TITLE: People vs.

Cheng
CITATION: 279 SCRA 129, G.R. Nos. 120158-59 September 15, 1997
TOPIC: Character as Evidence

FACTS:
X was charged with murder. Y, who is allegedly a prostitute, rendered an eyewitness account of the
killing. X assails the credibility of Y saying that she is of loose morals. Is Y a competent witness?

ANSWER:
Yes.

Section 14, Rule 132 provides that evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until
such character has been impeached. Case law also provides that loose morals per se is not a ground to
discredit a witness. There must be clear indications militating against her credibility other than her being a
person of ill repute.

In the case at bar, even if Y is a prostitute, she may be a competent witness to the extent that even with
her sole testimony an accused may be duly convicted, provided that she is not coached and her
testimony is not rehearsed and on all other counts worthy of credence beyond reasonable doubt.
TITLE: Civil Service Commission vs. Belagan
CITATION: 440 SCRA 578, G.R. No. 132164 October 19, 2004
TOPIC: Character as Evidence

FACTS:
In 1994, M filed a case for sexual harassment and against B. In his defense, B contended that he has
never been charged of any offense. By contrast, M was charged with several offenses before the MTC
from 1980-86. B claimed that the numerous cases filed against M cast doubt on her character, integrity,
and credibility. Is M, the complaining witness, credible?

ANSWER:
Yes.

Evidence of one’s character or reputation must be confined to a time not too remote from the time in
question. In other words, what is to be determined is the character or reputation of the person at the time
of the trial and prior thereto, but not at a period remote from the commencement of the suit.

In this case, to say that M’s credibility is diminished by proofs of tarnished reputation existing almost a
decade ago is unreasonable. It is unfair to presume that a person who has wandered from the path of
moral righteousness can never retrace his steps again. Certainly, every person is capable to change or
reform. (char!)
TITLE: People vs. Pajenado
CITATION: 31 SCRA 812, Nos. L-27680-81 February 27, 1970
TOPIC: Burden of Proof

FACTS:
X was charged with murder and illegal possession of firearms. The information specifically alleged that X
had no “license or permit to possess” the .45 caliber pistol. The prosecution alleged that since the
absence of a license is a negative fact, the burden of proof is with the defendant to prove that he has the
license. Is the prosecution correct?

ANSWER:
No.

Section 2, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that in criminal cases, the burden of proof as to the
offense charged lies on the prosecution and that a negative fact alleged by the prosecution must be
proven if “it is an essential ingredient of the offense charged”.

In this case, the burden of proof is with the prosecution to prove that the firearm used by accused in
committing the offense charged was not properly licensed. Lack or absence of a license is an essential
ingredient of the offense of illegal possession of a firearm. It is not merely the prosecution’s duty to allege
that negative fact but to prove it.