar tested and found out that it was fake. She brought petitioner to the
NBI where they amicably settled. Subsequently, Paiste filed a criminal case
for estafa. Aquino was convicted by the RTC and affirmed by the CA.
Issue:
Is the amicable settlement admissible?
Held:
Yes.
When petitioner was brought to the NBI to be investigated, she was
already under custodial investigation and the constitutional guarantees of
her rights under the Miranda Rule have set in. Since she did not have a
lawyer then, she was provided with one in the person of Atty. Uy.
According to the amicable agreement, the custodial investigation
did not push through as the parties agreed to settle. Thus, the amicable
settlement with a waiver of right to counsel was executed with both parties
signing in the presence of Atty. Uy and the NBI agent Atty. Tolentino, making
the same admissible.
 Pp vs. Ador (432 SCRA 1)
Facts:
Ador and others were charged with the murder of Cuya and Chavez
who both died because of multiple gunshot wounds. The 4 accused were
taken into custody where they were informed of their constitutional rights
to remain silent and to choose their own counsel. They were brought to the
crime laboratory for paraffin tests. RTC found them guilty. They argue that
the admissions cannot be considered in evidence against them without
violating their rights to counsel for at that time they were already under
custodial investigation. They claim that the police had already begun to
focus on them and were carrying on a process of interrogations that was
lending itself to eliciting statements and evidence. The investigation was no
longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime as the Adors were already
being held as suspects for the killings of the victims.
Issue:
Are the admissions admissible?
Held:
No.
A suspect’s confession, whether verbal or non-verbal, when taken
without the assistance of counsel without a valid waiver of such assistance
in the presence of counsel, regardless of the absence of coercion, or the fact
that it had been voluntarily given, is inadmissible in evidence, even if such
confessions were gospel truth.
The rights of a person under custodial investigation including the
right to counsel have already attached to the Adors. Thus, any waiver must
be in writing and with the assistance of counsel. The Adors did not waive
their right to counsel, hence, any admissions are inadmissible.
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Bernardino (Jan. 31, 2005)
Facts:
Administrative cases were filed against Clerks of Court Bernardino
et al., for the irregularities in the collection and remittance of court funds.
Bernardino admitted having failed to report/remit the funds but explained
that the non-remittance was due to heavy workload and the demand of her
position. The Court Administrator recommended for their dismissal from
office.
Tuazon, the cash clerk, was in the U.S. at the time of the filing of the
cases and could not comply with the resolution of the court requiring her to
comment. Notwithstanding the earnest efforts, the office was not able to
and could not determine the true and actual whereabouts of Tuazon.
Issue:
Does failure to comment amount to admission by silence?
Held:
Yes.
Tuazon failed to comply with the resolution of the Court
Administrator requiring her to comment as well as to answer the show
cause resolution. These notwithstanding, it is the opinion of the Court
Administrator that the requirements of substantial due process have been
satisfactorily met.
Moreover, the court has ruled that silence is admission if there was
chance to deny, especially if it constitutes one of the principal charges
against the silent person. Besides, assuming without admitting that she did
take the flight and left the country, the court concludes that such act is a
clear indication of guilt.
 Pp vs. Andan (Mar. 03, 1997)
Facts:
Pablito Andan was charged with the crime of rape with homicide
committed against nursing student Marianne Guevarra. Due to the publicity
of the case, the Mayor requested for immediate investigation. Accused was
arrested and brought to the police station where the people and media
representatives already gathered. Upon the arrival of the Mayor, the
accused requested to talk with him in private. He confessed that he raped
and killed Guevarra. The Mayor opened the door of the room to let the
public and media witness the confession. Andan’s confession was captured
in a videotape and covered by the media nationwide. However, during trial,
he testified that he was coerced to confess because he was tortured. RTC
still convicted him.
Issue:
Is his admission before the Mayor admissible?
Held:
Yes.
The accused talked to the Mayor in a private meeting
spontaneously, fully and voluntarily, confessing the commission of the
crime. Thus, the constitutional requirements in a custodial investigation do
not apply. He talked to the Mayor as a confidant and not as a law
enforcement officer, hence the uncounselled confession did not violate his
rights.
Zarraga vs. Pp (Mar. 14, 2006)
Facts:
Zarraga and Jose were charged with violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act for delivering shabu to the poseur-buyer during a buy-bust
operation. After their arrest, they were brought to the PNP crime laboratory
for examination. RTC convicted the 2 accused which was affirmed by the CA.
Zarraga elevated the case to the SC claiming that the prosecution was not
able to sufficiently establish the corpus delicti and that the witnesses
presented conflicting testimonies sufficient to engender doubt as to his
guilt.
Issue:
Was the corpus delicti identified?
Held:
No.
The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited
drug which constitutes the corpus delicti.
Indispensable in all prosecutions for violations of R.A. 6245, is the
submission of proof that the sale of the illegal drug took place between the
poseur-buyer and seller. The element of sale must be unequivocally
established in order to sustain a conviction. The corpus delicti must be
presented as evidence in court and must be identified with unwavering
exactitude.
There were material inconsistencies of the witnesses’ testimonies
particularly with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were
made. Also the differing accounts with regard to whether the shabu was
already wrapped in tissue at the time of the sale or wrapped by the police in
the office. In fine, the prosecution has not positively and convincingly shown
that what was submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court
was actually taken from the accused.
 Lopez vs. Pp (Apr. 30, 2008)

Facts:

On the strength of a search warrant, 5 police officers raided the

residence of Lopez and found 2 plastic sachets of shabu. He was charged
with violation of R.A. 9165 for possession thereof without authority of law.
The officers who conducted the raid were presented as witnesses who
testified as to the conduct of the search and seizure as well as the
procedure followed in the delivery of the corpus delicti to the crime
laboratory for examination, and to the court. The defense focused on the
irregularity in the conduct of the search and seizure. RTC declared petitioner
guilty which was affirmed by the CA.

Issue:

Were the identities of the seized items established?

Held:

No.

The prosecution failed to offer the testimonies of the other officers

who handled the seized items. Thus an important part in the chain of
custody was not presented and there was no explanation made for such
failure. In effect, there is no reasonable guaranty as to the integrity of the
exhibits inasmuch as it failed to rule out the possibility of substitution of the
exhibits.

A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not

readily identifiable hence, in authenticating them, a more stringent standard
than that applied to readily identifiable objects is necessary. It entails a
chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness to render it
improbable for the original item to be exchanged with another,
contaminated or tampered with.