Cases on Evidence –Week 4

1. People v. Matawaran (Object Evidence/ Chain of Custody)

➢ RTC found accused-appellant (Matawaran) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
➢ CA affirmed in toto the ruling of the RTC
➢ ISSUE: whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal
Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
➢ SC Ruling: ACQUITTED
First. The inventory and taking of photographs happened in the police
station and not in the place of seizure; police officers did not provide any
justifiable reason;
Second. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that
the illegal drugs presented in court were the same illegal drugs that were
actually seized from accused-appellant. Court has ruled that keeping the
seized items in the pockets is a doubtful and suspicious way of ensuring
the integrity of the items; that a police officer's act of bodily-keeping the
confiscated items, which are the subject of the offenses penalized under
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is fraught with
dangers. The Court previously held that, "failure to mark the drugs
immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the
prosecution evidence warranting an acquittal on reasonable doubt."
-While the rule on marking is not found in statute, Dangerous Drugs
Board Regulation No. 1, series of 2002, requires that the seized item/s be
properly marked for identification. Likewise, the PDEA Guidelines on the
IRR of Section 21 of RA 9165 require that the apprehending or seizing
officer mark the seized item/s immediately upon seizure and
confiscation.
Third. The prosecution failed to account for the transfer of the seized
illegal drugs from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer.
Fourth. The turnover and submission of the marked illegal drugs from
the forensic chemist to the court were not shown.

➢ Settled is the rule that the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti in illegal
drug cases.
➢ prosecution must "establish that the substance illegally [sold and] possessed by
the accused is the same substance presented in court
➢ Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be
observed in establishing the corpus delicti."
➢ The chain of custody rule "ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the
identity of the evidence are removed
➢ (Sec 21, RA 9165) The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in
the following manner:
1. The apprehending team having initial custody and control, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items
and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s…
Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at
the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station
or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That
noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

1
Cases on Evidence –Week 4
-"whichever is practicable" which means that the police officers have the
option to conduct the process in the nearest police station, and not on the
actual site of seizure provided that: (1) it is not practicable to conduct the
process at the place of seizure; or (2) the items seized are threatened by
immediate or extreme danger at the place of seizure
- four links in the chain of custody
1st: the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused
by the apprehending officer;
2nd: turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer;
3rd: the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and
4th: the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the
forensic chemist to the court.

-every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom
it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness'
possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in
which it was delivered to the next link in the chain

- in case of any deviation from the rules and before the prosecution can
invoke the saving clause, two requisites must concur:
(i) "the existence of 'justifiable grounds' allowing departure from the rule
on strict compliance:" and
(ii) "the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending team.

➢ while the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of
their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the
accused to be presumed innocent." To stress, the presumption of regularity cannot
by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

➢ prosecution's failure to establish with moral certainty the identity and the
unbroken chain of custody of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from accused-
appellant creates reasonable doubt as to whether these illegal drugs were the same
drugs presented in court. Without a doubt, this compromises the identity,
integrity, and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti of the offenses charged.

2
Cases on Evidence –Week 4
2. PCSO v. Mendoza (Best Evidence Rule)

➢ Mendoza learned that one of the "lucky pick" number combinations he

had bet on won. Unfortunately, his granddaughter grabbed and
crumpled his winning ticket. In an attempt to straighten it out
again, Mendoza's daughter ironed the ticket with a piece of cloth
covering it. As a result, the ticket blackened with only the first two
digits of the three bet combinations remaining visible, the outlet from
which he bought it, the draw date, the date of its purchase, and,
partially, the time it was purchased.
➢ "PCSO shall not consider payment of any prize without the presentation
and surrender of the winning ticket."
➢ RTC rendered Decision in favor of Mendoza who presented substantial
evidence that he was the exclusive winner of the October 2, 2014 6/42
lotto draw.
➢ RTC also ordered the sweepstakes office to pay attorney's fees and moral
damages in view of Mendoza's long years of battle for his prize.
➢ Sweepstakes office interposed its Appeal with the CA, insisting
that Mendoza's partially blackened/burnt ticket showing only two digits
did not constitute a valid ticket containing the winning number
combinations as defined under the PCSO Rules which bind all
participants of the lotto. They assert that the acceptance of secondary
evidence would pave the way for fraudulent claims that might resultantly
undermine the integrity of the lottery, the conduct of which is imbued
with public interest.
➢ CA affirmed the RTC's findings
➢ SC AFFIRMED the decision of CA
the circumstances surrounding the fact that Mendoza bet on the
eventual winning numbers of the 6/42 lotto were clearly established.
Notably, the RTC and the CA characterized the various pieces of
evidence offered by Mendoza as secondary evidence.
Secondary evidence, as provided in Rule 130 of the Rules of Court,
is evidence that is admissible under specific and enumerated
circumstances:
❖ SECTION 5. When original document is unavailable.
❖ SECTION 6. When original document is in adverse party's
custody or control.
❖ SECTION 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a
public record.
❖ SECTION 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it.
secondary evidence is resorted to when the original document is
unavailable. The requirement for the production of original
documents in court is found in the Best Evidence Rule;
The Best Evidence Rule does not apply to every case where a
document is involved; the rule applies only where the content of the
document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is the
execution or existence of the document or the circumstances
surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and
testimonial evidence is admissible."
The "best evidence rule" as encapsulated in Rule 130, Section 3, of
the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure applies only when the content
of such document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is
only as to whether such document was actually executed, or
exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its
execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and
testimonial evidence is admissible. Any other substitutionary

3
Cases on Evidence –Week 4
evidence is likewise admissible without need to account for the
original.
In this case, while it is the numbers in the ticket that would prove
whether Mendoza indeed won the jackpot lotto prize, it is actually
the existence of the ticket that is being assailed by the sweepstakes
office; the reason why it rejected the claim of Mendoza was because
the ticket was damaged, and when a case was filed in court, that the
ticket was not presented in evidence.
Whether the ticket bearing the numbers of the lotto indeed existed is
an issue that does not require the application of the Best Evidence
Rule; rules on the presentation of secondary evidence does not
apply.
The testimonial evidence of Mendoza and his relatives, substantiated
by records of sweepstakes office itself, surrounding the fact
that Mendoza entered a lotto bet and that the chosen numbers
correspond to the winning lotto number, were rightly admissible and
given weight.

4
Cases on Evidence –Week 4
3.People v. Tandoy (Best Evidence Rule/ Marked Money)
➢ RTC convicted Mario Tandoy of the crime of violation of Art. II, Sec. 4
of Rep. Act No. 6425 known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
➢ This assigned error centers on the trial court's admission of the P10.00
bill marked money (Exh. E-2-A) which, according to the appellant, is
excluded under the best evidence rule for being a mere xerox copy.
➢ appellant erroneously thinks that said marked money is an ordinary
document falling under Sec. 2, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court
which excludes the introduction of secondary evidence except in the
five (5) instances mentioned therein.
➢ The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the document
are the subject of inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether or not
such document was actually executed, or exists, or in the
circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best
evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.
➢ Since the aforesaid marked money was presented by the
prosecution solely for the purpose of establishing its existence
and not its contents, other substitutionary evidence, like a xerox
copy thereof, is therefore admissible without the need of
accounting for the original.
➢ presentation at the trial of the "buy-bust money" was not indispensable
to the conviction of the accused-appellant because the sale of the
marijuana had been adequately proved by the testimony of the police
officers.
➢ So long as the marijuana actually sold by the accused-appellant had
been submitted as an exhibit, the failure to produce the marked money
itself would not constitute a fatal omission.

5
Cases on Evidence –Week 4
4.Orillo v. People (Authentication of Photographs)
➢ Romeo Cabatian (Cabatian) filed a libel case against Orillo, Danieles,
Lito Nepacina (Nepacina), Estelito Francisco (Francisco), Arnel Bertulfo
(Bertulfo) and Jean Jardeleza (Jardeleza).
➢ Witnesses allegedly saw Orillo, Danieles, Nepacina, Francisco, and
Bertulfo posting documents on the terminal's bulletin board pertaining
to a criminal charge of carnapping filed by Jardeleza against Cabatian.
➢ Cabatian, along with a photographer, arrived at the terminal around
9:00 a.m. Seeing that the posted documents were being read by
another person, Cabatian instructed the photographer to take pictures.
He later took down the posts from the bulletin board
➢ RTC found accused Orillo guilty of the crime of Libel
➢ Accused-appellant assailed their conviction on account of the
prosecution's failure to present the photographer who took pictures of
the documents posted.
➢ Even if the prosecution failed to present the photographer who
documented the libelous articles, the Court of Appeals pointed out
that Orillo and Danieles were still not able to refute the fact that
documents regarding Cabatian's involvement in a carnapping incident
were indeed posted on the bulletin board.
➢ photographs were part of the testimonies of Regala, Villaflor, and
Cabatian who are undeniably competent to testify on the incidents
represented.
➢ CA affirmed the conviction with modification.
➢ Petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals was mistaken in admitting
the photographs as evidence despite the prosecution's failure to present
the photographer who documented the supposed libelous
articles. They claim that "before a private document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity
must be proved by anyone who saw the document executed or
written[.]" As such, the prosecution witnesses are incompetent to
identify the photographs since "neither of them took the pictures nor
personally developed the said pictures.
➢ In Sison v. People, the Court elucidated that photographs received in
evidence may also be identified by other competent witnesses who can
testify on the accuracy of the object or scene being depicted:
o The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when presented
in evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to its
production and testified as to the circumstances under which
they were produced. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its
being a correct representation or reproduction of the original, and
its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the
scene at the time of the crime. The photographer, however, is
not the only witness who can identify the pictures he has
taken. The correctness of the photograph as a faithful
representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima
facie, either by the testimony of the person who made it or
by other competent witnesses, after which the court can
admit it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy.
Photographs, therefore, can be identified by the
photographer or by any other competent witness who can
testify to its exactness and accuracy.
➢ "A competent witness must be able to 'assure the court that they know
or are Earn liar with the scenes or objects shown in the pictures and
the photographs depict them correctly.
➢ The court find Cabatian and Regala competent to testify on the
incident and accuracy of the photographs. It bears stressing that

6
Cases on Evidence –Week 4
together with Villaflor, Regala testified that he personally saw the posts
complained of in the morning of April 26, 2002. Meanwhile, Cabatian,
after being informed of the posting, went immediately to the terminal
and instructed the photographer to take pictures of the documents
posted before he took them down.
➢ Even if the court disregard the admissibility of the photographs as
evidence, what was depicted by the photographs was already admitted
by petitioners.
➢ SC AFFIRMED with modification the Decision of CA.

7
Cases on Evidence –Week 4
5.Heirs of Bagaygay v. Heirs of Paciente (Secondary Evidence)
➢ Anastacio Paciente, Sr. (Anastacio) was granted a homestead patent
over a parcel of land.
➢ by virtue of a Deed of Sale allegedly executed by Anastacio in
favor of his brother-in-law, Eliseo Bagaygay (Eliseo), the latter took
possession of the subject land, transferred the title under his name,
and later caused the subdivision of the entire land into three (3) lots.
➢ Anastacio died. Two years later, Eliseo likewise passed away.
➢ The heirs of Anastacio filed before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Surallah, South Cotabato, an action for
Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Sale and the titles,
Recovery of Ownership and Possession, Accounting and Damages,
against the heirs of Eliseo (petitioners).
➢ Respondents alleged that sometime in 1956, Eliseo, taking
advantage of the financial distress of Anastacio, was able to obtain the
latter's title and take possession of his land; that despite repeated
demands by Anastacio, Eliseo refused to return the title and
possession of the land; that Eliseo caused the
cancellation of Anastacio's title through a fictitious Deed of Sale; that
Anastacio never sold the subject land; and that the said Deed of Sale
was likewise void as it was executed during the five (5)-year
period of prohibition under Section 118 of the Public Land Act.
➢ Since a copy of the Deed of Sale could no longer be found, respondents
presented as witness the Registrar of Deeds of Kidapawan, South
Cotabato, Atty. Amelia Casabar, to identify in court the Primary Entry
Book of the Registry of Deeds of South Cotabato and prove that the
Deed of Sale was executed within the 5-year prohibitory period, Eliseo's
title, TCT No. T-7244 which contains the annotation of the Certification
issued by the Register of Deeds of South Cotabato stating that the
original copy of OCT No. V-2423 was lost from the files and that as per
record of Deed of Sale was executed by Anastacio in favor of Eliseo on
November 28, 1956, was also presented as evidence by respondents.
➢ Julia Bagaygay testified that they could no longer present the
Deed of Sale because after her father passed away, all his documents,
which included the Deed of Sale, were destroyed when a fire gutted
their house on March 31, 1994. However, she said that before it was
destroyed by fire, she was able to read the Deed of Sale and that she
was certain that it was executed in 1958 and notarized by Judge
Rendon. She likewise testified that when the instant case was filed
against them by respondents, she went to see Judge Rendon to ask for
a copy of the Deed of Sale. Unfortunately, he no longer had a
copy. He, however confirmed that the Deed of Sale was executed in
1958, not in 1956, because he was admitted to the bar only in
1957. They later learned that he passed away.
➢ RTC rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint and the
counterclaims for lack of merit. The RTC gave credence to the
testimonies of petitioners and their witnesses that Anastacio sold the
land to Eliseo to defray the expenses for the wedding of respondent
Meregildo in June 1958 and that the Deed of Sale was notarized by
Judge Rendon in 1958 or beyond the 5-year prohibitory period. Thus,
the RTC ruled that the land was validly transferred to Eliseo.
➢ CA reversed and set aside the RTC Decision. The CA gave more
weight to the documentary evidence presented by respondents than to
the testimonies of petitioners and their witnesses. entries in the
Primary Book of Entry, being an official record of all the instruments
submitted to the Register of Deeds, prima facie evidence of the facts
stated therein. And since a copy of the Deed of Sale was no longer

8
Cases on Evidence –Week 4
available, the CA considered the date indicated in the Primary Entry
Book of the Register of Deeds of South Cotabato as the true and correct
date of execution of the Deed of Sale. Hence, it declared the
Deed of Sale void ab initio having been executed on November 28, 1956
or within the 5-year prohibitory period.
➢ Petitioners' Arguments:
➢ Petitioners insist that the appellate court erred in not giving credence to
the testimonies of petitioners and their witnesses that the Deed of Sale
was executed in 1958 and that the purchase price was used by
Anastacio to defray the expenses of the wedding of his son, respondent
Meregildo. They claim that the CA overlooked the fact that respondent
Meregildo got married in 1958 based on his Marriage Contract.
Respondents' Arguments:
➢ Respondents, on the other hand, argue that the documentary evidence
they presented was far more superior than the unreliable
testimonies of petitioners and their witnesses. As to the
issue of laches, respondents maintain that the same does not apply to
land covered by a homestead patent sold within the prohibitory period.

➢ SC RULING: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PREVAILS OVER

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE.; Affirmed the Decision of CA.
➢ Section 5, Rule 130 of the ROC allows the presentation of secondary
evidence when the original document has been lost or destroyed and its
unavailability has been duly established. In such a case, a party "may
prove its contents by a copy or by a recital of its contents in some
authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order
stated.
➢ In this case, respondents presented as witness the
Registrar of Deeds of South Cotabato to testify that the original of OCT
No. V-2423 as well as the copy of the Deed of Sale executed by
Anastacio in favor of Eliseo had been lost and could no longer be
produced, to identify the Primary Entry Book as secondary evidence,
and to prove that the Deed of Sale was executed on November 28, 1956.
➢ The testimonial evidence of petitioners cannot prevail over the
documentary evidence presented by respondents. As a rule,
documentary evidence takes precedence over testimonial evidence as
the latter can easily be fabricated. It also cannot be denied that the
human memory on dates is frail and thus, there is no reasonable
assurance of its correctness unless the date is an extraordinary or
unusual one for the witness.
➢ Respondents presented as evidence the Primary Entry Book of the
Register of Deeds of South Cotabato, which is an official record of all
instruments filed with the Register of Deeds. As a public document, it is
entitled to a presumption of truth as to the recitals contained therein
pursuant to Section 44, Rule 130 of the ROC, which provides that
"entries in official records made the performance of duty by a
public officer x x x are prima facie evidence of the truth of the
facts therein stated."
➢ In the absence of strong, complete and conclusive proof of its falsity,
the evidentiary nature of such document must be sustained. For
unless there is evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that official
duty has been regularly performed by the officer who entered the
details of the Deed of Sale pursuant to Section 3 (m), Rule
131 of the ROC. Here, no sufficient evidence was presented by
petitioners to overcome the presumption.

9
Cases on Evidence –Week 4
6. Saking v. People (Evidence of Public Record)
➢ Private complainant Jan Denver Palasi (Palasi) met Saking at a car
repair shop where he was having his Mitsubishi Delica van repaired.
Saking presented that he was looking for people interested to work in
Australia as grape and apple pickers with a required placement fee of
PHP 300,000.00.
➢ Short with funds, he offered his van as payment. Saking agreed but
required him to pay an additional PHP 100,000.00 in cash.
➢ After Saking collected the entire amount of PHP 100,000.00, Palasi
could no longer contact him. Hence, at around June 2013, Palasi went
to Practice Agency in order to personally inquire on the status of his
papers and application for the job. To his surprise, he was told that he
had no pending application with the agency. On account of this
discovery, he went to the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency
(POEA) where it was confirmed that Saking had no license to recruit
workers for overseas employment.
➢ RTC convicted Saking for the crime of illegal recruitment.
➢ CA issued a Joint Decision affirming the RTC Decision in toto.
➢ In the instant Petition, Saking asserts that the weak and inconsistent
evidence of the prosecution deserved scant consideration. He points out
that POEA Director Lucia L. Villamayor (Director Villamayor), who
signed the certification stating that Saking was not a licensed recruiter,
was already retired at the time of its issuance. He states that the
witness offered by the prosecution, Atty. Oropillo-Simon, who was the
POEA coordinator in the Regional Extension Unit in the Cordillera
Administrative Region, "had no legal custody of the document as the
same was issued by the POEA Central Office." Hence, he concluded that
the POEA certification was unauthenticated in the manner required by
Rule 132, Section 24 of the Revised Rules of Court. Furthermore, the
prosecution failed to prove that Saking made a promise that he alone
could give Palasi work as an apple or grape picker. At the onset, Saking
made Palasi understand that the papers would be processed by
Practice Agency. Palasi knew that Saking was only a middleman or
conduit of Practice Agency.
➢ Palasi clarifies that the certification issued by retired POEA Director
Villamayor was a public document, hence the entries are prima
facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
➢ In the instant Petition, Saking attacks the authenticity of the POEA
certification by pointing out that the signatory therein had already retired
and that the coordinator of the Regional Extension Unit did not have
personal knowledge on the contents thereof. We cannot give credence to
this position. Rule 130, Section 23 of the Rules of Court plainly provides
the prima facie nature of the contents of public documents such as
the POEA certification in question:
SEC. 23. Public documents as evidence. -Documents consisting
of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty
by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated. All other public documents are evidence, even against a
third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of
the date of the latter.
Furthermore, Section 7 of the same Rule provides that when the
original of document is in the custody of public officer or is
recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a
certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.
➢ The prosecution sufficiently established that the POEA Coordinator,
Atty. Oropillo-Simon, issued the certification in her official capacity

10
Cases on Evidence –Week 4
after she verified the information through the internal POEA employee
messaging platform called BigAnt. Having been in the custody of the
public record, she was in the position to prove the contents thereon.

➢ SC AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS THE DECISION OF CA.

11