1. People vs.

Hernandez Facts:
G.R. No. 108028 | July 30, 1996 | Francisco, J. | Rule 129 ● Cristina Hernandez was charged with the crime of illegal recruitment
Digest by: NAME committed in large scale.
● Of the 14 private complainants, 4 were presented as witnesses for the
Petitioners: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Respondents: prosecution, namely: Benito L. Bernabe, Robert P. Velasquez, Gregorio
P. Mendoza and Arnel Mendoza. They testified to the following essential
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine: Cristina Hernandez was charged with the crime of facts:
illegal recruitment committed in large scale. Accused asserted that Philippine-Thai ● The complainants’ first encounter with the accused was when Josefa
recruited workers for placement abroad and asked private complainants if they Cinco accompanied them to the office of the Philippine Thai
wanted to work as factory workers in Taipeh. Private complainants paid placement Association, Inc. (Philippine-Thai) in Ermita, Manila to meet the
and passport fees but were unable to leave for abroad. Defense presented accused accused. Introducing herself as the general manager of Philippine-Thai,
as the sole witness, who denied the charges against her but admitted being the accused asserted that her company recruited workers for placement
president of Philippine-Thai but only in a nominal capacity, and claimed that as abroad and asked private complainants if they wanted to work as
nominee-president, she did not participate in any of its transactions. Accused factory workers in Taipeh.
likewise insisted that Philippine-Thai was engaged solely in the barong tagalog ● Enticed by the assurance of immediate employment and an $800 per
business. The parties stipulated on one of the elements of illegal recruitment, “that month salary, private complainants applied.
the offender is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to lawfully engage in the ● Accused required private complainants to pay placement and passport
recruitment and placement of workers.” The lower court also took judicial notice fees in the total amount of P22,500.00 per applicant, to be paid in three
of the fact that another illegal recruitment case was filed against the accused. installments.
Accused argued that the agreed stipulation is merely that the testimony of the Chief ● Complainants-witnesses were unable to leave for abroad. They
Licensing Officer of the POEA would be to the effect that appellant is not licensed demanded for the return of their money but to no avail. Accused’s
nor authorized to recruit workers, and that the court cannot take judicial notice of unfulfilled promise of employment and her refusal to return the money
contents of the records of other cases. Issue: WoN the stipulation was agreed that had been paid by way of placement and passport fees, triggered
upon - YES. Conveniently omitted from the accused’s reply chief is the statement the filing of the complaint.
made by the court after counsel for the accused, Atty. Ulep agreed to the stipulation ● Defense presented as its lone witness, the appellant whose testimony
proposed by the prosecution that from the records of the CLO of the POEA, the consisted mainly in denying the charges against her.
accused is not licensed to recruit workers and that the CLO will testify and confirm ● Accused admitted being the president of Philippine-Thai but only in a
this fact. The stipulation of facts proposed during trial by prosecution and admitted nominal capacity, and claimed that as nominee-president, she did not
by defense counsel is tantamount to a judicial admission by the appellant of the participate in any of its transactions. accused likewise insisted that
facts stipulated on. Controlling, therefore, is Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Philippine-Thai was engaged solely in the barong tagalog business.
Court which states that such fact does not require proof. Issue: WoN it was ● Court a quo rendered a decision holding that the defense of "denial"
proper for the court to take judicial notice of the other illegal recruitment interposed by the accused could not prevail over the positive and clear
case against accused - YES. It is true that as a general rule, courts are not testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which had established the
authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and ● The accused is now arguing:
notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been tried or are actually ○ that the stipulation - that the offender is a non-licensee or non-
pending before the same judge. This rule is subject to the exception that in the holder of authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
absence of objection and as a matter of convenience to all parties, a court may placement of workers- was not agreed upon, therefore the
properly treat all or any part of the original record of the case filed in its archives prosecution failed to prove one of the essential elements of the
as read into the records of a case pending before it, when with the knowledge of the crime of illegal recruitment
opposing party, reference is made to it, by name and number or in some other
○ that granting arguendo that defense counsel had in fact agreed
manner by which it is sufficiently designated. Accused was the one who introduced to the above stipulation of facts, the same is null and void for
evidence of the existence of another case against her. being contrary to the well-established rule that a stipulation of
facts is not allowed in criminal cases
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 1
 ○ that courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the ● However, in the light of recent changes in our rules on criminal
contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases procedure, particularly the pre-trial provisions found in Rule 118, the
have been tried or are pending in the same court, more prohibition against a stipulation of facts in criminal cases no longer
specifically the pendency of another illegal recruitment case holds true.
against the accused ● By virtue of the foregoing rule, a stipulation facts in criminal cases is
now expressly sanctioned by law. In further pursuit of the objective of
Issue/s: expediting trial by dispensing with the presentation of evidence on
● WoN the stipulation was agreed upon - YES matters that the accused is willing to admit, a stipulation of fact should
● WoN stipulations of facts are allowed in criminal cases - YES be allowed not only during pre-trial but also and with more reason,
● WoN it was proper for the court to take judicial notice of the other during trial proper itself.
illegal recruitment case against accused - YES ● Although not expressly sanctioned under the old rules of court, a
stipulation of facts by the parties in criminal cases has long been
allowed and recognized as declarations constituting judicial
Ratio:
admissions, hence, binding upon the parties.
Ratio for Issue 1
● The stipulation of facts proposed during trial by prosecution and
● Accused argues that the stipulation of facts was not tantamount to an
admitted by defense counsel is tantamount to a judicial admission by
admission by the accused of the fact of non-possession of the requisite
the appellant of the facts stipulated on. Controlling, therefore, is Section
authority or license from the POEA, but was merely an admission that
4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court which provides that:
the Chief Licensing Officer of the POEA, if presented in court, would
○ An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course
testify to this fact. It was "merely that the testimony of the Chief
Licensing Officer of the POEA would be to the effect that appellant is of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.
The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it
not licensed nor authorized to recruit workers."
was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission
● Conveniently omitted from the accused’s reply chief is the ensuing
was made.
statement made by the court after counsel for the accused, Atty. Ulep
agreed to this stipulation proposed by the prosecution: Ratio for Issue 3
○ “The prosecution and the defense agreed to stipulate/admit ● It is true that as a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial
notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such
that from the record of the POEA Licensing and Regulation
cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and
Office, Dept. of Labor and Employment, accused Cristina
notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been tried or are
Hernandez/Phil. etc., Ass. . . . is neither licensed nor authorized
actually pending before the same judge.35 However, this rule is subject
by the office to recruit workers overseas abroad and that if the
duly authorized representative from the POEA Administration to the exception that:
is to take the witness stand, he will confirm to this fact as ○ in the absence of objection and as a matter of convenience to all
borne by the records.” parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the
original record of the case filed in its archives as read into the
records of a case pending before it, when with the knowledge of
Ratio for Issue 2
the opposing party, reference is made to it, by name and
● The rule prohibiting the stipulation of facts in criminal cases is number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently
grounded on the fundamental right of the accused to be presumed designated
innocent until proven guilty, and corollary duty of the prosecution to
● The judicial notice taken by the lower court of the pendency of another
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is therefor
illegal recruitment case against the appellant falls squarely under the
advanced that the prosecution being duty-bound to prove all the
above exception in view of the fact that it was the appellant herself who
elements of the crime, may not be relieve of this obligation by the mere
introduced evidence on the matter when she testified in open court
expedient of stipulating with defense counsel on a matter constitutive
● Even assuming, however, that the lower court improperly took judicial
of an essential elements of the crime charged.
notice of the pendency of another illegal recruitment case against the
appellant, the error would not be fatal to the prosecution's cause. The
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 2
 judgment of conviction was not based on the existence of another
illegal recruitment case filed against appellant by a different group of
complainants, but on the overwhelming evidence against her in the
instant case.

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, appellant's conviction of the crime of illegal

recruitment in large scale is hereby AFFIRMED, and the penalty imposed
MODIFIED as follows: the court sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
(P100,000.00) PESOS without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; to
return and pay to BENITO L. BERNABE the amount of TWENTY EIGHT
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (P28,500.00) PESOS; to ROBERT P. VELASQUEZ
the amount of TWENTY TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (P22,500.00) PESOS;
to GREGORIO P. MENDOZA the amount of TWENTY TWO THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED (P22,500.00) PESOS; to ARNEL MENDOZA the amount of TWENTY
TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (P22,000.00) PESOS also without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 3
 2. Tabuena vs. CA ○ Tabernilla returned to the Philippines in 1934, and Damasa
G.R. No. 85423 | May 6, 1991 | CRUZ, J. | Topic Timtiman, acting upon her son Juan's instruction, conveyed the
Digest by: BULATAO subject land to Tabernilla.
○ At the same time, she requested that she be allowed to stay
Petitioners: JOSE TABUENA
thereon as she had been living there all her life.
Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS and EMILIANO TABERNILLA, JR.
○ Tabernilla agreed provided she paid the realty taxes on the
property, which she promised to do, and did.
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine:
○ She remained on the said land until her death, following which
The subject of the dispute is a parcel of residential land consisting of about 440 sq.
the petitioner, her son and half-brother of Juan Peralta, Jr., took
m. land situated in Poblacion, Makato, Aklan. An action for recovery of ownership
possession thereof.
thereof was filed in the RTC of Aklan by the estate of Tabernilla against Tabuena,
○ The complaint was filed when demand was made upon
the herein petitioner. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and the
Tabuena to surrender the property and he refused, claiming it
defendant was required to vacate the disputed lot. Tabuena appealed to the CA
as his own.
(respondent court), complaining that, in arriving at its factual findings, the TC
● The TC rejected his defense that he was the absolute owner of the lot,
motu proprio took cognizance of Exhibits "A", "B" and "C", which had been marked
which he inherited from his parents, who acquired it even before World
by the plaintiff but never formally submitted in evidence. In sustaining the TC, the
War II and had been living thereon since then and until they died.
CA held that, contrary to the allegations of the appellant, the said exhibits were in
○ Also disbelieved was his contention that the subject of the sale
fact formally submitted in evidence as disclosed by the transcript of stenographic
between Peralta and Tabernilla was a different piece of land
notes. The mere fact that a particular document is marked as an exhibit does not
planted to coconut trees and bounded on three sides by the
mean it has thereby already been offered as part of the evidence of a party. It is
Makato River.
true that Exhibits "A," "B" and "C" were marked at the pre-trial of the case below,
● Tabuena appealed to the CA (respondent court), complaining that,
but this was only for the purpose of identifying them at that time. TC also erred in
in arriving at its factual findings, the TC motu proprio took
taking judicial notice of Tabuena's testimony in a case it had previously heard
cognizance of Exhibits "A", "B" and "C", which had been marked by
which was closely connected with the case before it. The petitioner was completely
the plaintiff but never formally submitted in evidence.
unaware that his testimony in Civil Case No. 1327 was being considered by the TC
○ The TC also erred when, to resolve the ownership of the
in the case then pending before it. The CA said that even assuming that the TC
subject lot, it considered the proceedings in another case
improperly took judicial notice of the other case, striking off all reference thereto
involving the same parties but a different parcel of land.
would not be fatal to the plaintiff's cause because "the said testimony was merely
● The said exhibits are referred to in the pre-trial order as follows:
corroborative of other evidences submitted by the plaintiff." What "other
○ Plaintiff proceeded to mark the following exhibits:
evidences" The trouble with this justification is that the exhibits it intends to
■ Exh. "A", letter dated October 4, 1921 addressed in
corroborate, to wit, Exhibits "A", "B" and "C", have themselves not been formally
Makato, Capiz, Philippines;
submitted.
● Exh. "A-1", paragraph 2 of the letter indicating
that the amount of P600.00—the first P300.00
Facts: and then another P300.00 as interest since
October 4, 1921;
● The subject of the dispute is a parcel of residential land consisting of ● Exh. "A-2", is paragraph 3 of the letter;
about 440 sq. m. land situated in Poblacion, Makato, Aklan. ■ Exh. "B", a Spanish document;
● In 1973, an action for recovery of ownership thereof was filed in the ■ Exh. "C", deed of conveyance filed by Tomasa
RTC of Aklan by the estate of Tabernilla against Tabuena, the herein Timtiman and Alfredo Tabernilla in 1923; and
petitioner. ● Exh. "C-1", paragraph 4 of Exh. "C".
● After trial, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and the ● In sustaining the TC, the CA held that, contrary to the allegations of
defendant was required to vacate the disputed lot. the appellant, the said exhibits were in fact formally submitted in
● TC found that: evidence as disclosed by the transcript of stenographic notes,
○ The lot was sold by Juan Peralta, Jr. sometime in 1926 to which it quoted at length.
Alfredo Tabernilla while the two were in the United States.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 4
 ○ The challenged decision also upheld the use by the trial court ● It is the policy of this Court to accord proper deference to the factual
of testimony given in an earlier case, to bolster its findings in findings of the courts below and even to regard them as conclusive
the second case. where there is no showing that they have been reached arbitrarily.
○ The exception is where such findings do not conform to
Issue/s: the evidence on record and appear indeed to have no valid
● W/N petitioner Tabernilla, Jr. proved his claim of ownership over the basis to sustain their correctness. As in this case.
disputed property with evidence properly cognizable under Philippine ● The CA also held that the TC committed no reversible error in taking
adjudicative laws. - NO. judicial notice of Tabuena's testimony in a case it had previously heard
which was closely connected with the case before it.
Ratio: ● It conceded that as a general rule "courts are not authorized to take
● The SC examined the record and found that the exhibits submitted judicial notice, in the adjudication of cases pending before them, of the
were not the above-described documents but Exhibits "X" and "T" and contents of the records of other cases, even when such cases have been
their sub-markings, which were the last will and testament of Alfredo tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact
Tabernilla and the order of probate. that both cases may have been heard or are actually pending b before
● It is not denied that the list of exhibits does not include Exhibits "A", "B" the same judge.
and "C". ● Nevertheless, it applied the exception that:
○ In fact, the TC categorically declared that "Exhibits "A-1, "A-2", ○ . . . in the absence of objection, and as a matter of
"B", "C" and "C-1," were not among those documents or convenience to all parties, a court may properly treat all or
exhibits formally offered for admission by plaintiff- any part of the original record of a case filed in its archives
administratrix." as read into the record of a case pending before it, when,
● This is a clear contradiction of the finding of the CA, which seems to with the knowledge of the opposing party, reference is
have confused Exhibits "A," "B" and "C" with Exhibits "X" and "Y", the made to it for that purpose, by name and number or in
evidence mentioned in the quoted transcript. some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated;
● Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides in Section 35 thereof as follows: or when the original record of the former case or any part
○ Sec. 35. Offer of evidence.—The court shall consider no of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives by the court's
evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for direction, at the request or with the consent of the parties,
which the evidence is offered must be specified. and admitted as a part of the record of the case then
● The mere fact that a particular document is marked as an exhibit does pending.
not mean it has thereby already been offered as part of the evidence of ● It is clear that this exception is applicable only when, "in the absence of
a party. objection," "with the knowledge of the opposing party," or "at the
○ It is true that Exhibits "A," "B" and "C" were marked at the request or with the consent of the parties," the case is clearly referred
pre-trial of the case below, but this was only for the to or "the original or part of the records of the case are actually
purpose of identifying them at that time. withdrawn from the archives" and "admitted as part of the record of
○ They were not by such marking formally offered as exhibits. the case then pending."
○ As we said in Interpacific Transit, Inc. vs. Aviles, "At the trial ● These conditions have not been established here.
on the merits, the party may decide to formally offer (the ○ On the contrary, the petitioner was completely unaware
exhibits) if it believes they will advance its cause, and then that his testimony in Civil Case No. 1327 was being
again it may decide not to do so at all. In the latter event, considered by the TC in the case then pending before it.
such documents cannot be considered evidence, nor can ○ As the petitioner puts it, the matter was never taken up at the
they be given any evidentiary value." trial and was "unfairly sprung" upon him, leaving him no
● Chief Justice Moran explained the rationale of the rule thus: opportunity to counteract.
○ . . . The offer is necessary because it is the duty of a judge to ● The CA said that even assuming that the TC improperly took judicial
rest his findings of facts and his judgment only and strictly notice of the other case, striking off all reference thereto would not be
upon the evidence offered by the patties at the trial. fatal to the plaintiff's cause because "the said testimony was merely

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 5
 corroborative of other evidences submitted by the plaintiff." What
"other evidences"?
○ The trouble with this justification is that the exhibits it
intends to corroborate, to wit, Exhibits "A", "B" and "C",
have themselves not been formally submitted.
● Considering the resultant paucity of the evidence for the private
respondent, the SC feels that the complaint should have been dismissed
by the TC for failure of the plaintiff to substantiate its allegations.
○ It has failed to prove that the subject lot was the same parcel of
land sold by Juan Peralta, Jr. to Alfredo Tabernilla and not
another property, as the petitioner contends.
● The conclusions of the TC were based mainly on Exhibits "A", "B" and
"C", which had not been formally offered as evidence and therefore
should have been totally disregarded, conformably to the Rules of
Court.
○ The TC also erred when it relied on the evidence submitted in
Civil Case No. 1327 and took judicial notice thereof without the
consent or knowledge of the petitioner, in violation of existing
doctrine.
● Thus vitiated, the factual findings here challenged are as an edifice built
upon shifting sands and should not have been sustained by the
respondent court.
● There is substantial evidence supporting the petitioner's contrary
contentions that should have persuaded the TC judge to rule in his
favor and dismiss the complaint.

Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The appealed decision is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE, with costs against the private respondent. It is so ordered.

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 6
 3. Asian Terminals vs. Malayan ● ATI: no cause of action since Malayan failed to present the insurance
G.R. No.171406 | 4/4/11 | Del Castillo | Judicial Notice contract
Digest by: CAPACITE ○ The finding as to the negligence of ATI’s stevedores is contrary
to the documentary evidence (Turn Over Survey of Bad Order
Petitioners: Asian Terminals, Inc.
Cargoes, Request for Bad Order Survey, and Report of Survey),
Respondents: Malayan Insurance Co., Inc.
since ATI received the shipment in bad order condition and the
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine: Shandong Plant shipped 60k bags of soda ash
fact that the Turn Over Survey was prepared after the bags
dense from China to Manila, insured with Malayan. In Manila, ATI’s stevedores
were unloaded does not mean that the damage was caused by
unloaded and brought the bags to its open storage area where 2702 bags were in
its stevedores.
bad condition. Upon delivery to PBC (consignee), 2881 were in bad condition
○ Damages should not be more than P5,000 pursuant to its
(spillage, caking, hardening). Malayan paid and filed against ATI. RTC & CA:
Management Contract with the Phil Ports Authority - that the
Negligence of ATI’s stevedores was the proximate cause in using steel hooks in
CA should have taken judicial notice of the said contract since
retrieving the bags, thus ATI was ordered to pay P643,000. ATI: Damages should
it is an official act of an executive dept subject to judicial
not be more than P5,000 pursuant to its Management Contract with the PPA.
cognizance.
MAIN ISSUE: WoN the Court can take judicial notice of the Mgmt Contract - NO
Issues:
The Management Contract entered into by ATI and the PPA is clearly not among
● WoN non-presentation of the insurance contract is fatal - NO
the matters which the courts can take judicial notice of. It cannot be considered an
● WoN the proximate cause was the negligence of ATI’s stevedores - YES
official act of the executive department. The PPA, which was created by virtue of
● WoN the Court can take judicial notice of the Management
Presidential Decree No. 857, as amended, is a government-owned and controlled
Contract between ATI and PPA - NO
corporation in charge of administering the ports in the country. Obviously, the PPA
was only performing a proprietary function when it entered into a Management
Ratio:
Contract with petitioner.
Ratio for Issue 1
● This was never raised before the RTC and the CA.
Facts: ● Besides, non-presentation of the insurance contract is not necessarily
● Shandong Weifang Soda Ash Plant shipped on board the vessel MV fatal.
"Jinlian I" 60,000 plastic bags of soda ash dense (50 kg each) from ○ The subrogation receipt, by itself, is sufficient to establish not
China to Manila. only the relationship of the insurer and the assured shipper of
○ The shipment, with an invoice value of US$456,000.00, was the lost cargo of industrial fuel oil, but also the amount paid to
insured with Malayan Insurance and with Philippine Banking settle the insurance claim.
Corporation as the consignee. ○ A perusal of ATI’s Answer and Pre-Trial Brief shows that it
● In Manila, the stevedores of Asian Terminals (ATI) unloaded the 60,000 never questioned Malayan’s right to subrogation, nor did it
bags of soda ash dense from the vessel and brought them to the open dispute the coverage of the insurance contract or policy.
storage area for temporary storage and safekeeping, pending clearance ○ Since there was no issue regarding the validity of the insurance
from Customs. contract or policy, or any provision thereof, Malayan had no
○ When the unloading of the bags was completed, 2,702 bags reason to present the insurance contract as evidence during
were found to be in bad order condition. the trial.
● The bags were loaded in the trucks of MEC Customs Brokerage and
were delivered to PBC - 2,881 were in bad order condition due to Ratio for Issue 2
spillage, caking, and hardening of the contents. ● Both the RTC and the CA found the negligence of petitioner’s
○ Malayan paid the value of the damaged cargoes and filed for stevedores to be the proximate cause of the damage/loss to the
damages against ATI, shipper Inchcape Shipping, and MEC.. shipment.
● RTC: negligence of ATI’s stevedores was the proximate cause since they ● Witness Redentor Antonio, marine cargo surveyor of Inchcape for the
used steel hooks in retrieving the bags despite admonitions not to vessel testified that it was only after all the bags were unloaded from
○ ATI to pay P643,600.25 to Malayan the vessel that the actual counting of bad order bags was made.
○ CA: affirmed
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 7
 ○ The testimony of Antonio was corroborated by Edgar
Liceralde, marine cargo surveyor connected with SMS Average
Surveyors and Adjusters, Inc., the company requested by
Chemphil Albright and Wilson Corporation to provide
superintendence, report the condition and determine the final
outturn of quantity/weight of the subject shipment.
● Indeed, from the nature of the damage caused to the shipment, it is not
difficult to see that the damage caused was due to the negligence of
ATI’s stevedores who used steel hooks to retrieve the bags from the
higher portions of the piles thereby piercing the bags and spilling their
contents, and who piled the bags in the open storage area of ATI with
insufficient cover thereby exposing them to the elements, causing the
contents to cake.

Ratio for Issue 3

● The Management Contract entered into by ATI and the PPA is clearly
not among the matters which the courts can take judicial notice of.
○ It cannot be considered an official act of the executive
department.
○ The PPA, which was created by virtue of Presidential Decree
No. 857, as amended, is a government-owned and controlled
corporation in charge of administering the ports in the country.
○ Obviously, the PPA was only performing a proprietary function
when it entered into a Management Contract with petitioner.
■ As such, judicial notice cannot be applied.

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed July 14,
2005 Decision and the February 14, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 61798 are hereby AFFIRMED.

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 8
 4. People vs. Rullepa ● WoN RTC QC properly convicted Rullepa? Yes
G.R. No 131516. | March 5, 2003 | J. Carpio-Morales | Judicial Notice
Digest by: Casama Ratio:
● Rullepa contended that the statements admitting that he raped her only
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
once are admissible since they were made out of fear and he was
Respondents: Ronnie Rullepa y Guinto
bullied by the parents - The trial court considered his admission merely
as an additional ground to convince itself of his culpability. Even if
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine:
such admission, as well as the implication of his failure to deny the
Rullepa was charged with Rape before RTC of QC. He was convicted through the
same, were disregarded, the evidence suffices to establish his guilt
testimonies of the victim (3 and a half years old) and her parents. Rullepa
beyond reasonable doubt.
contended that he be held liable for acts of lasciviousness instead of rape from the
● The plain, matter-of-fact manner by which Cyra May described her
testimony of the victim that he only rubbed his penis to her vagina. The issue is
abuse in the hands of her Kuya Ronnie is an eloquent testament to the
WON RTC properly convicted Rullepa? The SC ruled that the evidence is enough to
truth of her accusations.
convict Rullepa and further ruled that Rullepa is actually guilty of statutory rape
● Accused-appellant draws attention to the statement of Cyra May that he
because he raped a woman who is under 12 years old. The SC examined the
was not in the house on November 17 (1995), as reflected in the
victim’s age through her appearance which is an object evidence.
following transcript of her testimony - The above-quoted testimony of
Cyra May does not indicate the time when her father Col. Buenafe left
DOCTRINE: When the trier of facts observes the appearance of a person to
their house on November 17, 1995 with accused-appellant and, thus,
ascertain his or her age, he is not taking judicial notice of such fact; rather, he
does not preclude accused-appellants commission of rape on the same
is conducting an examination of the evidence, the evidence being the
date. In any event, a young child is vulnerable to suggestion, hence, her
appearance of the person. Such a process militates against the very concept
affirmative response to the defense counsels above-quoted leading
of judicial notice, the object of which is to do away with the presentation of
questions.
evidence.
● As for the variance in the claim regarding when Gloria was informed of
the rape, Gloria having testified that she learned of it on November 20,
Facts: 199516 while Cyra May said that immediately after the incident, she
● Rullepa was charged with Rape before RTC of QC awakened her mother who was in the adjacent room and reported it:17
● He was arraigned and pleaded not guilty This is a minor matter that does not detract from Cyra Mays categorical,
● From the testimonies of the witnesses by the complainant, Rullepa, a material testimony that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her
houseboy, allegedly rape Cyra May (3 and a half years old). Rullepa vagina.
readily admitted raping her but only once. The following morning, the ● Accused-appellant goes on to contend that Cyra May was coached - On
parents bring Rullepa to Camp Karingal where he admitted the the contrary, the foregoing testimony indicates that Cyra May was
imputations against him. Gloria, one of the parents, submitted a sworn really narrating the truth, that of hearing her mother utter sinira niya
statement ang buhay mo.
● Cyra May declared that she was raped twice. However, the medico-legal ● Accused-appellants suggestion that Cyra May merely imagined the
officer concluded that there are no external signs of recent application things of which he is accused, perhaps getting the idea from television
of any form of trauma in the vagina. She further stated that the programs, is preposterous - This Court cannot believe that a victim of
abrasions on the labia minora could have been caused by friction with Cyra Mays age could concoct a tale of defloration, allow the
an object, perhaps an erect penis. She doubted if riding on a bicycle had examination of her private parts, and undergo the expense, trouble,
caused the injuries inconvenience, not to mention the trauma of public trial
● The accused, on the other hand denied having anything to do with the ● Her testimony is corroborated by the findings of Dr. Preyra that there
abrasions and said that he only buy medicine for Cyra May for her were abrasions in her labia minora, which she opined, could have been
difficulty in urinating caused by friction with an erect penis.
● RTC QC convicted Rullepa. ● Her very tender age notwithstanding, Cyra Ma(y) nonetheless appeared
to possess the necessary intelligence and perceptiveness sufficient to
Issue/s: invest her with the competence to testify about her experience. She
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 9
 might have been an impressionable child as all others of her age are but ● Several cases suggest that courts may take judicial notice of the
her narration of Kuya Ronnies placing his titi in her pepe was certainly appearance of the victim in determining her age.
one which could not be considered as a common childs tale. a. People v. Javier - “This does not mean, however, that the
● Her demeanor as a witness manifested during trial by her unhesitant, presentation of the certificate of birth is at all times
spontaneous, and plain responses to questions further enhanced her necessary to prove minority. The minority of a victim of
claim to credit and trustworthiness. tender age who may be below the age of ten is quite
● The crime committed by accused-appellant is not merely acts of manifest and the court can take judicial notice thereof.
lasciviousness but statutory rape - When the woman is under ● On the other hand, a handful of cases holds that courts, without the
twelve years of age requisite hearing prescribed by Section 3, Rule 129 of the Rules of
● Age as qualifying circumstance - People v. Pruna (Guidelines) Court, cannot take judicial notice of the victims age.
a. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an ● Judicial notice signifies that there are certain facta probanda, or
original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of propositions in a party’s case, as to which he will not be required to
such party. offer evidence; these will be taken for true by the tribunal without the
b. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic need of evidence. Judicial notice, however, is a phrase sometimes used
documents such as baptismal certificate and school records in a loose way to cover some other judicial action. Certain rules of
which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to Evidence, usually known under other names, are frequently referred to
prove age. in terms of judicial notice.
c. (Guideline no. 3) If the certificate of live birth or authentic ● The process by which the trier of facts judges a persons age from his or
document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or her appearance cannot be categorized as judicial notice. Judicial notice
otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of is based upon convenience and expediency for it would certainly be
the victims mother or a member of the family either by affinity superfluous, inconvenient, and expensive both to parties and the court
or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters to require proof, in the ordinary way, of facts which are already known
respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the to courts.
offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on ● When the trier of facts observes the appearance of a person to
Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances: ascertain his or her age, he is not taking judicial notice of such fact;
rather, he is conducting an examination of the evidence, the
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is evidence being the appearance of the person. Such a process
sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; militates against the very concept of judicial notice, the object of
which is to do away with the presentation of evidence.
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is
● A persons appearance, where relevant, is admissible as object
sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
evidence, the same being addressed to the senses of the court.
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what Section 1, Rule 130 provides:
is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old. ● SECTION 1. Object as evidence. Objects as evidence are those addressed
to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue,
d. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.
or the testimony of the victims mother or relatives concerning ● To be sure, one author writes, this practice of inspection by the court of
the victims age, the complainants testimony will suffice objects, things or persons relevant to the fact in dispute, has its roots in
provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the ancient judicial procedure
accused. ● A persons appearance, as evidence of age (for example, of infancy,
e. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of or of being under the age of consent to intercourse), is usually
the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the regarded as relevant; and, if so, the tribunal may properly observe
testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against the person brought before it.
him. ● There can be no question, therefore, as to the admissibility of a persons
f. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to appearance in determining his or her age. As to the weight to accord
the age of the victim.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 10
 such appearance, especially in rape cases, Pruna laid down guideline
no. 3
● In the present case, the prosecution did not offer the victims certificate
of live birth or similar authentic documents in evidence. The victim and
her mother, however, testified that she was only three years old at the
time of the rape.
● Because of the vast disparity between the alleged age (three years old)
and the age sought to be proved (below twelve years), the trial court
would have had no difficulty ascertaining the victims age from her
appearance. No reasonable doubt, therefore, exists that the second
element of statutory rape, i.e., that the victim was below twelve years of
age at the time of the commission of the offense, is present.
● Whether the victim was below seven years old, however, is another
matter. Here, reasonable doubt exists. A mature three and a half-year
old can easily be mistaken for an underdeveloped seven-year old. The
appearance of the victim, as object evidence, cannot be accorded much
weight and, following Pruna, the testimony of the mother is, by itself,
insufficient.
● As it has not been established with moral certainty that Cyra May was
below seven years old at the time of the commission of the offense,
accused-appellant cannot be sentenced to suffer the death penalty. Only
the penalty of reclusion perpetua can be imposed upon him.

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon

City, Branch 96, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Ronnie
Rullepa y Guinto is found GUILTY of Statutory Rape, defined and punished by
Article 335 (3) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay private
complainant, Cyra May Buenafe y Francisco, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 11
 5. Regulus Development vs. Dela Cruz
unjust enrichment and to ensure restitution.
G.R. No. 198172 | Jan. 25, 2016 | Brion J. | Equity Jurisdiction/ Judicial Notice
Digest by: V. Chang Facts:
Petitioners: Regulus Development Inc
● Petitioner Regulus is the owner of San Juan Apartments.
Respondents: Antonio dela Cruz
● Antonio dela Cruz leased 2 units of said apartment (1993 &1994).
● The contract of lease for each of the two units similarly provides a lease
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine: Antonio dela Cruz leased 2 units of the San Juan
period of 1 month, subject to automatic renewals, unless terminated by
Apartments from Regulus Development. In the lease contract, Regulus could
the petitioner upon written notice.
terminate the lease by written notice. Regulus eventually wrote dela Cruz to
● Regulus sent dela Cruz a letter to terminate the lease of the units.
terminate the lease. Dela Cruz refused to vacate, which led to an ejectment case
● Due to dela Cruz’s refusal to vacate the units, petitioner filed a
filed by Regulus in MTC Pasay. Regulus won. When Dela Cruz appealed to the RTC
complaint for ejectment before MTC Pasay.
he consigned the monthly rentals to the RTC due to the petitioner’s refusal to
● MTC resolved the case in the petitioner’s favor and ordered dela Cruz to
receive the rentals. RTC ruled for Regulus. Dela Cruz filed a Petition for Review
vacate the premises, and pay the rentals due until he actually complies.
with the CA which reversed the lower courts’ decisions and dismissed the ejectment
● Dela Cruz appealed to the RTC. Pending appeal, dela Cruz consigned the
case. The dismissal of the case became final and executory. Then, petitioner filed a
monthly rentals to the RTC due to the petitioner’s refusal to receive the
motion praying for the withdrawal of the rentals consigned by dela Cruz with the
rentals.
RTC, which it granted. Finding the funds insufficient, petitioner filed a motion
● RTC affirmed the decision of the MTC in toto and denied the motion for
praying that the RTC levy upon the respondent’s real property to satisfy the
reconsideration filed by dela Cruz.
judgment credit, which RTC granted. After the public auction of respondent’s real
● Dela Cruz filed a Petition for Review: the CA reversed the lower courts’
property, where petitioner was the highest bidder, dela Cruz redeemed the
decisions and dismissed the ejectment case. The dismissal of the case
property, paying the equivalent of the petitioner’s bid price with legal interest.
became final and executory.
Dela Cruz filed a motion before the CA to withdraw the petition for the reason that
● Then, petitioner filed a motion (to withdraw funds deposited by the
the redemption of the property and release of the price paid rendered the petition
defendant-appellant as lessee) praying for the withdrawal of the
moot and academic. Thereafter, petitioner received the CA decision which
rentals consigned by dela Cruz with the RTC, which the RTC granted.
reversed and set aside the orders of the RTC directing the levy of the
○ The RTC explained that the effect of the complaint’s dismissal
respondent’s property.
would mean that there was no complaint filed at all. The
petitioner, however, is entitled to the amount of rentals for the
Issue: WON the RTC had jurisdiction to levy on the respondent’s real property?
use and occupation of the subject units, as provided in the
YES.
executed contracts of lease and on the basis of justice and
equity.
The RTC’s equity jurisdiction is separate and distinct from its appellate jurisdiction
■ RTC issued a writ of execution for enforcement.
on the ejectment case. The RTC could not have issued its orders in the exercise of
● Petitioner moved for the issuance of a writ of execution with the RTC to
its appellate jurisdiction since there was nothing more to execute on the dismissed
allow it to proceed against the supersedeas bond the respondent posted,
ejectment case. As the RTC orders explained, the dismissal of the ejectment case
representing rentals for the leased properties and to withdraw the
effectively and completely blotted out and cancelled the complaint. Hence, the RTC
lease payments deposited by respondent.
orders were clearly issued in the exercise of the RTC’s equity jurisdiction, not on
○ RTC granted the motion and issued an Alias Writ of Execution.
the basis of its appellate jurisdiction. This Court takes judicial notice that the
● Petitioner claimed that the deposits, supersedeas bond, and payments
validity of the RTC Orders has been upheld in a separate petition before this Court,
directly made by the respondent, were insufficient to cover rentals due.
under G.R. SP No. 171429 entitled Antonio Dela Cruz v. Regulus Development, Inc.
Hence, the petitioner filed a motion praying that the RTC levy
upon the respondent’s real property to satisfy the judgment credit.
Doctrine: Equity jurisdiction aims to provide complete justice in cases where a
○ RTC granted. Dela Cruz’s MR was denied.
court of law is unable to adapt its judgments to the special circumstances of a case
● Dela Cruz filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari with application for
because of a resulting legal inflexibility when the law is applied to a given situation.
issuance of a TRO. It sought to nullify and set aside the orders of the
The purpose of the exercise of equity jurisdiction, among others, is to prevent
RTC directing the levy of the respondent’s real property.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 12
 ○ But CA dismissed the petition. Thereafter, the respondent filed ● The appellate jurisdiction of courts is conferred by law. The appellate
a motion for reconsideration. court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties when an
● Pursuant to the RTC writ of execution, a public auction for respondent’s appeal is perfected.
property was held. Petitioner was declared the highest bidder. Later on, ● On the other hand, equity jurisdiction aims to provide complete justice
dela Cruz redeemed the property with the RTC Clerk of Court, paying in cases where a court of law is unable to adapt its judgments to the
the equivalent of the petitioner’s bid price with legal interest. special circumstances of a case because of a resulting legal inflexibility
● The petitioner filed a motion to release funds for the release of the when the law is applied to a given situation. The purpose of the
redemption price paid. The RTC granted the motion. exercise of equity jurisdiction, among others, is to prevent unjust
● Dela Cruz filed a motion before the CA to withdraw the petition for the enrichment and to ensure restitution.
reason that the redemption of the property and release of the price ● The RTC orders which allowed the withdrawal of the deposited funds
paid rendered the petition moot and academic. for the use and occupation of the subject units were issued pursuant to
● Thereafter, petitioner received the CA decision which reversed and the RTC’s equity jurisdiction, as the CA held in the petition docketed as
set aside the orders of the RTC directing the levy of the CA-G.R. SP No. 81277.
respondent’s property. ● The RTC’s equity jurisdiction is separate and distinct from its appellate
○ The CA held that while the approval of the petitioner’s motion jurisdiction on the ejectment case. The RTC could not have issued its
to withdraw the consigned rentals and the posted supersedeas orders in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction since there was
bond was within the RTC’s jurisdiction, the RTC had no nothing more to execute on the dismissed ejectment case. As the RTC
jurisdiction to levy on the respondent’s real property. orders explained, the dismissal of the ejectment case effectively and
● The CA explained that the approval of the levy on the respondent’s real completely blotted out and cancelled the complaint. Hence, the RTC
property could not be considered as a case pending appeal, because the orders were clearly issued in the exercise of the RTC’s equity
decision of the MTC had already become final and executory. As such, jurisdiction, not on the basis of its appellate jurisdiction.
the matter of execution of the judgment lies with the MTC where the ● This Court takes judicial notice that the validity of the RTC Orders has
complaint for ejectment was originally filed and presented. been upheld in a separate petition before this Court, under G.R. SP No.
● The CA ordered the RTC to remand the case to the MTC for execution. 171429 entitled Antonio Dela Cruz v. Regulus Development, Inc.
The petitioner filed an MR which was denied by the CA. ● The levy of the respondent’s property was made pursuant to the RTC
orders issued in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, independent of
The petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari to challenge the the ejectment case originally filed with the MTC.
CA ruling which held that the RTC had no jurisdiction to levy on the ● An examination of the RTC order dated June 30, 2008, directing the levy
respondent’s real property. of the respondent’s real property shows that it was based on the RTC
order dated July 25, 2003. The levy of the respondent’s property was
Petitioner argues: that the RTC’s release of the consigned rentals and levy were issued to satisfy the amounts due under the lease contracts, and not as
ordered in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction; a result of the decision in the ejectment case.
● The CA erred when it concluded that the RTC exercised its appellate
Respondent reiterates: the CA’s conclusion that the RTC had no jurisdiction to jurisdiction in the ejectment case when it directed the levy of the
order the levy on respondent’s real property as it no longer falls under the respondent’s property.
allowed execution pending appeal. ● Furthermore, the order to levy on the respondent’s real property was
consistent with the first writ of execution issued by the RTC on
Issue/s: December 18, 2003, to implement the RTC orders.
● WON the RTC had jurisdiction to levy on the respondent’s real ● The subsequent order of the RTC to levy on the respondent’s property
property? YES. was merely a reiteration and an enforcement of the original writ of
execution issued
Ratio: ● The RTC, as the court of origin, has jurisdiction to order the levy of
the respondent's real property.
● Execution shall be applied for in the court of origin, in accordance with
Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 13
 ● The court of origin with respect to the assailed RTC orders is the court
which issued these orders. The RTC is the court with jurisdiction to
order the execution of the issued RTC orders.
● Hence, the petitioner correctly moved for the issuance of the writ of
execution and levy of the respondent's real property before the RTC as
the court of origin.

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, we hereby GRANT the petition for review on

certiorari. The decision dated November 23, 2010, and the resolution dated
August 10, 2011, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 105290 are hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The orders dated June 30, 2008, and August 26,
2008, of Branch 108 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, are hereby
REINSTATED. Costs against respondent Antonio dela Cruz. SO ORDERED.

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 14
 6. Medina vs. Koike
for further appropriate proceedings. It bears to stress that procedural rules were
G.R. No. 215723 | July 27, 2016 | Perlas-Bernabe, J. | Topic
Digest by: CORPUS intended to ensure proper administration of law and justice.

Petitioners: DOREEN GRACE PARILLA MEDINA, A.K.A. "DOREEN GRACE MEDINA

KOIKE” Facts:
Respondents: MICHIYUKI KOIKE, THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON
CITY, METRO MANILA, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL REGISTRAR ● Doreen, a Filipino citizen, and Michiyuki, a Japanese national, were
GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE married on June 14, 2005 in Quezon City, Philippines. Their union bore
two children, who were born on January 23, 2006, and April 4, 2007.
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine: ● In 2012, Doreen and Michiyuki, pursuant to the laws of Japan, filed for
Doreen, a Filipino citizen, and her Japanese husband obtained a divorce under the
divorce in Japan. They were divorced on even date as appearing in the
laws of Japan. She filed for a petition for judicial recognition with the RTC,
presenting several foreign documents (see bullets 3&4). RTC denied her petition Divorce Certificate and the same was duly recorded in the Official
ruling that (1) divorce documents presented fell short of proving the national law Family Register of Michiyuki Koike.
and existence of the law on divorce; (2) the Civil Codes presented were not duly ● Doreen filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and
authenticated by the Philippine Consul in Japan as required by the Rules; (3) declaration of capacity to remarry pursuant to the second paragraph of
Doreen’s testimony was insufficient since she was not presented as a qualified Article 26 of the Family Code before the RTC, docketed as Sp. Proc.No.
expert witness. Q-13-72692.
w/n RTC erred in denying the petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce.
● At the hearing Doreen presented several foreign documents, namely,
Article 26 of the FC confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of
"Certificate of Receiving/Certificate of Acceptance of Divorce" and
a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine
"Family Register of Michiyuki Koike" both issued by the Mayor of
the validity of the dissolution of the marriage.
Ichinomiya City and duly authenticated by the Consul of the Republic of
As a rule, "no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment
rendered by a tribunal of another country." This means that the foreign judgment the Philippines for Osaka, Japan.
and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence, together ● She also presented a certified machine copy of a document entitled
with the alien's applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the "Divorce Certificate" issued by the Consul for the Ambassador of Japan
alien himself or herself. The recognition may be made in an action instituted in Manila that was authenticated by the Department of the Foreign
specifically for the purpose or in another action where a party invokes the foreign Affairs, as well as a Certification issued by the City Civil Registry Office
decree as an integral aspect of his claim or defense. in Manila that the original of said divorce certificate was filed and
In order for a divorce obtained abroad by the alien spouse to be recognized in our
recorded in the said Office. In addition, photocopies of the Civil Code of
jurisdiction, it must be shown that the divorce decree is valid according to the
Japan and their corresponding English translation, as well as two (2)
national law of the foreigner. Both the divorce decree and the governing personal
books entitled "The Civil Code of Japan 2000" and "The Civil Code of
law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be proven.
Japan 2009" were likewise submitted as proof of the existence of
Considering that the validity of the divorce decree between Doreen and Michiyuki,
Japan's law on divorce.
as well as the existence of pertinent laws of Japan on the matter are essentially
● In 2014, the RTC denied Doreen's petition, ruling that in an action for
factual that calls for a re-evaluation of the evidence presented before the RTC, the
recognition of foreign divorce decree pursuant to Article 26 of the
issue raised in the instant appeal is obviously a question of fact that is beyond the
Family Code, the foreign divorce decree and" the national law of the
ambit of a Rule 45 petition for review.
alien recognizing his or her capacity to obtain a divorce must be proven
Since the Rules denote discretion on the part of the Court to either dismiss the
in accordance with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules
appeal or refer the case to the CA, the question of fact involved in the instant
on Evidence.
appeal and substantial ends of justice warrant that the case be referred to the CA

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 15
 ○ while the divorce documents presented by Doreen were for the purpose or in another action where a party invokes the foreign
successfully proven to be public or official records of Japan, she decree as an integral aspect of his claim or defense.
nonetheless fell short of proving the national law of her ● Garcia v. Recio: in order for a divorce obtained abroad by the alien
husband, particularly the existence of the law on divorce. spouse to be recognized in our jurisdiction, it must be shown that the
○ "The Civil Code of Japan 2000" and "The Civil Code of Japan divorce decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner.
2009," presented were not duly authenticated by the Both the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien
Philippine Consul in Japan as required by Sections 24 and 25 of spouse who obtained the divorce must be proven. Since our courts do
the said Rules, adding too that the testimony of Doreen relative not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgment, our law on
to the applicable provisions found therein and its effect on the evidence requires that both the divorce decree and the national law of
matrimonial relations was insufficient since she was not the alien must be alleged and proven like any other fact.
presented as a qualified expert witness nor was shown to have, ● Considering that the validity of the divorce decree between Doreen and
at the very least, a working knowledge of the laws of Japan Michiyuki, as well as the existence of pertinent laws of Japan on the
○ It likewise did not consider the said books as learned treatises matter are essentially factual that calls for a re-evaluation of the
pursuant to Section 46, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on evidence presented before the RTC, the issue raised in the instant
Evidence, since no expert witness on the subject matter was appeal is obviously a question of fact that is beyond the ambit of a Rule
presented and considering further that Philippine courts 45 petition for review.
cannot take judicial notice of foreign judgments and law. ● Since the Rules denote discretion on the part of the Court to either
● Doreen's MR was denied. Hence, this petition. dismiss the appeal or refer the case to the CA, the question of fact
involved in the instant appeal and substantial ends of justice warrant
Issue/s: that the case be referred to the CA for further appropriate proceedings.
● whether or not the RTC erred in denying the petition for judicial It bears to stress that procedural rules were intended to ensure proper
recognition of foreign divorce. administration of law and justice. The rules of procedure ought not to
be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted to help
Ratio: secure, not override, substantial justice. A deviation from its rigid
● Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts enforcement may thus be allowed to attain its prime objective, for after
cannot grant it. However, Article 26 of the Family Code allows a Filipino all, the dispensation of justice is the core reason for the existence of the
spouse to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly courts.
obtained abroad by an alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.
● Article 26 of the FC confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend Dispositive: WHEREFORE, in the interest of orderly procedure and substantial
the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without justice, the case is hereby REFERRED to the Court of Appeals for appropriate
undergoing trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of the action including the reception of evidence to DETERMINE and RESOLVE the
marriage. pertinent factual issues in accordance with this Decision.
● Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas: The starting point in any recognition of a foreign
divorce judgment is the acknowledgment that our courts do not take
judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. Justice Herrera explained
that, as a rule, "no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion
to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country." This means
that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts
under our rules on evidence, together with the alien's applicable
national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or
herself. The recognition may be made in an action instituted specifically
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 16
 7. Expertravel & Tours vs. CA
DOCTRINE: A court cannot take judicial notice of any fact which, in part, is
G.R. No.152392 | May 26, 2005 | Callejo Sr. J. | Judicial Notice on Teleconference
dependent on the existence or non-existence of a fact of which the court has no
Digest by: CRUZ
constructive knowledge.
Petitioners: EXPERTRAVEL & TOURS, INC
Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS and KOREAN AIRLINES
Facts:
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine: KAL files a complaint against Expertravel &
● Korean Airlines (KAL) is a corporation established and registered in the
Tours with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, for the collection of the
principal amount of P260,150.00, plus attorney’s fees and exemplary damages. The Republic of South Korea and licensed to do business in the Philippines.
verification and certification against forum shopping was signed by Atty. Its general manager in the Philippines is Suk Kyoo Kim, while its
Aguinaldo, who indicated therein that he was the resident agent and legal counsel appointed counsel was Atty. Mario Aguinaldo and his law firm.
of KAL and had caused the preparation of the complaint. ETI filed a motion to ● KAL, through Atty. Aguinaldo, filed a Complaint against ETI with the
dismiss the complaint on the ground that Atty. Aguinaldo was not authorized to Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, for the collection of the principal
execute the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping as required by
amount of P260,150.00, plus attorney’s fees and exemplary damages.
Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. KAL submitted on March 6, 2000 an
Affidavit of even date, executed by its general manager Suk Kyoo Kim, alleging that The verification and certification against forum shopping was signed by
the board of directors conducted a special teleconference on June 25, 1999, Atty. Aguinaldo, who indicated therein that he was the resident agent
which he and Atty. Aguinaldo attended. It was also averred that in that same and legal counsel of KAL and had caused the preparation of the
teleconference, the board of directors approved a resolution authorizing Atty. complaint.
Aguinaldo to execute the certificate of non-forum shopping and to file the ● ETI filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Atty.
complaint. Aguinaldo was not authorized to execute the verification and certificate
ISSUE: W/N the court can take judicial notice of the teleconference in this case?
of non-forum shopping as required by Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of
NO. In this age of modern technology, the courts may take judicial notice that
business transactions may be made by individuals through teleconferencing. The Court.
Court agrees with the RTC that persons in the Philippines may have a ● Atty. Aguinaldo claimed that he had been authorized to file the
teleconference with a group of persons in South Korea relating to business complaint through a resolution of the KAL Board of Directors approved
transactions or corporate governance. Even given the possibility that Atty. during a special meeting held on June 25, 1999.
Aguinaldo and Suk Kyoo Kim participated in a teleconference along with the ● Finally, KAL submitted on March 6, 2000 an Affidavit of even date,
respondent’s Board of Directors, the Court is not convinced that one was executed by its general manager Suk Kyoo Kim, alleging that the board
conducted; even if there had been one, the Court is not inclined to believe that a
board resolution was duly passed specifically authorizing Atty. Aguinaldo to file of directors conducted a special teleconference on June 25, 1999,
the complaint and execute the required certification against forum shopping. The which he and Atty. Aguinaldo attended. It was also averred that in that
respondent’s allegation that its board of directors conducted a teleconference on same teleconference, the board of directors approved a resolution
June 25, 1999 and approved the said resolution (with Atty. Aguinaldo in authorizing Atty. Aguinaldo to execute the certificate of non-forum
attendance) is incredible, given the additional fact that no such allegation was shopping and to file the complaint. Suk Kyoo Kim also alleged, however,
made in the complaint. If the resolution had indeed been approved on June 25, that the corporation had no written copy of the aforesaid resolution.
1999, long before the complaint was filed, the respondent should have
● Trial Court: denied the motion to dismiss, giving credence to the claims
incorporated it in its complaint, or at least appended a copy thereof. The Court is,
thus, more inclined to believe that the alleged teleconference on June 25, 1999 of Atty. Aguinaldo and Suk Kyoo Kim that the KAL Board of Directors
never took place, and that the resolution allegedly approved by the respondent’s indeed conducted a teleconference on June 25, 1999, during which it
Board of Directors during the said teleconference was a mere concoction approved a resolution as quoted in the submitted affidavit.
purposefully foisted on the RTC, the CA and this Court, to avert the dismissal of its ● CA: affirmed TC and rendered judgment dismissing the petition, ruling
complaint against the petitioner. that the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping executed by
Atty. Aguinaldo was sufficient compliance with the Rules of Court.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 17
 According to the appellate court, Atty. Aguinaldo had been duly through FiberNet using fiber-optic transmission technology, and
authorized by the board resolution approved on June 25, 1999, and was that such technology facilitates voice and image transmission with
the resident agent of KAL. As such, the RTC could not be faulted for ease; this makes constant communication between a foreign-
taking judicial notice of the said teleconference of the KAL Board of based office and its Philippine-based branches faster and easier,
Directors. allowing for cost-cutting in terms of travel concerns.
● It is settled that the requirement to file a certificate of non-forum
Issue/s: shopping is mandatory8 and that the failure to comply with this
requirement cannot be excused. The certification is a peculiar and
● W/N the court can take judicial notice of the teleconference? personal responsibility of the party, an assurance given to the court or
NNNNNNOooooooooo other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving basically
the same parties, issues and causes of action. Hence, the certification
Ratio:
must be accomplished by the party himself because he has actual
● The petitioner asserts that compliance with Section 5, Rule 7, of knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or
the Rules of Court can be determined only from the contents of the proceedings in different courts or tribunals. Even his counsel may be
complaint and not by documents or pleadings outside thereof. unaware of such facts. Hence, the requisite certification executed by the
Hence, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion plaintiff’s counsel will not suffice.10
amounting to excess of jurisdiction, and the CA erred in ● In a case where the plaintiff is a private corporation, the
considering the affidavit of the respondent’s general manager, as certification may be signed, for and on behalf of the said
well as the Secretary’s/Resident Agent’s Certification and the corporation, by a specifically authorized person, including its
resolution of the board of directors contained therein, as proof of retained counsel, who has personal knowledge of the facts
compliance with the requirements of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules required to be established by the documents. The reason was
of Court. explained by the Court in National Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals,
● The petitioner also maintains that the RTC cannot take judicial as follows: Unlike natural persons, corporations may perform physical
notice of the said teleconference without prior hearing, nor any actions only through properly delegated individuals; namely, its
motion therefor. The petitioner reiterates its submission that the officers and/or agents.
teleconference and the resolution adverted to by the respondent ● In this case, the petitioner, as the defendant in the RTC, assailed the
was a mere fabrication. authority of Atty. Aguinaldo to execute the requisite verification and
● The respondent, for its part, avers that the issue of whether modern certificate of non-forum shopping as the resident agent and counsel of
technology is used in the field of business is a factual issue; hence, the respondent. It was, thus, incumbent upon the respondent, as the
cannot be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of plaintiff, to allege and establish that Atty. Aguinaldo had such authority
the Rules of Court. On the merits of the petition, it insists that Atty. to execute the requisite verification and certification for and in its
Aguinaldo, as the resident agent and corporate secretary, is authorized behalf. The respondent, however, failed to do so.
to sign and execute the certificate of non-forum shopping required by ● As gleaned from the certification, there was no allegation that Atty.
Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, on top of the board resolution Aguinaldo had been authorized to execute the certificate of non-
approved during the teleconference of June 25, 1999. The respondent forum shopping by the respondent’s Board of Directors; moreover,
insists that "technological advances in this time and age are as no such board resolution was appended thereto or incorporated
commonplace as daybreak." Hence, the courts may take judicial therein.
notice that the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. ● While Atty. Aguinaldo is the resident agent of the respondent in
had provided a record of corporate conferences and meetings the Philippines, this does not mean that he is authorized to
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 18
 execute the requisite certification against forum shopping. Under universal notoriety and so generally understood that they may be
Section 127, in relation to Section 128 of the Corporation Code, the regarded as forming part of the common knowledge of every person. As
authority of the resident agent of a foreign corporation with license to the common knowledge of man ranges far and wide, a wide variety of
do business in the Philippines is to receive, for and in behalf of the particular facts have been judicially noticed as being matters of
foreign corporation, services and other legal processes in all actions common knowledge.
and other legal proceedings against such corporation ● But a court cannot take judicial notice of any fact which, in part, is
● The respondent knew that its counsel, Atty. Aguinaldo, as its resident dependent on the existence or non-existence of a fact of which the
agent, was not specifically authorized to execute the said certification. court has no constructive knowledge.
It attempted to show its compliance with the rule subsequent to the ● In this age of modern technology, the courts may take judicial
filing of its complaint by submitting, on March 6, 2000, a resolution notice that business transactions may be made by individuals
purporting to have been approved by its Board of Directors during a through teleconferencing. Teleconferencing is interactive group
teleconference held on June 25, 1999, allegedly with Atty. Aguinaldo communication (three or more people in two or more locations)
and Suk Kyoo Kim in attendance. However, such attempt of the through an electronic medium. In general terms, teleconferencing
respondent casts veritable doubt not only on its claim that such a can bring people together under one roof even though they are
teleconference was held, but also on the approval by the Board of separated by hundreds of miles. This type of group
Directors of the resolution authorizing Atty. Aguinaldo to execute the communication may be used in a number of ways, and have three
certificate of non-forum shopping. basic types: (1) video conferencing - television-like
communication augmented with sound; (2) computer
MAIN TOPIC conferencing - printed communication through keyboard
terminals, and (3) audio-conferencing-verbal communication via
● Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material the telephone with optional capacity for telewriting or
requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general telecopying.
knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not ● Indeed, teleconferencing can only facilitate the linking of people; it does
doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits not alter the complexity of group communication. Although it may be
of the jurisdiction of the court. The principal guide in determining what easier to communicate via teleconferencing, it may also be easier to
facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, miscommunicate. Teleconferencing cannot satisfy the individual needs
it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public of every type of meeting.
records and facts of general notoriety. Moreover, a judicially noticed ● In the Philippines, teleconferencing and videoconferencing of members
fact must be one not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is either: of board of directors of private corporations is a reality, in light of
(1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; Republic Act No. 8792. The Securities and Exchange Commission issued
or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to SEC Memorandum Circular No. 15, on November 30, 2001, providing
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable.16 the guidelines to be complied with related to such conferences. Thus,
● Things of "common knowledge," of which courts take judicial matters the Court agrees with the RTC that persons in the Philippines may have
coming to the knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary a teleconference with a group of persons in South Korea relating to
experiences of life, or they may be matters which are generally business transactions or corporate governance.
accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready and ● Even given the possibility that Atty. Aguinaldo and Suk Kyoo Kim
unquestioned demonstration. Thus, facts which are universally known, participated in a teleconference along with the respondent’s
and which may be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other Board of Directors, the Court is not convinced that one was
publications, are judicially noticed, provided, they are of such conducted; even if there had been one, the Court is not inclined to
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 19
 believe that a board resolution was duly passed specifically SO ORDERED.
authorizing Atty. Aguinaldo to file the complaint and execute the
required certification against forum shopping.
● The respondent’s allegation that its board of directors conducted a
teleconference on June 25, 1999 and approved the said resolution (with
Atty. Aguinaldo in attendance) is incredible, given the additional fact
that no such allegation was made in the complaint. If the resolution had
indeed been approved on June 25, 1999, long before the complaint was
filed, the respondent should have incorporated it in its complaint, or at
least appended a copy thereof. The respondent failed to do so. It was
only on January 28, 2000 that the respondent claimed, for the first time,
that there was such a meeting of the Board of Directors held on June 25,
1999; it even represented to the Court that a copy of its resolution was
with its main office in Korea, only to allege later that no written copy
existed. It was only on March 6, 2000 that the respondent alleged, for
the first time, that the meeting of the Board of Directors where the
resolution was approved was held via teleconference.
● Worse still, it appears that as early as January 10, 1999, Atty. Aguinaldo
had signed a Secretary’s/Resident Agent’s Certificate alleging that the
board of directors held a teleconference on June 25, 1999. No such
certificate was appended to the complaint, which was filed on
September 6, 1999. More importantly, the respondent did not explain
why the said certificate was signed by Atty. Aguinaldo as early as
January 9, 1999, and yet was notarized one year later (on January 10,
2000); it also did not explain its failure to append the said certificate to
the complaint, as well as to its Compliance dated March 6, 2000. It was
only on January 26, 2001 when the respondent filed its comment in the
CA that it submitted the Secretary’s/Resident Agent’s Certificate30
dated January 10, 2000.
● The Court is, thus, more inclined to believe that the alleged
teleconference on June 25, 1999 never took place, and that the
resolution allegedly approved by the respondent’s Board of Directors
during the said teleconference was a mere concoction purposefully
foisted on the RTC, the CA and this Court, to avert the dismissal of its
complaint against the petitioner.

Dispositive: IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The

Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 61000 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Manila is hereby ORDERED to dismiss,
without prejudice, the complaint of the respondent.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 20
 8. People vs. Yang
G.R. No.148077 |February 16, 2004 | Quisumbing | Negative Averments Facts:
Digest by: Cua
● Appellant Willy Yang (Yang Yung-hi) a.k.a. "Alex Yu," "Yang Xing Li," and
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
"Willy Yeung" is a Chinese citizen who claims to be a legitimate
Respondents: Willy Yang
businessman engaged in the trading of dry goods and garments, in
partnership with his Filipina common-law wife, one Gemma Cabad.
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine:
● Operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), however,
Appellant Willy Yang was charged with with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
believed that appellant was involved in drug trafficking. An entrapment
Among the arguments of Willy Yang is that assuming arguendo, he did sell,
operation was laid for the suspected malefactors.
dispense, deliver, transport, or distribute a regulated drug, no evidence was
● The suspects escaped the NBI operatives but the operatives were left
presented to show that he was not authorized by law to do the same. He submits
holding 4.450 kilos of "shabu"
that the lack of authority to sell, dispense, deliver, transport, or distribute a
● In an information dated March 9, 2000, the Assistant City Prosecutor of
dangerous drug is an essential element of the offense, which must be proven by the
Manila charged appellant with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law
prosecution.
(R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659), allegedly committed as
follows:
Relevant Issue: WON lack of authority to sell, dispense, deliver, transport, or
○ That on or about March 6, 2000, in the City of Manila,
distribute a dangerous drug is an essential element of the offence that must be
Philippines, the said accused not having been authorized by
proven by the prosecution? No
law to sell, dispense, delivered (sic), transport or distribute any
regulated drug, did and there, willfully, unlawfully and
That Yang had neither license nor authority to sell or deliver regulated drugs could
knowingly sell or offer of sale, dispense, deliver, transport or
have been easily refuted by him by showing such authority before the court or the
distribute white crystalline substance contained in separate
prosecutor’s office. Indicative of his lack of authority or legitimacy to deal in drugs
five (5) plastic bags –weight four point four five zero (4.450)
are the following established facts: (1) the sale of the "shabu" was initially set to
kilograms of white crystalline substance known as "SHABU"
take place in a restaurant, but the delivery of the drug to Mapoy took place in a
containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a
hospital parking lot, not inside the hospital itself or its pharmacy, and (2) appellant
regulated drug.
dashed off, without by-your-leave upon seeing a group of people emerge from the
● When arraigned, appellant with the assistance of a Chinese interpreter
hospital. These circumstances shifted the onus to appellant to prove his authority
pleaded not guilty to the charge.
as legitimate drug seller or distributor. He could have disproved the allegation that
● The prosecution’s evidence established that sometime in February
he had no such authority by the mere presentation of a license or any document
2000, the NBI received a tip from a confidential informer that appellant
showing his authority to sell or distribute or deliver a regulated drug. He did no
Yang and one "Henry Yeung alias Yu Chi," were dealing in prohibited
such thing at the trial or at any other time, for that matter.
drugs. The NBI officers then asked their informer to make
arrangements for the purchase of five (5) kilos of "shabu" worth ₱3.5
The general rule is that if a criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation,
million to enable them to conduct a "buy-bust" operation.
or a negative averment is an essential element of the crime, the prosecution has
● A deal was made and the suspects agreed to deliver the illicit drug at
the burden to prove the charge. However, this rule admits of exceptions. Where the
the Savory Restaurant, T.M. Kalaw St., Ermita, Manila on the afternoon
negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof, or where the facts are more
of March 6, 2000. NBI Special Investigator Rodrigo Mapoy was to play
immediately within the knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi rests upon
the part of the poseur-buyer.
him.
● At around 5:00 p.m. of March 6, 2000, several operatives of the NBI
National Capital Region Office in Taft Avenue, Manila staked out Savory
Doctrine: It is not incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce positive evidence to
Restaurant. Inside were Mapoy and the confidential informer who were
support a negative averment the truth of which is fairly indicated by established
supposed to meet the suspected drug dealers. Shortly thereafter,
circumstances and which, if untrue, could readily be disproved by the production
appellant and an unidentified Chinese-looking, male companion arrived
of documents or other evidence within the defendant’s knowledge or control
in a car, driven by another unidentified male. The informant then
introduced appellant to Mapoy as "Henry Yu."
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 21
● On Yangs’s suggestion, the informant and Mapoy boarded his car. They ownership of the van impounded by the NBI, but insisted that she had
then proceeded to the rear parking area of the Manila Doctors Hospital lent it to one Henry Yang
● Mapoy showed him the bundles of "boodle money" contained in a ● Appellant also presented one Cristy J. Leones and Gemma’s sister,
plastic bag. The bundles of "boodle money" were so arranged so each Rendel E. Cabad, both of whom testified that appellant was arrested
bundle had genuine ₱1,000 bills on top and at the bottom of each without a warrant. His trial counsel, Atty. Bonifacio Q. Manansala also
bundle. took the stand to testify. He said that Special Investigator Rodrigo
● After seeing the bundles of cash, Yang and his unnamed companion Mapoy had admitted that he was not sure if appellant was one of the
alighted the car, with Mapoy and the informant following close behind. three suspects who escaped during the failed drug bust.
The suspects’ driver remained on board the vehicle. ● The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be
● All four of them walked to an unmanned black Kia "Sportage" van in the credible. It disbelieved appellant’s bare denial and alibi. Accordingly, he
hospital’s parking lot. Yang opened the van and showed Mapoy a carton was convicted as charged and sentenced to suffer the penalty of death.
● The carton had 5 plastic bags containing a powdery white substance,
and a smaller sachet which contained a similar substance. Mapoy was
still examining the plastic bags when a group of people unexpectedly Issue/s:
came out of the back of the hospital. This caused appellant and his ● 1) WON the evidence for the prosecution suffices to prove his guilt
companion to run to their waiting car, which immediately sped away, beyond reasonable doubt ? Yes
leaving Mapoy and the informer behind. Since they had no vehicle, ● 2) WON the death sentence was properly imposed upon appellant? No
Mapoy could not give chase. ● (Look at negative averments for relevant portion)
● law enforcers searched the van and among the items found inside were
● 1.) the carton containing the packets of "shabu" Ratio:
● 2.) an identification card issued by "Tri-Media Power of the
Philippines" bearing appellant’s picture and the name "Alex R. Yu." The Credibility of Testimony
ID card gave appellant’s address as 29808 Lopez Compound,
Karuhatan, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila. ● Appellant assails the credibility of the testimony by NBI Special
● NBI team was dispatched to said address, but Yang was not found Investigator Rodrigo Mapoy as an eyewitness for being rife with
there. The NBI agents made inquiries in the neighborhood and learned inconsistencies and improbabilities.
that appellant had moved to No. 36-F Pag-asa St., Karuhatan, ● One, appellant avers that it is highly incredible that a drug dealer would
Valenzuela. The NBI operatives then went to the latter address and sell ₱3.5 million worth of shabu to a person he was meeting only for the
arrested him there at eight o’clock in the evening of March 6, 2000. first time.
● At the trial, Yang raised the defenses of denial and alibi. He ● Two, he contends that it is likewise improbable that a vendor of illicit
claimed that he was inside his apartment at Pag-asa St., drugs would have left such a large amount of contraband drugs in an
Karuhatan, Valenzuela the whole day of March 6, 2000, until he unguarded vehicle.
was arrested by the NBI. He admitted that the Tri-Media ID card was ● Three, he argues that it is likewise improbable that a drug trafficker
his, but denied that he was "Alex R. Yu." He insisted that his adopted would leave his ID card inside a vehicle used to transport drugs.
Filipino nickname was "Willy Yang." He claimed that his common-law ● Four, he insists that it is even more improbable that a drug dealer and
wife bought it for him so he could claim exemption from the "color his companions would run away at the mere sight of people exiting the
coding" traffic scheme of the Metro Manila Development Authority. He hospital.
affirmed that the ID was indeed in the Kia van, but this van was owned ● The court found NBI operative Mapoy’s testimony credible. He
by his common-law wife, Gemma Cabad, who had lent the vehicle to positively identified appellant as one who had transacted with him for
one of her friends, one Henry Yang, on March 5-6, 2000. the sale of "shabu" in the afternoon of March 6, 2000 at the Savory
● Appellant’s testimony was corroborated by Gemma Cabad, who Restaurant and parking lot of Manila Doctors Hospital. As an NBI
testified that she and her common-law spouse were watching TV when officer, Mapoy had the presumption of regularity of performance of
the NBI raiding team arrived. Gemma also declared that she acquired duty in his favor. Furthermore, the defense adduced no evidence
the media card for appellant, paying ₱1,500.00 for it. She admitted whatsoever to show that he was improperly motivated to bear false
witness against appellant.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 22
● There is nothing improbable about a drug dealer selling a huge amount there is no fixed procedure for conducting a "buy-bust" operation. The
of shabu to a stranger. Drug dealers are known to sell their wares even crime of illegal sale is committed as soon as the sale transaction is
to strangers. However, in this case, the poseur-buyer was with the NBI consummated. The payment could precede or follow delivery of the
informer who introduced the former to appellant. Hence, it was not as if drug sold.
appellant was dealing with a stranger. He knew the informant
beforehand. It was immaterial, in this instance, whether the appellant Negative Averments
as vendor and Mapoy as the vendee had earlier known each other.
● There is also nothing unusual that the amount of drugs would be stored ● Appellant would have us believe that assuming arguendo, he did sell,
in an unguarded vehicle. The van where the drugs were recovered was dispense, deliver, transport, or distribute a regulated drug, no evidence
parked in a secured parking lot. Since the parking area was guarded, was presented to show that he was not authorized by law to do the
Yang most likely considered it a safe area to leave both the vehicle and same. He submits that the lack of authority to sell, dispense, deliver,
its contents. As pointed out by the OSG, people do leave their valuables transport, or distribute a dangerous drug is an essential element of the
inside their parked vehicles, if they believe or feel the area is safe. As offense, which must be proven by the prosecution.
for the media ID card, appellant could have simply overlooked its ● With respect to this matter, we have ruled in another drug-related case
presence inside the van. Said media ID was procured for and used by that:
appellant to exempt him from the MMDA’s traffic reduction scheme. It ● The general rule is that if a criminal charge is predicated on a negative
was definitely not improbable for it to be in the van where the drugs allegation, or a negative averment is an essential element of the crime,
were found. the prosecution has the burden to prove the charge. However, this rule
● Yang’s act of running away when he saw a group of people emerge from admits of exceptions. Where the negative of an issue does not permit of
the hospital is also not unthinkable. After all, fear of a possible direct proof, or where the facts are more immediately within the
entrapment and arrest always preys at the back of the mind of every knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi rests upon him. Stated
drug pusher. When appellant saw a group of people suddenly exit the otherwise, it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce
building, just as he and the poseur-buyer were in the very act of positive evidence to support a negative averment the truth of
consummating the sale, appellant could have suspected a trap. His fear which is fairly indicated by established circumstances and which,
then took over, causing him to leave all of a sudden. if untrue, could readily be disproved by the production of
● Yang states that the alleged sale was not consummated as the poseur- documents or other evidence within the defendant’s knowledge or
buyer was still examining the alleged drugs when the suspects ran control
away and no money had been delivered to the seller. He adds that the ● That Yang had neither license nor authority to sell or deliver regulated
prosecution did not present the money used in the "buy-bust" drugs could have been easily refuted by him by showing such authority
operation. Hence, according to him, there is nothing to show that a before the court or the prosecutor’s office. Indicative of his lack of
"buy-bust" operation indeed took place with appellant as target. As authority or legitimacy to deal in drugs are the following established
there was no consummated sale to speak of, he contends that he could facts:
not be convicted of selling, distributing, or dispensing a regulated drug ● (1) the sale of the "shabu" was initially set to take place in a restaurant,
without lawful authority. but the delivery of the drug to Mapoy took place in a hospital parking
● Yang’s contention lacks merit. The Information charges appellant not lot, not inside the hospital itself or its pharmacy, and
only of selling but also of dispensing, delivering, transporting or ● (2) appellant dashed off, without by-your-leave upon seeing a group of
distributing a regulated drug, namely methamphetamine hydrochloride people emerge from the hospital. These circumstances shifted the onus
or shabu. Yang delivered the "shabu" to the poseur-buyer at the to appellant to prove his authority as legitimate drug seller or
hospital parking area after seeing the "buy-bust" money in the hands of distributor. He could have disproved the allegation that he had no such
the poseur-buyer. The absence of actual or completed payment is authority by the mere presentation of a license or any document
irrelevant, for the law itself penalizes the very act of delivery of a showing his authority to sell or distribute or deliver a regulated drug.
dangerous drug, regardless of any consideration. Payment of He did no such thing at the trial or at any other time, for that matter.
consideration is likewise immaterial in the distribution of illicit drugs.
● The consummation of the crime charged herein may be sufficiently Instigation
established even in the absence of an exchange of money. After all,
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 23
 ● Appellant’s shift in the theory of his defense from alibi and outright Further, appellant is ORDERED to pay a FINE of One Million Pesos
denial to instigation or inducement does not aid his cause. This theory (₱1,000,000.00), pursuant to said law plus, the costs.
of instigation or inducement deserves scant consideration. Instigation
or inducement is committed when law enforcers lure an accused into
committing the offense in order to prosecute him. It is contrary to
public policy and considered an absolutory cause. To substantiate such
defense, however, the evidence must be clear and convincing. No such
proof, however, was presented by the defense.
● Appellant’s insistence that he was illegally arrested and entitled to an
acquittal is simply untenable. The proper time for questioning the
validity of his arrest should have been before arraignment. It is too late
for appellant to complain about the warrantless arrest after a valid
information had been filed, the accused arraigned, trial commenced and
completed, and a judgment of conviction rendered.

Penalty

● As to the penalty, the trial court in imposing the death sentence found
that appellant committed the offense as a member of an organized or
syndicated crime group. Appellant vehemently denies and disputes this
finding. On this point, appellant’s denial is justified. There is no showing
by the prosecution whatsoever that appellant was indeed a member of
an organized or syndicated crime group. What was shown was that
appellant had two companions when shabu was being delivered to
Mapoy. This would not establish that he belonged to a syndicated or
organized crime group. Being a member of a syndicate or organized
crime group should have been alleged in the Information, pursuant to
Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as a
specific qualifying circumstance.
● Since the Information was silent as to the crime being committed by an
organized or syndicated group or in conspiracy, then the same cannot
be appreciated against appellant for purposes of determining the
penalty to be imposed. Clearly, it was error for the trial court to take
into account this circumstance in imposing the maximum penalty
provided for by law. Hence, his sentence should be reduced to reclusion
perpetua only.

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment of the Regional Trial Court of

Manila, Branch 18, dated March 13, 2001, finding appellant Willy Yang (Yang
Yung-hi) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article III, Section 15, in
relation to Article IV, Section 21 (b) of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The
penalty imposed on appellant is hereby REDUCED TO RECLUSION PERPETUA.

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 24
 9. People vs. Quebral previously registered as a doctor before practicing
G.R. No. 46094 | September 27, 1939 | J. Moran | Negative Averments medicine, because if the defendant was, and bases his
Digest by: DE VERA defense on that fact, it is up to him to prove it.
● He was convicted and raised the same question before the Supreme
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Court.
Respondents: Fernando C. Quebral
Issue/s: WoN the burden lies with the prosecution – YES
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine: Quebral was convicted by the trial court
under Section 770 of the Administrative Code for practicing medicine without
Ratio:
having previously obtained the corresponding certificate of registration from
● If the subject of the negative averment inheres in the offense as an
the Board of Medical Examiners. Quebral contends that no evidence was
essential ingredient thereof, the prosecution has the burden of
presented that he practiced medicine without the certificate, but the trial court
proving the same (e.g. act of voting without the qualifications
held that it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that he was not
provided by law).
previously registered because if the defendant was indeed registered, it was
○ In view, however, of the difficult office of proving a negative
his burden to prove it. Quebral appealed to the Court.
allegation, the prosecution, under such circumstance, need
do no more than make a prima facie case from the best
The Court held that if the subject of the negative averment inheres in the
evidence obtainable.
offense as an essential ingredient thereof, the prosecution has the burden
● It would certainly be anomalous to hold "that mere difficulty in
of proving the same. The rule, however, is different when the subject of
discharging a burden of making proof should displace it; and as a
the negative averment does not constitute an essential element of the
matter of principle the difficulty only relieves the party having the
offense, but is purely a matter of defense. In such case, the burden of
burden of evidence from the necessity of creating positive conviction
proof is upon the defendant. Section 770 falls under the former rule because
entirely by his own evidence; so that, when he produces such evidence
the want of certificate is an essential element of the offense charged. The
as it is in his power to produce, its probative effect is enhanced by the
negative fact is not separable form the offense. As such, it was incumbent upon
silence of his opponent."
the prosecution to prove that negative fact, which it did, by presenting a
● The rule, however, is different when the subject of the negative
document signed by the chairman of the Board of Medical Examiners certifying
averment does not constitute an essential element of the offense,
that nothing in the records of the Board show that Quebral is a registered
but is purely a matter of defense. In such case, the burden of proof
physician as well as another letter quoting an article that he does not hold a
is upon the defendant.
medical degree.
● Section 770 of the Administrative Code: "no person shall practice
medicine in the Philippine Islands without having previously obtained
Facts: the proper certificate of registration issued by the Board of Medical
● An Information was filed against Quebral for violation of Sec. 770 of the Examiners."
Administrative Code, which penalizes the act of practicing medicine ○ This provision clearly includes the want of certificate as an
without having previously obtained the corresponding certificate of essential element of the offense charged.
registration issued by the Board of Medical Examiners. ○ The negative fact is not separable from the offense as defined.
● Quebral: no evidence has been adduced that he practiced medicine ○ It is, therefore, incumbent upon the prosecution to prove
without having previously obtained the proper certificate --- The that negative fact, and failure to prove it is a ground for
trial court held the following regarding this argument: acquittal.
○ There is no question that the 108 acts of Quebral proved by the ● In this case, however, the decision rendered by the lower court
prosecution constitute a practice of medicine. The only mentioned Exhibit F-2, which shows that Quebral is not a registered
question left is whether or not it was incumbent upon the physician.
prosecution to prove that the defendant had practiced ○ That document is signed by Delgado, chairman of the Board of
medicine without being previously registered as a physician. Medical Examiners, wherein it is stated that "there is nothing
○ The court believes that it is not necessary for the in the records of this Board to show that Mr. Fernando C.
prosecution to prove that the defendant was not Quebral is a registered physician."
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 25
 ○ This document is admissible as evidence of its contents, under
one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, regarding Official
written statements.1
● Furthermore, Exhibit H-3 is also mentioned in the decision of the lower
court, which is a letter of the accused to the President of the
Philippines, quoting approvingly an article published in the Philippines
Herald, wherein it is said that Fernando Quebral is not a holder of a
doctor of medicine degree.
● These Exhibits are sufficient evidence to show that the accused has
been practicing medicine without the required certificate of
registration.

Dispositive: Judgment is affirmed, with costs against Appellant.

1
The certificate of a custodian that he has diligently searched for a document or an entry of a specified tenor
and has been unable to find it ought to be usually as satisfactory for evidencing its non-existence in his office
as his testimony on the stand to this effect would be.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 26
 10. Spouses Noynay vs. Citihomes Builder
parties and their counsels, they become binding on the parties who made
G.R. No. | Date | Ponente | Topic
them. They become judicial admissions of the fact or facts stipulated. Even if
Digest by: NAME
placed at a disadvantageous position, a party may not be allowed to rescind
Petitioners: Sps. Noynay them unilaterally, it must assume the consequences of the disadvantage.
Respondents: Citihomes Builder and Development, Inc.
Facts:
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine:
● Citihomes and Sps Noynay executed a contract to sell of a house and lot
Citihomes and Sps. Noynay executed a contract to sell, downpayment upon signing
in Bulacan valued at P915,895. Downpayment of P183,179 at the time
and 120 equal monthly installments thereafter beginning Feb 8, 2005. Citihomes
of execution and the remaining balance to be paid in 120 equal monthly
assigned its rights over the contract to sell to UCPB. Sps. Noynay defaulted
installments commencing Feb 8, 2005 and every 8th day of the month.
prompting Citihomes to send a notice of cancellation and demand to vacate. Sps
● Cithomes executed a Deed of Assignment in favor of UCPB assigning the
refused to vacate, thus, a complaint for unlawful detainer was filed. Sps. Noynay
rights, title, interests, and participation in various contracts to sell with
alleged that Citihomes had no cause of action because it assigned the rights over
Citihomes buyers to UCPB. The account of the spouses were covered by
the contract to sell to UCPB prior to filing of complaint. THey also alleged that there
the assignment.
was no valid cancellation of contract under Maceda Law. That while there was a
● Spouses defaulted in their payments which prompted Citihomes to
notice of cancellation, there was no payment of cash surrender value to the buyer
declare them as delinquent. A notice of cancellation of contract to sell
since they allege that they already paid 2 years worth of installments. MTCC - no
was eventually sent to the spouses ordering them to pay within 30 days
cause of action since right was already assigned. RTC reversed. CA affirmed, valid
or the contract will be considered cancelled. The spouses failed to pay.
cancellation under Maceda Law.
● Citihomes sent a demand letter asking the spouses to vacate the
premises. The demand was ignored, thus, Citihomes filed a complaint
W/N Citihomes have Cause of Action - NO. There was payment of at least 2 years
for unlawful detainer before the MTCC.
installment.
● MTCC dismissed the complaint because there was no cause of action
due to the assignment of the Spouses’ account to UCPB. According to
A review of the deed of assignment would show that the Citihomes did assign,
the MTCC, by assigning the accounts, Citihomes was divested of its
transfer, and set over all of its rights, titles, and interest in the Contract to Sell to
interests and right over the property.
UCPB. An element of a case of unlawful detainer is that there must be a right to
● RTC reversed. Assignment was limited only to the accounts receivables
evict on part of the complainant. Here, the assignment was made prior to the filing
and did not include transfer of title. Citihomes, as registered owner, had
of the complaint, hence, Citihomes no longer had cause of action when it filed the
the right to evict the Spouses.
case.
● CA affirmed. CA noted also that under the Maceda Law, there was a
valid cancellation of contract. Before a contract can be cancelled under
Citihomes failed to comply with the procedure for proper cancellation of contracts
maceda law, there must be a notice of cancellation, as well as payment
under Maceda Law. The rule is that before a contract is cancelled, there must be a
to buyer of cash surrender value if buyer was able to pay at least two
1. notarial act of rescission and 2. the refund to the buyer of the full payment of the
years of installments. CA noted that Sps. failed to pay at least 2 years,
cash surrender value of the payments made on the property. The fact in contention
thus, the contract was terminated 30 days from the time the notice of
is whether the spouses were able to complete payment for at least 2 years of
cancellation was received by the Spouses.
installment. If they did, it means that there must be a payment of cash surrender
● Sps. Noynay contend that Citihomes, by virtue of the Assignment, lost
value (which was lacking in this case) to the Spouses before the contract may be
its right to exercise the right to evict. They also claim that the contract
cancelled. The spouses were able to complete the 2 years minimum requirement.
was not cancelled because Citihomes failed to pay the cash surrender
The contract shows that beginning Feb 8, 2005, the payment for installment
value, alleging that Sps. paid at least 2 years of installments.
commenced. The Supreme Court relied on the factual admissions made by the
● Citihomes contend that it still has the right to evict, and that Sps. failed
parties during the preliminary conference. The stipulation of facts by both
to complete 2 years of installment, thus, the contract was already
parties show that Sps. Noynay has paid installments for more than 3 years
cancelled.
and they stopped payment by Jan 8, 2008 (more than 2 years from Feb 8
2005). Once the stipulations are reduced into writing and signed by the
Issue/s:
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 27
 ● WoN Citihomes has a cause of action for ejectment - NO there must be a payment of cash surrender value (which was lacking in
this case) to the Spouses before the contract may be cancelled.
● The spouses were able to complete the 2 years minimum requirement.
Ratio: The contract shows that beginning Feb 8, 2005, the payment for
Citihomes had already assigned all its rights and interests to UCPB prior installment commenced.
institution of complaint ● The Supreme Court relied on the factual admissions made by the
● The determination of whether Citihomes has a right to ask for the parties during the preliminary conference. The stipulation of facts
eviction of Spouses Noynay entirely depends on the review of the by both parties show that Sps. Noynay has paid installments for
Assignment it executed in favor of UCPB. more than 3 years and they stopped payment by Jan 8, 2008 (more
○ If it turns out that what was assigned merely covered the than 2 years from Feb 8 2005).
collectible amounts or receivables due from Spouses Noynay, ● Once the stipulations are reduced into writing and signed by the
Citihomes would necessarily have the right to demand the parties and their counsels, they become binding on the parties
latter’s eviction as only an aspect of the contract to sell passed who made them. They become judicial admissions of the fact or
on to UCPB. facts stipulated. Even if placed at a disadvantageous position, a
○ If on the other hand, it appears that the assignment covered all party may not be allowed to rescind them unilaterally, it must
of Citihomes’ rights, obligations and benefits in favor ofUCPB, assume the consequences of the disadvantage
the conclusion would certainly be different. ● It must be remembered that these judicial admissions are legally
● A review of the deed of assignment would show that the Citihomes did binding on the party making the admissions. Similar to pre-trial
assign, transfer, and set over all of its rights, titles, and interest in the admissions in a pre-trial order in ordinary civil cases, the contents of
Contract to Sell to UCPB. the record of a preliminary conference control the subsequent course
● This intent to assign all rights under the contract to sell was even of the action, thereby, defining and limiting the issues to be tried. A
fortified by the delivery of documents such as the pertinent contracts to contrary ruling would render useless the proceedings during the
sell and the TCTs. Had it been the intent of Citihomes to assign merely preliminary conference and would, in fact, be antithetical to the very
its interest in the receivables due from Spouses Noynay, the tenor of purpose of a preliminary conference, which is, among others, to allow
the deed of assignment would have been couched in very specific the parties to admit and stipulate on a given set of facts and to simplify
terms. the issues involved.
● An element of a case of unlawful detainer is that there must be a right ● A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge the fact as
to evict on part of the complainant. Here, the assignment was made judicial admissions are a waiver of proof; production of evidence is
prior to the filing of the complaint, hence, Citihomes no longer had dispensed with.
cause of action when it filed the case. ● A judicial admission also removes an admitted fact from the field of
● Even if Citihomes only assigned the rights in the contract to sell, controversy. Consequently, an admission made in the pleadings cannot
thereby still owning the property, it remains true that a case for be controverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive
unlawful detainer involves the material possession of the property. as to such party, and all proofs to the contrary or inconsistent
therewith should be ignored, whether objection is interposed by the
No valid cancellation of contract to sell under Maceda Law (RELEVANT) party or not.
Read last 5 bullets for discussion on doctrine. ● The allegations, statements or admissions contained in a pleading are
conclusive as against the pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a
● Citihomes failed to comply with the procedure for proper cancellation position contrary of or inconsistent with what was pleaded.
of contracts under Maceda Law.
● The rule is that before a contract is cancelled, there must be a 1. Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The July 16, 2012 Decision
notarial act of rescission and 2. the refund to the buyer of the full and October 15, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED
payment of the cash surrender value of the payments made on the and SET ASIDE. The March 26, 2010 Decision of the Municipal Trial Court for
property. Cities is REINSTATED.
● The fact in contention is whether the spouses were able to complete
payment for at least 2 years of installment. If they did, it means that
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 28
 11. Phil-Health vs. Estrada ● Estrada submitted proposals for the MERALCO account regarding the
G.R. No. 171052 | January 28, 2008| Nachura, J. | JN of Admission intro by Pet MAXICARE plan
Digest by: GARCIA ○ But when MERALCO decided to subscribe to MAXICARE, the
latter directly negotiated with the former (Naleft-out si Estrada
Petitioners: PHILIPPINE HEALTH-CARE PROVIDERS, INC. (MAXICARE)
☹)
Respondents: CARMELA ESTRADA/CARA HEALTH SERVICES
● MERALCO then subscribed to the MAXICARE Plan and signed a Service
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine: Estrada, doing business under the name of Cara Agreement
Health Services was engaged by Maxicare to promote health care programs for ○ Again, without the participation of Estrada
commission. The account in dispute here is the Meralco Account. When Estrada ● The premium amounts were paid by MERALCO to [Maxicare]
was claiming her commissions, Maxicare denied saying that she did not participate ● Estrada then demanded from Maxicare that it be paid commissions for
in the negotiations. At the SC leve, Maxicare questioned the Lower Courts why they the MERALCO account and nine (9) other accounts.
did not take JN of the alleged admission of Estrada that the Meralco Negotiations ● Maxicare denied Estrada's claims for commission for the MERALCO and
failed. It would thus appear, that this alleged admission was a unilateral letter by other accounts because:
the counsel of the petitioner addressed to Estrada. ○ Maxicare directly negotiated with MERALCO and the other
accounts and
SC held that in spite of the presence of judicial admissions in a party's pleading, the ○ that no agent was given the go signal to intervene in the
trial court is still given leeway to consider other evidence presented. As provided negotiations for the terms and conditions and the signing of
for in Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, the general rule that a judicial the service agreement with MERALCO and the other accounts
admission is conclusive upon the party making it and does not require proof so that if ever [Maxicare] was indebted to [Estrada], it was only
admits of two exceptions: for P1,555.00 and P43.12 as commissions on the accounts of
○ 1) when it is shown that the admission was made through palpable mistake, and Overseas Freighters Co. and Mr. Enrique Acosta, respectively.
○ 2) when it is shown that no such admission was in fact made. The latter ○ BASICALLY, since ESTRADA did not participate and was not
exception allows one to contradict an admission by denying that he made such even allowed to participate in the MERALCO account, she
an admission. should get nothing
● Estrada filed a complaint against Maxicare and its officers with the RTC
of Makati City
Facts: ● Defendants-appellants [Maxicare] and its officers filed:
● Maxicare is a domestic corporation engaged in selling health insurance ○ their Answer with Counterclaim on September 13, 1993
plans ○ and their Amended Answer with Counterclaim on September
● Maxicare then allegedly engaged the services of Carmela Estrada 28, 1993
(Respondent) doing business under the name of Cara Health Services to ● Maxicare alleged that:
promote and sell the prepaid group practice health care delivery ○ Estrada had no cause of action;
program called MAXICARE Plan with the position of Independent ○ the cause of action, if any, should be is against Maxicare only
Account Executive. and not against its officers;
● Maxicare formally appointed [Estrada] as its "General Agent", ○ CARA HEALTH's appointment as agent under the February 16,
● The letter agreement provided for Estrada's compensation in the form 1991 letter-agreement to promote the MAXICARE Plan was for
of commission a period of one (1) year only;
● Maxicare alleged that it followed a "franchising system" in dealing with ○ said agency was not renewed after the expiration of the one (1)
its agents year period;
○ whereby an agent had to first secure permission from Maxicare ○ Estrada did not intervene in the negotiations of the
to list a prospective company as client. contract with MERALCO which was directly negotiated by
● Further, respondent alleged that it did apply with Maxicare for the MERALCO with Maxicare; and
MERALCO account and other accounts, and in fact, its franchise to ○ Estrada's alleged other clients/accounts were not accredited
solicit corporate accounts, MERALCO account included, was renewed with Maxicare as required, since the agency contract on the
on February 11, 1991. MAXICARE health plans were not renewed.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 29
 ○ By way of counterclaim, defendants-appellants Maxicare and ● As provided for in Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, the
its officers claimed P100,000.00 in moral damages for each of general rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the party
the officers of Maxicare impleaded as defendant, P100,000.00 making it and does not require proof admits of two exceptions:
in exemplary damages, P100,000.00 in attorney's fees, and ○ 1) when it is shown that the admission was made through
P10,000.00 in litigation expenses. palpable mistake, and
● RTC ruled in favor of Estrada finding MAxicare liable for breach of ○ 2) when it is shown that no such admission was in fact made.
contract The latter exception allows one to contradict an admission by
○ CA affirmed denying that he made such an admission.
● Maxicare now insists on the reversal of the RTC Decision as affirmed by ● For instance, if a party invokes an "admission" by an adverse party, but
the CA, raising the following issues: cites the admission "out of context", then the one making the admission
○ That Estrada is not entitled to commissions for the Meralco may show that he made no "such" admission, or that his admission was
account taken out of context.
○ That Estrada is not entitled to commissions for the 2 ● This may be interpreted as to mean "not in the sense in which the
consecutive renewals of their service agreement admission is made to appear". That is the reason for the modifier
● IMPORTANT: Maxicare also alleges that the RTC and CA erred in not "such".
giving JN to the admission of Estrada that the negotiations with Meralco ● the letter, although part of Estrada's Complaint, is not, ipso facto, an
failed. admission of the statements contained therein, especially since the
Issue/s: bone of contention relates to Estrada's entitlement to commissions for
● WON Estrada is entitled to commissions?- YES the sale of health plans she claims to have brokered.
● WON the court should have taken JN of Estrada’s admission that the ● It is more than obvious from the entirety of the records that Estrada
Meralco negotiations failed?- NO has unequivocally and consistently declared that her involvement as
broker is the proximate cause which consummated the sale between
Ratio: Meralco and Maxicare.
As to commission ● Moreover, Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court requires the
● Estrada is entitled to commissions for the premiums paid under the purpose for which the evidence is offered to be specified.
service agreement between Meralco and Maxicare from 1991 to 1996. ● ·Undeniably, the letter was attached to the Complaint, and offered in
● Contrary to Maxicare's assertion, the trial and the appellate courts evidence, to demonstrate Maxicare's bad faith and ill will towards
carefully considered the factual backdrop of the case as borne out by Estrada.
the records. ● Even a cursory reading of the Complaint and all the pleadings filed
● The role of Estrada in the settling of the case was of no dispute thereafter before the RTC, CA, and this Court, readily show that Estrada
Issue on Judicial Admission does not concede, at any point, that her negotiations with Meralco
● MAxicare presented Annex F in stating that Estrada admitted that the failed.
Meralco Negotiations failed ● Clearly, Maxicare's assertion that Estrada herself does not pretend to
● SC saw that this document was Maxicare’s counsel’s letter addressed to be the "efficient procuring cause" in the execution of the service
Estrada agreement between Meralco and Maxicare is baseless and an outright
○ This contained a unilateral declaration of Maxicare that its falsehood.
efforts initated by Estrada failed ● SC ADMONISHED Maxicare's counsel, and, in turn, remind every
● The SC in citing Atillo III v. Court of Appeals, ironically the case cited by member of the Bar that the practice of law carries with it
Maxicare to bolster its position that the statement in Annex "F" responsibilities which are not to be trifled with. Maxicare's counsel
amounted to an admission, provides a contrary answer to Maxicare's ought to be reacquainted with Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
ridiculous contention. Responsibility, specifically, Rule 10.02
○ SC held that in spite of the presence of judicial admissions in a
party's pleading, the trial court is still given leeway to consider ○
other evidence presented.

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 30
Dispositive: WHEREFORE, premises considered and finding no reversible error
committed by the Court of Appeals, the petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against
the petitioner. SO ORDERED.

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 31
 12. Sarraga vs. Banco Filipino
timely notice of appeal - YES. HOWEVER such negligence is NOT binding upon
G.R. No.143783 | December 9, 2002 | SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: | Judicial
petitioners.
Admissions
Digest by: NAME
There is no merit in the Petitioners’ argument that that Atty. Bagabuyo is not their
Petitioners: Spouses Dante Sarraga, Sr. and Maria Teresa Sarraga counsel of record since he did not file with the trial court a formal appearance.
Respondents: Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino), Consequently, the service upon him of the trial courts order denying their motion
for reconsideration is valid. It is undisputed that petitioners were represented by
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine: two (2) lawyers, Attys. Dumlao and Bagabuyo. Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 13 of the
Petitioners mortgaged Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3 to Respondent as security for the loan. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended service of the trial courts order denying
They failed to pay thus it was foreclosed. The Respondent bank was placed under petitioners motion for reconsideration may be made upon either counsel. Atty.
receivership and liquidation, which prevented the petitioners from redeeming the Rogelio Zosa B. Bagabuyo did not merely enter his appearance orally at every
lots. Respondent, trough its liquidators negotiated with the petitioners for the hearing which he attended. He filed several pleadings in this case as counsel
redemption of the lots and among the terms were upon full payment of the for the defendants in which he indicated his address. (MOTION TO HEAR SPECIAL
purchase price the bank will execute the corresponding deed of sale, and were AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANTS, MR,
granted the power to administer Lot 3. Petitioners paid in full the total repurchase Urgent Rejoinder to Plaintiffs Opposition To Our Motion for Reconsideration,
price for the 3 lots. However, Banco refused to execute the corresponding deed of URGENT MOTION TO CANCEL SCHEDULED HEARING) Since he started appearing
sale and turn over Lot 3 to petitioners. Instead, respondent filed with the RTC a in this case, acted alone, signed pleadings alone, made decisions alone, without in
complaint against petitioners for quieting of title, recovery of ownership and any way indicating to the court and the adverse party that he had to defer to the
possession, accounting and damages. Petitioners were represented by Attty. judgment of Atty. Dumlao on any matter pertaining to the instant case. He
Dumlao Jr. who formally entered his appearance as their counsel of record. presented the defendant and his witness, at the trial of this case and terminated
However, prior to the pre-trial, Atty. Dumlao suffered a mild stroke, incapacitating the presentation of the defendants evidence without consulting, or intimating to
him from participating actively in the proceedings, prompting petitioners to hire the court and the adverse party that he had to consult Atty. Dumlao on the matter.
the services of another counsel, Atty. agabuyo. While the latter appeared for the Atty. Bagabuyo had been the one actively handling the case for the defendants
petitioners during the hearing and signed pleadings for them, Atty. Dumlao since the pre-trial stage. To be sure, Section 2, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
remained petitioners counsel of record. As such, the trial court continued to serve Procedure explicitly provides that (i)f any party has appeared by counsel,
pleadings, motions, processes, and other documents upon Atty. Dumlao. The RTC service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them x x x. The
ruled Lot 1 and 2 in favor of petitioners but Lot 3 was in favor of respondent. obvious meaning of said rule is that if a party is represented by more than
Petitioners filed an MR signed by both Atty. Dumlao and Atty. Bagabuyo which was one lawyer, service of pleadings, judgments and other papers may be made
denied. The order denying the MR was received by Ms. Llerna Guligado, a newly- on any one of them.
hired clerk at the office of Atty. Bagabuyo. Owing to her lack of work experience in
a law office, she merely left the court order on her desk and eventually it was Atty. Bagabuyo was negligent which prevented petitioners from filing a timely
misplaced. She failed to bring the matter to the attention of Atty. Bagabuyo when notice of appeal. Atty. Bagabuyo knew that his clerk has no work experience in a
she resigned on September 15, 1998. The day before, or on September 14, 1998, law firm. He should have supervised her office performance very closely
Atty. Bagabuyo was appointed Senior State Prosecutor in the Department of considering the importance of his legal calling. Thus, the negligence of clerks
Justice. Due to his excitement and relocation to Manila, he failed to apprise Atty. which adversely affect the cases handled by lawyers is binding upon the
Dumlao on the status of the case. Pettiioners found out that the records of the case latter. However the Court held that if the incompetence, ignorance or inexperience
were already transmitted to the CA due to a partial appeal interposed by Banco of counsel is so great and the error committed as a result thereof is so serious that
Filipino. Thus, they filed a petition for relief from judgment. During the hearing, the client, who otherwise has a good cause, is prejudiced and denied his day in
they came to know that the order denying their motion for reconsideration was court, the litigation may be reopened to give the client another chance to present
served upon Atty. Bagabuyo only. The Trial Court dismissed the petition for relief his case. Thus,higher interests of justice and equity demand that petitioners be
on the ground that it was filed out of time. allowed to present evidence on their defense. The dismissal of appeal on purely
WoN there was a valid service of the trial courts order denying petitioners motion technical grounds is frowned upon.
for reconsideration upon Atty. Bagabuyo- YES
WoN Atty. Bagabuyo was negligent which prevented petitioners from filing a
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 32
Facts: prompting petitioners to hire the services of another counsel, Atty.
● In 1980s, Petitioners mortgaged their lots (Lots 1053-A, 1053-Band Lot Rogelio Bagabuyo.
416-B) to Banco Filipino as security for a loan in the amount of ○ While the latter appeared for the petitioners during the
P3,618,714.59. hearing and signed pleadings for them, Atty. Dumlao remained
● Petitioners defaulted in the payment of their loan.Thus, Banco Filipino petitioners counsel of record. As such, the trial court continued
foreclosed the mortgage. to serve pleadings, motions, processes, and other documents
● Banco Filipino was placed in conservatorship by the Central Bank of the upon Atty. Dumlao.
Philippines. Later on, it was ordered closed and placed under ● The RTC declared Lots 1035-A and 1053-B in favor of the spouses
receivership and liquidation. whereas Lot 416-B was declared in favor of Banco Filipino
● Before the expiration of the period for the redemption of the lots, ● Petitioners filed a MR signed by both Atty Dumlao and Atty. Bagabuyo
petitioner Dante P. Sarraga sent a letter to Banco Filipinos receiver- which was denied.
liquidator offering to redeem the same. ● The order denying the MR was received by Ms. Llerna Guligado, a
● Deputy Receiver Arnulfo B. Aurellano wrote petitioners that at this newly-hired clerk at the office of Atty. Bagabuyo. Owing to her lack of
stage of the liquidation of the bank, they are not yet selling the work experience in a law office, she merely left the court order on her
aforesaid properties. desk and eventually it was misplaced. She failed to bring the matter to
○ Since petitioners were not allowed to redeem their lots within the attention of Atty. Bagabuyo when she resigned on September 15,
the period prescribed by law, titles thereto were consolidated 1998. The day before, or on September 14, 1998, Atty. Bagabuyo was
in the name of Banco Filipino. appointed Senior State Prosecutor in the Department of Justice. Due to
● Petitioners received a letter from Banco Filipino recognizing their his excitement and relocation to Manila, he failed to apprise Atty.
intention to redeem their lots. Later, Banco Filipino, through its Dumlao on the status of the case.
liquidators, started negotiating with petitioners on the terms of ● Concerned that no action had been taken on their motion for
redemption. reconsideration of the Decision, petitioners, verified its status and
● Finally, Mr. Renan Santos, then Banco Filipinos liquidator, wrote found that the records of the case were already transmitted to the
petitioners allowing them to repurchase the lots for P8,506,597.73, Court of Appeals due to a partial appeal interposed by Banco Filipino.
with 12% interest per annum, under the terms stipulated therein.1 The ○ This prompted petitioners to file with the trial court a notice of
terms include, among others, that petitioners may pay by installments appeal which was denied for being late.
and that upon full payment of the repurchase price, Banco Filipino shall ● Eventually, they filed a petition for relief from judgment.During the
execute the corresponding deed of sale for the three (3) lots in their hearing, they came to know that the order denying their motion for
favor.They were likewise granted the power to manage and administer reconsideration was served upon Atty. Bagabuyo only.
the building located in Lot 416-B. The terms were later embodied in a ● The Trial Court dismissed the petition for relief on the ground that it
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by the parties. was filed out of time. The MR was also deniedvirtualibräry
● Banco Filipino formally conveyed to petitioners the two (2) lots (Lots ● They then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals,
1053-A and 1053-B) located in Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City. ascribing to the trial court grave abuse of discretion for dismissing
● Petitioners paid in full the total repurchase price for the three (3) their petition for relief from judgment. But such was dismissed by
lots. However, Banco Filipino refused to execute the corresponding the CA.
deed of sale and turn over Lot 416-B to petitioners.
● Instead, Banco Filipino filed with the RTCt, Branch 38, Cagayan de Oro Issue/s:
City, a complaint against petitioners for quieting of title, recovery of ● WoN there was a valid service of the trial courts order denying
ownership and possession, accounting and damages. petitioners motion for reconsideration upon Atty. Bagabuyo- YES
● Petitioners filed their answer with counterclaim.They were ● WoN Atty. Bagabuyo was negligent which prevented petitioners from
represented by Atty. Florentino G. Dumlao, Jr. who formally entered his filing a timely notice of appeal - YES
appearance as their counsel of record. ○ if so, whether such negligence is binding upon petitioners.- NO
● However, prior to the pre-trial, Atty. Dumlao suffered a mild stroke,
incapacitating him from participating actively in the proceedings, Ratio:
Ratio for Issue 1
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 33
 ● There is no merit in the Petitioners’ argument that that Atty. Bagabuyo ● Obviously, Atty. Bagabuyo was negligent which prevented petitioners
is not their counsel of record since he did not file with the trial court a from filing a timely notice of appeal. Atty. Bagabuyo knew that his clerk
formal appearance. Consequently, the service upon him of the trial has no work experience in a law firm. He should have supervised her
courts order denying their motion for reconsideration is valid. office performance very closely considering the importance of his legal
● It is undisputed that petitioners were represented by two (2) lawyers, calling. Time and again this Court has admonished law offices to adopt
Attys. Dumlao and Bagabuyo. Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 13 of the 1997 a system of distributing and receiving pleadings and notices, so that the
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended service of the trial courts order lawyers will be promptly informed of the status of their cases. Thus, the
denying petitioners motion for reconsideration may be made upon negligence of clerks which adversely affect the cases handled by
either counsel lawyers is binding upon the latter.cräläwvirtualibräry
● Atty. Rogelio Zosa B. Bagabuyo did not merely enter his appearance ● Nothing is more settled than the rule that the negligence of counsel
orally at every hearing which he attended. He filed several binds the client. However, the application of the general rule to a given
pleadings in this case as counsel for the defendants in which he case should be looked into and adopted according to the surrounding
indicated his address. The first pleading that he filed x x x was a circumstances.1 Thus, exceptions to the said rule have been recognized
MOTION TO HEAR SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AS IF A by this Court: (1) where reckless or gross negligence of counsel
MOTION TO DISMISS HAD BEEN FILED, dated November 28, 1994, deprives the client of due process of law; (2) when its application
which he signed alone as counsel for Defendants and in which he will result in outright deprivation of the clients liberty or property; or
indicated his address Since he started appearing in this case, acted (3) where the interests of justice so require.19 In such cases, courts
alone, signed pleadings alone, made decisions alone, without in any must step in and accord relief to a client who suffered thereby.
way indicating to the court and the adverse party that he had to defer ● Here, we find that the negligence of Atty. Bagabuyo falls under the
to the judgment of Atty. Dumlao on any matter pertaining to the instant said exceptions. Indeed, he committed gross negligence. Petitioners
case. He presented the defendant Dante Sarraga and the latters witness, were deprived of their right to appeal when he failed to inform them
Mr. Gaudencio Beduya, at the trial of this case and terminated the immediately of the denial of their motion for reconsideration of the
presentation of the defendants evidence without consulting, or trial courts decision. Ultimately, this will result in the deprivation of
intimating to the court and the adverse party that he had to consult their property, specifically Lot 416-B.
Atty. Dumlao on the matter. The MEMORANDUM FOR THE ● If the incompetence, ignorance or inexperience of counsel is so great
DEFENDANTS dated April 8, 1996 was signed by him alone as counsel and the error committed as a result thereof is so serious that the client,
for the defendants. Atty. Rogelio Zosa Bagabuyo signed as lead counsel who otherwise has a good cause, is prejudiced and denied his day in
the defendants Motion for Reconsideration dated 26 June 1998 and the court, the litigation may be reopened to give the client another chance
Urgent Rejoinder to Plaintiffs Opposition To Our Motion for to present his case. Similarly, when an unsuccessful party has been
Reconsideration dated 03 August 1998, in which he indicated his prevented from fully and fairly presenting his case as a result of his
address. He signed alone as counsel for the defendants an URGENT lawyers professional delinquency or infidelity the litigation may be
MOTION TO CANCEL SCHEDULED HEARING ON 31 July 1998 dated 28 reopened to allow the party to present his side. Where counsel is guilty
July 1998 in which he indicated his address. of gross ignorance, negligence and dereliction of duty, which resulted in
● Atty. Bagabuyo had been the one actively handling the case for the the clients being held liable for damages in a damage suit, the client is
defendants since the pre-trial stage. To be sure, Section 2, Rule 13 of deprived of his day in court and the judgment may be set aside on such
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly provides that (i)f any party ground.
has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his ● In view of the foregoing circumstances, higher interests of justice and
counsel or one of them x x x. The obvious meaning of said rule is equity demand that petitioners be allowed to present evidence on their
that if a party is represented by more than one lawyer, service of defense. Petitioners may not be made suffer for the lawyers mistakes
pleadings, judgments and other papers may be made on any one of and should be afforded another opportunity, at least, to introduce
them. evidence on their behalf. To cling to the general rule in this case is only
to condone rather than rectify a serious injustice to a party whose only
On Negligence fault was to repose his faith and entrust his innocence to his previous
lawyers.

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 34
 ● Petitioners cannot be faulted for failing to verify the status of their case
with the trial court since a client has the right to expect that his lawyer
will protect his interest during the hearing of his case.
● Undoubtedly, the trial court gravely abused its discretion when it
denied the petition for relief. Considering the circumstances obtaining
here, petitioners should not be made to suffer the consequences of their
counsels negligence. Hence, the period within which to file their
petition for relief should be reckoned from their actual receipt of the
order denying their motion for reconsideration, which is December 7,
1998. Accordingly, the petition for relief filed on December 16, 1998
was well within the sixty-day period prescribed in Section 3, Rule 38, of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
● Both lower courts actually sacrificed justice for technicality. This Court
has consistently ruled that it is a far better and more prudent course of
action for a court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a
review of the case on the merits to attain the ends of justice rather than
dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the
parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while
actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.22 Hence,
it would be more in accord with justice and equity to allow the appeal
by petitioners to enable the Court of Appeals to review the trial courts
decision.
● Hence, in cases where a party was denied this right, we have relaxed
the stringent application of procedural rules in order to allow a party
the chance to be heard. This policy applies with equal force in case of
appeals. It has been consistently held that the dismissal of appeal on
purely technical grounds is frowned upon.

Dispositive: WHEREFORE,, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged Decision

of the Court of Appeals dated June 20, 2000 in CA-GR SP No. 53765 is SET
ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Cagayan de Oro City is DIRECTED to
grant the petition for relief filed by petitioners and to GIVE DUE COURSE to
their notice of appeal in Civil Case No. 93-186.

SO ORDERED.

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 35
 13. Villanueva vs. People
WON the negligence of Petitioner's counsels is binding on her - NO
G.R. No.188630 |February 23, 2011 | Mendoza, J. | Judicial Admissions
The CA was correct in dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Section 2 of
Digest by: GUEVARRA
Rule 50 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court provides, among others, that "an appeal
Petitioners: Filomenia L. Villanueva erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the
Respondents: People of the Phil appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright." This has been the consistent
holding of the Court.
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine: The peculiar circumstances of the case, however, constrain the Court to reconsider
Petitioner was the Asst. Regional Director of the Cooperative Development its position and give the petitioner a chance to bring her case to the
Authority (CDA) of Region II, a position lower than salary Grade 27. On various Sandiganbayan. The Court notes that the CA eventually decided the administrative
dates in 1998, the petitioner and her husband Armando Villanueva obtained case filed against petitioner in her favor. This administrative case (where only
several loans from the Cagayan Agri-Based Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. substantial evidence is required) is so intertwined with this criminal case (where
(CABMPCI). Armando defaulted. CABMPCI represented by its Manager, Martinez, evidence beyond reasonable doubt is required). The CA pointed out that Martinez
filed a civil case before the RTC of Cagayan, presenting a certification received and had issued an Official Receipt and Certification that petitioner had indeed paid her
signed by petitioner, attesting to settle obligations. Martinez also filed an loan. The said receipt was signed by Martinez herself as the General Manager of
administrative complaint for willful failure to pay filed before the CDA. In the civil CABMPCI, attesting to the payment of the loan. The CA further ruled that Martinez
case. The court held Armando in default. Armando then claimed that he should not failed to prove that the petitioner exerted undue influence in obtaining the loans.
be made to pay said loan as the same had long been fully paid as shown by official Records also bear out that the earlier civil case against Armando, the petitioner’s
receipt and the certification of Martinez. Another Administrative case was filed husband, was also finally resolved in his favor since the obligation had already
with the ombudsman charging petitioner with violation of Section 7 in relation to been settled. This civil case is also intertwined with the administrative and
Section 11 of RA No. 6713(Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public criminal cases filed against petitioner.
Officials and Employees) wherein he was found guilty of Grave Misconduct and
imposed the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification for Thus, it appears that the filing of the criminal case against petitioner was merely an
re-employment in the government service. The CA reversed the ombudsman afterthought considering that the civil case against her husband and the
ruling, noting that Martinez failed to prove that petitioner had used undue administrative case against her were resolved in the couple’s favor. Therefore, the
influence in soliciting the loan and further noted that Martinez as the General Court is inclined to suspend the rules to give the petitioner a chance to seek relief
manager, allowed the petitioner to obtain a loan, much less obtain a passbook, from the Sandiganbayan. The Court likewise makes exception to the general rule
although she was allegedly not qualified to become a member. that the mistakes and negligence of counsel bind the client. Doubtless, the filing of
Another criminal case was filed against the petitioner for violation of Section 2 (d) the appeal before the CA by the petitioner’s former counsel was not simple
of RA No. 6713, convicting the petitioner and imposing the penalty of five(5) years negligence. It constituted gross negligence. However, the mistakes of counsel bind
of imprisonment and disqualification to hold office. Upon appeal to the CA, the OSg the client may not be strictly followed where observance of it would result in
contended that the Sandiganbayan had exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Petitioner outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property, or where the interests of
argued that that the issue of jurisdiction could not be raised for the first time justice so require. In rendering justice, procedural infirmities take a backseat
before the CA. however, the CA ruled in favor of the OSG. After the CA denied against substantive rights of litigants. Corollarily, if the strict application of the
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on June 25, 2009, she filed the subject rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, this Court is not without
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 which was denied. The CA noted power to exercise its judicial discretion in relaxing the rules of procedure.
that in petitioner’s Compliance and Explanation wherein she apologized for the
clerical error on the date mentioned in the affidavit of service of the motion Thus, with the dismissal of the administrative case against the petitioner, it is in
for extension of time to file petition for review on certiorari which was typed the interest of substantial justice that the criminal case against her should be
as 21 July 2009 instead of 23 July 2009, and submitting documents relative reviewed on the merits by the proper tribunal following the appropriate
thereto. Petitioner failed to state the material date of filing of the motion for procedures under the rules.
reconsideration of the assailed resolution in violation of Section 4[b] and 5,
Rule 45 in relation to Section 5[d], Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Petitioner's MR was likewise denied.
WON the appeal must be dismissed for lack of Jurisdiction- YES Facts:

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 36
● Petitioner was the Assistant Regional Director of the Cooperative ● Martinez filed a MR while the Ombudsman filed an Omnibus Motion to
Development Authority (CDA) of Region II, a position lower than Salary Intervene and For Reconsideration. The CA denied both.
Grade 27. ● A criminal case was also filed against the petitioner for violation of
● On various dates in 1998, the petitioner and her husband Armando Section 2(d) of R.A. No. 6713 before the Claveria, Cagayan MCTC
Villanueva (Armando) obtained several loans from the Cagayan Agri- wherein the court convicted the petitioner.
Based Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (CABMPCI). Armando defaulted ● Upon appeal, theRTC affirmed the MCTC Decision.
in the payment of his own loan. Thus, CABMPCI, represented by its ● Upon ap[peal to the CA, the OSG then filed a Manifestation and Motion
General Manager, Petra Martinez (Martinez), filed a civil case for contending that the Sandiganbayan had exclusive appellate jurisdiction
collection of sum of money against Armando before the RTC of Sanchez over the petition.
Mira, Cagayan ● Petitioner, in her Comment, argued that the issue of jurisdiction could
● To support its claim, CABMPCI presented a certification, received and not be raised for the first time before the CA in view of the failure of the
signed by petitioner, attesting that she and Armando promised to settle Provincial Prosecutor to bring out the same when she appealed the
their obligation on or before February 28, 2001. MCTC Decision to the RTC. She claimed to have availed of the remedy
● During the pendency of the civil case before the RTC, Martinez filed an provided under Rule 122 of the Rules of Court in good faith. Finally, she
administrative complaint for Willful Failure to Pay Just Debt against contended that the essence of true justice would be served if the case
petitioner before the CDA. would be decided on the merits.
● In the civil case, the trial court declared Armando in default and ● The CA, however, agreed with the OSG, holding that:
rendered a decision ordering him to pay the total amount of ○ (1) At the time petitioner committed the crime charged, she
₱1,107,210.90, plus fine and interest at the rate of 3% per month and was holding a position lower than salary grade "27." The
the cost of collection. Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction
● Armando filed a petition for prohibition before the CA alleging that he over final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial
should not be made to pay said loan as the same had long been fully courts whether in the exercise of their own original
paid as shown by jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction. (CA cited Moll v.
○ 1] Official Receipt No. 141084 in the name of petitioner Buban, G.R. No. 136974, August 27, 2002);
evidencing payment of the amount of ₱764,865.25, and ○ (2) The OSG had timely raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction
○ 2] the Certification issued by Martinez. considering that the law does not contemplate the remedy of
● CABMPCI’s failure to make a comment was deemed to have been a appeal from the decision of the MTCCdirectly to the
waiver to refute the claim of payment contained in the petition. Thus, Sandiganbayan; and
the CA nullified the RTC decision on the ground that the obligation had ○ (3) Petitioner’s good faith and the merits of her case cannot in
already been settled. any way vest CA with jurisdiction.
● Martinez filed an administrative case with the Ombudsman charging ● After the CA denied petitioner’s MR, she filed the subject petition for
petitioner with Violation of Section 7(d) in relation to Section 11 of review on certiorari under Rule 45 which was denied
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards ○ The CA noted that in petitioner’s Compliance and Explanation
for Public Officials and Employees.) wherein she apologized for the clerical error on the date
● The Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct and mentioned in the affidavit of service of the motion for
imposed the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of benefits and extension of time to file petition for review on certiorari which
disqualification for re-employment in the government service. was typed as 21 July 2009 instead of 23 July 2009, and
● The CA reversed. It held that the Ombudsman erred in applying R.A. No. submitting documents relative thereto.
6713, without recognizing the fact of membership and its privileges. It ● Petitioner failed to state the material date of filing of the motion for
further stated that Martinez failed to prove that petitioner had used reconsideration of the assailed resolution in violation of Section 4[b]
undue influence in soliciting the loan. It noted that Martinez, in her and 5, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5[d], Rule 56. Petitioner's MR was
capacity as the general manager of CABMPCI, allowed the petitioner to also denied.
obtain a loan, much less obtain a passbook, although she was allegedly ●
not qualified to become a member.

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 37
Issue/s: not without power to exercise its judicial discretion in relaxing the
● WoN the dismissal by the CA due to lack of jurisdiction is proper- YES rules of procedure.
● The Court also takes note that the petitioner has no participatory
Ratio: negligence. The resulting dismissal by the CA was utterly attributable to
● Petitioner, through her former counsel, had taken a wrong procedure. the gross negligence of her counsel. For said reason, the Court is not
After the RTC rendered an adverse decision, she should have sought averse to suspending its own rules in the pursuit of justice. "Where
relief from the Sandiganbayan in conformity with R.A. No. 8249. reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due
● CA was correct in dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Section process of law, or when its application will result in outright
2 of Rule 50 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court provides, among others, deprivation of the client’s liberty or property or where the interests of
that "an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be justice so require, relief is accorded to the client who suffered by
transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright." reason of the lawyer’s gross or palpable mistake or negligence."
● The peculiar circumstances of the case, however, constrain the Court to ● "Aside from matters of life, liberty, honor or property which would
reconsider its position and give the petitioner a chance to bring her warrant the suspension of the rules of the most mandatory character
case to the Sandiganbayan. The Court notes that the CA eventually and an examination and review by the appellate court of the lower
decided the administrative case filed against petitioner in her favor. court's findings of fact, the other elements that are to be considered are
● This administrative case (where only substantial evidence is required) the following:
is so intertwined with this criminal case (where evidence beyond ○ (1) the existence of special or compelling circumstances,
reasonable doubt is required). The CA pointed out that Martinez had ○ (2) the merits of the case,
issued an Official Receipt and Certification that petitioner had indeed ○ (3) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence
paid her loan. The said receipt was signed by Martinez herself as the of the party favored by the suspension of the rules,
General Manager of CABMPCI, attesting to the payment of the loan.The ○ (4) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely
CA further ruled that Martinez failed to prove that the petitioner frivolous and dilatory, (5) the other party will not be unjustly
exerted undue influence in obtaining the loans. prejudiced thereby."
● Records also bear out that the earlier civil case against Armando, the ● Dismissal of appeals on purely technical grounds is not encouraged.
petitioner’s husband, was also finally resolved in his favor since the The rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid and
obligation had already been settled.This civil case is also intertwined technical sense, for they have been adopted to help secure, not
with the administrative and criminal cases filed against petitioner. override, substantial justice. Judicial action must be guided by the
● Thus, it appears that the filing of the criminal case against petitioner principle that a party-litigant should be given the fullest opportunity to
was merely an afterthought considering that the civil case against her establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to
husband and the administrative case against her were resolved in the lose life, liberty, honor or property on technicalities. When a rigid
couple’s favor. application of the rules tends to frustrate rather than promote
● Thus, the Court is inclined to suspend the rules to give the petitioner a substantial justice, this Court is empowered to suspend their operation.
chance to seek relief from the Sandiganbayan. The Court likewise ● Petitioner’s liberty here is at stake. The MCTC convicted her and
makes exception to the general rule that the mistakes and negligence of imposed upon her the penalty of five (5) years imprisonment and the
counsel bind the client. Doubtless, the filing of the appeal before the CA disqualification to hold office. This MCTC decision was affirmed by the
by the petitioner’s former counsel was not simple negligence. It RTC.If she has to suffer in prison, her guilt must be established beyond
constituted gross negligence. reasonable doubt, availing all the remedies provided for under the law
● It bears stressing at this point, that the rule which states that the to protect her right. It is highly unjust for her to lose her liberty only
mistakes of counsel bind the client may not be strictly followed where because of the gross negligence of her former counsel.
observance of it would result in outright deprivation of the client’s ● With the dismissal of the administrative case against the petitioner, it is
liberty or property, or where the interests of justice so require. In in the interest of substantial justice that the criminal case against her
rendering justice, procedural infirmities take a backseat against should be reviewed on the merits by the proper tribunal following the
substantive rights of litigants. Corollarily, if the strict application of the appropriate procedures under the rules. Our legal culture requires the
rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, this Court is presentation of proof beyond reasonable doubt before any person may
be convicted of any crime and deprived of his life, liberty or even
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 38
 property, not merely substantial evidence. It is not enough that the
evidence establishes a strong suspicion or a probability of guilt. The
primary consideration is whether the guilt of an accused has been
proven beyond reasonable doubt. It has been consistently held that:
● In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt
is shown beyond doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean
such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of
proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. On the
whole, the meager evidence for the prosecution casts serious doubts as
to the guilt of accused. It does not pass the test of moral certainty and is
insufficient to rebut the constitutional presumption of innocence.
● Trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients in their counsel
requires from the latter a high standard and appreciation of his duty to
his clients, his profession, the courts and the public. Every lawyer
should, therefore, serve his client in a meticulous, careful and
competent manner. He is bound to protect the client’s interests and to
do all steps necessary therefor as his client reasonably expects him to
discharge his obligations diligently.

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions of the

Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 31240 dated November 13, 2008 and June
25, 2009, are hereby SET ASIDE. In the interest of justice, petitioner Filomena L.
Villanueva is given the chance to file the necessary petition for review before
the Sandiganbayan, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. SO ORDERED.

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 39
 14. People vs. Umanito
hearing, Provincial Prosecutor presented a Forensic Chemist of the National
G.R. No. | Date | Ponente | Chain of custody
Bureau of Investigation who testified on the examination she conducted, outlining
Digest by: JOSEF
the procedure she adopted and the result thereof. She further declared that using
Petitioners: People of the Philippines the Powerplex 16 System, Deoxyribonuncleic acid analysis on the Buccal Swabs
Respondents: Rufino Umali and Blood stained on FTA paper taken from [AAA], [BBB], and Rufino Umanito y
Millares, showed that there is a Complete Match in all of the fifteen (15) loci
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine: tested between the alleles of Rufino Umanito y Milalres and [BBB]; That based on
In our Resolution dated 26 October 2007, this Court resolved, for the very first the above findings, there is a 99.9999% probability of paternity that Rufino
time, to apply the then recently promulgated New Rules on DNA Evidence (DNA Umanito y Millares is the biological father of [BBB] (Exhibits "A" and series and "B"
Rules)1 in a case pending before us – this case. We remanded the case to the RTC and series).
for reception of DNA evidence in accordance with the terms of said Resolution, and Issue: W/N based on the result of the DNA analysis conducted by the National
in light of the fact that the impending exercise would be the first application of the Bureau of Investigation, Forensic Division, RUFINO UMANITO is the father of
procedure. To recall, the instant case involved a charge of rape. The accused Rufino AAA's child.(If he is not,this maycast the shadow of reasonable doubt and allow
Umanito (Umanito) was found by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La his acquittal on this basis). –YES
Union guilty of the crime of rape. On appeal, the Court of Appeals offered the Ruling: The procedure adopted by the DNA section, Forensic Chemistry Division of
judgment of the trial court. Umanito appealed the decision. In its 2007 Resolution, the National Bureau of Investigation in analyzing the samples was in accordance
the Court acknowledged "many incongruent assertions of the prosecution and the with the standards used in modern technology. With the procedure adopted by the
defense." At the same time, the alleged 1989 rape of the private complainant, AAA, Forensic Chemist of the NBI, who is an expert and whose integrity and dedication
had resulted in her pregnancy and the birth of a child, a girl hereinafter to her work is beyond reproach the manner how the biological samples were
identified as "BBB." In view of that fact, as well as the defense of alibi raised by collected, how they were handled and the chain of custody thereof were properly
Umanito, the Court deemed uncovering of whether or not Umanito is the father established the court is convinced that there is no possibility of contamination of
of BBB greatly determinative of the resolution of the appeal. The Court then the DNA samples taken from the parties. Section 6. A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC provides
observed: x x x With the advance in genetics and the availability of new technology, that: "If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a
it can now be determined with reasonable certainty whether appellant is the disputable presumption of paternity. Disputable presumptions are satisfactory
father of AAA's child.If he is not, his acquittal may be ordained. We have if uncontradicted but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence
pronounced that if it can be conclusively determined that the accused did not sire (Rule 131, Section 3, Rules of Court).
the alleged victim's child, this may cast the shadow of reasonable doubt and The disputable presumption that was established as a result of the DNA testing
allow his acquittal on this basis. If he is found not to be the father, the finding will was not contradicted and overcome by other evidence considering that the
at least weigh heavily in the ultimate decision in this case. Thus, we are directing accused did not object to the admission of the results of the DNA testing nor
appellant, AAA and her child to submit themselves to deoxyribonucleic acid presented evidence to rebut the same.The trial court ruled that based on the
(DNA) testing under the aegis of the New Rule on DNA Evidence (the Rules), result of the DNA analysis conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation,
which took effect on 15 October 2007, subject to guidelines prescribed Forensic Division, RUFINO UMANITO y MILLARES is the biological father of [BBB].
herein. The RTC issued an Order on even date directing that biological samples be Umanito’s defense of alibi, together with his specific assertion that while he had
taken from AAA, BBB and Umanito on 9 January 2008 at the courtroom.The Order courted AAA they were not sweethearts, lead to a general theory on his part
likewise enjoined the NBI as follows: the [NBI] is enjoined to strictly follow the that he did not engage in sexual relations with the complainant. The DNA
measures laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in the instant case. testing has evinced a contrary conclusion, and that as testified to by AAA,
Moreover, the court a quo must ensure that the proper chain of custody in Umanito had fathered the child she gave birth to on 5 April 1990, nine months
the handling of the samples submitted by the parties is adequately borne in after the day she said she was raped by Umanito. Still, Umanito filed a Motion to
the records, i.e.; that the samples are collected by a neutral third party; that Withdraw Appeal. By filing such motion, Umanito is deemed to have acceded to the
the tested parties are appropriately identified at their sample collection rulings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals finding him guilty of the crime of rape.
appointments; that the samples are protected with tamper tape at the
collection site; that all persons in possession thereof at each stage of testing
Facts:
thoroughly inspected the samples for tampering and explained his role in the
custody of the samples and the acts he performed in relation thereto. At the
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 40
● In our Resolution dated 26 October 2007, this Court resolved, for the to the selection of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) as the
very first time, to apply the then recently promulgated New Rules on institution that would conduct the DNA testing.
DNA Evidence (DNA Rules)1 in a case pending before us – this case. ● The RTC issued an Order on even date directing that biological samples
● We remanded the case to the RTC for reception of DNA evidence in be taken from AAA, BBB and Umanito on 9 January 2008 at the
accordance with the terms of said Resolution, and in light of the fact courtroom.
that the impending exercise would be the first application of the ● The Order likewise enjoined the NBI as follows: the [NBI] is enjoined to
procedure. strictly follow the measures laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court
● To recall, the instant case involved a charge of rape. The accused Rufino in the instant case.
Umanito (Umanito) was found by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of ● Moreover, the court a quo must ensure that the proper chain of
Bauang, La Union guilty of the crime of rape. On appeal, the Court of custody in the handling of the samples submitted by the parties is
Appeals offered the judgment of the trial court. adequately borne in the records, i.e.; that the samples are
● Umanito appealed the decision of the appellate court to this court. collected by a neutral third party; that the tested parties are
● In its 2007 Resolution, the Court acknowledged "many incongruent appropriately identified at their sample collection appointments;
assertions of the prosecution and the defense." that the samples are protected with tamper tape at the collection
● At the same time, the alleged 1989 rape of the private complainant, site; that all persons in possession thereof at each stage of testing
AAA, had resulted in her pregnancy and the birth of a child, a girl thoroughly inspected the samples for tampering and explained his
hereinafter identified as "BBB." role in the custody of the samples and the acts he performed in
● In view of that fact, as well as the defense of alibi raised by Umanito, the relation thereto.
Court deemed uncovering of whether or not Umanito is the father ● The DNA test result shall be simultaneously disclosed to the parties in
of BBB greatly determinative of the resolution of the appeal. Court. The [NBI] is, therefore, enjoined not to disclose to the parties in
● The Court then observed: advance the DNA test results.
x x x With the advance in genetics and the availability of new ● Present at the hearing held on 9 January 2008 were AAA, BBB, counsel
technology, it can now be determined with reasonable certainty for Umanito, and two representatives from the NBI.
whether appellant is the father of AAA's child.If he is not, his ● The RTC had previously received a letter from the Officer-in-Charge of
acquittal may be ordained. the New Bilibid Prisons informing the trial court that Umanito would
● We have pronounced that if it can be conclusively determined that the not be able to attend the hearing without an authority coming from the
accused did not sire the alleged victim's child, this may cast the Supreme Court.7
shadow of reasonable doubt and allow his acquittal on this basis. If ● The parties manifested in court their willingness to the taking of the
he is found not to be the father, the finding will at least weigh heavily in DNA sample from the accused at his detention center at the New Bilibid
the ultimate decision in this case. Prisons on 8 February 2008.
● Thus, we are directing appellant, AAA and her child to submit ● The prosecution then presented on the witness stand NBI forensic
themselves to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing under the aegis chemist Mary Ann Aranas, who testified on her qualifications as an
of the New Rule on DNA Evidence (the Rules), which took effect on expert witness in the field of DNA testing.
15 October 2007, subject to guidelines prescribed herein. ● No objections were posed to her qualifications by the defense.
● The RTC of Bauang, La Union, Branch 67, presided by Judge Ferdinand ● DNA samples were thus extracted from AAA and BBB in the presence of
A. Fe, upon receiving the Resolution of the Court on 9 November 2007, Judge Fe, the prosecutor, the counsel for the defense, and DCA De la
set the case for hearing on 27 November 20074 to ascertain the Cruz. On 8 February 2008, DNA samples were extracted from Umanito
feasibility of DNA testing with due regard to the standards set in at the New Bilibid Prisons by NBI chemist Aranas, as witnessed by
Sections 4(a), (b), (c) and (e) of the DNA Rules. Judge Fe, the prosecutor, the defense counsel, DCA De la Cruz, and other
● Both AAA and BBB (now 17 years old) testified during the hearing. personnel of the Court and the New Bilibid Prisons.
They also manifested their willingness to undergo DNA examination to ● The RTC ordered the NBI to submit the result of the DNA examination
determine whether Umanito is the father of BBB. within thirty (30) days after the extraction of biological samples of
● A hearing was conducted on 5 December 2007, where the public Umanito, and directed its duly authorized representatives to attend a
prosecutor and the counsel for Umanito manifested their concurrence hearing on the admissibility of such DNA evidence scheduled for 10
March 2008.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 41
 ● At the hearing, Provincial Prosecutor Maria Nenita A. Opiana, presented will be taken from their mouth and five (5) droplets of blood will also
Mary Ann T. Aranas, a Forensic Chemist of the National Bureau of be taken from the ring finger of their inactive hand;
Investigation who testified on the examination she conducted, outlining b) Pictures of the subject sources were taken by the NBI Chemist;
the procedure she adopted and the result thereof. c) Buccal swabs were taken from the subject sources three (3) times;
● She further declared that using the Powerplex 16 System, d) Subject sources were made to sign three (3) pieces of paper to
Deoxyribonuncleic acid analysis on the Buccal Swabs and Blood stained serve as label of the three buccal swabs placed inside two (2)
on FTA paper taken from [AAA], [BBB], and Rufino Umanito y Millares, separate envelopes that bear their names;
to determine whether or not Rufino Umanito y Millares is the biological e) Blood samples were taken from the ring finger of the left hand of the
father of [BBB], showed that there is a Complete Match in all of the subject sources;
fifteen (15) loci tested between the alleles of Rufino Umanito y f) Subject sources were made to sign the FTA card of their blood
Milalres and [BBB]; samples.
● That based on the above findings, there is a 99.9999% probability of The buccal swabs and the FTA cards were placed in a brown envelope
paternity that Rufino Umanito y Millares is the biological father of for air drying for at least one hour.
[BBB] (Exhibits "A" and series and "B" and series). g) Fingerprints of the subject sources were taken for additional
● After the cross-examination of the witness by the defense counsel, the identification;
Public Prosecutor offered in evidence Exhibits "A" and sub- h) The subject sources were made to sign finger prints.
markings, referring to the Report of the Chemistry Division of the i) Atty. Ramon J. Gomez, Deputy Court Administrator Reuben dela
National Bureau of Investigation, Manila on the DNA analysis to Cruz and Prosecutor Maria Nenita A. Oplana, in that order, were
determine whether or not Rufino Umanito y Millares is the biological made to sign as witnesses to the reference sample forms and the
father of [BBB] and Exhibit "B" and sub-markings, referring to the finger prints of the subject sources.
enlarged version of the table of Exhibit "A," to establish that on the DNA j) After one hour of air drying, the Buccal Swabs and the FTA papers
examination conducted on [AAA], [BBB] and the accused Rufino were placed inside a white envelope and sealed with a tape by the
Umanito for the purpose of establishing paternity, the result is NBI Chemists;
99.9999% probable. Highly probable. k) The witnesses, Atty. Ramon J. Gomez, Deputy Court Administrator
● The defense did not interpose any objection, hence, the exhibits Reuben dela Cruz, Prosecutor Maria Nenita A. Opiana including the NBI
were admitted. That considering that under Section 9, A.M. No. 06-11- Chemist, affixed their signatures on the sealed white envelope;
5-SC, if the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher, l) The subjects sources were made to sign and affix their finger
there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity, the instant prints on the sealed white envelope;
case was set for reception of evidence for the accused on April 29, m) The chemists affixed their signatures on the sealed envelope
2008 to controvert the presumption that he is the biological father of and placed it in a separate brown envelope;
[BBB]. n) The subjects sources were made to affix their fingerprints on
● During the hearing on April 29, 2008, the accused who was in court their identification places and reference forms.
manifested through his counsel that he will not present evidence to
dispute the findings of the Forensic Chemistry Division of the National - The Standard Operating Procedure of the Forensic Chemistry Division
Bureau of Investigation. of the NBI in paternity cases is to use buccal swabs taken from the
Issue: W/N based on the result of the DNA analysis conducted by the National parties and blood as a back up source. The said Standard Operating
Bureau of Investigation, Forensic Division, RUFINO UMANITOis the father of Procedure was adopted in the instant case.
AAA's child. (If he is not, this may cast the shadow of reasonable doubt and ● As earlier mentioned, the DNA samples consisted of buccal swabs and
allow his acquittal on this basis). –YES blood samples taken from the parties by the forensic chemists who
adopted reliable techniques and procedure in collecting and
Ratio: The DNA samples were collected by the forensic chemist of the National handling them to avoid contamination. The method that was used to
Bureau of Investigation whose qualifications as an expert was properly secure the samples were safe and reliable. The samples were taken and
established adopting the following procedure: handled by an expert, whose qualifications, integrity and dedication to
a) The subject sources were asked to gargle and to fill out the reference her work is unquestionable, hence, the possibility of substitution or
sample form. Thereafter, the chemists informed them that buccal swabs manipulation is very remote.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 42
● The procedure adopted by the DNA section, Forensic Chemistry ● Disputable presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted but may be
Division of the National Bureau of Investigation in analyzing the contradicted and overcome by other evidence (Rule 131, Section
samples was in accordance with the standards used in modern 3, Rules of Court).
technology. ● The disputable presumption that was established as a result of the DNA
● The comparative analysis of DNA prints of the accused Rufino Umanito testing was not contradicted and overcome by other evidence
and his alleged child is a simple process called parentage analysis considering that the accused did not object to the admission of the
which was made easier with the use of a DNA machine called Genetic results of the DNA testing (Exhibits "A" and "B" inclusive of sub-
Analyzer. To ensure a reliable result, the NBI secured two (2) DNA markings) nor presented evidence to rebut the same.
types of samples from the parties, the buccal swabs as primary source ● WHEREFORE, premises considered, the trial court rules that based on
and blood as secondary source. the result of the DNA analysis conducted by the National Bureau of
● Both sources were separately processed and examined and Investigation, Forensic Division, RUFINO UMANITO y MILLARES is the
thereafter a comparative analysis was conducted which yielded biological father of [BBB].10
the same result. ● Umanito’s defense of alibi, together with his specific assertion that
● The National Bureau of Investigation DNA Section, Forensic Division is while he had courted AAA they were not sweethearts, lead to a
an accredited DNA testing laboratory in the country which maintains general theory on his part that he did not engage in sexual
a multimillion DNA analysis equipment for its scientific criminal relations with the complainant.
investigation unit. It is manned by qualified laboratory chemists and ● The DNA testing has evinced a contrary conclusion, and that as
technicians who are experts in the field, like Mary Ann Aranas, the testified to by AAA, Umanito had fathered the child she gave birth to
expert witness in the instant case, who is a licensed chemists, has on 5 April 1990, nine months after the day she said she was raped
undergone training on the aspects of Forensic Chemistry fro two (2) by Umanito.
years before she was hired as forensic chemists of the NBI and has been ● Still, Umanito filed a Motion to Withdraw Appeal dated 16 February
continuously attending training seminars, and workshops which are 2009. By filing such motion, Umanito is deemed to have acceded to the
field related and who has handled more than 200 cases involving DNA rulings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals finding him guilty of the
extraction or collection or profiling. crime of rape, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
● With the procedure adopted by the Forensic Chemist of the NBI, perpetua and the indemnification of the private complainant in the sum
who is an expert and whose integrity and dedication to her work is of ₱50,000.00.
beyond reproach the manner how the biological samples were
collected, how they were handled and the chain of custody thereof Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the Motion to Withdraw Appeal dated 16 February
were properly established the court is convinced that there is no 2009 is GRANTED. The instant case is now CLOSED and TERMINATED.
possibility of contamination of the DNA samples taken from the
parties.
● The accused did not object to the admission of Exhibits "A" and "B"
inclusive of their sub-markings. He did not also present evidence
to controvert the results of the DNA analysis.
● Section 6. A.M. No. 06-11-5-SCprovides that: "If the value of the
Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable
presumption of paternity.
● DNA analysis conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation
Forensic Division on the buccal swabs and blood stained on FTA paper
taken from [AAA], [BBB] and Rufino Umanito y MillAres for DNA
analysis to determine whether or not Rufino Umanito y Millares is the
biological father of [BBB] gave the following result: there is a 99.9999%
probability of paternity that Rufino Umanito y Millares is the biological
father of [BBB]

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 43
 15. Torralba vs. People exposing him to public hatred, contempt, disrespect and ridicule, in his radio
G.R. No.153699 | Aug. 22, 2005 | CHICO-NAZARIO, J. | Documentary Evidence - program "TUG-ANI AND LUNGSOD" (TELL THE PEOPLE) over radio station
sound recordings DYFX, openly, publicly and repeatedly announce[d] the following: "KINING MGA
Digest by: Katalina HONTANOSAS, AGAPITO HONTANOSAS UG CASTOR HONTANOSAS, MGA
COLLABORATOR SA PANAHON SA GUERRA. SA ATO PA, TRAYDOR SA YUTANG
Petitioners: CIRSE FRANCISCO "CHOY" TORRALBA
NATAWHAN." X X X. "DUNAY DUGO NGA PAGKATRAYDOR ANG AMAHAN NI
Respondents: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
MANOLING HONTANOSAS," which in English means: "THESE HONTANOSAS,
AGAPITO HONTANOSAS AND CASTOR HONTANOSAS, ARE
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine: Torralba, host of the radio program “Tug-Ani ang
COLLABORATORS DURING THE WAR. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ARE
Lungsod”, was being prosecuted for Libel for his malicious statements against
TRAITORS TO THE LAND OF THEIR BIRTH." X X X. "THE FATHER OF
former CFI Judge Hontanosas. Witnesses for the prosecution include Lim,
MANOLING HONTANOSAS HAD TREACHEROUS BLOOD," and other words of
Sarmiento and Atty. Hontanosas himself. Part of their evidence were 3 tape
similar import, thereby maliciously exposing the family of the late Judge Agapito
recordings of Torralba’s radio broadcasts. Lim testified that it was his daughter
Hontanosas including Atty. Manuel L. Hontanosas,3one of the legitimate
Shirly who recorded the same, and that he was near the radio when it was being
children of [the] late CFI Judge Agapito Y. Hontanosas to public hatred,
recorded. The RTC, despite Torralba’s objection to the recordings due to lack of
dishonor, discredit, contempt and ridicule causing the latter to suffer social
proper authentication from the person who actually recorded the same, admitted
humiliation, embarrassment, wounded feelings and mental anguish, to the
the same in evidence and convicted Torralba of the crime of libel. The CA affirmed
damage and prejudice of said Atty. Manuel L. Hontanosas in the amount to be
his conviction.
proved during the trial of the case.”
In the Supreme Court, the tape recordings were disallowed. It is generally held that
Upon arraignment, Torralba pleaded not guilty. He then filed a motion for
sound recording is not inadmissible because of its form where a proper foundation
consolidation for all the criminal cases filed by Atty. Hontanosas (private
has been laid to guarantee the genuineness of the recording. The requisites for the
complainant) against him (total of 4 cases, including the one in the info above),
same to be admissible are: a showing that: (1) recorder was capable of taking the
the evidence for both parties being substantially the same.
testimony, (2) operator was competent (3) authenticity and correctness of
recording, (4) changes, additions, or deletions were not made (5) a showing of
During the trial, witnesses Segundo Lim, Atty. Hontanosas, and Gabriel
manner of the preservation of the recording (6) identification of the speakers and
Sarmiento were presented.
(7) that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of
inducement. The prosecution here failed to have Shirly authenticate the recording,
Lim testified that:
compelling the court to conclude that there was no basis for the trial court to admit
- he was an incorporator of Tagbilaran Maritime Services, Inc.
the same in evidence. The disallowance, and the holes in the testimonies of Atty.
(TMSI), and that Torralba formerly sought sponsorship of the
Hontanosas and Lim, made the Court rule that the guilt of Torralba had not been
company for his radio program (Tug-Ani and Lungsod).
proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus his acquittal.
- The sponsorship was approved but later on withdrawn as they
observed that Torralba was persistently attacking the Toledos
Facts: -- one is an official of the BIR, and the other, a customs collector
-- fearing that the Toledos might think TMSI was behind the
This case involves a libel complaint against petitioner Torralba, which attacks.
information states: - that Torralba then targeted the management of TMSI and
accused the latter company of not following minimum wage
“That, on or about the 11th day of April, 1994, in the City of Tagbilaran, laws, later on inviting Atty. Hontanosas in the radio program to
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- explain the side of TMSI.
named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with - The day after Atty. Hontanosas went on air, Torralba resumed
deliberate and malicious intent of maligning, impeaching and discrediting the his assault against TMSI.
honesty, integrity, reputation, prestige and honor of late CFI Judge Agapito Y. - That because of the relentless badgering, Lim was
Hontanosas, who was during his [lifetime] a CFI Judge of Cebu and a man of prompted to tape record petitioner Torralba’s radio
good reputation and social standing in the community and for the purpose of broadcasts.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 44
 When Torralba was cross-examined, he denied calling former CFI Judge
Three of the tape recordings were introduced in evidence. Lim however Hontanosas a traitor, but admitted that when Atty. Hontanosas was his guest, he
admitted that he did not know how to operate the tape recorder, and that he asked the relationship between the two (CFI judge, and Atty.) He then averred
asked either his adopted daughter Shirly Lim, or his housemaid to record the that such question is a mere backgrounder.
radio program. Although he maintained that he was near the radio whenever
the recording took place, and had actually heard Torralba’s program while it The RTC acquitted Torralba for the other 3 cases, but convicted him for the libel
was being taped. case in the information stated above (the statements against the CFI Judge), the
same being affirmed by the CA.
An objection was raised by Torralba against the admission of the tape
recordings for lack of proper authentication by the person who actually Before the SC, Torralba argued that the trial court should not have given
made the recordings. The Trial Court however, provisionally admitted the considerable weight on the tape recording in question as it was not duly
tape recordings subject to the presentation by the prosecution of Shirly authenticated by Lim's adopted daughter, Shirly Lim. Without said
Lim for authentication. authentication, petitioner Torralba continues, the tape recording is incompetent
and inadmissible evidence.
Despite Torralba’s objection to the formal offer of these tape recordings,
the Trial Court eventually admitted them into evidence.
Issue/s: Whether Torralba’s conviction was proper, there being an erroneous
On the part of Atty. Hontanosas, he testified that he was at that time the admission in evidence of an unauthenticated and spurious tape record of a radio
chairman and manager of TMSI. And that Lim presented to him said tape broadcast – No
recordings.
- That in one of the tapes, Torralba mentioned how "he was now
[wary] to interview any one because he had a sad experience Ratio:
with someone who betrayed him and this 'someone' was like
his father who was a collaborator" The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Torralba.
- In another, it was alleged that Torralba averred that the
Hontanosas were traitors to the land of their birth; that Judge It is generally held that sound recording is not inadmissible because of its
Agapito Hontanosas and Castor Hontanosas were collaborators form where a proper foundation has been laid to guarantee the
during the Japanese occupation genuineness of the recording. In our jurisdiction, it is a rudimentary rule of
- And that after informing his siblings, they asked him to evidence that before a tape recording is admissible in evidence and given
institute a case against Torralba. probative value, the following requisites must first be established, to wit:

Cross-examination revealed that Atty. Hontanosas did not actually hear (1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony;
Torralba’s radio broadcasts and he merely relied on the tape recordings (2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent;
presented to him by Lim, believing them to be genuine. (3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording;
(4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made;
Sarmiento testified that he was the former court stenograpger who translated (5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording;
the contents of the tapa recordings. (6) identification of the speakers; and
(7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind
Torralba, as the sole witness for the defense, testified that: of inducement.
- He received complaints regarding TMSI’s low pay to the
laborers and exhorbitant rates for its arrastre services. And In one case, it was held that the testimony of the operator of the recording
that this is why he invited Atty. Hontanosas – for a balanced device as regards its operation, his method of operating it, the accuracy of the
programming. recordings, and the identities of the persons speaking laid a sufficient
foundation for the admission of the recordings.

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 45
Likewise, a witness' declaration that the sound recording represents a true by the court. Surely then, Lim could not present himself as an "uninterested
portrayal of the voices contained therein satisfies the requirement of witness" whose testimony merits significance from this Court.
authentication. The party seeking the introduction in evidence of a tape
recording bears the burden of going forth with sufficient evidence to show that Nor is this Court inclined to confer probative value on the testimony of private
the recording is an accurate reproduction of the conversation recorded. complainant Atty. Hontanosas particularly in the light of his declaration that he
did not listen to petitioner Torralba's radio show subject of this petition. He
These requisites were laid down precisely to address the criticism of simply relied on the tape recording handed over to him by Lim.
susceptibility to tampering of tape recordings. Thus, it was held that the
establishment of a proper foundation for the admission of a recording provided Time and again, the Court has faithfully observed and given effect to the
adequate assurance that proper safeguards were observed for the preservation constitutional presumption of innocence which can only be overcome by
of the recording and for its protection against tampering. contrary proof beyond reasonable doubt - - one which requires moral certainty,
a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who
In the case at bar, one can easily discern that the proper foundation for the are to act upon it. As we have so stated in the past'
admissibility of the tape recording was not adhered to. It bears stressing that 'Accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt, the
Lim categorically admitted in the witness stand that he was not familiar at all prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt
with the process of tape recording and that he had to instruct his adopted beyond reasonable doubt. To meet this standard, there is need for the most
daughter to record petitioner Torralba's radio broadcasts. careful scrutiny of the testimony of the State, both oral and documentary,
independently of whatever defense is offered by the accused. Only if the judge
Clearly, Shirly Lim, the person who actually recorded petitioner Torralba's below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime had
radio show, should have been presented by the prosecution in order to lay been committed precisely by the person on trial under such an exacting test
the proper foundation for the admission of the purported tape recording should the sentence be one of conviction. It is thus required that every
for said date. Without the requisite authentication, there was no basis for circumstance favoring innocence be duly taken into account. The proof against
the trial court to admit the tape recording in evidence. him must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be
permitted to sway judgment.
EFFECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE TAPE RECORDINGS
Confronted with what the State was able to present as evidence against
The records of this case are bereft of any proof that a witness saw petitioner Torralba, the Court was compelled to overturn the decision of the Court of
Torralba broadcast the alleged libelous remarks on 11 April 1994. Lim, Appeals due to insufficiency of evidence meriting a finding of guilt beyond
however, stated that while petitioner Torralba's radio program on that date was reasonable doubt.
being tape recorded by his adopted daughter, he was so near the radio that he
could even touch the same. Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision promulgated
on 22 May 2002 of the Court of Appeals, affirming the omnibus decision dated
In effect, Lim was implying that he was listening to "Tug-Ani ang Lungsod" at 24 August 2000 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Tagbilaran City, is hereby
that time. In our view, such bare assertion on the part of Lim, uncorroborated as REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Instead, a new one is entered ACQUITTING
it was by any other evidence, fails to meet the standard that a witness must be petitioner Cirse Francisco "Choy" Torralba of the crime of libel. The cash bond
able to "recognize the voice of the speaker." posted by said petitioner is ordered released to him subject to the usual
auditing and accounting procedures. No costs. SO ORDERED.
Being near the radio is one thing; actually listening to the radio broadcast and
recognizing the voice of the speaker is another. Indeed, a person may be in close
proximity to said device without necessarily listening to the contents of a radio
broadcast or to what a radio commentator is saying over the airwaves.

What further undermines the credibility of Lim's testimony is the fact that he
had an ax to grind against petitioner Torralba as he was previously accused by
the latter with the crime of libel and for which he was found guilty as charged
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 46
 16. Citibank NA vs. Teodoro ● The RTC dismissed the complaint based on lack of jurisdiction because
G.R. No. 150905| Sept. 23, 2003 | Panganiban, J. | Admissibility of Photocopies of the amount involved. It was transferred to the MTC.
Digest by: BRYAN GEORGE ● CITIBANK presented sales invoices and charge slips. The invoices were
mere photocopies but were still marked in evidence because it bears
Petitioners: CITIBANK, N.A. MASTERCARD,,
the signature of Teodoro.
Respondents: EFREN S. TEODORO
● The MTC ordered Teodoro to pay CITIBANK the amount of P24,388.36
plus interest and penalty fee. The RTC affirmed the decision in toto.
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine: Teodoro was the holder of a credit card issued by
● The CA reversed the decision of the MTC because of the insufficiency of
Citibank. His obligation reached the amount of P191,693. Despite demands, Teodor
the photocopies of the sales invoices to prove the actual amounts of the
refused to pay because such amount does not correspond to his actual obligation.
obligation incurred by Teodoro; CITIBANK was able to prove the
CITIBANK filed a collection suit. A part of the evidence presented were
existence of the original sales invoices, it failed to prove their due
photocopies of the sales invoices to prove the actual amounts of the obligation
execution or to account for their loss or unavailability.
incurred by Teodoro. The MTC and the RTC ruled in favor of CITIBANK, however,
the CA reversed the decision based on the inadmissibility of the photocopies of the
Issue/s: W/N the photocopies of the sales invoices or charge slips marked
invoices.
during trial as Exhibits F to F-4 are admissible in evidence? NO.
THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE SALES INVOICE ARE INADMISSIBLE. Original copies
are the best evidence to prove an alleged obligation. A party is allowed to adduce
Ratio:
secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original sales invoices, the
● The burden of proof rests upon CITIBANK to establish its case based on
offeror must prove the following: (1) the existence or due execution of the
preponderance of evidence. It is well-settled that in civil cases, the
original; (2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its
party that alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.
nonproduction in court; and (3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad
● CITIBANK failed to prove Teodoro’s obligation reached the principal
faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed. The correct
amount of P24,388.36, because the photocopies of the original sales
order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents. Although
invoices it had presented in court were inadmissible in evidence.
the original sales invoices was established, CITIBANK failed to prove the the
Moreover, had they been admissible, they would still have had little
originals had been lost or could not be produced after the exercise of reasonable
probative value.
diligence. It was established that there are three original copies, however,
● The original copies of the sales invoices are the best evidence to prove
CITIBANK failed to show that all three original copies were unavailable, and that
the alleged obligation. Photocopies thereof are mere secondary
due diligence had been exercised in the search for them.
evidence. As such, they are inadmissible because petitioner, as the
offeror, failed to prove any of the exceptions provided under the Rules
Facts: as well as the conditions of their admissibility.
● CITIBANK operates a credit card system, by extending credit ● Section 5 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that party is
accommodations for its cardholders, which are later on paid by the allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the
cardholder upon receipt of the statement of account. original sales invoices, the offeror must prove the following: (1) the
● Teodoro was a credit card holder. The terms and conditions thereof existence or due execution of the original; (2) the loss and destruction
provides that the cardholder undertakes to pay all the purchase made of the original or the reason for its nonproduction in court; and (3) on
using the card within the period indicated in the statement of account or the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the
within 30 day from the date of its use. Otherwise, it shall earn interest at unavailability of the original can be attributed. The correct order of
3.5% per month plus a penalty fee of 5% of the amount due every proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss, and contents. At the
month. sound discretion of the court, this order may be changed if necessary.
● Teodoro made several purchases with the use of his credit card and ● In the present case, the existence of the original sales invoices was
was correspondingly billed therefor. established by the photocopies and the testimony of Hernandez.
● He made partial payments, however, his obligation reached P191,693. Petitioner, however, failed to prove that the originals had been lost or
Despite demands, he did not pay arguing that the amount does not could not be produced in court after reasonable diligence and good
correspond to his actual obligation. Hence, a complaint for collection of faith in searching for them.
sum of money was filed before the Makati RTC.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 47
 ● In this case, CITIBANK failed to exercise reasonable diligence search of
other original copies of the sales invoice were in the possession of
Equitable, but it failed to follow up on its request
● When more than one original copy exists, it must appear that all of
them have been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court before
secondary evidence can be given of any one. A photocopy may not be
used without accounting for the other originals.
● In this case, there were three copies: (1) With CITIBANK; (2) With the
Merchant; and (3) With Teodoro. CITIBANK failed to show that all three
original copies were unavailable, and that due diligence had been
exercised in the search for them.

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner. SO

ORDERED.

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 48
 17. Republic vs. Marcos-Manotoc alleged ill-gotten wealth was Civil Case No. 0002 - the subject case of
G.R. No.171701 | February 08, 2012 | J. Sereno | Rule 130 this petition.
Digest by: MEDEL ● Petitioner set forth the following causes of action in its Complaint:
breach of public trust (illegally acquired P200B), abuse of right and
Petitioners: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
power, unjust enrichment, accounting (required to show to the
Respondents: MA. IMELDA "IMEE" R. MARCOS-MANOTOC, FERDINAND
satisfaction of this Honorable Court that they have lawfully acquired all
"BONGBONG" R. MARCOS, JR., GREGORIO MA. ARANETA III, IRENE R. MARCOS-
such funds, assets and property which are in excess of their legal net
ARANETA, YEUNG CHUN FAN, YEUNG CHUN HO, YEUNG CHUN KAM, and
income), and damages.
PANTRANCO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEA)-PTGWO
● Petitioner presented and formally offered its evidence. However, the
defendants objected to the offer primarily on the ground that the
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine: The PCGG, in pursuant of its mandate, filed a case
documents violated the best evidence rule of the Rules of Court
to recover the Marcoses alleged ill-gotten wealth which amounted to P200B. When
since: documents were unauthenticated and petitioner had not
petitioner formally offered its evidence, defendants argued that the evidence
provided any reason for its failure to present the originals.
violated the best evidence rule since these documents were not authenticated
● The Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution admitting all the documentary
(mere photocopies) nor were there any reason provided by the petition as for its
evidence of the prosecution, and stated that its evidentiary value shall
failure to present the originals. The defendants filed their respective demurrers to
be left to the determination of the Court.
evidence. The evidence in issue in this case are exhibits: P, Q, R, S, and T. The SC
○ In turn, the defendants and the union filed their respective
held that these documents were considered hearsay since its originals were not
demurrers to evidence. All demurrers were granted
presented in court, nor were they authenticated by the persons who executed
except that of Imelda’s.
them.
● The Sandiganbayan denied Imelda’s demurrer primarily because she
had categorically admitted that she and her husband owned properties
Exhibit Q: TSN of the proceedings before the PCGG - mere photocopy
enumerated in the Complaint, while stating that these properties had
Exhibit P, R, T: photocopies of affidavits of persons who did not testify before the
been lawfully acquired.
court
○ The court held that the evidence presented by petitioner
Exhibit S: letter - private document
constituted a prima facie case against her since the value of the
properties involved was grossly disproportionate to the
The Rules provide that when the original document is in the custody of a public
Marcos spouses’ lawful income.
officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified
○ Thus, this admission and the fact that Imelda R. Marcos was the
copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. However, these documents
compulsory heir and administratrix of the Marcos estate were
were not authenticated by the persons who executed them. Moreover, basic is the
the primary reasons why the court held that she was
rule that, while affidavits may be considered as public documents if they are
responsible for accounting for the funds and properties alleged
acknowledged before a notary public, these affidavits are still classified as hearsay
to be ill-gotten.
evidence.
● Secondly, the court pointed out that Rolando Gapud, whose deposition
was taken in Hong Kong, referred to her as one directly involved in
Facts: amassing ill-gotten wealth.
● After the EDSA People Power Revolution in 1986, the first executive act ● With regard to the siblings Imee Marcos-Manotoc and Bongbong
of then President Corazon C. Aquino was to create the Presidential Marcos, Jr., the court noted that their involvement in the alleged illegal
Commission on Good Government (PCGG). activities was never established. In fact, they were never mentioned by
● The Commission was mainly charged with the task of assisting the any of the witnesses presented nor in any of the documentary evidence
President in the recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former offered
President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, ● Exhibits "P," "Q," "R," "S," and "T," were considered hearsay,
subordinates and close associates. because their originals were not presented in court, nor were they
● Numerous civil and criminal cases were subsequently filed. One of the authenticated by the persons who executed them. Furthermore,
civil cases filed before the Sandiganbayan to recover the Marcoses’ the court pointed out that petitioner failed to provide any valid
reason why it did not present the originals in court.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 49
 ○ These exhibits were supposed to show the interests of Imee ○ The first ground judges have gone upon in departing from
Marcos-Manotok in the media networks IBC-13, BBC-2 and strict rules, is an absolute strict necessity. Secondly, a
RPN-9, all three of which she had allegedly acquired illegally. presumed necessity.
These exhibits also sought to prove her alleged participation in ○ In the case of writings, subscribed by witnesses, if all are dead,
dollar salting through De Soleil Apparel. the proof of one of their hands is sufficient to establish the
● Finally, the court held that the relationship of respondents to the deed: where an original is lost, a copy may be admitted; if no
Marcos spouses was not enough reason to hold the former liable. copy, then a proof by witnesses who have heard the deed, and
● In the matter of the spouses Irene Marcos and Gregorio Araneta III, the yet it is a thing the law abhors to admit the memory of man for
court similarly held that there was no testimonial or documentary evidence
evidence that supported petitioner’s allegations against the couple. ● In this case, Petitioner did not even attempt to provide a plausible
Again, petitioner failed to present the original documents that reason why the originals were not presented, or any compelling
supposedly supported the allegations against them. Instead, it merely ground why the court should admit these documents as secondary
presented photocopies of documents that sought to prove how the evidence absent the testimony of the witnesses who had executed
Marcoses used the Potencianos as dummies in acquiring and operating them.
the bus company Pantranco. ● Petitioner cannot insist that the photocopies of the documents fall
under Sec. 7 of Rule 130, which states: “When the original of a
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner was able to observe the best evidence rule? document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public
NO. office, its contents may be proved be a certified copy issued by the
public officer in custody thereof.”
Ratio: ○ SECTION 19. Classes of documents:
1. EXHIBIT Q: TSN OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PCGG ■ Public documents are:
2. EXHIBIT P, R, T: AFFIDAVIT OF PERSONS WHO DID NOT TESTIFY ● The written official acts, or records of the
BEFORE THE COURT official acts of the sovereign authority, official
3. EXHIBIT S: LETTER bodies and tribunals, and public officers,
whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign
● It is petitioner’s burden to prove the allegations in its Complaint. For country
relief to be granted, the operative act on how and in what manner the ● Documents acknowledged before a notary
Marcos siblings participated in and/or benefitted from the acts of the public except last wills and testaments; and
Marcos couple must be clearly shown through a preponderance of ● Public records, kept in the Philippines, of
evidence. private documents required by law to be
● Should petitioner fail to discharge this burden, the Court is constrained entered therein.
and is left with no choice but to uphold the Demurrer to Evidence filed ■ All other writings are private.
by respondents. ○ SECTION 20. Proof of private document.
● The photocopied documents are in violation Rule 130, Sec. 3 of the ■ Before any private document offered as authentic is
Rules of Court, otherwise known as the best evidence rule, which received in evidence, its due execution and
mandates that the evidence must be the original document itself. authenticity must be proved either:
● The origin of the best evidence rule can be found and traced to as early ● By anyone who saw the document executed or
as the 18th century in Omychund v. Barker: written; or
○ The judges and sages of the law have laid it down that there is ● By evidence of the genuineness of the
but one general rule of evidence, the best that the nature of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
case will admit. ■ Any other private document need only be identified as
○ The rule is, that if the writings have subscribing witnesses to that which it is claimed to be
them, they must be proved by those witnesses. ● The mere fact that these documents were collected by the PCGG in
the course of its investigations does not make them per se public
records
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 50
● Petitioner presented as witness its records officer, Magno. Magno recorded in a public office, its contents may be
testified that these public and private documents had been gathered by proved by a certified copy issued by the public
and taken into the custody of the PCGG in the course of the officer in custody thereof.
Commission’s investigation of the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the ■ Exhibit "Q" was not a certified copy and it was not
Marcoses. even signed by the stenographer who supposedly
○ The SC held that Magno was not a credible witness who could took down the proceedings.
testify as to their contents. ● The rest of the above-mentioned exhibits cannot likewise be excepted.
○ Witnesses can testify only to those facts which are of their The Rule provides that ‘when the original documents has been lost or
personal knowledge; that is, those derived from their own destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its
perception. execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad
○ Thus, Magno could only testify as to how she obtained custody faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its
of these documents, but not as to the contents of the contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses
documents themselves in the order stated.’
● Neither did petitioner present as witnesses the affiants of these ○ Thus, in order that secondary evidence may be admissible,
Affidavits or Memoranda submitted to the court. there must be proof by satisfactory evidence of (1) due
○ Basic is the rule that, while affidavits may be considered as execution of the original; (2) loss, destruction or unavailability
public documents if they are acknowledged before a of all such originals and (3) reasonable diligence and good faith
notary public, these Affidavits are still classified as in the search for or attempt to produce the original.
hearsay evidence. ○ None of these requirements were complied with by the
○ The reason for this rule is that they are not generally plaintiff. Similar to exhibit ‘Q’, exhibits ‘P’, ‘R’, ‘S’, and ‘T’ were
prepared by the affiant, but by another one who uses his all photocopies. ‘P’, ‘R’, and ‘T’ were affidavits of persons who
or her own language in writing the affiant's statements, did not testify before the Court. Exhibit ‘S’ is a letter which is
parts of which may thus be either omitted or clearly a private document.
misunderstood by the one writing them. ○ Not only does it not fall within the exceptions of Section 3, it is
○ Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of the also a mere photocopy.
opportunity to cross-examine the affiants. ○ As We previously emphasized, even if originals of these
○ Hence, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, affidavits were presented, they would still be considered
unless the affiants themselves are placed on the witness hearsay evidence if the affiants do not testify and identify
stand to testify thereon. them
● As to the copy of the TSN of the proceedings before the PCGG, while it ● Thus, absent any convincing evidence to hold otherwise, it follows that
may be considered as a public document since it was taken in the petitioner failed to prove that the Marcos siblings and Gregorio Araneta
course of the PCGG’s exercise of its mandate, it was not attested to by III collaborated with former President Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos
the legal custodian to be a correct copy of the original. and participated in the first couple’s alleged accumulation of ill-gotten
● The SC merely adopted the findings of the Sandiganbayan: wealth insofar as the specific allegations herein were concerned.
○ When ‘the original document is a public record in the
custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office,’ Dispositive: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is PARTIALLY
presentation of the original thereof is excepted. However, GRANTED. The assailed Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 6 December 2005 is
as earlier observed, all except one of the exhibits AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. For the reasons stated herein, respondents
introduced by the plaintiff were not necessarily public Imelda Marcos-Manotoc, Irene Marcos-Araneta, and Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr.
documents. shall be maintained as defendants in Civil Case No. 0002 pending before the
■ Exhibit Q as a TSN of the proceedings before the PCGG, Sandiganbayan.
may be a public document, but what was presented by
the plaintiff was a mere photocopy.
■ The Rules provide that when the original
document is in the custody of a public officer or is
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 51
 18. People vs. Andan within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
G.R. No. 116437 | March 3, 1997 | Ponente | Admissibility of Confession named accused, with lewd design, by means of violence and
Digest by: NAGUIAT intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge of one Marianne Guevarra y
Reyes against her will and without her consent; and the above-
Petitioners: The People of the Philippines named accused in order to suppress evidence against him and
Respondents: Pablito Andan Y Hernandez @ Bobby (accused –appellant) delay (sic) the identity of the victim, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill the said
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine: Marianne Guevarra y Reyes, attack, assault and hit said victim
Andan was accused of the crime of rape with homicide. He allegedly raped and with concrete hollow blocks in her face and in different parts of
killed Marianne, 20 years old nursing student. Initially, Andan denied the her body, thereby inflicting upon her mortal wounds which
accusation against him. He said that it was his neighbors Larin and Dizon who directly caused her death.
killed Marianne and he merely acted as a lookout. Andan showed to the police ○ Marianne, twenty years old and a second-year student at the
where the two bags of Marianne was hidden. When the mayor went to the police Fatima School of Nursing, left her home at about 4pm in
office, Andan requested to talk with the mayor privately.The mayor met with him Concepcion Subdivision, Baliuag, Bulacan for her school
in the office of the chief of pollce, he admits to the mayor. The mayor opened the dormitory in Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
door of the room to let the public and media representatives witness the ○ She was walking along the subdivision when Andan (appellant)
confession. The mayor first asked for a lawyer to assist appellant but since no invited her inside his house. He said that the blood pressure of
lawyer was available he ordered the proceedings photographed and videotaped. In his wife's grandmother should be taken. Marianne agreed; she
the presence of the mayor, the police, representatives of the media and appellant's did not know that nobody was inside the house.
own wife and son, appellant confessed his guilt. After that, he was placed behind ○ Andan punched her in the abdomen, brought her to the kitchen
bars. So while behind bars, a TV reporter approaches him, and interviews him, and and raped her. Night came and Andan pulled Marianne, who
he admits again his liability. was still unconscious, to their backyard. The yard had a pigpen
o So you see there would have been several ADMISSIONS, all of which were not bordered on one side by a six-foot high concrete fence. On the
attended with custodial rights: other side was a vacant lot. Andan stood on a bench beside the
(1) In the POLICE STATION before the police officers: this is the only one which is pigpen and then lifted and draped the girl's body over the
INADMISSIBLE in evidence, because it is only here where the investigation was fence to transfer it to the vacant lot. When the girl moved, he
actually conducted by the police, who were authorized to restrain his liberty. hit her head with a piece of concrete block. He heard her moan
(2) To the mayor: ADMISSIBLE. Concededly, the mayor has the authority to and hit her again on the face. After silence reigned, he pulled
investigate; he has the authority to restrain liberty. But in this case, he was not in her body to the other side of the fence, dragged it towards a
the exercise of that authority, for which reason, that admission, res gestae.T he shallow portion of the lot and abandoned it.At 11:00 A.M. of the
confession was VOLUNTARY, SPONTANEOUS, and therefore, res gestae. following day, the body of Marianne was discovered. She was
(3)Statements made to several media, different times. - ADMISSIBLE naked from the chest down with her brassiere and T-shirt
The statements he made with the reporter were clearly VOLUNTARY, pulled toward her neck.
SPONTANEOUS, and therefore, res gestae.
● On February 24, A police team brought Andan to the Police
DOCTRINE:Confessions made to a mayor as a confidante and not as a law headquarters. Initially, Andan denied any knowledge of Marianne's
enforcement officer are admissible. death. However, when the police confronted him with the concrete
block, the victim's clothes and the bloodstains found in the pigpen, he
Facts: relented and said that his neighbors, Larin and Dizon, killed Marianne
● Andan y Hernandez was accused of the crime of rape with homicide and that he was merely a lookout. He also said that he knew where
committed as follows: Larin and Dizon hid the two bags of Marianne.
○ That on or about the 19th day of February 1994, in the ● Immediately, the police took appellant to his house. Larin and Dizon,
municipality of Baliuag, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and were likewise brought there by the police. Appellant went to an old
toilet at the back of the house, leaned over a flower pot and retrieved
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 52
 from a canal under the pot, two bags which were later identified as by the police to go to the old toilet at the back of the house and
belonging to Marianne. Thereafter, photographs were taken of Andan get two bags from under the flower pot. Fearing for his life,
and the two other suspects holding the bags. appellant did as he was told.
● The following day (Feb 25), Mayor Trinidad visited Andan at the police ● The trial court convicted appellant and sentenced him to death
office. Andan approached the mayor and requested for a private talk. pursuant to Republic Act No. 7659.
They went inside a room and he confessed that he alone committed the ● This case is before us on automatic review in accordance with Section
crime. He pleaded for forgiveness. 22 of Republic Act No. 7659 amendingArticle 47 of the Revised Penal
● The mayor opened the door of the room to let the public and media Code.
representatives witness the confession. The mayor first asked for a
lawyer to assist appellant but since no lawyer was available he ordered Issue/s:
the proceedings photographed and videotaped. ● WoN the confession made to the police investigators is admissible as
● In the presence of the mayor, the police, representatives of the media evidence? - NO
and appellant's own wife and son, appellant confessed his guilt. He ● WON the confession made to the reporter is admissible?- YES
disclosed how he killed Marianne and volunteered to show them the
place where he hid her bags. He asked for forgiveness from Larin and Ratio:
Dizon whom he falsely implicated saying he did it because of ill-feelings Confession to Police and Bags of AAA Inadmissible
against them. He also said that the devil entered his mind because of ● When the police arrested Andan, they were no longer engaged in a
the pornographic magazines and tabloid he read almost everyday. general inquiry about the death of Marianne. Indeed, appellant was
After his confession, appellant hugged his wife and son and asked the already a prime suspect even before the police found him at his
mayor to help him. His confession was captured on videotape and parents' house. This is clear from the testimony of SPO4 Danilo S.
covered by the media nationwide. Bugay, the police chief investigator of the crime.
● Appellant was detained at the police headquarters. The next two days, ● Andan was already under custodial investigation when he confessed to
February 26 and 27, more newspaper, radio and television reporters the police. It is admitted that the police failed to inform Andan of his
came. Appellant was again interviewed and he affirmed his confession constitutional rights when he was investigated and interrogated. His
to the mayor and reenacted the crime. confession is therefore inadmissible in evidence. So too were the two
● On arraignment, however, appellant entered a plea of "not guilty." bags recovered from Andan's house.
○ He testified that in the afternoon of February 19, 1994 he was ● The victim's bags were the fruits of Andan’s uncounselled confession to
at his parent's house in Barangay Tangos attending the the police. They are tainted evidence, hence also inadmissible.The
birthday party of his nephew. He, his wife and son went home police detained Andan after his initial confession.
after 5:00 P.M. His wife cooked dinner while he watched their
one-year old son. They all slept at 8:00 P.M. and woke up the
next day at 6:00 in the morning. His wife went to Manila to Confession to mayor and media reporters admissible
collect some debts while he and his son went to his parents' ● The following day, Mayor Trinidad visited Andan. Andan approached
house where he helped his father cement the floor of the the mayor and requested for a private talk. They went inside a room
house. His wife joined them in the afternoon and they stayed and he confessed that he alone committed the crime. He pleaded for
there until February 24, 1994 when he was picked up by the forgiveness. Mayor Trinidad testified.
police. ● Under these circumstances, it cannot be successfully claimed that
○ Appellant was brought by the police to a hotel at Bagong Andan's confession before the mayor is inadmissible. It is true that
Nayon, Baliuag. In one of the rooms, the policemen covered his ● a municipal mayor has "operational supervision and control" over the
face with a bedsheet and kicked him repeatedly. They coerced local police and may arguably be deemed a law enforcement officer for
him to confess that he raped and killed Marianne. When he purposes of applying Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the
refused, they pushed his head into a toilet bowl and injected Constitution. However, Andan’'s confession to the mayor was not made
something into his buttocks. Weakened, appellant confessed to in response to any interrogation by the latter. In fact, the mayor did not
the crime. Thereafter, appellant was taken to his house where question Andan at all. No police authority ordered him to talk to the
he saw two of his neighbors, Larin and Dizon. He was ordered mayor. Andan spontaneously, freely and voluntarily sought the mayor
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 53
 for a private meeting. The mayor did not know that Andan was going to appellant Pablito Andan y Hernandez is found guilty of the special complex
confess his guilt to him. When Andan talked with the mayor as a crime of rape with homicide under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659
confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his uncounselled amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to the penalty
confession to him did not violate his constitutional rights. Thus, it has of death, with two (2) members of the Court, however, voting to impose
been held that the constitutional procedures on custodial investigation reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant is also ordered to indemnify the heirs of
do not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through the victim, Marianne Guevarra, the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for her
questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner death and P71,000.00 as actual damages.
whereby appellant orally admitted having committed the crime. What In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659 amending Article 83 of
the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let the records of this case
facts or confessions. The rights under Section 12 are guaranteed to be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the
preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state as would lead the pardoning power.
accused to admit something false, not to prevent him from freely and
voluntarily telling the truth. Hence, we hold that appellant's confession
to the mayor was correctly admitted by the trial court.
● Andan's confessions to the media were likewise properly admitted. The
confessions were made in response to questions by news reporters, not
by the police or any other investigating officer. We have held that
statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a
televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in
evidence.
● The records show that Alex Marcelino, a television reporter for "Eye to
Eye" on Channel 7, interviewed Andan on February 27, 1994. The
interview was recorded on video and showed that he made his
confession willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of his wife,
child and other relatives. Orlan Mauricio, a reporter for "Tell the
People" on Channel 9 also interviewed Andan on February 25, 1994.
● Clearly, Andan's confessions to the news reporters were given free
from any undue influence from the police authorities. The news
reporters acted as news reporters when they interviewed him They
were not acting under the direction and control of the police. They
were there to check Andan’s confession to the mayor. They did not
force him to grant them an interview and reenact the commission of
the crime. In fact, they asked his permission before interviewing him.
They interviewed him on separate days not once did he protest his
innocence. Instead, he repeatedly confessed his guilt to them. He even
supplied all the details in the commission of the crime, and consented
to its reenactment. All his confessions to the news reporters were
witnessed by his family and other relatives. There was no coercive
atmosphere in the interview of Andan by the news reporters.
●

Dispositive:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15,
Malolos, Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 1109-M-94 is affirmed and accused-
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 54
 19. People vs. Buntag ● Appellants were charged with murder.
G.R. No.123070 | April 14, 2004 | CALLEJO, SR., J | Admission by third party ● On Feb 9, 1992, in Paglao, Bohol the two accused attacked, assaulted,
Digest by: NAVAL and stabbed the victim (Berno Georg Otte, a German National) on the
chest with the use of a bladed instrument (hunting knife), causing the
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
victim’s immediate death.
Respondents: CASIANO BUNTAG, ALIAS “CIANO” AND DIEGO BONGO
● Prosecution: Berno Otte was a tourist who checked in the Alona Ville
Beach Resort in Bohol and was assigned by Hotel Manager Clarabal
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine:
Bonga to Room 9. After Otte took his dinner in the hotel’s restaurant,
Berno Georg Otte was a German tourist who checked in Room 9 of the Alona Ville
Bonga talked to him about the disco which was about to unfold that
Beach Resort in Panglao Bohol. After having dinner in the hotel’s restaurant, he
night. At about 10pm, Bonga went to the disco party where she saw
decided to go to a disco party. Mihangos and Guigue was also at the same disco
Otte seated in one of the tables.
party Otte was at. While on their way home, they saw a man lying on the road at
○ Mihangos and Guigue were also at the disco. At around 2am,
the crossing near Alona Beach. After passing by the man, they met up with their
they decided to call it a night and went home, with their
barriomates, the accused Buntag and Bongo. Buntag and Bongo simultaneously
respective bicycles. At the crossing to Alona Beach, they saw a
lunged at Mihangos and Guigue, causing the two to run for their lives and flee to
man lying on the road but they didn’t recognize him. They
their uncle’s house. The police station then received a call about a man, believed to
walked past the man, and when they were about 25 meters
be dead at the crossroad near Alona beach. Mihangos and Guigue were asked to
away, they met up with their Accused-barriomates Buntag and
narrate what they saw, and soon after Bongo and Buntag were called to be
Bongo. Buntag and Bongo simultaneously lunged at them.
investigated at the police station. Bongo, without the assistance of counsel,
Afraid of their lives, they left their bicycles and fled to their
admitted that he took the key to Room 9 and implicated Buntag. Buntag then, with
uncle’s home. They just went back to take their bikes but the
the assistance of counsel, executed a Sworn Statement, also implicating Bongo.
accused weren’t there anymore.
Bongo then filed his counter-affidavit where he confirmed some portions of
○ At 5:30 am, the police station in Bohol received a report by
Buntag’s account. The trial court found both guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The
radio call about a man, believed to be dead, lying at the side of
issue is W/N the admission of one accused in binding on the other accused? The
the crossroad near Alona Beach. The police and the Municipal
general rule is that the extrajudicial confession or admission of one accused is
Health Officer confirmed that the man died due to a stab
admissible only against the said accused but is inadmissible against the other
wound. In the course of the investigation, Mihangos and Guigue
accused. However, if the declarant/admitter repeats in court his extrajudicial
were asked to narrate how they found the body at around 2am
confession during trial and the other accused is accorded the opportunity to
and their encounter with Bongo and Buntag.
cross-examine the admitter, such confession or admission is admissible
○ PO1 Hormachuelos took Bongo to the police station and
against both accused. The erstwhile extrajudicial confession or admission
investigated him without the assistance of counsel. Bongo
when repeated during the trial is transposed into judicial admissions. In this
admitted that he took Otte’s key to Room No. 9 and hid it
case, MCTC Judge Antonio Sarce testified on the said sworn statement and counter-
near their house. He then drew a sketch showing the place
affidavit and was cross-examined. Moreover, some of the extrajudicial inculpatory
where he hid the key, at the back of their house. Bongo
admissions of one appellant are identical with some of the extrajudicial inculpatory
also admitted that he was with appellant Casiano Buntag.
admissions of the other, and vice versa. This corroborates and confirms their
The policemen went to Bongo’s house and recovered the
veracity. Such admissions, made without collusion, are akin to interlocking
key to Otte’s room as indicated by Bongo in his sketch.
extrajudicial confessions. They are admissible as circumstantial evidence against
○ PO1 Hormachuelos then took custody of Buntag and
the other appellant implicated therein to show the probability of his participation
brought him to the police station, asking him of his
in the commission of the crime and as corroborative evidence against him
involvement in the killing of Otto without the assistance of
counsel. However, Buntag opted to keep silent. When
Doctrine: Extrajudicial Admissions or Confessions repeated during trial and the
apprised that Diego Bongo had implicated him, Buntag,
other accused is accorded the opportunity to cross-examine the admitter, such
this time with the assistance of his counsel, Atty. Nerio G.
admission or confession is transposed into a judicial admission or confession
Zamora, gave a statement on February 13, 1992 to a police
investigator.
Facts:
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 55
 ■ He stated that at 1:00 a. m. on February 9, 1992, he such admissions are not inadmissible against the latter
was walking back home from the disco place where he unless repeated in open court by appellant Buntag, thus,
caught up with Diego Bongo and Otte at the crossing of affording appellant Bongo the right to cross-examination.
Alona Beach. He saw Bongo poke a knife at Otte. Bongo Likewise, the admissions of appellant Bongo in his sworn
then ordered him to box Otte but he refused, and statement are inadmissible against appellant Buntag,
moved back about three meters. Bongo himself then unless the former repeated his admissions during the trial,
boxed Otte three times on the face. When Otte fell to affording the latter an opportunity to cross-examine the
the ground, Bongo stabbed him on the chest. Buntag said appellant. The appellants further aver that since they
also stated that he then ran back home, but Bongo opted not to testify on their respective statements, there
followed him and cautioned him not to reveal the was no opportunity for cross-examination. Consequently,
incident to anybody or else he would be implicated. the admissions made by one appellant in his sworn
Buntag subscribed and swore to the truth of his statement are hearsay evidence against the other
statement on February 21, 1992 before Judge Antonio appellant, and vice versa. In fine, the appellants contend
Sarce of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court. that the trial court should have acquitted them of the
○ Cause of Death (Autopsy): Cardiorespiratory arrest due to crime charged.
hemorrhage, secondary to stab wound, anterior chest, right.
○ On March 7, 1992, a criminal complaint for murder was filed Issue/s:
against appellants Bongo and Buntag with the Municipal ● W/N the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt? YES, but for
Circuit Trial Court. Attached to the records was Buntag’s sworn Homicide and not murder
statement dated February 21, 1992. Only appellant Bongo ● W/N the admission of one accused is binding on the other accused? YES
submitted his counter-affidavit on February 27, 1992,
subscribed and sworn to before Judge Antonio Sarce,
where he confirmed (a) Buntag’s account in his sworn Ratio:
statement before Judge Sarce that they were with Otte at Prosecution was able to adduce sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove
1:00 a. m. on February 9, 1992 at the crossing towards the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt
Alona Beach Resort, and (b) that he was armed with a ● Circumstantial evidence is sufficient on which to anchor a judgment of
hunting knife. He further stated therein that while at the conviction if the following requisites are established: (a) there is more
crossing, Buntag and Otte, who were both drunk, had an than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
altercation and that he tried to pacify them but in the derived have been established; and, (c) the combination of all the
process, Buntag pulled out his (Bongo’s) hunting knife circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond
from his waist and stabbed Otte with it. reasonable doubt.
○ RTC: both guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt ● In convicting the appellants of the crime charged, the trial court relied
■ RTC relied on the sworn statement of Buntag dated not only on the counter-affidavit of appellant Bongo and appellant
Feb 21, 1992 and Bongo’s counter-affidavit Buntag’s sworn statement, but also on the other evidence on record,
○ The appellants contend that the prosecution failed to adduce namely, the knife used in killing the victim, the key to Otte’s room, and
direct or circumstantial evidence to prove that they conspired the collective testimonies of the other witnesses of the prosecution.
to kill the victim, and that they, in fact, killed him. They argue
that although the prosecution adduced circumstantial evidence Admission of one accused is binding on the other accused
consisting of the extrajudicial sworn statement of appellant ● The general rule is that the extrajudicial confession or admission of one
Buntag and the counter-affidavit of appellant Bongo, such accused is admissible only against the said accused but is inadmissible
evidence is utterly insufficient to prove their guilt beyond against the other accused. The same rule applies if the extrajudicial
reasonable doubt. confession is made by one accused after the conspiracy has ceased.
○ Furthermore, according to the appellants, the admissions However, if the declarant/admitter repeats in court his
made by appellant Buntag in his sworn statement are extrajudicial confession during trial and the other accused is
binding on him only. Being prejudicial to appellant Bongo, accorded the opportunity to cross-examine the admitter, such
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 56
 confession or admission is admissible against both accused. The employed means, method or manner of execution affording the person
erstwhile extrajudicial confession or admission when repeated attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate and, (b) the
during the trial is transposed into judicial admissions means, method or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously
● In criminal cases, an admission is something less than a confession. It is adopted by the offender. In this case, there was no eyewitness to the
but a statement of facts by the accused, direct or implied, which do not crime.
directly involve an acknowledgment of his guilt or of his criminal intent ● On the other hand, appellant Buntag, in his sworn statement, claimed
to commit the offense with which he is bound, against his interests, of that before the victim was stabbed, appellant Bongo and the victim had
the evidence or truths charged. It is an acknowledgment of some facts an altercation; appellant Bongo, in his counter-affidavit, stated that it
or circumstances which, in itself, is insufficient to authorize a was appellant Buntag and the victim who had an altercation before the
conviction and which tends only to establish the ultimate facts of guilt. victim was killed. There is no evidence that the appellants deliberately
A confession, on the other hand, is an acknowledgment, in express or consciously adopted a method or means of execution to insure the
terms, of his guilt of the crime charged. death of the victim.
● In this case, appellant Buntag made extrajudicial admissions ● In fine then, the appellants are guilty only of homicide, punishable
against his interest in his sworn statement, and not a confession. under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code with reclusion temporal in
So did appellant Bongo in his counter-affidavit. Such admissions in its full range, which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
the form of affidavits, made in the Municipal Trial Court in the years. There being no modifying circumstance attendant to the crime,
course of its preliminary investigation, are high quality evidence. the maximum of the indeterminate penalty should be in its medium
MCTC Judge Antonio Sarce testified on the said sworn statement period.
and counter-affidavit and was cross-examined. Moreover, some of
the extrajudicial inculpatory admissions of one appellant are
identical with some of the extrajudicial inculpatory admissions of
the other, and vice versa. This corroborates and confirms their Dispositive: IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional
veracity. Such admissions, made without collusion, are akin to Trial Court of Tagbilaran City, Branch 3, in Criminal Case No. 7729 is AFFIRMED
interlocking extrajudicial confessions. They are admissible as WITH MODIFICATIONS. Appellants Casiano Buntag alias “Ciano” and Diego
circumstantial evidence against the other appellant implicated Bongo are found guilty, as principals, of homicide under Article 249 of the
therein to show the probability of his participation in the Revised Penal Code. There being no modifying circumstances attendant to the
commission of the crime and as corroborative evidence against crime, each of the appellants are sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty
him. The Court rejects the appellants’ contention that they were from ten (10) years of prision mayor, in its medium period, as minimum, to
deprived of their right to cross-examine the other on the latter’s sixteen (16) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its medium period,
admissions against the other. Through their common counsel, they as maximum. The award of moral damages is deleted. The said appellants are
opted not to testify and be cross-examined on their respective ordered to pay, jointly and severally, to the heirs of the victim Berno Georg Otte,
statements by the prosecution. They opted to file a motion to P50,000 as civil indemnity, conformably to current jurisprudence. 61 Costs de
acquit. Besides, they had opportunity to cross-examine Judge oficio.
Sarce before whom they swore to the truthfulness of their
statements. ςrνll

Guilty of Homicide not Murder:

● In this case, the Information alleged that treachery was attendant in the
commission of the crime. The prosecution was burdened to prove
beyond reasonable doubt, not only the crime itself, but also the
qualifying circumstance of alevosia. Treachery cannot be based on
speculations and surmises. In order that treachery may be appreciated
as a qualifying circumstance under Article 14 of the Revised Penal
Code, the prosecution is burdened to prove that (a) the malefactor
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 57
 20. People vs. Alegre
denied any involvement in such crime before the police authorities.
G.R. No.L-30423 | November 7,1979 | ANTONIO, J | Admissibility of E.J
Confession| Admission by Silence
Digest by: Aleezah Facts:
● This case arose from the death of Adelina Sajo y Maravilla (Adelia) ,
Petitioners: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Spinster, whose body was found in her bathroom inside her house in,
Respondents: RAMIRO ALEGRE y CERDONCILLO, MARIO COMAYAS y CUDILLAN,
Pasay City, in the early morning of July 26, 1966. According to the
MELECIO CUDILLAN y ARCILLAS, and JESUS MEDALLA y CUDILLAN
Necropsy Report, she died of asphyxia by manual strangulation.
● Her bedroom was in "shambles," evidently indicating that it was
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine:
ransacked. The drawers and several cabinets were open, and some
Adelina Sajo’s dead body was found in the bathroom of her house, her room were
personal garments, handbags and papers were scattered on the floor.
in shambles indicating that it was ransacked. Cudillan was later on apprehended
No witness saw the commission of the crime.
while in the act of pawning pieces of jewelry which belonged to Adelina, he
● Ramiro Alegre, who was then living on the ground floor of the victim's
admitted his participation in the killing and robbery of Adelina, through an extra-
house, was taken to the Pasay City police headquarters for investigation
judicial confession he implicated the other accused (Alegre, Conayas, Medalla). On
in connection with the case, but was later released that same day for
the basis of his extrajudicial confession, an information for Robbery with Homicide
lack of any evidence implicating him in the crime.
was filed against the other accused. The prosecution presented 9 witnesses
● Melecio Cudillan was later on apprehended in Tacloban City, in the act
however none of them testified with regard to the actual commission of the crime.
of pawning a bracelet, one of the pieces of jewelry taken from the
The only evidence presented to prove the guilt of the other accused are the
victim. In explaining how he came into possession of the stolen pieces
testimony of Sgt.Mariano and Hernando Carillo who testified that when he was
of jewelry, he admitted his participation in the killing and robbery of
investigating Cudillan, the latter pointed to the other accused as his companions in
Adelina. This appears in his extrajudicial confession before the police
the commission of the crime and the other accused just stared at him and said
authorities
nothing.
● Melecio Cudillan implicated a certain "Esok,Villalon, Calubian,Medalla,
The Trial Court said that had the appellants been innocent, they should have
of, Calubian,Cudillan, one "Danny" Fernandez, Cabucgayan, and one
protsted and shouldn’t have remained silent when they were implicated.
"Rammy.
The SC however ruled that the other accused should be acquitted. First as a general
● When brought to Metro Manila and while he was inside the Pasay City
rule, the extrajudicial declaration of an accused, although deliberately made, is not
police headquarters, Cudillan again executed an extrajudicial
admissible and does not have probative value against his co- accused. It is merely
confession.. This was sworn to before the Assistant City Fiscal .In this
hearsay evidence as far as the other accused are concerned. The only evidence,
second statement, he narrated in detail the participation in the
therefore, linking the appellants to the crime would be their purported tacit
commission of the crime of Jesus Medalla, "Celso" Fernandez, "Rami"
admissions and/or failure to deny their implications of the crime made by Cudillan,
and "Mario."
and/or their purported verbal confessions to Hernando Carillo, an inmate of the
● According to said statement, the declarant went near the cell within the
Pasay City jail.Secondly, the silence of an accused under custody, or his failure to
Office of the Investigation Section, Secret Service Division, and
deny statements by another implicating him in a crime, especially when such
Identified Ramiro Alegre, Jesus Medalla and Mario Comayas as the
accused is neither asked to comment or reply to such implications or accusations,
persons he referred to as Jesus Medalla, "Rami" and "Mario" in his
cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his participation in the commission of
declaration.
the crime. Such an inference of acquiescence drawn from his silence or failure to
● On the basis of the aforementioned extrajudicial confession of Melecio
deny the statement would appear incompatible with the right of an accused against
Cudillan, an Information for Robbery with Homicide was filed against
self-incrimination. The SC held , that in view of the inadmissibility of the
Celso Fernandez, alias "Esok," Jesus Medalla , Alegre, Comayas, Cudillan
extrajudicial confession of Melecio Cudillan implicating herein appellants, the
and one John Doe."
remaining evidence against them, consisting in the testimonies of Sgt. Mariano Isla
● When arraigned on Comayas, Cudillan, Medalla and Alegre entered a
and Hernando Carillo, is insufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction. Indeed,
plea of not guilty.
it is inherently improbable that herein appellants would have readily confessed
● The prosecution presented nine (9) witnesses. None of them, however,
their participation in the commission of a heinous crime to a casual acquaintance
testified on the actual commission of the crime.
in a prison detention cell, considering that on the same occasion they strongly
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 58
 ● The only evidence, presented by the prosecution to prove the guilt of Ratio for Issue 1
appellants are the testimonies of Sgt. Mariano Isla and Hernando ● The extrajudicial confessions of Melecio Cudillan (on the basis of which
Carillo. the trial court was able to reconstruct how Cudillan committed the
● The testimony of Sgt. Mariano Isla of the Pasay City police is to the crime in question, cannot be used as evidence and are not competent
effect that when he was investigating Melecio Cudillan, the latter proof against appellants Alegre and Medalla, under the principle of "res
pointed to Ramiro Alegre, Comayas and Medalla as his companions in inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet" there being no independent
the commission of the crime. According to him, said appellants "just evidence of conspiracy.
stared at him (Melecio Cudilla) and said nothing." ● As a general rule, the extrajudicial declaration of an accused, although
● Trial Court”: Had the appellants "really been innocent (they) deliberately made, is not admissible and does not have probative value
should have protested vigorously and not merely kept their against his co- accused. It is merely hearsay evidence as far as the other
silence." accused are concerned.
● Hernando Carillo, a detention prisoner in the Pasay City jail, declared ● The facts and circumstances attendant in the case at bar do not bring it
that the three (3) appellants admitted to him that they took part in the within the purview of exceptions.
robbery and homicide committed in the residence of the deceased. ● The only evidence, therefore, linking the appellants to the crime would
● However, during the trial, Cudillan repudiated both the Tacloban City be their purported tacit admissions and/or failure to deny their
and Pasay City sworn statements as the product of compulsion and implications of the crime made by Cudillan, and/or their purported
duress. He claimed that he was not assisted by counsel when he was verbal confessions to Hernando Carillo, an inmate of the Pasay City jail.
investigated by the police. Appellants Medalla and Comayas denied any
involvement in the crime. They testified that at the time of the incident Ratio for Issue 2
in question. they were attending the internment of the deceased child ● The settled rule is that the silence of an accused in criminal cases,
of Abobote. meaning his failure or refusal to testify, may not be taken as evidence
● According to Medalla, he and his companions left the Maravilla against him, and that he may refuse to answer an incriminating
compound at 10:00 o'clock in the morning to attend the internment. question
'They left the cemetery at about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon and ● The leading case of Miranda v. Arizona7 held that the prosecution may
proceeded directly to his house where he stayed the whole night. not use at trial the fact that an individual stood mute, or claimed his
● Mario Comayas confirmed that he and Jesus Medalla were at the house privilege against self-incrimination, in the face of an accusation made at
of Ciriaco Abobote until after 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon when he a police custodial interrogation.
returned to the bakery where he was employed to resume his work. ● We hold that the better rule is that the silence of an accused under
● Appellant Alegre did not testify but presented 3 witnesses to support custody, or his failure to deny statements by another implicating him in
his defense. Thus, U. Villanueva subcontractor for the construction of a crime, especially when such accused is neither asked to comment or
Sheraton Hotel, in which Alegre was also working on, identified the reply to such implications or accusations, cannot be considered as a
Time Record of Ramiro Alegre . R. Villanueva and R. Origenes testified tacit confession of his participation in the commission of the crime.
that from 7:00 o'clock in the morning up to 4:00 o'clock in the Such an inference of acquiescence drawn from his silence or failure to
afternoon of July 25, 1966, Alegre was at the Sheraton Hotel deny the statement would appear incompatible with the right of an
construction. Their testimony is confirmed by the Time Record of accused against self-incrimination.
Ramiro Alegre which contained the number of hours he actually ● The right or privilege of a person accused of a crime against self-
worked at the Sheraton Hotel construction project. incrimination is a fundamental right. It is a personal right of great
Issue/s: importance and is given absolutely and unequivocably. The privilege
● Whether an extrajudicial declaration of an accused is admissible and against self-incrimination is an important development in man's
does have probative value against his co- accused. struggle for liberty. It reflects man's fundamental values and his most
● whether or not the silence of appellants while under police custody, in noble of aspirations, the unwillingness of civilized men to subject those'
the face of statements of Melecio Cudillan implicating them as his suspected of crime to the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or
companions in the commission of the crime, could be considered as contempt; the fear that self-incriminating statements may be obtained
tacit admission on their part of their participation therein. by inhumane treatment and abuses, and the respect for the inviolability
Ratio:
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 59
 of the human personality and of the right of each individual "to a
private enclave where he may lead a private life."
● Therefore, the court may not extract from a defendant's own lips and
against his will an admission of his guilt. Nor may a court as much as
resort to compulsory disclosure, directly or indirectly, of facts usable
against him as a confession of the crime or the tendency of which is to
prove the commission of a crime. Because, it is his right to forego
testimony, to remain silent, unless he chooses to take the witness stand
— with undiluted, unfettered exercise of his own free, genuine will.
● This privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Constitution
protects, therefore, the right of a person to remain silent unless he
chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will, and to suffer
no penalty for such silence.
● Identifying the right of an accused to remain silent with right to
privacy, in the case of Pascual explained that the privilege against self-
incrimination "enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which
government may not force to surrender to its detriment."
● We hold, further, that in view of the inadmissibility of the extrajudicial
confession of Melecio Cudillan implicating herein appellants, the
remaining evidence against them, consisting in the testimonies of Sgt.
Mariano Isla and Hernando Carillo, is insufficient to sustain the
judgment of conviction. Indeed, it is inherently improbable that herein
appellants would have readily confessed their participation in the
commission of a heinous crime to a casual acquaintance in a prison
detention cell, considering that on the same occasion they strongly
denied any involvement in such crime before the police authorities.

Dispositive:,WHEREFORE, the judgement appealed from is reversed, and

appellants Ramiro Alegre y Cerdoncillo, Mario Comayas y Cudillan and Jesus
Medalla y Cudillan are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime with which they are
charged. Their immediate release from detention is ordered, unless they or any
one of them is otherwise held for some other lawful cause.

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 60
 21. People vs. Yip Wai Ming
This Court notes that Yip Wai Ming was a foreign national, a tourist charged with a
GR 120959 | November 14, 1996| Melo, J.| Rule 130 Sec. 33-Confessions
serious crime, finding himself in strange surroundings. In Hongkong he would have
Digest by: Lex Reinoso
known that he was being questioned, being investigated under the laws of that
Petitioners: People of the Philippines country. The degree of intimidation needed to coerce a person to confess to the
Respondents: Yip Wai Ming commission of a crime he did not commit would be much less if he is in a strange
land. Yip Wai Ming states that his lawyers told him not to file any charges against
Recit-ready Digest: This case involves the crime of murder. The couple Yip Wai the policemen. He followed their advice, obviously not wanting to get into more
Ming and Lam Po Chun were engaged to be married and came to Manila for a trouble.
vacation. Lam Po Chun was brutally beaten up and strangled to death in their hotel
room in Park Hotel, Manila City. On the day of the killing, Yip Wai Ming was touring The SC was correct in ruling that the extrajudicial confession of Yip Wai Ming is
Manila while the Lam Po Chun (victim) was left in the hotel room, because she inadmissible as evidence against him. As a rule, extrajudicial confessions made by a
allegedly was not feeling good. A criminal information was thus lodged against Yip person under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person
Wai Ming for the slaying of the victim. The RTC rendered a decision finding Yip Wai in the presence of his counsel or in the latter’s absence, upon a valid waiver, and in
Ming guilty of murder. There was no eyewitness to the actual killing of the victim, the presence of any of the parents, older brothers and sisters, his spouse, the
only circumstantial evidence. The evidence upon which the prosecution convinced municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or
the trial court of Yip Wai Ming’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt is the testimony of minister of the gospel chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall
Destresa, the occupant of the adjacent room where the couple stayed, that she be inadmissible in any proceeding. In this case, the accused was arrested without
heard a loud argument and struggle where there was supposedly a faint cry and any warrant and was even tortured until he admitted that he was the one who
then a thud. Prior to the death of the victim, her brother, Lam Chi Keung, learned killed his fiancée. Obviously, the requirements required by law regarding
that her life was insured, with Yip Wai Ming as the beneficiary. extrajudicial confessions were not met, thus making Yip Wai Ming’s confession
inadmissible as against him. If the proposed rules were to be applied, the same
Yip Wai Ming was arrested on July 13, 1993, two days after the killing. There was ruling will result since the provisions pertaining to confession and admissions
no warrant of arrest. Officer Yanquiling testified that there was no warrant and he remain unchanged.
arrested the accused.appellant based on "series of circumstantial evidence." He
had no personal knowledge of Yip Wai Ming having committed the crime. Yip Wai Doctrine: Any confession, including a re-enactment without admonition of the
Ming’s stated that five police officers at the police station beat him up. They asked right to silence and to counsel, and without counsel by the accused is inadmissible
him to undress, forced him to lie down on a bench, sat on his stomach, placed a as evidence (People v. Duero)
handkerchief over his face, and poured water and beer over his face. When he
could no longer bear the pain, he admitted the crime charged, participated in a
Facts:
re.enactment, and signed an extrajudicial statement. All the while, he was not
1. Yip Wai Ming and victim Lam Po Chun are both Hongkong nationals,
informed of his right to remain silent nor did he have counsel of his choice to assist
who came to Manila on vacation on July 10, 1993.
him in confessing the crime.
2. The two were engaged to be married.
3. Hardly a day had passed when Lam Po Chun was brutally beaten up
Issue: WoN the confession of Yip Wai Ming, made during custodial investigation, as
and strangled to death in their hotel room.
to his guilt of the crime of murder charged against him, is admissible in evidence?
4. On the day of the killing, July 11, 1993, Yip Wai Ming, was touring Metro
NO
Manila with Filipino welcomers while Lam Po Chun was left in the hotel
room allegedly because she had a headache and was not feeling well
The custodial interrogation of Yip Wai Ming’s was violative of Section 12, Article III
enough to do the sights.
of the Constitution. The Constitution provides that "(3) Any confession or
5. The Trial court rendered judgment convicting the accused Yip Wai
admission obtained in violation of this section or Section 17 hereof shall be
Ming beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder as charged in the
inadmissible against him." Section 17, Article III provides: "No person shall be
information and as defined in Article 248, paragraph 5 of the Revised
compelled to be a witness against himself." Thus, as stated in People v. Duero, any
Penal Code, and in accordance therewith the aggravating circumstance
confession, including a re.enactment without admonition of the right to silence and
of evident premeditation which attended the commission of the
to counsel, and without counsel chosen by the accused is inadmissible in evidence.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 61
 offense, the said accused Yip Wai Ming is hereby sentenced to suffer the ● WON the circumstantial evidence linking accused-appellant to the
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua killing is sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond
a. The prosecution convinced the trial court of accused- reasonable doubt.- NO.
appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt is summarized in ● WoN the confession of Yip Wai Ming, made during custodial
the Solicitor-General’s brief that contained the ff narration of investigation, as to his guilt of the crime of murder charged against him,
facts: is admissible in evidence? NO
b. On July 11, 1993, at around 9:15, the same Cariza Destresa
again heard a banging which sounds like somebody was Ratio:
thrown and stomped on the floor inside Room 210. Cariza, who 1. The SC said that the trial court, in arriving at its conclusions, took the
became curious, went near the wall dividing her room and various facts presented by the prosecution, tied them up together like
Room 210. She heard a cry of a woman as if she cannot breathe parts of a jig-saw puzzle, and came up with a complete picture of
c. Gwen delos Santos, together with two lady companions, circumstantial evidence depicting not only the commission of the crime
arrived at the lobby of the Park Hotel. The receptionist itself but also the motive behind it.
informed appellant by telephone of her arrival. In response, 2. Our review of the record, however, discloses that certain key elements,
appellant came down without his fiancee Lam Po Chun without which the picture of the crime would be faulty and unsound,
d. Before leaving, he gave instruction to the front desk are not based on reliable evidence. They appear to be mere surmises
receptionist not to disturb his fiancee at Room 210. He also and assumptions rather than hard facts or well-grounded conclusions.
ordered not to accept any telephone calls, no room cleaning 3. A key element in the web of circumstantial evidence is motive which
and no room service the prosecution tried to establish.
e. the front desk receptionist, Enriqueta Patria, noticed him to be a. Accused-appellant and Lam Po Chun were engaged to be married.
in a hurry, perspiring and looking very scared They had toured China and Macao together. They were living
f. When appellant arrived at 11 o’clock p.m. on that day, he asked together in one apartment. They were registered with the
the receptionist for the key of his room. Then together with Hongkong Marriage Registry in May 1993. Marriage date was set
Fortunato Villa, the roomboy, proceeded to Room 210. When for August 29, 1993. This date was only a month and a half away
the lock was opened and the door was pushed, Lam Po Chun from the date of death of Lam Po Chun. In the absence of direct
was found dead lying face down on the bed covered with a evidence indubitably showing that accused-appellant was the
blanket. Appellant removed the blanket and pretended to perpetrator of the killing, motive becomes important.
exclaim ‘My God, she is dead’ but did not even embrace his b. The theory developed by the prosecution was not only of a cold-
fiancee. Instead, appellant asked the room boy to go down the blooded crime but a well-planned one, including its timing up to
hotel to inform the front desk, the security guard and other the half hour. It is not the kind of crime that a man would commit
hotel employees to call the police against his wife-to-be unless a strong motive for it existed.
g. Dr. Manuel Lagonera, medico-legal officer of the WPD, 4. The trial court would have been justified in finding that there was
conducted an autopsy of the body of the victim. His evident premeditation of murder if the story is proved that Lam Po
examination (Exh. V) revealed that the cause of death was Chun insured herself for the amounts of US $498,750.00 and US
‘asphyxia by strangulation $249,375.00 naming accused-appellant as the beneficiary.
6. There was no eyewitness to the actual killing of Lam Po Chun. All the 5. There is, however, no evidence that the victim secured an insurance
evidence about the killing is circumstantial. policy for a big amount in US dollars and indicated accused-appellant as
7. Accused-appellant offers explanatory facts and argues that the findings the beneficiary.
of fact of the trial court are based mainly on the prosecution evidence a. The prosecution presented a mere xerox copy of a document
displaying bias against Accused-Appellant. He contends that the court captioned "Proposal for Life Insurance" as proof of the alleged
made unwarranted and unfounded conclusions on the basis of self- insurance. It is not a certified copy, nor was the original first
contradictory and conflicting evidence identified
b. The authenticity of the document has thus not been duly
Issue/s: established.

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 62
 c. Exhibit "X" was secured in Hongkong when Lam Chi Keung, the appellant and Lam Po Chun took breakfast together at the hotel
brother of the victim, learned that his sister was murdered in restaurant. She could not have been killed on July 10, 1993.
Manila. b. Where a medico-legal expert of the police department could not,
d. There is no signature indicating that the victim herself applied for with any measure of preciseness, fix the time of death, the police
the insurance. investigator was bold and daring enough to establish it.
e. There is a signature of Apple Lam which is most unusual for an c. Surprisingly, the trial court accepted this kind of evidence.
insurance application because the victim’s name is Lam Po Chun. d. SPO2 Alejandro Yanquiling testified that he arrived at the Park
To be sure nobody insures himself or herself under a nickname. Hotel at about 11 :25 o’clock on the evening of July 11, 1993 to
f. There is evidence in the record :that the family of Lam Po Chun conduct the investigation of the crime. At the time, the victim
did not like her relationship with Accused-Appellant. showed signs of rigor mortis, stiffening of the muscle joints, with
g. After all the trouble that her brother went through to gather liquid and blood oozing from the nose and mouth. On the basis of
evidence to pin down accused-appellant, the fact that all he could his observations, he declared that the victim had been dead for 10
come up with is an unsigned insurance application form shows to 12 hours.
there was no insurance money forthcoming for accused-appellant 8. Before a conviction can be had upon circumstantial evidence, the
if Lam Po Chun died circumstances should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to but
6. Another key factor which we believe was not satisfactorily established one fair and reasonable conclusion, which points to the accused. to the
is the time of death. This element is material because from 10 A.M. of exclusion of all others, as the guilty person (U.S. v. Villos, 6 Phil. 510
July 11, 1993 up to the time the body was discovered late that evening, [1906], People v. Subano, 73 Phil. 692 [1942]). Every hypothesis
Accused-appellant was in the company of Gwen delos Santos, her sister consistent with innocence must be excluded if guilt beyond reasonable
Monique, and their mother, touring Metro Manila and going from place doubt is based on circumstantial evidence (U.S. v. Cajayon, 2 Phil. 570
to place. This much is established. [1903]; U.S. v. Tan Chian, 17 Phil. 209 [1910]; U.S. v. Levente, 18 Phil.
a. To go around this problem of accused-appellant being away from 439 [1911]). All the evidence must be consistent with the hypothesis
the scene of the crime during the above mentioned hours, the that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the
prosecution introduced testimonial evidence as to the probable hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis
time of death, always placing it within the narrow 45-minute except that of guilt (People v. Andia, 2 SCRA 423 [1961]).
period between 9:15 and 10 A.M. of July 11, 1993, the time when 9. The tests as to the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to prove
Cariza Destresa, the occupant of the adjoining room, heard guilt beyond reasonable doubt have not been met in the case at bar.
banging sounds coming from the room of accused-appellant, and 10. The chain of circumstances is not unbroken. The most vital
the time accused-appellant left with his Filipino friends. circumstantial evidence in this case is that which proves that accused-
b. The prosecution alleges that at 10 A.M., Lam Po Chun was already appellant killed the victim so he could gain from the insurance
dead. However, Gwen delos Santos who never saw the couple proceeds on the life of the victim. Another vital circumstance is the time
before was categorical in declaring that she met both of them at of death precisely between 9:15 and 10 A.M. Both were not
the lobby before the group left for the tour (tsn, Feb. 14, 1994, p. satisfactorily established by the prosecution. Where the weakest link in
64; p. 20, RTC Decision; p. 150, Rollo), but Lam Po Chun asked to the chain of evidence is at the same time the most vital circumstance,
be excused because of a headache there can be no other alternative but to acquit the accused (People v.
7. prosecution introduced an expert in the person of Dr. Manuel Lagonera Magborang, 9 SCRA 108 [1963]).
to establish the probable time of death. Dr. Lagonera, medico-legal 11. Since the sentence of conviction is based on the crime having been
officer of the PNP Western Police District, after extensive questioning committed within a short time frame, Accused-appellant cannot be
on his qualifications as an expert witness, what he discovered as the convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence if doubts are
cause of death (strangulation), the contents of the deceased’s stomach, entertained as to where he was at that particular time and reasonable
injuries sustained, and the condition of the cadaver, was asked to conclusions can be had that other culprits could have entered the room
establish the time of death after accused-appellant left with the delos Santos family. Other people
a. Dr. Lagonera placed the probable time of death as July 10, 1993. It could have killed the victim
is undisputed that at around 8:30 A.M. of July 11, 1993 accused-

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 63
12. The trial court also relied heavily on the testimony of Cariza Destresa, a
19-year old cultural dancer occupying with her Australian boyfriend Dispositive: WHEREFORE, The decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED
Peter Humphrey, the adjoining Room 211. and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Yip Wai Ming is acquitted of the charge of
13. Accused-appellant was arrested on July 13, 1993, two days after the murder on grounds of reasonable doubt and his immediate release from
killing. There was no warrant of arrest. custody is ordered unless he is being held on other legal grounds.
a. Officer Yanquiling testified that there was no warrant and he
arrested the accused-appellant based on “series of circumstantial
evidence.”
b. He had no personal knowledge of Yip Wai Ming having committed
the crime. Accused-appellant stated that five police officers at the
police station beat him up.
c. They asked him to undress, forced him to lie down on a bench, sat
on his stomach, placed a handkerchief over his face, and poured
water and beer over his face. When he could no longer bear the
pain, he admitted the crime charged, participated in a re-
enactment, and signed an extrajudicial statement. All the while, he
was not informed of his right to remain silent nor did he have
counsel of his choice to assist him in confessing the crime.
14. The custodial interrogation of accused-appellant was violative of
Section 12, Article III of the Constitution. The Constitution provides
that" (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this
section or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible against him." Section
17, Article III provides: "No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself." Any confession, including a re-enactment without
admonition of the right to silence and to counsel, and without counsel
chosen by the accused is inadmissible in evidence (People v. Duero, 104
SCRA 379 [1981]).
15. This Court has carefully gone over the record of this case. We simply
cannot state that the circumstantial evidence is in its entirety credible
and unbroken and that the finding of guilt excludes any other
possibility that the accused-appellant may be innocent.
16. Most of the circumstantial evidence in this case came from the
investigation conducted by Officer Alejandro Yanquiling or from the
prodding by him of various witnesses. The desire of a police officer to
solve a high profile crime which could mean a promotion or additional
medals and commendations is admirable. However, an investigator
must pursue various leads and hypotheses instead of single-mindedly
pursuing one suspect and limiting his investigation to that one
possibility. Excluding various other probabilities. The killing of a tourist
is a blot on the peace and order situation in the Philippines and must be
solved. Still, concentrating on pinning down an alien companion of the
victim and not pursuing the possibilities that other persons could have
killed the victim for her money and valuables does not speak well of
our crime detection system. It is not enough to solve a crime. The truth
is more important and justice must be rendered.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 64
 22. People vs. Wong Chuen Ming
fact that all accused are foreign nationals does not preclude application of the
G.R. No. | Date | Ponente | Topic
Digest by: NAME "exclusionary rule" because the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of
Rights are given and extend to all persons, both aliens and citizens.
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: WONG CHUEN MING, AU WING CHEUNG et al.
Facts:
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine: ● Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung, both British (Hongkong)
Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung, both Hongkong nationals, together with 9 nationals, together with 9 other Malaysian nationals, were charged with
other Malaysian nationals, were charged with unlawfully transporting into the unlawfully transporting into the country Methamphetamine
country shabu. When they arrived at NAIA, their baggages were inspected. In the Hydrochloride or “shabu”.
● The prosecution alleged that:
course of the inspection, the customs examiner found boxes marked as Alpen
○ The eleven (11) accused arrived at the Ninoy Aquino
Cereals. As he became suspicious, he decided to open one of the boxes with his International Airport (NAIA).
cutter. Inside the box was a plastic bag containing white crystalline substance ○ Their respective passports showed that Wong Chuen Ming and
(shabu). The customs examiner bundled said boxes by putting masking tape Au Wing Cheung are the only British (Hongkong) nationals in
around them and handed them over to Duty Collector.Upon receipt of these the group while the rest are all Malaysian nationals
bundled boxes, Duty Collector called out the names of accused as listed in the ○ All accused arrived in Manila as a tour group arranged by
passengers' manifest and ordered them to sign on the masking tape placed on the Select Tours International Co., Ltd. Accused-appellant Au Wing
Cheung, an employee of Select Tours International Co., Ltd.
boxes allegedly recovered from their respective baggages. At Camp Crame, accused
acted as their tour guide.
were asked to identify their signatures on the boxes and after having identified ○ The customs examiner Danilo Gomez testified that he
them, they were again made to sign on the plastic bags containing white crystalline instructed the tour group to place their baggages on the
substance inside the boxes bearing their signatures. examiner's table for inspection.
○ In the course of the inspection, he found brown colored boxes.
Issue: W/N the signatures of accused on the boxes, as well as on the plastic bags The boxes were marked Alpen Cereals.
○ As he became suspicious, he decided to open one of the boxes
containing shabu are admissible in evidence - NO
with his cutter. Inside the box was a plastic bag containing
white crystalline substance.
Held: ○ Inside the collector's office, Gomez continued to examine the
A careful study of the records reveals that accused were never informed of their baggages of the other members of the tour group. He allegedly
fundamental rights during the entire time that they were under investigation. found that each baggage contained one (1), two (2) or three (3)
Specifically, accused were not informed of their Miranda rights when they were boxes similar to those previously found in the baggages of Chin
made to affix their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals while they were at the Kong Song, Wong Chuen Ming and Lim Nyuk Sun.
○ A total of thirty (30) boxes of Alpen Cereals containing white
NAIA and again, on the plastic bags when they were already taken in custody at
crystalline substance were allegedly recovered from the
Camp Crame. baggages of the eleven (11) accused.
○ As Gomez pulled out these boxes from their respective
By affixing their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals and on the plastic bags, baggages, he bundled said boxes by putting masking tape
accused in effect made a tacit admission of the crime charged for mere possession around them and handed them over to Duty Collector
of "shabu" is punished by law. These signatures of accused are tantamount to an Bonifacio.
uncounselled extra-judicial confession which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights. ○ Upon receipt of these bundled boxes, Bonifacio called out the
names of accused as listed in the passengers' manifest and
They are, therefore, inadmissible as evidence for any admission wrung from the
ordered them to sign on the masking tape placed on the boxes
accused in violation of their constitutional rights is inadmissible against them. The allegedly recovered from their respective baggages.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 65
 ○ Capt. Francisco testified that shortly after all boxes of Alpen admitted that he did not inform the accused of their rights when he
Cereals were recovered, he conducted a field test on a sample placed them under arrest. It is also not shown from the testimony of
of the white crystalline substance. His test showed that the Ayonon (forensic chemist) that accused were informed of their rights
substance was indeed "shabu." Capt. Francisco immediately
when they were again made to affix their signatures on the plastic bags.
informed the eleven (11) accused that they were under arrest.
○ At Camp Crame, accused were asked to identify their ● By affixing their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals and on the
signatures on the boxes and after having identified them, they plastic bags, accused in effect made a tacit admission of the crime
were again made to sign on the plastic bags containing white charged for mere possession of "shabu" is punished by law.
crystalline substance inside the boxes bearing their signatures. ● These signatures of accused are tantamount to an uncounselled extra-
● For the defense, accused-appellants denied that boxes of Alpen Cereals judicial confession which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights. They
were recovered from their baggages. They claimed that they affixed are, therefore, inadmissible as evidence for any admission wrung from
their signatures on the boxes only because they were threatened by
the accused in violation of their constitutional rights is inadmissible
police authorities who were present during the examination inside the
collector's office. against them.
● Accused- appellant Au Wing Cheung maintained that he was a bona de ● The fact that all accused are foreign nationals does not preclude
employee of Select Tours International Co., Ltd. and that he had no application of the "exclusionary rule" because the constitutional
prior knowledge that the tour group he was supposed to accompany to guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and extend to all
the Philippines brought boxes containing "shabu." persons, both aliens and citizens.
● Accused-appellant Wong Chuen Ming tried to dissociate himself from ● Without the signatures of accused on the boxes of Alpen Cereals and on
the other accused by testifying that he was not a part of their group. He
claimed that he was originally booked with another travel agency for a the transparent plastic bags, the prosecution is left with the testimonies
five-day Cebu tour. This Cebu tour was allegedly cancelled and accused- of its witnesses. Among the prosecution witnesses, only customs
appellant was subsequently transferred to and accommodated by examiner Danilo Gomez testified that all the seized baggages, including
Select Tours. those owned by accused-appellants Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing
● The trial court rendered judgment against the 11 accused. Cheung, contained a box or boxes of “shabu".
● However, Gomez' testimony inculpating accused-appellants was not
Issue/s:
corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. Customs collector
● W/N the signatures of accused on the boxes, as well as on the plastic
Bonifacio stated during cross-examination that she cannot recall if each
bags containing shabu are admissible in evidence - NO
and everyone of accused were found in possession of any box or boxes
Ratio: of Alpen Cereals. Capt. Francisco admitted that he was not sure
whether Gomez actually recovered boxes of "shabu" from accused-
● The Court holds that the signatures of accused on the boxes, as well as appellants' baggages. Hence, the presumption of regularity in the
on the plastic bags containing "shabu", are inadmissible in evidence. performance of duties accorded to Gomez cannot, by itself, prevail over
● A careful study of the records reveals that accused were never the constitutional right of accused-appellants to be presumed innocent.
informed of their fundamental rights during the entire time that they ● There are other circumstances that militate against the conviction of
were under investigation. Specifically, accused were not informed of accused- appellants:
their Miranda rights when they were made to affix their signatures on ○ First, accused-appellants are British (Hongkong) nationals
the boxes of Alpen Cereals while they were at the NAIA and again, on while all the other accused are Malaysians. It is difficult to
the plastic bags when they were already taken in custody at Camp imagine how accused-appellants could have conspired with the
Crame. other accused, who are total strangers, when they do not even
● Prosecution witness Danilo Gomez (customs examiner) admitted this speak the same language.
fatal lapse during cross- examination. Capt. Rustico Francisco also
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 66
 ○ Second, overwhelming evidence consisting of testimonies of
accused- appellant Au Wing Cheung's superiors was presented
to show that he was a bona de employee of Select Tours
International Co., Ltd.
○ Third, evidence showed that accused- appellant Wong Chuen
Ming was not originally part of the tour group arranged by
Select Tours but he was only accommodated by the latter at the
last minute when his package tour to Cebu was cancelled by
Wing Ann Travel Co.
○ Finally, as testified to by Capt. Francisco, both accused-
appellants adamantly refused to sign on the transparent plastic
bags containing "shabu"

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED

and another one entered ACQUITTING Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing Cheung
of the crime charged, based on reasonable doubt. Their immediate release is
hereby ORDERED unless they are detained for some other lawful cause. Costs de
oficio

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 67
 23. Parker vs. Randolph robbery, he did not clearly identify Randolph and Pickens as the other
G.R. No. | May 29, 1979 | REHNQUIST| Topic two.
Digest by: SAN DIEGO ● The State's case against Randolph et al. thus rested primarily on their
oral confessions, found by the trial court to have been freely and
Petitioners:
voluntarily given, which were admitted into evidence
Respondents: Randolph, Hamilton, and Pickens
● A written confession signed by Pickens was also admitted into evidence
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine:
over his objection that it had been obtained in violation of his rights.
● The trial court instructed the jury that each confession could be used
Several persons were convicted of “murder during the commission of robbery.” for
only against the defendant who gave it, and could not be considered as
killing Douglas during a gambling game. Robert Wood and Thomas took the stand
evidence of a co defendant's guilt.
during trial while Randolph, Hamilton, and Pickens (Respondents) did not.
● All of the defendants including Randolph, Hamilton, and Pickens
Randolph et al were assailing that their convictions violated their right to
were convicted even if Randolph, Hamilton, and Pickens did not
confrontation since the testimony of Thomas and Wood was used against them.
take the stand.
The SC disagreed.
● The Tennessee Supreme Court (TSC) affirmed the convictions. Since
each and every defendant either through words or actions
The present case deals with interlocking confessions. Even if introduction of
demonstrated his knowledge that killing may be necessary, the court
interlocking confessions at a joint trial does violate Bruton Doctrine, the error is all
held that Randolph et al's agreement to participate in the robbery
but automatically to be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The
rendered them liable under the Tennessee felony murder statute for
admission at the joint trial of Randolph et al's interlocking confessions did not
Douglas' death.
infringe their right of confrontation. There is no prejudicial impact upon an
● The TSC also held that the "interlocking inculpatory confessions" of
incriminated defendant when the defendant's own confession -- probably the most
Randolph, Pickens, and Hamilton, clearly demonstrated the
probative and damaging evidence that can be admitted against him -- is properly
involvement of each, as to crucial facts such as time, location, felonious
introduced at trial. The defendant is the most knowledgeable and unimpeachable
activity, and awareness of the overall plan or scheme.
source of information about his past conduct.
Issue/s:
Facts: ● Whether the defendant will be acquitted for violation of the right of
● William Douglas, a professional gambler, arrived in Memphis, calling confrontation when the defendant himself has confessed and his
himself Ray Blaylock and carrying a gun and a deck of cards. Douglas confession "interlocks" with and supports the confession of his co-
was shot and killed in an apartment during a gambling game. defendant. - NO
● After being apprehended, all of the defendants confessed to their crime.
● The defendants were convicted of murder committed during the Ratio:
commission of a robbery, and were sentenced to life imprisonment.
● Each defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. THE DOCTRINE IN BRUTON CASE
○ Robert Wood took the stand at trial, admitting that he had ● In Delli Paoli v. US, a non-testifying co-defendant's confession, which
killed Douglas, but claiming that the shooting was in self- incriminated another defendant who had NOT confessed, was admitted
defense. (R. Wood is not a respondent in this case) concluding that it was reasonably possible for the jury to follow the
○ Thomas described Douglas' method of cheating at cards and trial court's instruction to consider the confession only against the
admitted his complicity in the fraud on Robert Wood. He also declarant.
testified in substance that he was present in the room when Joe ● In Bruton v. US however, defendants Bruton and Evans were convicted
Wood produced the derringer and when Robert Wood shot and of armed postal robbery. Although Evans did not take the stand, a
killed Douglas. (Thomas is not a respondent in this case) postal inspector was allowed to testify that Evans had orally confessed
● Randolph, Hamilton, and Pickens (The Respondents) did not take the to having committed the robbery with Bruton. The trial judge
stand. instructed the jury that Evans' confession was competent evidence
● Thomas could not positively identify any of them, and although Robert against Evans, but was inadmissible hearsay against Bruton and
Wood named Hamilton as one of the three men involved in the staged therefore could not be considered in determining Bruton's guilt.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 68
 Otherwise, it would violate his right to confrontation. This is so because
despite the trial court's admittedly clear limiting instruction, the Dispositive: Against Randolph et al.
introduction of Evans' confession added substantial, perhaps even
critical, weight to the Government's case in a form not subject to cross-
examination.. *HOW THE MURDER HAPPENED:
● The unreliability of such evidence is intolerably compounded when the ● Woppy Gaddy, who was promised a cut of Douglas' take, arranged a
alleged accomplice, as here, does not testify, and cannot be tested by game of chance between Douglas and Robert Wood
cross-examination. It was against such threats to a fair trial that the ● Unwilling to trust the outcome of the contest entirely to luck or skill,
Confrontation Clause was directed. Douglas marked the cards, and, by game's end, Robert Wood and his
● In the Bruton Case, an introduction at a joint trial of a non testifying co money had been separated. A second encounter between the two men
defendant's confession had a "devastating" effect on the non confessing yielded similar results, and Wood grew suspicious of Douglas' good
defendant's case. Introduction of such incriminating extrajudicial fortune.
statements of a co defendant will seldom, if ever, have the same ● In order to determine whether and how Douglas was cheating, Wood
"devastating" consequences to a defendant who has himself confessed. brought to the third game an acquaintance named Tommy Thomas,
The constitutional right of cross-examination protected by Bruton has who had a reputation of being a "pretty good poker player."
far less practical value to a defendant who has confessed to the crime ● Unknown to Wood, however, Thomas' father and Douglas had been
than to one who has consistently maintained his innocence close friends; Thomas, predictably, threw in his lot with Douglas,
● In Bruton v. United States, this Court reversed the robbery conviction of purposefully lost some $1,000, and reported to Wood that the game
a defendant who had been implicated in the crime by his codefendant's was clean.
extrajudicial confession. Because the codefendant had not taken the ● Wood nonetheless left the third game convinced that he was being
stand at the joint trial, and thus could not be cross-examined, the Court cheated and intent on recouping his now considerable losses. He
held that admission of the codefendant's confession had deprived the explained the situation to his brother, Joe E. Wood, and the two men
defendant of his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth decided to relieve Douglas of his ill-gotten gains by staging a robbery of
Amendment. the upcoming fourth game.
● At this juncture, respondents Randolph, Pickens, and Hamilton entered
APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT CASE the picture.
● However, the Court clarified in subsequent cases that where the ● Douglas and Robert Wood sat down to the fourth and final contest on
properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming, and the the evening of July 6, 1970. (day of the murder)
prejudicial effect of the codefendant's admission so insignificant by ● Joe Wood and Thomas were present in the room as spectators.
comparison, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that introduction of ● During the course of the game, Douglas armed himself with a .38-
the admission at trial was harmless error. caliber pistol and an automatic shotgun; in response to this unexpected
● The present case deals with interlocking confessions, to which the development Joe Wood pulled a derringer pistol on Douglas and
Bruton rule does not apply especially when the defendant himself has Thomas, gave the gun to Robert Wood, and left to tell respondents to
confessed. move in on the game. Before respondents arrived, however, Douglas
● Even if introduction of interlocking confessions at a joint trial does reached for his pistol and was shot and killed by Robert Wood.
violate Bruton, the error is all but automatically to be deemed harmless Moments later, respondents and Joe Wood broke down the apartment
beyond a reasonable doubt. door, Robert Wood gathered up the cash left on the table, and the gang
● The admission at the joint trial of Randolph et al's interlocking of five fled into the night.
confessions did not infringe their right of confrontation. ● Respondents were subsequently apprehended by the police and
● There is no prejudicial impact upon an incriminated defendant when confessed to their involvement in the crime.
the defendant's own confession -- probably the most probative and
damaging evidence that can be admitted against him -- is properly
introduced at trial.
● The defendant is the most knowledgeable and unimpeachable source of
information about his past conduct.
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 69
 24. People vs. Green
In these circumstances, we conclude that defendant was not free from
G.R. No. | Date | Ponente | Topic
emotional impediments to an immediate response; hence, Clark's testimony
Digest by: SARMIENTO
was not admissible. Because the attributed admission could well have affected
Petitioners: People of the State of Colorado the outcome beyond a reasonable doubt, the error was prejudicial. The judgment
Respondent/Defendant: Winifred Mitchell Green is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial in conformity with the
procedures and conclusions contained herein
Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine: Winifred Green (defendant) attempted to kill
Frank Moore. The latter was found to have robbed defendant’s home and had
Facts:
fathered a child with Eunice Green (defendant’s wife) before defendant and wife
● Winifred Mitchell Green, appeals his conviction of conspiracy to commit
were married. Green was then convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and
first degree murder, attempt to commit first degree murder, and
attempted murder.
criminal solicitation.
During trial and in an in camera hearing, over defendant's objection, defendant's ● Frank Moore was seriously injured when he was shot several times
sister-in-law, Lela Mae Clark, testified respecting an incident which occurred outside a pool hall in Colorado Springs. Moore had robbed defendant's
several weeks after the shooting. She testified that Eunice ran into Clark's home home prior to the shooting, and had fathered a child with defendant's
barefoot and distraught and said that she had just been arguing with defendant wife, Eunice Green, before she and defendant were married. At the time
about his relationship another woman. Eunice laid down in Clark's bedroom and of the shooting, Eunice Green and the child resided with defendant.
that defendant arrived moments later and went into the bedroom; that she, Clark, ● · Testimonies during trial:
entered the bedroom while defendant's wife was yelling at defendant. Clark also ○ Clifford Muse gave testimony to the effect that defendant had
stated that as she entered the bedroom, defendant told her that his wife had a gun, hired James Mitchell to hurt or kill Moore.
and that defendant's wife raised a pillow and revealed a pistol to Clark before ○ Over defendant's objection, defendant's sister-in-law, Lela Mae
making the accusatory statement. Clark, testified respecting an incident which occurred several
weeks after the shooting.
In this case, Clark appeals his conviction by arguing that the trial court erroneously
● · During an in camera hearing, Clark testified that:
concluded that Clark’s testimony was admissible under the adoptive admission
○ Several weeks after the shooting defendant's wife ran into
exemption to the prohibition against hearsay. The issue in this case is whether the
Clark's home barefoot and distraught, said she had just been
defendant adopted or acquiesced in the statement, or in some manner indicated
arguing with defendant about defendant's relationship with
his or her belief in its truth. (NO)
another woman,
○ Eunice laid down in Clark's bedroom; that defendant arrived
An incriminating statement uttered by a third party in the presence of a defendant
moments later and went into the bedroom; that she, Clark,
is deemed not to be hearsay, and therefore admissible against the defendant, when
entered the bedroom while defendant's wife was yelling at
the evidence establishes that the defendant demonstrated his or her adoption of
defendant; that defendant's wife told defendant "she wasn't
the statement or belief in its truth. Underlying this "adoptive admission"
scared of him just. . . because he had Frank [Moore] shot"; and
exemption from normal hearsay concepts is the general assumption that it would
that defendant did not respond to that statement.
be reasonable to expect any person who hears a statement accusing him or her of
○ Clark also stated during a subsequent in camera hearing that as
misconduct to deny such statement. The assumption is a weak one, and evidence of
she entered the bedroom defendant told her that his wife had a
such statements must be scrutinized with special concern in criminal cases, where
gun, and that defendant's wife raised a pillow and revealed a
there are constitutional limits to the permissible inferences from a defendant's
pistol to Clark before making the accusatory statement.[1]
silence. Here, the only circumstance suggesting that defendant adopted the
● Defendant Green contends that the trial court erroneously concluded
incriminating statement of his wife was his failure to respond. His silence, at
that Clark's testimony was admissible under the adoptive admission
best a neutral factor, must be weighed against the uncontroverted facts that
exemption to the prohibition against hearsay. We agree.
he knew Eunice had a gun, that a heated domestic dispute over another
woman was in progress, and that Eunice had threatened him with violence ISSUE:
minutes before.

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 70
1. Whether or not the trial court erroneously concluded that Clark's admission could well have affected the outcome beyond a
testimony was admissible under the adoptive admission exemption to the reasonable doubt, the error was prejudicial.
prohibition against hearsay. (YES)
Dispositive:
2. whether the defendant adopted or acquiesced in the statement, or in
● Because the conviction must be reversed, it is unnecessary to treat the
some manner indicated his or her belief in its truth. (NO)
other issues raised on appeal.The judgment is reversed and the cause is
remanded for a new trial in conformity with the procedures and
RATIO conclusions contained herein.
1.
● An incriminating statement uttered by a third party in the presence of a
defendant is deemed not to be hearsay, and therefore admissible
against the defendant, when the evidence establishes that the
defendant demonstrated his or her adoption of the statement or belief
in its truth. Underlying this "adoptive admission" exemption from
normal hearsay concepts is the general assumption that it would be
reasonable to expect any person who hears a statement accusing him
or her of misconduct to deny such statement.
● The assumption is a weak one, and evidence of such statements must
be scrutinized with special concern in criminal cases, where there are
constitutional limits to the permissible inferences from a defendant's
silence.
● Indeed, there is authority in other jurisdictions for the principle that,
because of Fifth Amendment considerations, a defendant's total silence
when confronted with accusations of criminal conduct may never be
deemed an adoptive admission in subsequent criminal proceedings.
2.
● · The ultimate fact question is whether the defendant adopted or
acquiesced in the statement, or in some manner indicated his or her
belief in its truth. Before admitting any such statement into evidence a
trial court must determine preliminarily, normally by means of an in
camera hearing, that the party offering the statement can produce
evidence to support the factual conclusions that the defendant heard
and understood the statement, had knowledge of the contents thereof,
and was free from any emotional or physical impediment which would
inhibit an immediate response. The issue should then be submitted to
the jury under appropriate instructions.
● Here, the only circumstance suggesting that defendant adopted the
incriminating statement of his wife was his failure to respond. His
silence, at best a neutral factor, must be weighed against the
uncontroverted facts that he knew Eunice had a gun, that a heated
domestic dispute over another woman was in progress, and that
Eunice had threatened him with violence minutes before.
● In these circumstances, we conclude that defendant was not free
from emotional impediments to an immediate response; hence,
Clark's testimony was not admissible. Because the attributed
3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 71
 25. US vs. Kearney
G.R. No. | Date | Ponente | Topic
Digest by: NAME
Petitioners:
Respondents:

Recit-ready Digest + Doctrine:

Facts:
●

Issue/s:
● WoN (ISSUE) – YES/NO
● WoN (ISSUE) – YES/NO

Ratio:
Ratio for Issue 1
●

Ratio for Issue 2

●

Dispositive: WHEREFORE,

3D EVIDENCE DIGESTS 72