Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Placensia
Facts: Herminio Mansueto left for Barangay Patao, Bantayan, Cebu to purchase hogs from a certain
"Ruby." In Patao, Francisca Espina, also known in the locality as Pansing and whose house was just
across the street from the respective residences of the three accused noticed Mansueto leaning on the
pigsty with Ruby on his right side and Antonio Plasencia alias "Tonying" on his left; behind was Joelito.
She suddenly saw Antonio stab Mansueto. The latter staggered towards Ruby who himself then
delivered another stab blow. Mansueto fell on his back. Joelito started hitting Mansueto on the
forehead while Rene held Mansueto's legs. Except for a coconut tree and some ipil-ipil trees around the
area, nothing obstructed Pansing's line of vision. Pansing rushed back home. The image of Antonio
waving the weapon and the thought that she might herself be killed kept her from revealing to anyone
what she saw.
Appellants attack the credibility of the prosecution's lone eyewitness, Pansing, because of her alleged
inconsistencies, faults the trial court for allowing the witness to glance at the notes written on her palm
while testifying.
Issue: Whether or not Francisca is a credible witness.
Held: The use of memory aids during an examination of a witness is not altogether proscribed. Section
16, Rule 132, of the Rules of Court states:
Sec. 16. When witness may refer to memorandum. A witness may be allowed to refresh his
memory respecting a fact, by anything written or recorded by himself or under his direction at the time
when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his
memory and he knew that the same was correctly written or recorded; but in such case the writing or
record must be produced and may be inspected by the adverse party, who may, if he chooses, crossexamine the witness upon it and may read it in evidence. So, also, a witness may testify from such a
writing or record, though he retain no recollection of the particular facts, if he is able to swear that the
writing or record correctly stated the transaction when made; but such evidence must be received with
caution.
Appellants see inadvertency on Francisca's appearing to be "jittery" on the witness stand.
Nervousness and anxiety of a witness is a natural reaction particularly in the case of those who are
called to testify for the first time. The real concern, in fact, should be when they show no such emotions.
Canque vs. CA
Facts: Petitioner Rosella D. Canque is a contractor doing business under the name and style RDC
Construction. She had contracts with the government for (a) the restoration of Cebu-Toledo wharf road;
(b) the asphalting of Lutopan access road; and (c) the asphalting of Babag road in Lapulapu City. In
connection with these projects, petitioner entered into two contracts with private respondent Socor
Construction Corporation. On May 28, 1986, private respondent sent petitioner a bill containing a
revised computation, representing the balance of petitioner's total account for materials delivered and
services rendered by private respondent under the two contracts. However, petitioner refused to pay
the amount, claiming that private respondent failed to submit the delivery receipts showing the actual
weight in metric tons of the items delivered and the acceptance thereof by the government. Hence, on
September 22, 1986, private respondent brought suit in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu to recover from
petitioner the sum of P299,717.75, plus interest at the rate of 3% a month. During the trial, private
respondent, as plaintiff, presented its vice-president, Sofia O. Sanchez, and Dolores Aday, its
bookkeeper. Aday admitted that she had no personal knowledge of the facts constituting the entry. She
said she made the entries based on the bills given to her. But she has no knowledge of the truth or
falsity of the facts stated in the bills. Petitioner's evidence consisted of her lone testimony. The trial
court rendered its decision ordering petitioner to pay the private respondent It held that by analyzing
the plaintiff's Book of Collectible Accounts particularly page 17 thereof (Exh. "K"), it is convinced that
the entries (both payments and billings) recorded thereat are credible.On appeal, the Court of Appeals
affirmed.
Issue: Whether the entries in the Book of Collectible Accounts constitute competent evidence to show
such delivery.
Held: Considered as a memorandum, Exh. K does not itself constitute evidence. As explained
inBorromeo v. Court of Appeals:
Under the above provision of Rule 132 Sec 10, the memorandum used to refresh the memory of the
witness does not constitute evidence, and may not be admitted as such, for the simple reason that the
witness has just the same to testify on the basis of refreshed memory. In other words, where the
witness has testified independently of or after his testimony has been refreshed by a memorandum of
the events in dispute, such memorandum is not admissible as corroborative evidence. It is self-evident
that a witness may not be corroborated by any written statement prepared wholly by him. He cannot be
more credible just because he supports his open-court declaration with written statements of the same
facts even if he did prepare them during the occasion in dispute, unless the proper predicate of his
failing memory is priorly laid down. What is more, even where this requirement has been satisfied, the
express injunction of the rule itself is that such evidence must be received with caution, if only because
it is not very difficult to conceive and fabricate evidence of this nature. This is doubly true when the
witness stands to gain materially or otherwise from the admission of such evidence.
As the entries in question (Exh. K) were not made based on personal knowledge, they could only
corroborate Dolores Aday's testimony that she made the entries as she received the bills.
Ong vs. CA
Facts: petitioners boarded a bus owned and operated by Inland Trailway which was driven by Calvin
Coronel. when the Inland bus slowed down to avoid a stalled cargo truck, it was bumped from the rear
by another bus, owned and operated by Philtranco and driven by Apolinar Miralles. Francia sustained
wounds and fractures in both of her legs and her right arm, while Renato suffered injuries on his left
chest, right knee, right arm and left eye. petitioners filed an action for damages against Philtranco and
Inland. Inland answered that, according to the Police Report, it was Apolinar Miralles, the driver of the
Philtranco bus, who was at fault, as shown by his flight from the situs of the accident
Issue: whether the Police Report, which was not formally offered in evidence, could be used to establish
a claim against Philtranco based on culpa aquiliana;
Ruling: Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, provides that "[t]he court shall consider no evidence
which has not been formally offered." A formal offer is necessary, since judges are required to base their
findings of fact and their judgment solely and strictly upon the evidence offered by the parties at the
trial. To allow parties to attach any document to their pleadings and then expect the court to consider it
as evidence, even without formal offer and admission, may draw unwarranted consequences. Opposing
parties will be deprived of their chance to examine the document and to object to its admissibility. On
the other hand, the appellate court will have difficulty reviewing documents not previously scrutinized
the court below.
Rodson vs. CA
Facts: petitioners Rodson Philippines, Inc., Eurasia Heavy Industries, Inc., Autographics, Inc. and Peter Y.
Rodriguez, filed a Complaint2 for damages against respondent Eastar Resources (Asia) Corporation with
the RTC of Cebu, then presided by Judge Juaban. The petitioners rested their case after their
documentary evidence was admitted by the court. respondent prayed for time to make their formal
offer of evidence which the court granted. The court held in abeyance the resolution of the
respondents formal offer of evidence until such time that the petitioners motion to recall Maquilan for
further cross-examination was resolved. the primary judge retired and was replaced by Judge Ocampo.
Petitioners had not yet filed their comment on the respondents formal offer of evidence because of the
pending incident. Judge Dicdican was the last to hear the case and under which the court found that
petitioners time to file their comment on the formal offer of evidence of the respondents had already
lapsed. They filed for reconsideration which was denied.
Issue: Whether the court erred in resolving the formal offer of evidence and admitting such
documentary evidence by the respondents before petitioners could file their comment on it.
Ruling: Irrefragably, the petitioners had until June 12, 1994 within which to file their comment on the
respondents formal offer of evidence. The ten-day period within which to file such comment was not
suspended by the filing and, thereafter, the pendency of the petitioners motion to recall Maquilan as a
witness for additional cross-examination. What was merely suspended by such motion was the trial
courts resolution of the respondents formal offer of evidence. The petitioners failed to file their
comment within the period therefor. The respondent had already presented its lone witness, Maquilan,
who already testified on direct and cross-examination. Hence, the respondent was obliged to formally
offer its documentary evidence as provided by Section 35, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
People vs Godoy
Facts: Danny Godoy was charged with rape and kidnapping with serious illegal detention. Mia Taha, the
victim, was the student of Godoy. First time he raped her was when she went to visit her cousin. He
threatened her not to tell anyone or she will be killed. The next day, he went to her house and asked
permission from her parents if she could come with him to solicit for funds since she was a candidate in
a school affair which her parents obliged. She reluctantly went with him for fear that her parents would
get into trouble. She was then brought to an inn and and later on to a house of a friend of Godoy where
she was locked and repeatedly raped. In trial, Mia denied having written any love letters to Godoy which
was presented in evidence. Trial court refused to give probative value to the two vital letters which
stated that Mia in fact had relationship with the accused and was not raped by him because they are not
examined by an expert witness.
Issue: whether the court erred in not giving probative value to the letters.
Ruling: Well-entrenched by now is the rule that resort to questioned document examiners, more
familiarly called handwriting experts, is not mandatory. Handwriting experts, while probably useful, are
not indispensable in examining or comparing handwriting. 72 This is so embodied under Section 22, Rule
132 of the Rules of Court. The defense witnesses were able to identify complainant's handwriting on the
basis of the examination papers submitted to them by her in their respective subjects. This Court has
likewise carefully examined and compared the handwriting on the letters with the standard writing
appearing on the test papers as specimens for comparison and, contrary to the observations and
conclusions of the lower court, we are convinced beyond doubt that they were written by one and the
same person.
Revilla vs. CA
Facts: Don Cayetano Revilla executed a last will and testament bequeathing all his properties to his nine
(9) nephews and nieces, the parties herein, who are full blood brothers and sisters, including the
petitioner, Heracio Revilla. To each of them, he bequeathed an undivided one-tenth (1/10) of his estate
reserving the last tenth for masses to be said after his death. During his lifetime, Don Cayetano had
himself sought the probate of his will, CFI allowed and admitted said will to probate. the City Hall of
Manila was destroyed by fire along with the records of the probate. a petition for the reconstitution of
the records was filed, and after a proper hearing he petition for reconstitution was granted. Don
Cayetano died. Heracio filed a petition for probate of another will, allegedly executed by Don Cayetano
wherein he was instituted as sole heir of his uncle's estate and executor of the will. the same was
opposed by the brothers and sisters of Heracio, herein private respondents. Court disallowed the second
will.
Issue: whether the Court of Appeals erred in disallowing the alleged second will of Don Cayetano Revilla.
Ruling: After a careful examination of the records, we share the appellate court's doubts regarding the
authenticity and due execution of the second will. Indeed, when Don Cayetano testified in the
reconstitution proceedings, he was unaware of the second will which he supposedly made only two
months previous. He identified his first will and declared that it was his true and only will. He denied
having subsequently made another will. He could not have executed a second will because he was sick in
the hospital at that time for two (2) months. and he did not, and could not, sign any papers while he
was confined in the hospital.