EVIDENCE DIGESTS Justice Bernabe RULE 133 WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE 1. Ong v.

. Yap Cristina Yap and spouses Cesar and Ava Gordola were charged with the crime of Estafa. Tommy ng was a salesman in a drug company while Yap is the owner of the !a"esty #harmacy and was one of his customers. $hen ng opened his own pharmacy% he bought products from Yap and trust and confidence developed between the two. Yap mentioned to the ngs that she was investing some amount of money with #aramount &ending 'nvestors owned by the Gordola spouses. To convince the ngs% Yap brought them to her poultry business and told them that it was put up mainly from the profits of her investment with #aramount &ending. $hen the ngs sold their house% hey were allegedly persuaded by the proddings and assurances of Yap to invest the proceeds of the sale% in the amount of #(.) million% with #aramount &ending 'nvestors. ap told the ngs that she would as* Ava Gordola to pic* up the money at the ngs+ drugstore. $hen Ava Gordola pic*ed up the money% she issued the ngs two postdated chec*s% one for the principal and the other for the interest% which was her usual procedure. After the first transaction with the Gordolas% Yap allegedly convinced the ngs to obtain a loan in the amount of #,.million from !etroban* using their real property in Guadalupe as collateral. Tommy ng testified that they invested the #,.- million with #aramount &ending 'nvestors because% at that time% the interest Gordola was paying was -. per month against the ban*+s interest of only about ,/. per annum0 hence% they were convinced that they would ma*e a net profit of about three percent. $hen the ngs obtained a housing loan from 1nion Ban*% they again invested #233%333 of the partial release% allegedly upon the persuasion of Yap. 'nitially% the investment was profitable% however% when the chec*s started to bounce% the ngs re4uested Ava Gordola to replace the bounced chec*s while Yap dissuaded them from filing a case against the Gordolas since according to her 5only 6ilipinos go to court% but the Chinese don+t7. Twelve bounced chec*s later% the ngs finally filed a case against the Gordolas. Tommy ng testified that at the time of the filing of the first case against the Gordolas% they were made to believe that Yap had nothing to do with their loss of investment but upon tal*ing to different people% became convinced that it was the handiwor* of Yap which caused their loss. n cross8e9amination% Tommy ng testified that it was Yap who introduced them to the Gordolas but in the previous case that he filed against the Gordolas% he admitted that he met the Gordolas in separate occasions and were shown their big house and different businesses which made them decide to lend the Gordolas some money. Tommy ng also admitted that Yap did not issue them any chec* as guarantor and debtor in relation to their investment with #aramount &ending nor was there any evidence that Yap was a stoc*holder% officer or in any way connected with #aramount &ending. Yap filed a demurrer to evidence and the trial court resolved it in her favor through an ac4uittal due to insufficiency of evidence. The trial court held that the prosecution failed to prove that Yap conspired with the Gordolas in embe::ling the ngs. The ngs appealed to the CA but due to the fact that the dismissal already amounted to an ac4uittal in relation to the doctrine of double "eopardy% the CA only gave due course to the civil aspect of the case. The CA affirmed the trial court;s decision. ne of the ngs; arguments is the alleged error by the CA in applying proof beyond reasonable doubt as the applicable 4uantum of proof in determining Yap+s civil liability% instead of merely preponderance of evidence% implying that the Court of Appeals resolved the appeal in favor of Yap because it did not apply preponderance of evidence in determining her civil liability. <ule =(( >ection =% <ule =(( of the <ules of Court provides? SECTION 1. Prep n!eran"e # ev$!en"e% & ' !e(er)$ne!. * In "$v$+ "a,e,% (&e par(&av$ng (&e ./r!en # pr # )/,( e,(a.+$,& &$, "a,e .- a prep n!eran"e # ev$!en"e. In !e(er)$n$ng '&ere (&e prep n!eran"e r ,/per$ r 'e$g&( # ev$!en"e n (&e $,,/e, $nv +ve! +$e,% (&e " /r( )a- " n,$!er a++ (&e #a"(, an! "$r"/),(an"e, # (&e "a,e% (&e '$(ne,,e,0 )anner # (e,($#-$ng% (&e$r $n(e++$gen"e% (&e$r )ean, an! pp r(/n$(- # 1n '$ng @arl Aincent B. <aso B A&> C8,3=, #age = of ==

(&e #a"(, ( '&$"& (&e- are (e,($#-$ng% (&e na(/re # (&e #a"(, ( '&$"& (&e- (e,($#-% (&e pr .a.$+$(- r $)pr .a.$+$(- # (&e$r (e,($) n-% (&e$r $n(ere,( r 'an( # $n(ere,(% an! a+, (&e$r per, na+ "re!$.$+$(- , #ar a, (&e ,a)e )a- +eg$($)a(e+- appear /p n (&e (r$a+. T&e " /r( )a- a+, " n,$!er (&e n/).er # '$(ne,,e,% (& /g& (&e prep n!eran"e $, n ( ne"e,,ar$+- '$(& (&e grea(er n/).er. 2Prep n!eran"e # ev$!en"e2 $, (&e 'e$g&(% "re!$(% an! va+/e # (&e aggrega(e ev$!en"e n e$(&er ,$!e an! $, /,/a++- " n,$!ere! ( .e ,-n n-) /, '$(& (&e (er) 3grea(er 'e$g&( # (&e ev$!en"e2 r 2grea(er 'e$g&( # (&e "re!$.+e ev$!en"e. I( $, ev$!en"e '&$"& $, ) re " nv$n"$ng ( (&e " /r( a, ' r(&- # .e+$e# (&an (&a( '&$"& $, ##ere! $n pp ,$($ n (&ere( . The >upreme Court affirmed the trial court and the CA;s decision since Tommy ng+s claim that it was Cristina Yap who induced them to lend money to the spouses Gordolas is belied by his DTommy ng+sE own admission that he lent the money to the spouses Gordolas believing that% Fthey are o*ay% they were going well in their business% also% their house is 4uite big also and then we were shown the different businesses that they were. 'n addition% Tommy ng testified that they invested the #,.- million derived from their !etroban* loan with #aramount &ending 'nvestors because of the profit e9pected and that they reali:ed said profit in the beginning. Clearly% therefore% the ngs% based on their personal "udgment% were convinced that the Gordolas had the capacity to pay and that they would profit from the interest involved. 'n fact% Tommy ng admitted that they reali:ed profits in the beginning. @arl Aincent B. <aso 4. 5ave,( 6USA7 In". v. Sa)pag/$(a Gar)en(, C rp. !avest 1>A% a foreign corporation% along with its resident agent in the #hilippines% entered into a series of transactions with >ampaguita Garments Corporation% whereby the former would furnish from abroad raw materials to be manufactured by the latter into finished products% for shipment to !avest;s foreign buyers% >ears <oebuc* and JC #enney. Each transaction was embodied in a purchase order specifying the style and description% as well as the 4uantity% mode and date of delivery. The orders of >ears <oebuc* were duly paid% however% the JC #enney order% despite shipment and receipt by the said store% no payment was made. After several demand letters that left unheeded% >ampaguita Garments filed a complaint for collection of sum of money against !avest 1>A% !avest 'nternational Co.% &td.% and #atric* $ang% the former general manager of !avest;s !anila &iaison ffice. 'n it;s defense% !avest 1>A alleged that there is not such debt because of legal compensation due to damages and losses it incurred due to breaches committed in previous shipments to >ears <oebuc* such as iE failure to observe specifications and 4uantity re4uirements0 iiE delay in shipping out the garments0 iiiE over declaration of value in >tyle Go. (((3(0 ivE shortshipment of garments0 vE failure to return raw materials for the unshipped garments and that it was >ampaguita Garments who were in fact indebted. The trial court ruled in favor of >ampaguita Garments and held all of the defendants liable for the amount. n appeal to the CA% the appellate court modified the decision by only holding !avest 1>A liable while releasing !avest 'nternational and #atric* $ang from liability. ne of the arguments of !avest 1>A is that the CA erred in not giving probative value to their evidence in support of their claim for damages. >ection =% <ule =(= of the <ules of Court% assigns the burden of proof upon the party who alleges the truth of his claim or defense% or any fact in issue. And this% he must discharge by the amount of evidence re4uired by law. 'n civil cases% the burden of proof is on the defendant if he alleges% in his answer% an affirmative defense% which is not a denial of an essential ingredient in the plaintiff+s cause of action% but is one which% if established% will be a good% defense H i.e.% an FavoidanceF of the claim% which prima facie% the plaintiff already has because of the defendant+s own admissions in the pleadings. !avest 1>A+s defense in this case is doubtless affirmative in character. As it were% they did not deny owing >ampaguita Garments the amount of 1>I,2%,33.33. $hat they averred was that their obligation to pay was deemed e9tinguished because of legal compensation. They also maintained having incurred losses and damages due to >ampaguita Garments actions or inaction% as the case may be. Because these are allegations in !avest 1>A;s pleadings% the burden is on them to prove their averments by the 8/an(/) # pr # re8/$re! $n "$v$+ "a,e,% na)e+-% prep n!eran"e # ev$!en"e% $.e.% 2ev$!en"e '&$"& $, @arl Aincent B. <aso B A&> C8,3=, #age , of ==

# grea(er 'e$g&(% r ) re " nv$n"$ng (&an (&a( '&$"& $, ##ere! $n pp ,$($ n ( $(2. According to the CA% !avest 1>A;s evidence% albeit numerous% failed to sufficiently establish% by the re4uired 4uantum of evidence% the underlying causes of their lossesJdamages which they alleged to be >ampaguita Garments; doing. As earlier mentioned% these causes stemmed from respondent+s failure to meet specifications and 4uantity standards% delay in shipment% under H shipment% over declaration of value in >tyle (((3( and its failure to return raw materials from unshipped garments. To the appellate court% what petitioners adduced could not support a solid inference that respondent should be held liable for the damages and losses they allegedly sustained that would "ustify the application% under the premises% of legal compensation. @arl Aincent B.
<aso

3. Sa).ar v. Lev$ S(ra/,, In". &evi >trauss 'nc. through a letter from their legal officer demanded CA> Garment Enterprises DCA>GEE to desist from using its stitched arcuate design on the Europress "eans which it advertised in the !anila Bulletin. CA>GE% through its counsel% alleged that the bac* poc*ets of the Europress "eans are different from that of the bac* poc*ets of &evis "eans. &evis filed a complaint against Aenancio >ambar who was doing business under the name and style of CA>GE. CA>G'C and the Cirector of the Gational &ibrary were also impleaded. 'n its complaint% &evis alleged that it owns the arcuate design trademar* which was registered under 1.>. Trademar* <egistration as well as in the #hilippine #atent ffice and that CA>G'C and Aenancio >ambar% without the consent and authority of &evis and in infringement and unfair competition% sold and advertised% and despite demands to cease and desist% continued to manufacture% sell and advertise denim pants under the brand name FEuropressF with bac* poc*ets bearing a design similar to the arcuate trademar* of &evis% thereby causing confusion on the buying public% pre"udicial to private respondents+ goodwill and property right. CA>G'C% while admitting that it still continues producing the Europress "eans bearing a bac*poc*et design of two double arcs meeting in the middle% allege that there was no infringement or unfair competition because the display rooms of department stores where &evi+s and Europress "eans were sold% were distinctively segregated by billboards and other modes of advertisement. CA>G'C avers that the public would not be confused on the ownership of such *nown trademar* as &evi+s% Jag% Europress% etc. Also% CA>G'C claimed that it had its own original arcuate design% as evidenced by their own copyright registration% which was very different and distinct from &evi+s design. >ambar% on his part% denied that he was connected with CA>G'C and that though CA>G'C;s own copyright registration was issued to him% he denied instructing anyone on using its copyrighted design. The trial court granted the in"unction and ordered the payment of damages and one motion for reconsideration by &evis% "udgment was modified to include the cancellation of CA>G'C;s copyright registration. The CA affirmed. Among >ambar;s arguments was that the Court of Appeals erred when it said that he had the burden to prove that he was not connected with CA>G'C and that he did not authori:e anyone to use his copyrighted design. According to >ambar% these are important elements of private respondents+ cause of action against him% hence% &evis had the ultimate burden of proof. #ertinent is >ection =% <ule =(= of the <ules of Court which provides that (&e ./r!en # pr # $, (&e !/(- # a par(- ( pr ve (&e (r/(& # &$, "+a$) r !e#en,e% r an- #a"( $n $,,/e .- (&e a) /n( # ev$!en"e re8/$re! .- +a' . 'n civil cases% the burden of proof may be on either the plaintiff or the defendant. 't is on the latter% if in his answer he alleges an affirmative defense% which is not a denial of an essential ingredient in the plaintiff+s cause of action% but is one which% if established% will be a good defense H i.e.% an FavoidanceF of the claim% which prima facie% the plaintiff already has because of the defendant+s own admissions in the pleading. >ambar;s defense in this case was an affirmative defense. Ke did not deny that private respondents owned the arcuate trademar* nor that CA>G'C used on its products a similar arcuate design. $hat he averred was that although he owned the copyright on the Europress arcuate design% he did not allow CA>G'C to use it. Ke also said he was not connected with CA>G'C. These were not alleged by &evis in their pleadings% and >ambar therefore had the burden to prove these. @arl Aincent B.
<aso

@arl Aincent B. <aso B A&> C8,3=, #age ( of ==

9. Pe p+e v. Gar"$a Ben &umboy and $illiam Capili% members of a Civilian Aolunteer rgani:ation% were ambushed while being part of # ( Birung;s team searching for two former CA6G1s which caused the death of &umboy while Capili was seriously wounded. A civilian informant named #alos told # ( Birung that the CA6G1s they were searching for were Bernardino Caranguian and Aictoriano Garcia. Caranguian and Garcia were charged of the crime of murder for the death of &umboy as well as frustrated murder for the in"uries to Capili. nly Caranguian was arrested while Garcia remained at large. Curing trial% Caranguian entered a plea of not guilty. The prosecution presented D=E Cr. Cirilo #intucan% resident physician at the Cagayan Aalley <egional Kospital% who treated the gunshot wound of Capili0 D,E Cra. Culce Conato8Baculi% retired !unicipal Kealth fficer of Amulung% Cagayan% who conducted the autopsy on the e9humed body of &umboy0 and D(E # ( Edwin Birung% eyewitness to the shooting incident. Caranguian% on the other hand% interposed the defense of alibi% stating that he is a CA6G1 member and that at the time of the incident% he was at his post the whole day. Ke also said that while he *new Garcia% they were not together at the time of the incident. The trial court convicted Caranguian. n appeal% Caranguian claims that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Ke assails the credibility of prosecution witness Birung since the latter did not even *now the names of Caranguian and Garcia at the time of the incident. 'n ac4uitting Caranguian% the >upreme Court held that the 4uantum of evidence re4uired in criminal cases is proof beyond reasonable doubt . Se"($ n 4 # R/+e 133 # (&e R/+e, # C /r( pr v$!e, (&a( 2:p;r # .e- n! rea, na.+e ! /.( ! e, n ( )ean ,/"& !egree # pr # a,% e<"+/!$ng p ,,$.$+$(- # err r% pr !/"e, a., +/(e "er(a$n(-. 5 ra+ "er(a$n(- n+- $, re8/$re!% r (&a( !egree # pr # '&$"& pr !/"e, " nv$"($ n $n an /npre=/!$"e! )$n!.2 T&e (a,1 # (&e pr ,e"/($ n $, (' ># +!? #$r,(% ( pr ve (&a( a "r$)e 'a, " ))$((e!% an! ,e" n!% (&a( a""/,e! $, (&e per, n re,p n,$.+e. T&/,% (&e pr ,e"/($ n )/,( .e a.+e ( ver" )e (&e " n,($(/($ na+ pre,/)p($ n # $nn "en"e .e- n! rea, na.+e ! /.( ( =/,($#- (&e " nv$"($ n # (&e a""/,e! . 'n this case% the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was Caranguian who perpetrated the *illing. n cross8e9amination # ( Birung testified% that &umboy did not actually see the two former CA6G1s but merely heard the news from his place. # ( Birung also testified that the day after the incident% a civilian informer named #alos told him the names of the appellant and accused. But #alos did not even witness the shooting incident. Ke merely e9ecuted an affidavit during preliminary investigation but did not testify in court. Kence% his affidavit is hearsay and has no probative value. Clearly% the information given by either &umboy or #alos to # ( Birung as to the identity of appellant is hearsay. The hearsay rule bars the testimony of a witness who merely recites what someone else has told him% whether orally or in writing. 't was highly unli*ely that # ( Birung was able to sufficiently recogni:e the gunmen since when the gunshots were heard% they immediately sought for cover. $hile it is accepted that the testimony of a sole eyewitness% if positive and credible% is sufficient to sustain a "udgment of conviction% it bears stressing that such testimony must be clear% positive% and credible. Kence% an identification of the appellant as the gunman based on hearsay does not suffice for conviction. @arl Aincent B. <aso @. Pe p+e v. A+.a Agueda T. Alba% >aturnino <embulat% Jr.% 6rancisco Alovera% <onnie Gon:aga and Adriano Gortayo were convited of the murder of <oberto Acevedo and the attempted murder of Julito !agcope. <andy <icaforte% while tending his fishpond% was called to by Cavid @ing*ing. Ke noticed that @ing*ing was holding an !8=) armalite rifle. <icaforte was then brought to Alba who as*ed him if he was one of Acevedo;s goons and when he answered in the negative% he was brought to <embulat and Gortayo who were also carrying firearms. At that point% <embulat and Gortayo% started firing their guns towards the hut where Acevedo was staying. $hen Acevedo started to run towards a fish pond tower and upon reaching it% Gortayo stopped firing and use his rifle grenade instead. After firing at the tower% Gortayo shouted% FBobby% if we cannot get you now% we will get you tomorrow.F After the firing% <icaforte was brought to the house of one Belen Artates. Ke also testified that he saw Alicia @ing*ing% Canilo Tolis and others. Acevedo;s careta*er Julito !agcope testified that he saw Acevedo being shot at while running towards the @arl Aincent B. <aso B A&> C8,3=, #age / of ==

tower and that when Gon:aga and Alovera noticed !agcope% they started shooting at him. 6ortunately% !agcope managed to "ump out of the line of fire% into the irrigation canal. Ke later on crawled towards the fishpond di*e where he hid himself during the firing. An information was filed against accused Cavid @ing*ing% Alicia @ing*ing% Canilo Tolis% !aribel Gortayo% Claudio Aspera and accused Alba% <embulat% Alovera% Gon:aga% Gortayo and five other FCoes7. The trial court convicted Alba% <embulat% Alovera% Gon:aga and Gortayo while it ac4uitted Cavid and Alicia @ing*ing and Canilo Tolis. 'n their appeal% Alba et al alleged that their guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 'n affirming the conviction% the >upreme Court held that (&e " n"ep( # 2pr # .e- n! rea, na.+e ! /.(2 ! e, n ( en(a$+ a., +/(e "er(a$n(- # (&e #a"( (&a( (&e a""/,e! " ))$((e! (&e "r$)e% an! ne$(&er ! e, $( e<"+/!e (&e p ,,$.$+$(- # err r. In Pe p+e v. V$++a.+an"a% (&e C /r( &e+! (&a( (&e (e,($) n- # a ,$ng+e '$(ne,, $, ,/##$"$en( ( ,/pp r( a " nv$"($ n '&ere $( $, . (& p ,$($ve an! "re!$.+e. H ' )/"& ) re $n (&$, ,$(/a($ n '&ere (' pr ,e"/($ n '$(ne,,e, gave /n#+$n"&$ng an! re+$a.+e (e,($) n$e, aga$n,( a""/,e! appe++an(,A W$(ne,,e, are 'e$g&e! an! n ( n/).ere!. Gortayo;s guilt was proved by <icaforte;s identification while Alovera and Gon:aga was positively identified by !agcope. 6inally% Alba and <embulat are li*ewise guilty of the crime charged. True% they did not actually fire upon Acevedo. >till% their participation in the conspiracy to murder him is apparent. 6irst% they were conspicuously present during the commission of the crime% in such a way that they could not be considered as innocent bystanders. >econd% they arrived and left the scene of the crime with the other accused8appellants. Third% they did nothing to prevent or stop the successive shooting of the tower% where they *new Acevedo was hiding. 6ourth% Alba had a motive to *ill Acevedo on account of the dispute over the fishpond which has become more bitter through the years. @arl Aincent B. <aso B. Pe p+e v. Pa. + Carlito #abol was charged with the crime of rape and serious physical in"uries. AAA% a Grade A student% was on her way to school when she passed by the house of #abol. $hen he met AAA% he in4uired on the whereabouts of her father then suddenly struc* her in the face. then hugged her from behind% sat her on his lap and struc* her breast with a piece of stone. $hen she shouted for help% #abol covered her mouth. At that point% she fell unconscious. $hen she had wo*en up some two hours later% she found herself alone on the shoulder of the road% covered by tall grasses% and with her school bag on her head. >he sustained wounds on her face. Both of her ears were sliced. Ker blouse was opened and there were traces of blood on her panty. >he later told the court that she e9perienced pain between her legs when urinating. AAA;s elder sister BBB testified that her sister;s route going to school passes by #abol;s house and that when she as*ed her sister after the incident what happened% AAA told her that it was #abol who inflicted the wounds on her face. BBB had her sister e9amined by Cr. Go four days after the incident and he confirmed she had a healed hymenal laceration although he cannot say if AAA is still a virgin. 't is worth nothing that according to doctor go% lacerations due to intercourse without resistance usually heals within / days while with resistance heals within L days. The prosecution also presented # , Bomediano who testified about #abol;s flight after the occurrence. # , Bomediano also related that% when he and a colleague in the force arrested him five years later% the latter readily gave himself up. 'n his defense% #abol interposed partial denial. Ke admitted hurting AAA on date of the crime% but denied allegations of rape. According to #abol% he slapped and bo9ed AAA when she got mad when as*ed where her father was. #abol added that he then dragged the unconscious AAA to the shoulder of the road and ran away for fear of having *illed her. Ke denied raping AAA. The trial court convicted #abol of simple rape since when the accused employs force the victim invariably sustains in"ury. The CA affirmed the conviction. #abol contends that the prosecution failed to prove the fact that he had carnal *nowledge with AAA since given that she was unconscious% she could not testify accurately what had happened during the time she was *noc*ed out. The bloodstains on her underwear could have come from anywhere since she sustained various in"uries. The pain in her vagina could also be attributed to the beating and blows she received from the hands of #abol. Ke also points out that the vaginal e9amination of the victim was conducted four days after the incident. That the hymenal laceration was completely healed when AAA was e9amined suggests% according to him% that the laceration @arl Aincent B. <aso B A&> C8,3=, #age - of ==

could have been caused by prior se9ual intercourse% not necessarily by his alleged act of molestation. 'n affirming the conviction% the >upreme Court held that while #abol continuous to argue the absence of direct evidence to show that he did rape AAA% !$re"( ev$!en"e $, n ( (&e n+- 'a- ( e,(a.+$,& g/$+(. C$r"/),(an($a+ ev$!en"e $, a re" gn$Ce! )e(& ! ( e,(a.+$,& (&e " ))$,,$ n an! (&e a/(& r,&$p # a "r$)e. C$r"/),(an($a+ ev$!en"e% a+, 1n 'n a, $n!$re"( r pre,/)p($ve ev$!en"e% re#er, ( pr # # " ++a(era+ #a"(, an! "$r"/),(an"e, '&en"e (&e e<$,(en"e # (&e )a$n #a"( )a- .e $n#erre! a"" r!$ng ( rea, n an! " )) n e<per$en"e. I( "an ,/pp r( a " nv$"($ n a, + ng a, (&e # ++ '$ng re8/$,$(e, pre,"r$.e! /n!er Se"($ n 9% R/+e 133 # (&e R/+e, # C /r( are ,a($,#$e!? Se". 9. C$r"/),(an($a+ ev$!en"e% '&en ,/##$"$en(. * C$r"/),(an($a+ ev$!en"e $, ,/##$"$en( # r " nv$"($ n $#? 6a7 T&ere $, ) re (&an ne "$r"/),(an"eD 6.7 T&e #a"(, #r ) '&$"& (&e $n#eren"e, are !er$ve! are pr venD an! 6"7 T&e " ).$na($ n # a++ (&e "$r"/),(an"e, $, ,/"& a, ( pr !/"e a " nv$"($ n .e- n! rea, na.+e ! /.(. 'n the case at bar% the prosecution has successfully established the following circumstances and facts that% when ta*en together% very well constitute evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt% to wit? D=E #abol having met AAA on the latter+s way to school and hitting her on the face0 D,E the positive identification of #abol as the person she met while she was on her way to school0 D(E #abol then hugging AAA from behind% sitting her on his lap and stri*ing her breast with a piece of stone0 D/E AAA shouting for help and #abol covering her mouth0 D-E #abol hitting AAA until she lost consciousness and then dragging her body to the side of the road0 D)E AAA wa*ing up two hours later to discover that her ears had been sliced% her blouse opened% and her underwear stained with her own blood0 DLE AAA feeling pain in her private part after the incident0 and DME AAA sustaining hymenal laceration. Given the foregoing circumstances% there is no other conclusion that the Court can ma*e with moral certainty other than that #abol raped the victim. @arl Aincent B. <aso E. Pe p+e v. 5ana+ Elmercito !analo% along with <olando Kebreo% are charged with the murder of <icardo Estores. <osita Estores was watching television when she heard <icardo shouting 5aray *oN aray *oN aray *oN7. $hen she peeped out% she saw !analo and Kebreo coming out of the hut% respectively carrying a "ungle bolo and a *nife% heading towards !analo;s house. After a short while% she rushed to <icardo who was lying in a pool of blood. >he reported the incident to her sister8in8law 6loricita Bagtas who commented that nobody could have committed the crime e9cept the !analo who was drun* and mad earlier that night and suspected <icardo of having stolen his gun. <esponding to the report of Barangay Chairman <omeo !uyot% # , 6ernando Garcia and four other police officers proceeded to the crime scene and thereafter surrounded !analo;s house. >hortly after firing the warning shots% Kebreo went out of the house followed by appellant who had bloodstains on his chest and who admitted *illing the victim. Kebreo directed the police officers to the place where they concealed the weapons. 1pon his arrest% Kebreo made an e9tra"udicial confession in accordance with the rules. !analo% on his part% denied any involvement stating that he was at a drin*ing spree when the crime happened and that he could not have had *illed <icardo since he was no longer mad at him for he found out that he did not ta*e his gun and afterwards% he "ust slept in his home. The <TC convicted both !analo and Kebreo and the CA affirmed. Curing the pendency of the appeal with the CA% Kebreo died. Among !analo;s contentions is the fact that he was seen coming out of the victim+s hut immediately after the commission of the crime does not necessarily mean that he committed it. The >upreme Court is not persuaded and affirmed the <TC and the CA;s decision. W&$+e n ne # (&e pr ,e"/($ n '$(ne,,e, ,a' (&e " ))$,,$ n # (&e "r$)e% (&e g/$+( # (&e appe++an( )a- ,($++ .e pr ve! .- "$r"/),(an($a+ ev$!en"e. D$re"( ev$!en"e # (&e " ))$,,$ n # (&e "r$)e "&arge! $, n ( (&e n+- )a(r$< '&ere#r ) a " /r( )a- !ra' $(, " n"+/,$ n, an! #$n!$ng, # g/$+(. T&ere @arl Aincent B. <aso B A&> C8,3=, #age ) of ==

)a- .e $n,(an"e, '&ere% a+(& /g& a '$(ne,, )a- n ( &ave a"(/a++- '$(ne,,e! (&e " ))$,,$ n # a "r$)e% &e )a- ,($++ .e a.+e ( p ,$($ve+- $!en($#- a ,/,pe"( r a""/,e! a, (&e perpe(ra( r # a "r$)e a, '&en% # r $n,(an"e% (&e +a((er $, (&e per, n +a,( ,een '$(& (&e v$"($) $))e!$a(e+- .e# re an! r$g&( a#(er (&e " ))$,,$ n # (&e "r$)e. T&$, $, (&e (-pe # p ,$($ve $!en($#$"a($ n% '&$"& # r), par( # "$r"/),(an($a+ ev$!en"e. In (&e a.,en"e # !$re"( ev$!en"e% (&e pr ,e"/($ n )a- re, r( ( a!!/"$ng "$r"/),(an($a+ ev$!en"e ( !$,"&arge $(, ./r!en. Cr$)e, are /,/a++- " ))$((e! $n ,e"re( an! /n!er " n!$($ n '&ere " n"ea+)en( $, &$g&+- pr .a.+e. I# !$re"( ev$!en"e $, $n,$,(e! /n!er a++ "$r"/),(an"e,% (&e pr ,e"/($ n # v$"$ /, #e+ n, '& " ))$((e! &e$n /, "r$)e, $n ,e"re( r ,e"+/!e! p+a"e, '$++ .e &ar!% $# n ( 'e++>n$g& $)p ,,$.+e% ( pr ve. C$r"/),(an($a+ ev$!en"e ( .e ,/##$"$en( # r p/rp ,e, # " nv$"($ n )/,( &ave (&e # ++ '$ng e+e)en(,? 6a7 (&ere $, ) re (&an ne "$r"/),(an"eD 6.7 (&e #a"(, #r ) '&$"& (&e $n#eren"e, are !er$ve! are pr venD an!% 6"7 (&e " ).$na($ n # a++ (&e "$r"/),(an"e, $, ,/"& a, ( pr !/"e a " nv$"($ n .e- n! rea, na.+e ! /.(. T&e "$r"/),(an"e, pr ve! ,& /+! " n,($(/(e an /n.r 1en "&a$n '&$"& +ea!, ( ne #a$r an! rea, na.+e " n"+/,$ n '&$"& p $n(, ( (&e a""/,e!% ( (&e e<"+/,$ n # a++ (&er,% a, (&e g/$+(- per, n. Fr ) a++ (&e "$r"/),(an"e,% (&ere ,& /+! .e a " ).$na($ n # ev$!en"e '&$"& $n (&e r!$nar- an! na(/ra+ " /r,e # (&$ng,% +eave, n r ) # rrea, na.+e ! /.( a, ( &$, g/$+(. !oreover% the pieces of evidence constituting the tapestry of circumstantial evidence considered by the trial court in arriving at its decision% which the Court of Appeals affirmed% when viewed in their entirety% are as convincing as direct evidence and% as such% negate the innocence of !analo% to wit? a. !analo was drun*% very mad and carrying a "ungle bolo when he went to the victim+s sister% 6loricita% to as* the whereabouts of his alleged missing gun from the victim. $hen appellant learned that the victim was already sleeping% he went to the latter+s hut. b. <osita Aillanueva% whose house was a few meters from the crime scene% heard the cry of FAray% aray% arayF from the victim+s hut% indicating that the latter was in pain. $hen she peep through her window% at about a meter and half% she saw !analo with a bolo% and Kebreo with a *nife% "ust coming out of the victim+s hut. >he also noticed that appellant% with Kebreo% went inside appellant+s house. Thus% <osita had provided sufficient identification of appellant who had been *nown to her for decades% they being neighbors and appellant being the second cousin of her husband. c. $hen 6loricita and <osita proceeded to the victim+s hut% they were startled upon seeing the victim dead% full of blood. Thereafter% they reported the matter to the barangay. d. The autopsy findings of Cr. Cignos showed that the victim suffered multiple hac* and stab wounds% believed to have been inflicted by a bolo and a *nife% which weapons were later recovered from !analo and Kebreo by the police authorities. @arl Aincent B. <aso F. Da!/+ v. CA Construction materials owned by Gloria #atangui were ta*en from her house and brought to the barangay outpost allegedly on orders of <osario Cadulo. Jessica% Gloria;s 2 year old daughter also testified on the ta*ing of the construction materials% that two men too* the materials under the supervision of a lady. Efren #agabao% one of the B>C administratively charged with Cadulo% admitted that they went to the residence of #atangui upon orders of Cadulo to verify whether #atangui has a barangay permit for the house construction they were underta*ing. Cadulo% on her part% other than a general denial% merely alleged that #atangui was a professional s4uatter. The ffice of the mbudsman which found her guilty of conduct pre"udicial to the best interest of the service. 'n upholding the mbudsman ruling% the C /r( &e+! (&a( (&ere $, ,/.,(an($a+ ev$!en"e n re" r! ,/##$"$en( ( & +! &er a!)$n$,(ra($ve+- +$a.+e. @arl Aincent B. <aso

@arl Aincent B. <aso B A&> C8,3=, #age L of ==

G. Trave+a$re an! T /r, C rp. v. NLRC Genita !edelyn% was employed as chief accountant of Travelaire and Tours Corporation who irrevocably resigned from her position in the said corporation. >he filed a complaint before the Gational &abor <elations Commission praying for separation pay% service incentive leave pay% and =(th month pay. The &abor Arbiter only awarded the =(th month pay but dismissed the other claims. Got satisfied with the "udgment of the &abor Arbiter% she appealed to the G&<C who modified the award to include separation pay. Travelaire appealed the G&<C ruling. The relevant issue in this case is if substantial evidence "ustifies the award granted by the G&<C. 'n affirming the G&<C ruling% the >upreme Court held that well8established is the principle that findings of fact of 4uasi8"udicial bodies% li*e the G&<C% are accorded with respect% even finality% if supported by substantial evidence. S/.,(an($a+ ev$!en"e $, !e#$ne! a, ,/"& a) /n( # re+evan( ev$!en"e '&$"& a rea, na.+e )$n! )$g&( a""ep( a, a!e8/a(e ( =/,($#- a " n"+/,$ n . 'n the case at bar% the G&<C+s finding that there is a company policyJpractice of paying separation pay to its resigning employees% is supported by substantial evidence. This is shown by the fact that before !edelyn resigned and for the period =22= to =22)% on separate dates% three D(E resigning employees were given separation pay% even though the payments given to two of these employees Dnamely <ogelio Abendan% Anastacio CabateE were termed +e98gratia payments+. <egardless of terminology and amount% the fact e9ists that upon resignation from Travelaire% the concerned employees were certain sums of money occasioned by their separation from the company. $hile Travelaire has denied that such company policyJpractice e9ists% it nevertheless failed to present countervailing evidence% such as presenting the records of other resigned employees who were not given separation pay. @arl Aincent B. <aso 1H. 5ar/.en$ C rp. v. L$rag 6eli9 &irag filed a complaint for specific performance against !arubeni Corporation% a foreign corporation doing business in the #hilippines% and its officers for the sum of #)%333%333 representing commission pursuant to a consultancy agreement with the said corporation. !arubeni Corporation promised &irag ). consultancy fee based on the total costs of the pro"ects. The consultancy agreement was not reduced into writing. 'n compliance with the agreement% &irag made representations with various government officials% arranged for meetings and conferences% relayed pertinent information as well as submitted feasibility studies and pro"ect proposals% including pertinent documents re4uired by !arubeni. As !arubeni had been impressed with respondent+s performance% si9 D)E additional pro"ects were given to his group under the same underta*ing. Kowever% when &irag started to demand for payment of the consultancy fee% !arubeni did not *eep its end of the bargain which led to the suit. 'n its answer% !arubeni denied the e9istence of the consultancy agreement since according to it% <yohei @imura% an officer of the corporation% did not have authority to enter into such agreement in behalf of !arubeni. The trial court ruled in favor of &irag% ratiocinating that &irag was made to believe that there e9isted an oral consultancy agreement. The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court and ruled that preponderance of evidence favored the e9istence of a consultancy agreement between the parties. The CA too* credence on the reply of one of !arubeni;s officers to &irag;s demand letter stating that? F<eferring to your letter dated >eptember ,)% =2MM% we are pleased to inform you that the issue is currently being reviewed by us and we would li*e to reply to you within fifteen D=-E days.7 The relevant issue in this case is if the e9istence of the consultancy contract between &irag and !arubeni has been proven by preponderance of evidence. 'n reversing the CA "udgment% the >upreme Court held that that a par(- '& &a, (&e ./r!en # pr # $n a "$v$+ "a,e )/,( e,(a.+$,& &$, "a,e .- a prep n!eran"e # ev$!en"e. W&en (&e ev$!en"e # (&e par($e, $, $n e8/$p $,e% r '&en (&ere $, a ! /.( a, ( '&ere (&e prep n!eran"e # ev$!en"e +$e,% (&e par(- '$(& (&e ./r!en # pr # #a$+, an! (&e pe($($ n )/,( (&/, .e !en$e! . 'n civil cases% he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it0 a mere allegation is not evidence. Ke must establish his cause by a preponderance of evidence. &irag failed to do so in this case. 'f respondent+s contentions were to be ta*en as truth% he would be entitled to ). consulting fee @arl Aincent B. <aso B A&> C8,3=, #age M of ==

based on the total cost of the pro"ects obtained% or on success basis. Kowever% even &irag admitted that the Bureau of #ost pro"ect was not awarded to !arubeni% but to >anritsu. !arubeni did not even "oin the bidding for the Bureau of #ost pro"ect. Given this fact% he was not able to prove his right to claim the consultancy fee. @arl Aincent B. <aso 11. O)./!,)an v. Ia+!ar$agga This case involves the complaint against <odolfo Oaldariagga% the !unicipal Treasurer of &emery% 'loilo. After the Commission on Audit conducted an audit e9amination of Oaldarriagga;s cash accountabilities% it was discovered that there was a deficiency amounting to #/%L==%/)(.M,. Oaldariagga was as*ed to restitute the deficiency but he failed to do so. 'nstead% he sent letters to re4uest for a bill of particulars on his alleged accountability. (D(E The C A% however% failed to clarify the basis of the shortage. >ubse4uently% on the strength of the C A auditors+ report% the C A filed a &etter8Complaint against the Oaldariagga before the ffice of the mbudsman. Oaldariagga contested the findings of the C A auditors alleging that it was inaccurate% incorrect% and devoid of merit. Ke stated that during the audit e9amination% the C A team never mentioned any discrepancy in the cashboo* nor found any accountability. Ke claimed that during the said audit e9amination% the C A team established that the balance for the General 6und was only in the amount of #22M.33 and that all other accounts showed a :ero balance. Oaldariagga also pointed out that the C A+s failure to show a detailed Fdisbursements and cash items validated andJor disallowedF placed doubt as to the accuracy and reliability of the findings. The mbudsman ruled and dismissed Oaldariagga from service for dishonesty. n appeal% the CA reversed the dismissal of Oaldariagga since the shortage was not clearly and indubitably established% the administrative case against respondent should be dismissed. The mbudsman argues that the C A findings that Oaldariagga failed to account for the shortage and his un"ustified release of cash advances constitute sufficient basis for his dismissal. 'n affirming the CA;s ruling% the >upreme Court held that .a,$" $, (&e r/+e (&a(% $n a!)$n$,(ra($ve "a,e,% (&e 8/an(/) # ev$!en"e ne"e,,ar- ( #$n! an $n!$v$!/a+ a!)$n$,(ra($ve+- +$a.+e $, ,/.,(an($a+ ev$!en"e. Se"($ n @% R/+e 133 # (&e R/+e, # C /r( $, e<p+$"$(% ( '$(? Se". @. S/.,(an($a+ ev$!en"e. * In "a,e, #$+e! .e# re a!)$n$,(ra($ve r 8/a,$>=/!$"$a+ . !$e,% a #a"( )a- .e !ee)e! e,(a.+$,&e! $# $( $, ,/pp r(e! .- ,/.,(an($a+ ev$!en"e% r (&a( a) /n( # re+evan( ev$!en"e '&$"& a rea, na.+e )$n! )$g&( a""ep( a, a!e8/a(e ( =/,($#- a " n"+/,$ n. S/.,(an($a+ ev$!en"e ! e, n ( ne"e,,ar$+- )ean prep n!eran( pr # a, re8/$re! $n r!$nar- "$v$+ "a,e,% ./( ,/"& 1$n! # re+evan( ev$!en"e a, a rea, na.+e )$n! )$g&( a""ep( a, a!e8/a(e ( ,/pp r( a " n"+/,$ n r ev$!en"e " )) n+- a""ep(e! .- rea, na.+pr/!en( )en $n (&e " n!/"( # (&e$r a##a$r,. 'n the present case% the evidence upon which Oaldariagga;s administrative liability would be anchored lac*ed that degree of certainty re4uired in administrative cases% because the entries found in the two separate audit conducted by the C A yielded conflicting results. 'n one report% there is a deficiency% in the other there is :ero8balance. These discrepancies cannot be ignored. Evidence of shortage is imperative in order for the Oaldariagga to be held liable. 'n the case at bar% the evidence could not be relied upon. The second audit report necessarily puts into 4uestion the reliability of the initial audit findings. $hether the :ero balance as appearing in the second audit report was correct or inadvertently indicated% the credibility and accuracy of the two audit reports were already tarnished. @arl Aincent B. <aso 14. Pe p+e v. U)an$( <ufino 1manito was charged and convicted of raping AAA which resulted in the birth of a girl BBB. 'n his appeal% 1manito wanted to sub"ect BBB to CGA testing to determine if he is the father of BBB which would otherwise prove his guilt of the crime. The counsel of both parties agreed that the Gational Bureau of 'nvestigation would be the institution that would conduct the CGA testing. The <TC has set the date for the ta*ing of samples and otherwise framed guidelines in conducting it% to wit?

@arl Aincent B. <aso B A&> C8,3=, #age 2 of ==

5'n order to protect the integrity of the biological samples% the PGB'Q is en"oined to strictly follow the measures laid down by the Konorable >upreme Court in the instant case to wit? !oreover% the court a 4uo must ensure that the proper chain of custody in the handling of the samples submitted by the parties is ade4uately borne in the records% i.e.0 that the samples are collected by a neutral third party0 that the tested parties are appropriately identified at their sample collection appointments0 that the samples are protected with tamper tape at the collection site0 that all persons in possession thereof at each stage of testing thoroughly inspected the samples for tampering and e9plained his role in the custody of the samples and the acts he performed in relation thereto. The CGA test result shall be simultaneously disclosed to the parties in Court. The PGB'Q is% therefore% en"oined not to disclose to the parties in advance the CGA test results. The PGB'Q is further en"oined to observe the confidentiality of the CGA profiles and all results or other information obtained from CGA testing and is hereby ordered to preserve the evidence until such time as the accused has been ac4uitted or served his sentence7 After samples were ta*en from both parties% the <TC ordered the GB' to submit its finding within (3 days. The accused did not ob"ect to the admission of E9hibits FAF and FBF inclusive of their sub8mar*ings. Ke did not also present evidence to controvert the results of the CGA analysis. The findings were as follows? At the hearing% #rovincial #rosecutor !aria Genita A. piana% presented !ary Ann T. Aranas% a 6orensic Chemist of the Gational Bureau of 'nvestigation who testified on the e9amination she conducted% outlining the procedure she adopted and the result thereof. >he further declared that using the #owerple9 =) >ystem% Ceo9yribonuncleic acid analysis on the Buccal >wabs and Blood stained on 6TA paper ta*en from PAAAQ% PBBBQ% and <ufino 1manito y !illares% to determine whether or not <ufino 1manito y !illares is the biological father of PBBBQ% showed that there is a Complete !atch in all of the fifteen D=-E loci tested between the alleles of <ufino 1manito y !ilalres and PBBBQ0 That based on the above findings% there is a 22.2222. probability of paternity that <ufino 1manito y !illares is the biological father of PBBBQ. Given the fact that 1manito+s defense of alibi% together with his specific assertion that while he had courted AAA they were not sweethearts% lead to a general theory on his part that he did not engage in se9ual relations with the complainant. The CGA testing has evinced a contrary conclusion% and that as testified to by AAA% 1manito had fathered the child she gave birth to on April =223% nine months after the day she said she was raped by 1manito. @arl Aincent B. <aso NJ? The case "ust shows how CGA e9amination is conducted% refer to the case for the step8by8 step process. 13. Sap$!a v. De V$++an/eva Julio >apida et al filed a complaint against !ercedes de Aillanueva to 4uiet title over a parcel of land located in Casmarinas% Cavite. The trial court ruled in favor of >apida et al% declaring them as the owners of the parcel of land and stated that de Aillanueva does not have any claim on the said land. 't is seen from the trial court+s decision that both contending parties have torrens titles to their respective properties with duly approved plans% with respondents contending that there could not be an overlapping of their properties+ respective boundaries since the actual dividing line between them is the Tagaytay8!anila national highway0 and that >apida et al presented only one witness% while Ce Aillanueva presented four witnesses% all of whose testimonies are summari:ed and discussed in the decision. Ce Aillanueva applied for a motion for preliminary in"unction to prevent >apida et al from entering the premises but was denied by trial court and it;s motion for reconsideration was denied on August =3% =2)). An issue arose as to what order did Ce Aillanueva receive through mail% in relation to the filing of a motion for reconsideration% is it the order of denial of the writ of preliminary in"unction or is it the order of denial of the motion for @arl Aincent B. <aso B A&> C8,3=, #age =3 of ==

reconsideration. There is no issue as to the fact that a registered mail matter was sent by the doc*et court cler* to the parties. >apida et al presented the doc*et court cler* who through an affidavit% said that the letter contained the court;s denial of Ce Aillanueva;s motion for reconsideration and nothing more while Ce Aillanueva presented the affidavit of their secretary which stated that they did not receive anything other than the court;s order denying their motion for preliminary in"unction. >apida et al filed for a motion for e9ecution of the "udgment ad"udicating the land to them which was granted by the trial court. Ce Aillanueva appeal to the CA which ruled that the trial court erred in granting the motion for e9ecution due to the conflicting affidavits between the doc*et court cler* and the secretary. 1nder such circumstances% the appellate court held that the trial court practically had no basis to ma*e its findings of fact% without% first ta*ing the prudent course of hearing the two affiants and sub"ecting them to cross8e9amination so that he could properly ma*e up his mind on whom of them to believe. The Court in affirming the CA decision held that the appellate court further cited specific FdubiousF and Fpeculiar factsF of record% in addition to that above stated of the lac* of proper annotation on the envelope nor on the return card that Fwhat had been inside was the fatal order of denial of the motion for new trial%F showing that the trial court had grossly disregarded such matters of record and had gravely abused its discretion in arbitrarily giving credence to the court employee+s affidavit and ordering e9ecution of its "udgment as final% as follows? DaE 't is Fseen in the face of the record that her annotation that she had sent copy of the order denying the preliminary in"unction by ordinary mail contains some super impositions in in* as to the month% the handwritten word +>ept.+ apparently having been first written and over it the correct month of +August+F0 DbE FThe peculiar fact that it was only this order Dof denial and in"unctionE that apparently she had according to her% sent by ordinary mail% contrary in fact to <ule =(% sec. - of the <evised <ules% all the others appearing in the e9pediente% see pages ,2% (3% )=% ),% 2=% =()% =/2% =-,% ,=)% attaching the return cards% were sent by registered DmailE0F and DcE The trial court could not under such facts and circumstances whimsically Fplace reliance on the presumption of regularity which itself had been already opposed by the affidavit of Drespondents+E affiant%F which the trial court Ftotally ignored ... without giving DitsE reasons.F @arl Aincent B.
<aso

NJ? ' can;t see the doctrine in this case.

@arl Aincent B. <aso B A&> C8,3=, #age == of ==