Evidence Week 1

Simeon B. Miguel, et. al vs. Florendo Catalino

November 29, 1968

Facts:
On January 22, 1962, appellants Simeon, Emilia, Marcelina Miguel and appellant Grace Ventura brought suit in
the court below against Florendo Catalino for the recovery of the land above-described claiming that they are children
and heirs of the original registered owner and averred that defendant, without their knowledge or consent, had
unlawfully taken possession of the land and unlawfully excluded the plaintiffs. Trial court dismissed the complaint and
declared the defendant to be the rightful owner and ordered the Registered of Deeds to issue a TCT in lieu of the
original. Hence, the direct appeal, assailing the trial court’s findings.
The land in dispute is situated in the Bario of San Pascual covered by the Original Certificate of Title No. 31 which
was issued in the name of Bacaquio. Plaintiff-appellant Ventura, is the only child of Bacaquio by his first wife and the
other appellants all surnamed Miguel are his children in his third wife. Bacquio, died in 1943 acquired the land when his
second wife died and sold it to Catalino Agpayao, father of the defendant Florendo Catalino for 300 in 1928. No formal
deed of sale was executed, or for more than 30 years, vendee Catalino Agpayao and his son, Florendo Catalino, had
been in possession of the land, in the concept of owner, paying taxes and introducing improvements.

Issue: Whether or not the evidence is admissible?

Ruling:
No. The exhibit is a decision in favor of the defendant against plaintiff Grace Ventura by the council of Barrio of
San Pascual, Tuba, Benguet, in its Administrative Case. 4, for the settlement of ownership and possession of the land.
The decision is ultra vires because barrio councils, which are not courts have no judicial powers. ( Sec. 1 Art. VII,
Constitution) Therefore, sa contented by the appellants, the exhibit is not admissible in a judicial proceeding as evidence
for ascertaining the truth respecting the fact of ownership and possession.
The appellants are correct in claiming that the sale of the land in 1928 by Bacaquio to Catalino Agpayao, is null
and void, for lack of executive approval. However, it is not the provision of the Public Land Act that nullify the
transaction, for the reason that there is no finding, and the contending parties have not shown, that the land titled in
the name of Bacaquio was acquired from public domain. The laws applicable to said sale are: Section. 145(b) of the
Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu, providing that no conveyance or encumberance of real property shall be
made by a non-christian inhabitant of the same unless other requirements, that it shall be indorsed upon approval of the
provincial governor or his representative. The same code provides that violation of section 145 makes every agreement
or contract null and void. Since, the 1928 sale is technically invalid, Bacquio remained, in law, the owner of the land and
until his death in 1943, when his title passed on, by the law on Succession, to his heirs, the plaintiffs-appellants.
Notwithstanding the errors mentioned in the appealed decision, judgment in favor of the defendant must be
sustained. For despite the invalidity of the sale to Catalino in favor of the defendant’s father, Bacaquio suffered the
latter to ente, possess and enjoy the land in question without protest, from 1928 to 1943, when the seller died, while
the appellants, In turn, while succeeding the deceased remained inactive without taking step to reinvindicate the lot
from 1944 to1962, when the present suit was commenced in court. Their passivity and inaction for 34 years justifies the
defendant in setting up the equitable defense of laches in his own behalf. As a result the action of the plaintiffs must be
considered barred. The courts cannot look with favor at parties who, by their silence, delay and inaction, knowingly
induce another to spend time, effort and expenses in cultivating the land, paying taxes and making improvements for 30
long years.
People vs Joel Sartagoda
April 7 1993

Fact:

In the evening of July 2, 1988 whole Rogelio, his two daughters and his sister Vilma de Belen were sleeping in
their houses at Calamba, Laguna when appellants broke and woke him, poking his knife at him, they tied his hands and
made him lie flat on his stomach and asked for the key to his cabinet. On the room were his sister Vilma. When
appellants saw her on the bed, they approached her, covered her mouth and threatened to kill her if she should make
an outcry. They raised her blouse, removed her underwear, tied her hands making it difficult for her to resist, accused
Jimmy Bascuna went on top of her and kissing her on different parts of her body, after Vicente took his turn then Joel.
After they successfully deflowered Vilma, they left, carrying with the money and other personal belongings of de Belen
Family.

After the three left, Rogelio called for his neighbor for help, his sister-in-law who lives next his house responded,
went to the house, untied Rogelio and saw Vilma with her upper body naked sobbing so she covered Vilma. They then
reported the incident to the Brgy. Captain. They had Vilma examined by Dr. Danilo A. Ramirez at Dr.Jose Rizal Memorial
Hospital of the same morning, conducted external and internal examinations. The external examination showed no
physical injuries except that he noted several abrasions at the genital area. The internal examination showed fresh
lacerations of the hymen.

RTC. Find accused Joel Sartagoda, Jimmy Bascona and Vicente Sta. Ana all guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-
principals of the crime robbery with rape.

Issue:

Whether or not the lower court erred in not declaring the evidence of the prosecution utterly failed to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

1. The accused-appellants fault the trial court of ignoring the fingerprint examination report submitted by the
Crime Laboratory of the PNP which stated that none of the specimen latent fingerprints were found to be
positive. They content that since their fingerprints were not found in the objects found in the scene of the
crime they cannot be held guilty of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
**the positive finding of matching fingerprints has great significance, however, the court cannot sustain
their theory that from the negative findings in the fingerprint examination that they could not have been at
the scene of the crime. Negative findings do not at all times lead to valid conclusions for there may be logical
explanation for the absence of identifiable latent prints other than their not being present at the scene of
the crime. Noting the interplay of many circumstances involved in the successful lifting and identification of
proper latent fingerprints in a particular crime scene, the absence of one does not immediately eliminate
the possibility that the accused appellants could have at the scene of the crime.

2. The accused contend that the police line-up had been irregularly conducted that they were not allowed to
select their positions in the line-up.
**These irregularities are of no significance at when considered in the light of the natural desire in the
victim to seek retribution not simple from anybody who may be put before her but from the same offenders
who actually did violence against her. No amount of coaching will be sufficient to counter the natural
outrage of rape victim against her abuser. The victim identified her assailants because of no other reason
 except to let people know who hurt her. Whether or not there was police line-up, the fact is that were
positively identified by at the trial. The complainant’s recognition of the accused-appellant as she had the
ample opportunity to see the faces of the men who ravished her. It is the most natural reaction of criminal
violence to strive to see the looks and faces of their assailants and observe the manner in which the crime
was committed. Most often the face of the assailant and body movements thereof, create a lasting
impression which cannot easily be erased for their memory.
3. The accused-appellants Vicente Sta. Ana and Jimmy Bascuna claimed the fact that they did not flee when
they had the opportunities to do so, prove their innocence.
**Although, it is settled that unexplained flight indicates guilt, it does, not necessarily follow that absence
thereof prove innocence, specially so when there is overwhelming evidence to establish their guilt.

4. The court finds no reversible error having been committed by the trial court in convicting the three accused
for crime of robbery with multiple rape under Article 294 par. 2 the RPC. There is need to stress anew that
the determination by the trial judge who could weigh and appraise the testimony as to the facts duly proved
is entitled to the highest respect, unless it could be shown that he ignored or disregarded circumstances of
weigh or influence sufficient to call for a different finding.
People vs. Moreno L. Tumimpad
August 19, 1994

Facts:
Constable Moreno L. Tumimpad and co-accused Constable Ruel Prieto were charged with the crime rape
committed against a 15 year old mongoloid child. Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime
charged. Trial ensued. Sara at the time the incident was 15 yrs old with a mind of a 5 yr old, daughter of Lt. Col. Teofisto
Salcedo and Pastora Salcedo. Col. Teofisto Salcedo was then Commander of Misamis Occidental. 4 security men were
assigned to him 2 of whom were the accused Prieto and accused appellant Tumimpad. The Salcedo family lived in a
headquarters inside the Camp in Oroquieta, the upper storey of the house was occupied by the Salcedo family while
lower storey had 2 rooms, one of which was occupied by the security men.
Sandra, complained of constipation. She was brought to a doctor, medication was given but her condition did not
improve. She became irritable and moody, sick, and unhappy. Mrs. Pastora being worried brought Sandra again to the
hospital but still remained moody and irritable. She did want to eat and whenever she did, she would vomit. She was
brought to a doctor for another check up, the examination physician ordered urinalysis and the result revealed that
Sandra was pregnant. On Jan. 11, 1990, Sandra gave birth to a baby boy named Jacob. Hence, the filling of the complaint
of Mrs. Pastora Salcedo.

During the investigation conducted by the CIS, about 30 pictures of different persons were showed and Sandra
was asked to pick the pictures of her assailants. She singled out pictures of Tumimpad and Prieto. She positively
identified her assailants in the police line-up conducted. Mrs. Salcedo testified that she requested her 2 daughters in
law Joy and Celsa to ask Sandra the identity of the persons who sexually molested her. Joy confirmed that she asked
Sandra who raped her, that Sandra demonstrated how she was raped. Celsa, testified that she was present when Sandra
demonstrated how she was sexually abused.

During the trial, the accused moved that a blood test both major grouping test and phenol blood typingbe
conducted on the offended party, her child and the 2 accused. The result showed that Jacob was type O blood, Sandra
type , accused Ruel Prieto type A and accused appellant type O. Both accused anchored their defense on mere denial
contending that it was impossible for them to have committed the crime. The trial court convicted Moreno tumimpad
and acquitted Ruel Prieto, on reasonable doubt stating that he was type A and the child was type O.

Accused argued of the impossibility of his commission of the crime since most the time he was Col. Salcedo on
inspection tours while the victim was always in the company of the mother. The court unconvinced, it is true that the
accused was usually in an inspection tours but sometimes they were left behind and would play pingpong or card games
with Sandra on the ground floor of the house as testified by Mrs. Salcedo.

The victim indentified Tumimpad more than once. First, during the investigation conducted by the CIS when 30
pictures were showed to her. Second, at the police line-up, where he was again pointed out by Sandra and his co-
accused. Third, in open court, when Sandra, without hesitation, pointed to the accused as the perpetrator.

Accused argued that his conviction was based on the medical finding that he and the victim have the same blood
type. However, this culpability was established mainly by testimonial evidence given by the victim herself and her
relatives. The blood test was adduced as evidence only to show that the alleged father or many others of the same
blood type may have been the father of the child. The accused’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Decision appealed, affirmed.

Teresita Salcedo Ortanez vs CA, Hon. Romeo F. Zamora and Rafael S. Ortanez
August 4, 1994

Facts:
Private Respondent Rafael S. Ortanez filed a complaint for annulment in the RTC of Quezon City with damages
against Teresita Ortanez. Among the evidence offered by Private Respondent were 3 cassette tapes of alleged telephone
conversations between petitioner and unidentified persons. Petitioner submitted her objection to private respondent’s
oral evidence, on the same day, the trial court admitted all of private respondent’s offered evidence. A motion for
reconsideration was filed but was denied. A petition for certiorari was then filed by petitioner in the CA assailing the
admission in evidence.
The CA rendered judgment dismissing the petition stating among others that: tape recordings are not
inadmissible per se. They and any other variant thereof can be admitted in evidence for certain purpose, depending on
how they are presented and offered and on how the judge utilizes them in the interest if truth and fairness and the even
handed administration of justice. And that, a petition for certiorari is notoriously inappropriate to rectify a supposed
error in admitting evidence adduced during trial. The ruling on admissibility is interlocutory; if it s erroneous, the ruling
should be question in the appeal on the merits and not through the special civil action of certiorari. It is correctible by
appeal not certiorari. Hence, the present petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the remedy of certiorari under Rule 75 of the Rules of Court was properly availed of by the
petitioner in the CA.

Ruling:
Yes. The assailed order admitting all of the evidence offered by the private respondent, including tape
recordings of telephone conversation of petitioner with unidentified persons. These tape recordings were obtained
when private respondent allowed his friends from the military to wire tap his home telephone. RA 4200 An Act to
Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and other Related Violations of the Privacy of Communication and for other
purposes expressly makes such tape recordings inadmissible in evidence. The respondent court failed to consider the
provisions of the Wiretapping law in admitting in evidence the cassette tapes in question. Absent clear showing that
both parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is
mandatory uner RA 4200.
Cecilia Zuluera vs CA and Alfredo Martin
Feb 20, 1996

Facts:
Petitioner Cecilia Zuluera is the wide of Private Respondent Alfredo Martin. Petitioner entered the clinic of her
husband, doctor of medicine, and in the presence of her mother, driver and private respondent’s secretary, forcibly
opened the drawers and cabinet in her husband clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private correspondence
between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, greetings cards, passport, check diaries. The documents and papers
were seized for use in evidence in a case for legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine which
petitioner had filed against her husband. Dr. Martin filed a case in the RTC of Manila for the recovery of the documents
and papers and damages. After trial, court rendered judgment in favor or Dr. Martin declaring him the exclusive owner
of the properties described in the complaint and ordering Cecilia Zulueta and any perdon acting in her behalf to
immediately return the properties of Dr. Martin and pay him damages accordingly. The writ of preliminary injunction
earlier issued was made final and petitioner and her attorneys were enjoined from using as evidence the documents and
papers question. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the documents and papers are admissible in evidence.
Ruling:
No. The constitutional injunction declaring the privacy of communication and correspondence to be inviolable is
no less applicable simple because it is the wife who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be
enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a lawful order from court or when public
safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The intimacies between wife and husband do not justify one of them in
breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A
person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional
protection is ever available to him or to her.
People vs. Godofredo B. Ador and Diosdado B. Ador III, appellants
June 14, 2004

Facts:
Diosdado Sr., Diosdado III, Godofredo, Rosalino and Allan, all surnamed, were charged with murder of Absalon
Abe S. Cuya III and Rodolfo Ompong Chavez that on or about March 10, 1997 of City of Naga, the accused, conspiring,
confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with treachery and the aid of armed men,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot the victim with firearms, inflicting upon him multiple and
mortal gunshot wounds which caused his death, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
In its effort to secure the conviction of the accused, the prosecution presented a total of 16 witnesses: Mercy
Beria, Larry Cado…. From the evidence of the prosecution, it appears that around 7:3), Mercy, Larry and some 11 while
walking heard several gunshots. They met Pablito Umali who told them that Ompong Chavez had been shot. They ran to
Chavez and saw him already lying on the ground, holding his intestines which were starting to come out. Beria asked
Chavez what happened and Chavez told her about the ambused by the Adors and requested that he be brought to the
hospital.
SPO1 Benjamin Barbosa, together with PO2 Diaz, immediately proceeded to the crime scene and conducted an
investigation. On the same evening upon learning that the Adors had a long standing grudge against the Cuyas, they
proceeded to sought the help of the Brgy. Captain to accompany them to the residence of the Adors. The following
morning accompanied by the Brgy. Captain the Adors, namely Diosdado Sr. Diosdado III, Godofredo, Rosallino, Allan and
Reynaldo to the Police Headquarters. They informed of their Constitutional rights and brought to the PNP crime
laboratory for the paraffin test. On the way home, Godofredo told the police escort that he had been entrusted with a
handgun which he kept in his residence. The information was relayed to Major Indian who ordered PO3 Agusto to
accompany him recovering the gun because Godofredo said he will only turn it over to PO3 Augusto. Godofredo
together with PO3 Nepumuceno, retrieved the gun under a fallen coconut trunk. It was then identified as .38 caliber
gun. Godofredo then told the police that he fired said gun outside his house. Major Indian indentified the gun as .38
caliber as well.
An autopsy report was conducted on the bodies of Cuya and Chavez and based on the reports Cuya sustained 5
gunshot wounds. Chavez on the other hand had 3 gunshot wounds and died from traumatic shock. 3 days after the
autopsy a slug was recovered from Cuyas’ head. His cadaver was opened to extract a deform 38 caliber. Police Inspector
Reynaldo Fulgar, Chief of the Firearm Identification of the PNP testified based on ballistic examination conducted that
the bullets submitted to his office and the .38 caliber slug recovered from Cuya’s head matched the 3 test bullets test-
fired from Godofredo. The Adors were all positive from the paraffin test conducted.
The 4 accused filed a demurrer to evidence for utter lack of evidence. Trial court dismissed the cases against
Diosdado Sr. Rosalino and Allan but denied demurrer against Godofredo. Trial insofar as Godofredo proceeded.
Godofredo, denied participation in the killings. He said that on March 10, 1997, at around 7:00 in the evening he heard
gunshots while he was having dinner with his wife and daughters. His wife advised him not to go out, he slept after
dinner. The following day, his longtime friend Dominador wanted to borrow money and on his way to see him, found a
gun by the footpath. He gave the gun to Godofredo and since it was his first time to hold a gun he tried it out and fired 3
times. Bautista corroborated Godofredo’s story.
The prosecution presented Pablo Calsis as witness against Diosdado Jr and Diosdado III. He testified that on the
evening of March 10, 1997, he dropped by the house of Cresencia Mendoza whom he called Lola Kising. On his way
home and while about to urinate he heard gunshots, he ducked at a nearby flower plantation, and as he was about to
stand up he saw Diosdado Jr., Diosdado III, Godofredo. He saw Chavez and Cuya lying on the road. Calsis run way from
fear that he might be identified.
Diosdado Jr. testified that he was working in Marikine on March 10, Diosdado III also took the witness stand and
testified that he was at their house watching tv. Trial court held that a chain of circumstances lead to sound and logical
conclusion that indeed the accused Diosdado and Godofredo committed the offense charged. Hence, this joint appeal
interposed by Diosdado III and Godofredo.

Issue:
Whether or not the the RTC erred in convicted the accused of murder based on circumstantial evidence.
Ruling:
No. The rules on evidence allow the courts to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. It
may be the basis of conviction so long as the combination of all the circumstances proven produces a logical conclusion
which suffices to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. All the circumstances must be consistent
with each other, consistent with the theory that all the accused are guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the
hypothesis that they are innocent and with every other possible, rational hypothesis except that of guilt. Accordingly,
the set of guidelines in appreciating circumstantial evidence. 1.) it should be acted upon with caution. 2.) all the essential
facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt. 3) the facts must exclude every theory but that of guilt. 4.) the
facts must establish such a certainty of guilt of the accused as to convince the judgment beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused is the one who committed the offense. Measured against these guidelines, the conviction cannot be upheld
of the accused based on circumstantial evidence.
The testimony of Calsis, if at all, could hardly be used against Diosdado III whom he miserably failed to indentify
during trial. Calsis was presented to positively indentify the assailants who were supposedly personally known to him
and were just 10 meters away from him. It puzzles the court why he cannot even identify the Adors in open court. While
it is true that the courts are not bound to accept or reject an entire testimony, and may believe one part and disbelieve
the other, the Constitution and the law mandate that all doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused. Calsis
committed an obvious blunder in indentifying the supposed assailants and created reasonable doubt if he indeed saw
the persons he allegedly saw or if he was even where he said he was that evening.
The second circumstance is the handgun. The prosecution failed to clear up the variance and for this court to
suggest an explanation would be to venture into a realm of pure speculation, conjecture and guesswork. Third
circumstance, the .38 caliber slug supposedly recovered from the head of the victim 3 days after the autopsy loses
evidentiary value as its source is now highly questionable. The only direct evidence introduced by the prosecution was
the testimony of Mercy. Thus, while dying declaration maybe admissible, It must identify with certainty the assailant.
Also, paraffin test cannot establish that the source of nitrates was the discharge of firearms.
The admission made by Godofredo to Major India and PO3 Nepumuceno including the gun in question cannot
be considered in evidence against him without violating his constitutional right counsel. Godofredo was already under
custodial investigation when he made his admissions and surrendered the gun. The rights of a person under custodial
investigation have already been attached to the Adors. Hence, admissions made without the assistance of counsel are
barred as evidence. The prosecution has failed to discharge its burden. Accordingly, we have to acquit.
Atienza vs Board of Medicine and Editha Sioson
February 9, 2011

Facts:
Due to her lumbar pains, private respondent Editha Sioson went to Rizal Medical Center for check up. Due to the
same problem, she was referred to Dr. Pedro Lantin III of RMC, who accordingly ordered several diagnostic lab tests. The
tests revealed that her right kidney is normal. It was found out that her left kidney is non-functioning and non-
visualizing. Thus she underwent kidney operation. Private respondents husband, Romeo Sioson filed a complaint for
gross negligence and incompetence before the Board of Medicine against doctors who participated in the operation one
of them is petitioner Rico Rommel Atienza. It was alleged that the incompetence committed by the doctors, including
the petitioners, consist of removal of private respondent’s fully functional right kidney, instead the left non-functioning
kidney. The complaint was heard by the BOM, after Romeo Sioson presented his evidence, private respondent Editha
Sioson, filed her formal offer of documentary evidence. Attached to her formal offer of documentary evidence for
purpose of proving that her kidneys were both in their proper anatomical locations at the time she was operated.
Petitioner filed his objections to private respondents formal offer of exhibits are incompetent to prove the
purpose for which they are offered. He alleged that said exhibits are inadmissible because the same are mere
photocopies, not properly indentified & authenticated, and intended to establish matters which are hearsay.
The formal offer was admitted by the BOM, petitioner moved for reconsideration, it was denied by the BOM. It
concluded that it should first admit the evidence being offered so that It can determine its probative value when it
decides the case. According to BOM, it can only determine evidence if relevant or not through process of admission.
Atienza, filed for certiorari with the CA, assailing the BOMs orders which admitted Editha formal offer of documentary
evidence. CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

Issues:
Substantive: w/n the CA committed grave and reversible error and decided question of substance not in
accordance with law and applicable decisions when it upheld the admission of incompetent and inadmissible evidence
by respondent which can result in the deprivation if his professional license a property right.
Ruling:

Petitioner argues that the exhibits formally offered in evidence by Editha

1. Violate the best evidence rule
2. Have not been properly indentified and authenticated
3. Are completely hearsay
4. Are incompetent to prove their purpose. Thus inadmissible
It is well settled that rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceeding before administrative bodies such as the
Board of Medicine. Although trial courts are enjoined to observe the strict enforcement of rules of evidence, in
connection with evidence which may appear to be doubtful relevancy, incompetency, or admissibility, it is safest policy
to be liberal, not rejecting them on doubtful technical grounds, but admitting them unless irrelevant, immaterial or
incompetent.

Petitioner insist that admission of Editha’s exhibits violated his substantive rights leading to the loss of his medical
license is misplaced. The admission did not prejudice the substantive rights of the petitioner because, at any rate, the
fact sought to be proved, that the two kidneys of Editha were in their proper anatomical locations at the time she was
operated. And in this case, the court take judicial notice that Editha’s kidney’s before, at the time of, her operation, as
with most human beings, were in their proper anatomical locations.
Lastly, contrary to the assertion of petitioner, the best evidence rule is inapplicable.
The subject inquiry of this case is whether the respondent doctors are liable for gross negligence in removing the
functioning kidneys of Editha, not the proper anatomical locations of the kidneys. Witness Dr. Nancy Aquino testified
that the records office of RMC no longer had the originals exhibits because It transferred to a new building. Thus, since
the origals cannot be produced, BOM properly admitted Edithas formal offer of evidence and thereafter the BOM shall
determine the probative value when it decides the case.

People vs. Jaime Carpo, Oscar Ibao, Warlito Ibao and Roche Ibao
April 4, 2001

Facts:
The accused impute error to the trial court for relying on the testimony of a single witness in convincing them of
multiple murder complexed with attempted murder for the death of Florentino Dulay, Norwela Dulay and Nissan Dulay
and wounding Noemi Dulay.
The challenged testimony of witness Ruber Meriales. On August 25, 1996 at about 8 in the evening while he was
watching television with his family his dog barked. His mother was that their cow might be stolen asked him to check the
disturbance. He stood, took a flashlight and went to the cow that was tied in a mango tree. The noise grew louder
arousing his suspicion that something was really wrong. After transferring his cow, he inside the kitchen, stood atop
concrete washbasin, hid and peeped outside. Few minutes he saw Bgry. Cap. Jaime Carpo with Warlito Ibao. He knew
Jaime and Warlito very well. They were all looking at the Francisco Dulay’s house. He also saw Oscar Ibao another son of
Warlito hurled something inside the hut. Seconds later the loud explosion shook the entire neighborhood and Teresita
Dulay’s scream broke the night. Ruben rushed towards Florentino’s hut, a bloodied Florentino cradled in the arms of his
weeping widow, and Norwela and Nissan lying side by side doused in blood. Ruben left, borrowed a jeepney. Florentino,
Norwela, Nissan and Noemi were brought to the hospital, only Noemi survived. Fearful that the culprit would return,
Ruben Meriales refused to give any statement but intimidated to Police Officer Osio that he would go to the Police
station after burial. Making good of his promise, he went and gave his statement. He named Jaime Carpo, Warlito Ibao,
Oscar Ibao and Roche Ibao as the perpetrators of the crime. On basis of Ruben’s testimony, a criminal complaint for
murder of Florentino Dulay his 2 daughters as well as frustrated murder of his daughter Noemi was filed against the
accused and warrant were issued.