Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Celestino Marturillas, Petitioner versus People of the , The challenged CA Resolution denied petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration. [6]
Respondent
G.R. No. 163217 | 2006-04-18 Petitioner was charged with homicide in an Information [7] dated
November 5, 1998, worded as follows:
FIRST DIVISION
"[T]hat on or about November 4 1998, in the City of Davao,
DECISION Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-mentioned accused, armed with a gun, and with intent to kill,
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot one Artemio Pantinople,
PANGANIBAN, CJ: thereby inflicting fatal wound upon the latter which caused his
death." [8]
Well-rooted is the principle that factual findings of trial courts,
especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are generally binding The Facts
on the Supreme Court. In convicting the accused in the present case, Version of the Prosecution
the Court not merely relied on this doctrine, but also meticulously
reviewed the evidence on record. It has come to the inevitable The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarized the People's
conclusion that petitioner is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of version of the facts:
the crime charged.
"4. The prosecution presented Lito Santos, Ernita Pantinople, PO2
The Case Mariano Operario, Alicia Pantinople and Dr. Danilo Ledesma as its
witnesses from whose testimonies, the following facts were
Before us is a Petition for Review [1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of established.
Court, seeking to set aside the November 28, 2003 Decision [2] and
the March 10, 2004 Resolution [3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA- "Lito Santos, a forty-three-year old farmer and resident of Barangay
GR CR No. 25401. The CA affirmed, with modifications as to the Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City, testified that about 6:00
award of damages, the Decision [4] of Branch 10 of the Regional Trial o'clock in the afternoon of November 4, 1998, he saw his neighbor
Court (RTC) of Davao City. The RTC had found Celestino Marturillas and 'kumpare' Artemio Pantinople arrive on board a jeepney from
guilty of homicide in Criminal Case No. 42091-98. The assailed CA Bunawan, Davao City. Artemio was carrying a truck battery, some
Decision disposed as follows: corn bran and rice. They talked for a while concerning their livelihood
afterwhich, Artemio proceeded to connect the battery to the
"WHEREFORE, subject to the modification thus indicated, the fluorescent lamps in his store. Artemio's store was located about five
judgment appealed from must be, as it hereby is, AFFIRMED. With (5) meters away from Lito's house.
the costs of this instance to be assessed against the accused-
appellant." [5] "After installing the battery to the fluorescent lamps, Artemio sat for
a while on a bench located in front of his store. Then, Cecilia Santos,
1
EVIDENCE CASES
Lito's wife, called him and Artemio for supper. Artemio obliged. Lito, "At the same instance, Ernita was also in their kitchen preparing
opting to eat later, served Artemio and Cecilia the food. After eating, milk for her baby. Her baby was then lying on the floor of their
Artemio returned to the bench and sat on it again together with his kitchen. When she was about to put the bottle into the baby's mouth,
tree (3) children, namely: Janice, Saysay and Pitpit. she suddenly heard the sound of a gunburst followed by a
shout, 'Help me Pre, I was shot by the captain.' She immediately
"Lito was eating supper in their kitchen when he heard a gunshot. pushed open the window of their kitchen and saw appellant wearing
From a distance of about ten (10) meters, he also noticed smoke and a black jacket and camouflage pants running towards the direction of
fire coming from the muzzle of a big gun. Moments later, he saw the back portion of Lito's house. From there, appellant crossed the
Artemio clasping his chest and staggering backwards to the direction street and disappeared.
of his (Lito's) kitchen. Artemio shouted to him, 'Tabangi ko Pre, gipusil
ko ni kapitan,' meaning 'Help me, Pre, I was shot by the captain.' "Ernita saw appellant carrying with him a long firearm which looked
However, Lito did not approach Artemio right after the shooting like an M-14 rifle. Ernita also sensed that appellant had some
incident because Cecilia warned him that he might also be shot. companions with him because she heard the crackling sound of the
dried leaves around the place. Ernita had a clear view of appellant at
"Lito did not see the person who shot Artemio because his attention that time because their place was well-illumined by the full moon
was then focused on Artemio. that night and by the two (2) fluorescent lamps in their store which
were switched on at the time of the incident.
"Shortly, Lito saw Ernita Pantinople, the wife of Artemio, coming from
her house towards the direction where Artemio was sprawled on the "Ernita immediately went out of their house and ran towards
ground. Ernita was hysterical, jumping and shouting, 'Kapitan, bakit Artemio. Artemio tried to speak to her but he could not do so because
mo binaril and aking asawa.' She also repeatedly cried for help. his mouth was full of blood. Upon seeing the pitiful sight of her
husband, Ernita shouted several times, 'Kapitan, ngano nimo gipatay
"Lito then went out of their house and approached Artemio who was and akong bana.' She also repeatedly called her neighbors for help
lying dead near a banana trunk more than five (5) meters from his but only Lito Santos, Eufemio Antenero, Norman Libre and some
house. Some of their neighbors, namely: Antenero, Loloy Libre and residents of Poblacion Gatungan responded to her calls and
Lapis answered Ernita's call for help and approached them. approached them. She noted that no member of the CFO and CAFGU
came to help them. Also, no barangay tanod came to offer them to
"When the shooting incident happened about 7:30 in the evening of help.
November 4, 1998, Lito's house was illumined by a lamp. Their
kitchen has no walls. It is an open-type kitchen giving him an "While waiting for the police, Ernita did not allow Artemio's body to
unobstructed view of Artemio who was about five (5) meters away be touched by anybody. After more than two (2) hours, the police
from where he was positioned at that time. Although there was arrived, together with a photographer by the name of Fe Mendez of
a gemilina tree growing in the space in between his house and the Bunawan District, Davao City who took pictures of the crime scene.
store of Artemio, the same did not block his view of Artemio. Likewise,
the coconut trees and young banana plants growing at the scene of "PO2 Mariano Operario, Investigation Officer of the Investigation
the crime did not affect his view. Section of the Bunawan Police Station, Philippine National Police,
Davao City, testified that about 9:05 in the evening of November 4,
2
EVIDENCE CASES
1998, he received a report of an alleged shooting incident at Barangay
Gatungan, Bunawan District in Davao City. Together with SPO1 Rodel "Upon hearing the report, Alicia looked for some money thinking that
C. Estrellan and a member of the mobile police patrol on board their it might be needed for Artemio's hospitalization because she expected
mobile car, PO2 Operario proceeded immediately to the crime scene. Artemio to be still alive. Artemio's two (2) children, namely: Jonel and
They reached the crime scene about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of Genesis who were staying with her hurriedly left. She then ran to the
the same date. They found the lifeless body of Artemio sprawled on place where her brother was shot and found Artemio's dead body on
the ground. Ernita and Lito then approached PO2 Operario and the ground surrounded by his four (4) children.
informed him that appellant was the one responsible for the
shooting. "At the Bunawan Police Station, Alicia was informed by the police
that appellant was at Tibungco Police Station. She sent her male
"PO2 Operario stayed at the crime scene for about one (1) hour and cousin to proceed to Tibungco Police Station to find out if appellant
waited for the funeral vehicle to pick up the body of Artemio. When was indeed in the said place. However, her cousin immediately
the funeral hearse arrived, PO2 Operario told the crew to load returned and informed her that appellant was not in Tibungco Police
Artemio's body into the vehicle. Thereafter, he then boarded again Station. She then went around the Bunawan Police Station and
their mobile car together with Lito Santos. noticed a locked door. When she peeped through the hole of the said
door, she saw appellant reclining on a bench about two and a half (2
"Armed with the information that appellant was the one responsible ) meters away from the door. Appellant's left leg was on top of the
for the shooting of Artemio, PO2 Operario proceeded to the house of bench while his right leg was on the ground. Appellant was wearing a
appellant and informed him that he was a suspect in the killing of brown shirt, black jacket and a pair of camouflage pants. He was also
Artemio. He then invited appellant to go with him to the police station wearing brown shoes but he had no socks on his feet.
and also to bring along with him his M-14 rifle. Appellant did not say
anything. He just got his M-14 rifle and went with the police to the "At the police station, Alicia confronted appellant: 'Nong Listing I
police station where he was detained the whole night of November 4, know that you can recognize my voice. It is me. Why did you kill my
1998. Appellant did not also give any statement to anybody about the brother? What has he done wrong to you?'
incident. The following day, appellant was transferred by the police to
Tibungco Police Station where he was detained. "Appellant did not answer her. Nevertheless, she was sure that
appellant was awake because he was tapping the floor with his right
"Alicia Pantinople, the 44-year old sister of Artemio, testified that on foot.
the night of November 4, 1998, she was at home watching television.
She heard a gunshot but did not mind it because she was already "Dr. Danilo Ledesma, a medico-legal officer of the Davao City Health
used to hearing the sound of guns fired indiscriminately in their Department, conducted an autopsy on Artemio's cadaver about 9:30
place. in the morning of November 5, 1998 at the Rivera Funeral Homes
located at Licanan, Lasang. His findings are summarized in his
"After a few minutes, Junjun, a child and resident of Sitio Centro, Necropsy Report No. 76:
Barangay Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City came knocking at
their door. Junjun informed them that: 'Yoyo, Uncle Titing was shot,' 'POSTMORTEM FINDINGS
referring to Artemio.
3
EVIDENCE CASES
'Pallor, marked generalized. than twenty-four (24) inches when he fired his gun at Artemio. He did
not also find any bullet slug inside the body of Artemio indicating
'Body in rigor mortis. that the bullet went through Artemio's body. Artemio's heart and
lungs were lacerated and his stomach contained partially digested
'Wound, gunshot, ENTRANCE, 0.9 x 0.8 cm. Ovaloid located at the food particles indicating that he had just eaten his meal when he was
anterior chestwall, rightside, 1.0 cm; from the anterior median line, shot.
at the level of the third (3rd) intercoastal space and 131.0 cms. above
the right heel, directed backwards, upwards, medially crossing the "In the certificate of death of Artemio, Dr. Ledesma indicated that the
midline from the right to left, involving the soft tissues, perforating cause of his death was a gunshot wound on the chest.
the body of the sternum, into the pericardial cavity, perforating the
heart into the left thoracic cavity, perforating the heart into the left "5. After the defense presented its evidence, the case was submitted
thoracic cavity, perforating the upper lobe of the left lung, forming an for decision."[9]
irregular EXIT, 1.5 x 1.1 cms. at the posterior chest wall left side,
13.0 cms. from the posterior median line and 139.0 cms. above the Version of the Defense
left heel.
On the other hand, petitioner presented the following statement of
'Hemopericadium, 300 ml. facts:
'Hemothorax, left, 1,000 ml. "9. This is a criminal case for Homicide originally lodged before the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 of Davao City against herein
'Stomach, filled with partially digested food particles. Petitioner Celestino Marturillas, former Barangay Captain of
Gatungan, Bunawan District[,] Davao City and docketed as Criminal
'Other visceral organs, pale. Case No. 42,091-98. The criminal charge against Petitioner was the
result of a shooting incident in Barangay Gatungan, Bunawan
'CAUSE OF DEATH: Gunshot wound of the chest. District, Davao City which resulted in the slaying of Artemio
Signed by: DANILO P. LEDESMA Pantinople while the latter was on his way home in the evening of
Medico-Legal Officer IV' November 4, 1998.
"During the trial, Dr. Ledesma explained that Artemio died of a "10. On that same evening at around 8:30 p.m. herein Petitioner
gunshot wound, 0.9 x 0.8 centimeters in size located about one (1) former Barangay Captain Celestino Marturillas was roused from his
inch away from the centerline of Artemio's Adam's apple down to his sleep at his house in Barangay Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao
navel and about 1:00 o'clock from his right nipple. City by his wife since Kagawads Jimmy Balugo and Norman Libre
(Barangay Kagawads of Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City)
"The trajectory of the bullet passing through Artemio's body indicates wanted to see him. Dazed after just having risen from bed, Petitioner
that his assailant was in a lower position than Artemio when the gun was rubbing his eyes when he met the two Kagawads inside his
was fired. Dr. Ledesma also found the wound of Artemio negative of house. He was informed that a resident of his barangay, Artemio
powder burns indicating that the assailant was at a distance of more Pantinople, had just been shot. Petitioner at once ordered his
4
EVIDENCE CASES
Kagawads to assemble the members of the SCAA (Special Civilian live ammunition to SPO1 Estrellan and PO3 Sendrijas of the
Armed [Auxiliary]) so that they could be escorted to the crime scene Bunawan PNP at around 10:45 p.m. of November 4, 1998.
some 250 meters away. As soon as the SCAA's were contacted, they
(Petitioner, Kagawads Libre and Balugo including Wiliam Gabas, "14. When the shooting incident was first recorded in the Daily
Eddie Loyahan and Junior Marturillas - the last three being SCAA Record of Events of the Bunawan PNP it was indicated therein that
members) then proceeded to the crime scene to determine what deceased may have been shot by unidentified armed men viz:
assistance they could render.
'Entry No. Date Time Incident/Events
"11. While approaching the store owned by the Pantinople's and not 2289 110498 2105H SHOOTING INCIDENT-
very far from where the deceased lay sprawled, Petitioner was met by
Ernita Pantinople (wife of the deceased-Artemio Pantinople) who was 'One Dominador Lopez 43 years old, married, farmer and a resident
very mad and belligerent. She immediately accused Petitioner of of Puro[k] 5, Barangay Gatungan, Davao City appeared at this
having shot her husband instead of Lito Santos who was his enemy. Precinct and reported that shortly before this writing, one ARTEMIO
Petitioner was taken aback by the instant accusation against him. He PANTINOPLE, former barangay kagawad of Barangay Gatungan was
explained that he just came from his house where he was roused by allegedly shot to death by an unidentified armed men at the
his Kagawads from his sleep. Not being able to talk sense with Ernita aforementioned Barangay. x x x.'
Pantinople, Petitioner and his companions backed off to avoid a
heated confrontation. Petitioner instead decided to go back to his "15. The extract from the police blotter prepared by SPO2 Dario B.
house along with his companions. Undo dated November 9, 1998 already had a little modification
indicating therein that deceased was shot by an unidentified armed
"12. Upon reaching his house, Petitioner instructed Kagawad Jimmy man and the following entry was made.
Balugo to contact the Bunawan Police Station and inform them what
transpired. Not knowing the radio frequency of the local police, '2105H: Shooting Incident: One Dominador Lopez, 43 years old,
Kagawad Balugo instead radioed officials of nearby Barangay San married, farmer and a resident of Purok 5, Barangay Gatungan
Isidro requesting them to contact the Bunawan PNP for police Bunawan District, Davao City appeared at this Police Precinct and
assistance since someone was shot in their locality. reported that prior to these writing, one Artemio Pantinople, former
Barangay Kagawad of Barangay Gatungan was allegedly shot to death
"13. Moments later, PO2 Mariano Operario and another police officer by unidentified armed man at the aforementioned barangay. x x x.'
arrived at the house of Petitioner and when confronted by the latter,
he was informed by PO2 Operario that he was the principal suspect "16. On November 5, 1998 at around 7:15 a.m. PO2 Mariano
in the slaying of Artemio Pantinople. Upon their invitation, Petitioner Operario indorsed with the Bunawan PNP an empty shell fired from a
immediately went with the said police officers for questioning at the carbine rifle which was recovered by the said police officer from the
Bunawan Police Station. He also took with him his government- crime scene in the night of the incident. Owing to his pre-occupation
issued M-14 Rifle and one magazine of live M-14 ammunition which in organizing and preparing the affidavits of the Complainant and her
Petitioner turned over for safe keeping with the Bunawan PNP. The witnesses the previous evening, he was only able to indorse the same
police blotter showed that Petitioner surrendered his M-14 rifle with the following morning. At the same time, P/Chief Insp. Julito M.
Diray, Station Commander of the Bunawan PNP made a written
5
EVIDENCE CASES
request addressed to the District Commander of the PNP Crime City at 10:30 a.m. November 5, 1998. The next day, November 6,
Laboratory requesting that a paraffin test be conducted on Petitioner 1998, the PNP Crime Laboratory released Physical Sciences Report
and that a ballistics examination be made on the M-14 rifle which he No. C-074-98 regarding the paraffin test results which found
surrendered to Bunawan PNP. Petitioner NEGATIVE for gunpowder nitrates based on the following
findings of the PNP Crime Laboratory:
"17. At around 9:30 a.m. of November 5, 1998, Dr. Danilo P.
Ledesma, M.D., Medico-Legal Officer for Davao City conducted an 'FINDINGS:
autopsy on the cadaver of deceased and made the following Post-
Mortem Findings contained in Necropsy Report No. 76 dated 'Qualitative examination conducted on the above-mentioned
November 6, 1998, viz: specimen gave NEGATIVE result to the test for the presence of
gunpowder nitrates. x x x
'Pallor, marked, generalized
'Body in rigor mortis 'CONCLUSION:
'Wound, gunshot, ENTRANCE, 0.9-0.8 cm. ovaloid located at the 'Both hands of Celestino Marturillas do not contain gunpowder
anterior chest wall, right side, .0 cm. from the anterior median line, nitrates[.]'
at the level of the third (3rd) intercostal space and 131.0 cms. above
the right neck, directed backwards, upwards, medially, crossing the "19. After preparing all the affidavits of Ernita Pantinople and her
midline from the right to left, involving the soft tissues, perforating witnesses PO2 Mariano R. Operario Jr., the police officer as[s]igned to
the body of the sternum into the pericardial cavity, perforating the investigate the shooting of the deceased, prepared and transmitted,
heart into the left thoracic cavity, perforating the upper lobe of the on November 5, 1998, a Complaint to the City Prosecution Office
left lung forming an irregular EXIT, 1.5x1.1 cms. at the posterior recommending that Petitioner be indicted for Murder, attaching
chest wall, left side, 13.0 cms. from the posterior median line and therewith the Sworn Affidavits of Ernita O. Pantinople (Complainant),
139.0 cms. above the left neck. Lito D. Santos (witness) and the Sworn Joint Affidavit of SPO1 Rodel
Estrellan and PO2 Mariano R. Operario Jr. of the PNP.
'Hemopericadium, 300 ml.
"20. The following is the Affidavit-Complaint of Ernita Pantinople as
'Hemothorax, left 1,000 ml. well as the supporting affidavits of her witnesses all of which are
quoted in full hereunder:
'Stomach filled with partially digested food particles.
'Ernita Pantinople's Affidavit-Complaint dated November 5, 1998:
'Other visceral organs, pale
'That last November 4, 1998 at about 7:30 in the evening, I was
'CAUSE OF DEATH: Gunshot wound of the chest.' attending and caring my baby boy at that time to let him sleep and
that moment I heard first one gun shot burst after then somebody
"18. After the fatal shooting of deceased, Celestino Marturillas was shouting seeking for help in Visayan words 'tabangi ko Pre gipusil ko
subjected to paraffin testing by the PNP Crime Laboratory in Davao
6
EVIDENCE CASES
ni Kapitan' I estimated a distance to more or less ten (10) meters possession then followed somebody shouting seeking for help in
away from my house; Visayan words 'tabangi ko pre gipusil ko ni Kapitan';
'That I immediately peep at the windows, wherein I very saw a person 'That I really saw the victim moving backward to more or less five (5)
of Brgy. Capt. Celestino Marturillas of Brgy. Gatungan, Bunawan meters away from where he was shot then and there the victim
District, Davao City, wearing black jacket and camouflage pants slumped at the grassy area;
carrying his M-14 rifle running to the direction to the left side
portion of the house of Lito Santos who was my neighbor 'That I immediately go out from my house and proceeded to the
respectively; victims body, wherein, when I came nearer I found and identified the
victim one Artemio Pantinople who was my nearby neighbor sprawled
'That I hurriedly go down from my house and proceeded to the on his own blood at the grassy area;
victims body, wherein when I came nearer I got surprised for the
victim was my beloved husband; 'That no other person named by the victim other than Brgy. Capt.
Celestino Marturillas of Brgy. Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao
'That I was always shouting in visayan words 'kapitan nganong imo City;
mang gipatay and akong bana';
'That I am executing this affidavit to apprised the authorities concern
'That I let my husband body still at that placed until the police of the true facts and circumstances that surrounds the incident.'
officers will arrived and investigate the incident;
"21. Based on the Affidavits executed by Ernita Pantinople and Lito
'That I know personally Brgy. Capt. Celestino Marturillas for he is my Santos, then 2nd Asst. City Prosecutor Raul B. Bendigo issued a
nearby neighbor at that placed; Resolution on November 5, 1998 finding sufficient evidence to indict
Appellant for the crime of Homicide and not Murder as alleged in
'That I am executing this affidavit to apprise the authorities concern Private Complainant's Affidavit Complaint. The Information states:
of the truthfulness of the foregoing and my desire to file necessary
charges against Celestino Marturillas.' 'Above-mentioned Accused, armed with a gun, and with intent to kill,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot one Artemio Pantinople,
'Witness-Affidavit of Lito Santos dated November 5, 1998 reads: thereby inflicting fatal wound upon the latter which caused his
death.
'I, LITO D. SANTOS, 43 yrs. old, married, farmer, a resident of Purok
5, Brgy. Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City after having been 'CONTRARY TO LAW.'
duly sworn to in accordance with law do hereby depose and say:
xxxxxxxxx
'That last November 4, 1998 at about 7:30 in the evening I was taking
my dinner at the kitchen of my house and after finished eating I "23. The theory of the Defense was anchored on the testimony of the
stood up then got a glass of water and at that time I heard one gun following individuals:
shot burst estimated to more or less ten (10) meters from my
7
EVIDENCE CASES
'23.1 Jimmy Balugo, was one of the Barangay Kagawads who went to men was armed with a rifle but could not make out their identities
the house of Petitioner after receiving a radio message from Brgy. since the area where the three men converged was a very dark place.
Kagawad Glenda Lascua that a shooting incident took place in their After the three men disappeared, he saw from the opposite direction
barangay. He also testified that together with Kagawad Norberto Petitioner, Barangay Kagawad Jimmy Balugo and three (3) SCAA
Libre, he proceeded to the house of Petitioner to inform him of the members going to the scene of the crime but they did not reach the
shooting incident involving a certain Artemio 'Titing' Pantinople. After crime scene. A little later, he saw the group of Petitioner return to
informing Petitioner about what happened, the latter instructed him where they came from.
and Norberto Libre to gather the SCAA's and to accompany them to
the crime scene. He also narrated to the court that Petitioner and '23.4) Police C/Insp. Noemi Austero, Forensic Chemist of the PNP
their group were not able to render any assistance at the crime scene Crime Laboratory, testified that she conducted a paraffin test on both
since the widow and the relatives of deceased were already hands of Petitioner on November 5, 1999 at around 10:30 a.m. She
belligerent. As a result of which, the group of Petitioner including also testified that Petitioner tested NEGATIVE for gunpowder nitrates
himself, went back to the former's house where he asked Petitioner if indicating that he never fired a weapon at any time between 7:30
it would be alright to contact the police and request for assistance. p.m. of November 4, 1999 until the next day, November 5, 1999. She
He claimed that he was able to contact the Bunawan PNP with the also testified that as a matter of procedure at the PNP Crime
help of the Barangay Police of Barangay San Isidro. Laboratory, they do not conduct paraffin testing on a crime suspect
seventy two (72) hours after an alleged shooting incident. She also
'23.2) Norberto Libre testified that in the evening of November 4, testified that based on her experience she is not aware of any
1998, he heard a gunburst which resembled a firecracker and after a chemical that could extract gunpowder nitrates from the hands of a
few minutes Barangay Kagawad Jimmy Balugo went to his house and person who had just fired his weapon.
informed him that their neighbor Titing Pantinople was shot.
Kagawad Balugo requested him to accompany the former to go to the '23.5) Dominador Lapiz testified that he lived on the land of the
house of then Barangay Captain Celestino Marturillas; that he and victim, Artemio Pantinople for ten (10) years. He was one of the first
Kagawad Balugo proceeded to the house of Petitioner and shouted to persons who went to the crime scene where he personally saw the
awaken the latter; that Barangay Captain Marturillas went out body of deceased lying at a very dark portion some distance from the
rubbing his eyes awakened from his sleep and was informed of the victim's house and that those with him at that time even had to light
killing of Artemio Pantinople; that Petitioner immediately instructed the place with a lamp so that they could clearly see the deceased. He
them to fetch the SCAA and thereafter their group went to the crime also testified that there were many coconut and other trees and
scene. bananas in the crime scene. He also testified that the house of Lito
Santos was only about four (4) meters from the crime scene, while
'23.3) Ronito Bedero testified that he was in his house on the night the house of victim-Artemio Pantinople was about FIFTY (50) meters
Artemio Pantinop[l]e was shot. The material point raised by this away. He testified that there was no lighted fluorescent at the store of
witness in his testimony was the fact that he saw an unidentified deceased at the time of the shooting. He was also the one who
armed man flee from the crime scene who later joined two other informed Kagawad Glenda Lascuna about the shooting of Artemio
armed men near a nangka tree not far from where deceased was shot. Pantinople. His testimony also revealed that when the responding
All three later fled on foot towards the direction of the Purok Center policemen arrived, Lito Santos immediately approached the
in Barangay Gatungan. This witness noticed that one of the three
8
EVIDENCE CASES
policemen, volunteered himself as a witness and even declared that shot by the captain, clearly established the latter's complicity in the
he would testify that it was Petitioner who shot Artemio Pantinople. crime.
'On cross-examination, this witness declared that the crime scene No ill motive could be ascribed by the CA to the prosecution
was very dark and one cannot see the body of the victim without witnesses. Thus, their positive, credible and unequivocal testimonies
light. On cross-examination, this witness also testified that Lito were accepted as sufficient to establish the guilt of petitioner beyond
Santos approached the service vehicle of the responding policemen reasonable doubt.
and volunteered to be a witness that Petitioner was the assailant of
the victim, Artemio Pantinople. This witness further testified that On the other hand, the CA also rejected his defenses of denial and
immediately after he went to the crime scene, the widow of the victim alibi. It held that they were necessarily suspect, especially when
and the children were merely shouting and crying and it was only established by friends or relatives, and should thus be subjected to
after the policemen arrived that the widow uttered in a loud voice, the strictest scrutiny. At any rate, his alibi and denial cannot prevail
'Kapitan nganong gipatay mo and akong bana?' over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses found to be
more credible.
'23.6) Celestino Marturillas, former Barangay Captain of Barangay
Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City testified that he learned of The appellate court upheld petitioner's conviction, as well as the
Pantinople's killing two hours later through information personally award of damages. In addition, it awarded actual damages
relayed to him by Kagawads Jimmy Balugo and Norberto Libre. He representing unearned income.
intimated to the Court that he did try to extend some assistance to
the family of the deceased but was prevented from so doing since the Hence, this Petition. [11]
wife of deceased herself and her relatives were already hostile with
him when he was about to approach the crime scene. He also The Issues
testified that he voluntarily went with the police officers who arrested
him at his residence on the same evening after the victim was shot. In his Memorandum, petitioner submits the following issues for the
He also turned over to police custody the M-14 rifle issued to him Court's consideration:
and voluntarily submitted himself to paraffin testing a few hours
after he was taken in for questioning by the Bunawan PNP. Petitioner, "I
during the trial consistently maintained that he is innocent of the
charge against him.'" [10] The Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it gave
credence to the claim of the solicitor general that the prosecution's
Ruling of the Court of Appeals witnesses positively identified petitioner as the alleged triggerman
The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC that the guilt of petitioner "II
had been established beyond reasonable doubt. According to the
appellate court, he was positively identified as the one running away The Court of Appeals was in serious error when it affirmed the trial
from the crime scene immediately after the gunshot. This fact, court's blunder in literally passing the blame on petitioner for the
together with the declaration of the victim himself that he had been
9
EVIDENCE CASES
lapses in the investigation conducted by the police thereby shifting on First Main Issue:
him the burden of proving his innocence Credibility of the Prosecution Evidence
"Ernita's testimony that she saw [petitioner] at the crime scene is "x x x Ernita's recognition of the assailant was made possible by the
credible because the spot where Artemio was shot was only 30 meters lighted two fluorescent lamps in their store and by the full moon. x x
away from her house. Undoubtedly, Ernita is familiar with x. In corroboration, Lito testified that the place where the shooting
[petitioner], who is her neighbor, and a long-time barangay captain of occurred was bright.
Barangay Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City when the incident
took place. Ernita was also able to see his face while he was running "The trees and plants growing in between Ernita's house and the
away from the crime scene. The identification of a person can be place where Artemio was shot to death did not impede her view of the
established through familiarity with one's physical features. Once a assailant. To be sure, the prosecution presented photographs of the
person has gained familiarity with one another, identification scene of the crime and its immediate vicinities. These photographs
becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable distance. gave a clear picture of the place where Artemio was shot. Admittedly,
Judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that people in rural there are some trees and plants growing in between the place where
communities generally know each other both by face and name, and the house of Ernita was located and the spot where Artemio was
can be expected to know each other's distinct and particular features shot. Notably, however, there is only one gemilina tree, some coconut
and characteristics." [20] trees and young banana plants growing in the place where Artemio
was shot. The trees and banana plants have slender trunks which
This holding confirms the findings of fact of the RTC. Settled is the could not have posed an obstacle to Ernita's view of the crime scene
rule that on questions of the credibility of witnesses and the veracity from the kitchen window of her house especially so that she was in
of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the highest an elevated position." [24]
degree of respect. [21] It was the trial court that had the opportunity
to observe the manner in which the witnesses had testified; as well as This Court has consistently held that -- given the proper conditions --
their furtive glances, calmness, sighs, and scant or full realization of the illumination produced by a kerosene lamp, a flashlight, a wick
their oaths. [22] It had the better opportunity to observe them lamp, moonlight, or starlight is considered sufficient to allow the
11
EVIDENCE CASES
identification of persons. [25] In this case, the full moon and the light
coming from two fluorescent lamps of a nearby store were sufficient We find no inconsistency. Although Ernita stated in her testimony
to illumine the place where petitioner was; and to enable the that she had recognized the victim as her husband through his voice,
eyewitness to identify him as the person who was present at the it cannot necessarily be inferred that she did not see him. Although
crime scene. Settled is the rule that when conditions of visibility are she recognized him as the victim, she was still hoping that it was not
favorable and the witnesses do not appear to be biased, their really he. Thus, the statement in her Affidavit that she was surprised
assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should normally be to see that her husband was the victim of the shooting.
accepted. [26]
To be sure, ex parte affidavits are usually incomplete, as these are
But even where the circumstances were less favorable, the familiarity frequently prepared by administering officers and cast in their
of Ernita with the face of petitioner considerably reduced any error in language and understanding of what affiants have said. [31] Almost
her identification of him. [27] Since the circumstances in this case always, the latter would simply sign the documents after being read
were reasonably sufficient for the identification of persons, this fact of to them. Basic is the rule that, taken ex parte, affidavits are
her familiarity with him erases any doubt that she could have erred considered incomplete and often inaccurate. They are products
in identifying him. Those related to the victim of a crime have a sometimes of partial suggestions and at other times of want of
natural tendency to remember the faces of those involved in it. These suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which witnesses may be
relatives, more than anybody else, would be concerned with seeking unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary for accurate
justice for the victim and bringing the malefactor before the law. [28] recollection. [32]
Neither was there any indication that Ernita was impelled by ill Nevertheless, the alleged inconsistency is inconsequential to the
motives in positively identifying petitioner. The CA was correct in ascertainment of the presence of petitioner at the crime scene. Ruled
observing that it would be "unnatural for a relative who is interested the CA:
in vindicating the crime to accuse somebody else other than the real
culprit. For her to do so is to let the guilty go free." [29] Where there "x x x. They referred only to that point wherein Ernita x x x
is nothing to indicate that witnesses were actuated by improper ascertained the identity of Artemio as the victim. They did not relate
motives on the witness stand, their positive declarations made under to Ernita's identification of [petitioner] as the person running away from
solemn oath deserve full faith and credence. [30] the crime scene immediately after she heard a gunshot." [33]
Petitioner contends that the testimony of Ernita materially Ernita positively testified that immediately after the shooting, she had
contradicted her Affidavit. According to him, she said in her heard her husband say, "Help me p're, I was shot by the captain."
testimony that she had immediately recognized her husband as the This statement was corroborated by another witness, Lito Santos,
victim of the shooting; but in her Affidavit she stated that it was only who testified on the events immediately preceding and subsequent to
when she had approached the body that she came to know that he the shooting.
was the victim.
12
EVIDENCE CASES
It should be clear that Santos never testified that petitioner was the The two witnesses unequivocally declared and corroborated each
one who had actually shot the victim. Still, the testimony of this other on the fact that the plea, "Help me p're, I was shot by the
witness is valuable, because it validates the statements made by captain," had been uttered by the victim. Nevertheless, petitioner
Ernita. He confirms that after hearing the gunshot, he saw the victim contends that it was highly probable that the deceased died instantly
and heard the latter cry out those same words. and was consequently unable to shout for help. We do not discount
this possibility, which petitioner himself admits to be a probability. In
Petitioner insinuates that it was incredible for Santos to have seen the face of the positive declaration of two witnesses that the words
the victim, but not the assailant. The CA dismissed this argument were actually uttered, we need not concern ourselves with
thus: speculations, probabilities or possibilities. Said the CA:
"x x x. The natural reaction of a person who hears a loud or startling "x x x. Thus, as between the positive and categorical declarations of
command is to turn towards the speaker. Moreover, witnessing a the prosecution witnesses and the mere opinion of the medical
crime is an unusual experience that elicits different reactions from doctor, the former must necessarily prevail.
witnesses, for which no clear-cut standard of behavior can be
prescribed. Lito's reaction is not unnatural. He was more concerned "Moreover, it must be stressed that the post-mortem examination of
about Artemio's condition than the need to ascertain the identity of the cadaver of Artemio was conducted by Dr. Ledesma only about
Artemio's assailant." [34] 9:30 in the morning of November 5, 1998 or the day following the
fatal shooting of Artemio. Evidently, several hours had elapsed prior
It was to be expected that, after seeing the victim stagger and hearing to the examination. Thus, Dr. Ledesma could not have determined
the cry for help, Santos would shift his attention to the person who Artemio's physical condition a few seconds after the man was shot."
had uttered the plea quoted earlier. A shift in his focus of attention [36]
would sufficiently explain why Santos was not able to see the
assailant. Petitioner then accuses this witness of harboring "a deep- Dying Declaration
seated grudge," [35] which would explain why the latter allegedly
fabricated a serious accusation. Having established that the victim indeed uttered those words, the
question to be resolved is whether they can be considered as part of
This contention obviously has no basis. No serious accusation the dying declaration of the victim.
against petitioner was ever made by Santos. What the latter did was
merely to recount what he heard the victim utter immediately after Rule 130, Section 37 of the Rules of Court, provides:
the shooting. Santos never pointed to petitioner as the perpetrator of
the crime. The statements of the former corroborated those of Ernita "The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of
and therefore simply added credence to the prosecution's version of impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is
the facts. If it were true that he had an ulterior motive, it would have the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding
been very easy for him to say that he had seen petitioner shoot the circumstances of such death."
victim.
Generally, witnesses can testify only to those facts derived from their
own perception. A recognized exception, though, is a report in open
13
EVIDENCE CASES
court of a dying person's declaration made under the consciousness seriousness of the words and the fact that death occurred shortly
of an impending death that is the subject of inquiry in the case. [37] afterwards may be considered as sufficient evidence that the
declaration was made by the victim with full consciousness of being
Statements identifying the assailant, if uttered by a victim on the in a dying condition. [46]
verge of death, are entitled to the highest degree of credence and
respect. [38] Persons aware of an impending death have been known Also, the statement was made freely and voluntarily, without coercion
to be genuinely truthful in their words and extremely scrupulous in or suggestion, and was offered as evidence in a criminal case for
their accusations. [39] The dying declaration is given credence, on the homicide. In this case, the declarant was the victim who, at the time
premise that no one who knows of one's impending death will make a he uttered the dying declaration, was competent as a witness.
careless and false accusation. [40] Hence, not infrequently,
pronouncements of guilt have been allowed to rest solely on the dying As found by the CA, the dying declaration of the victim was complete,
declaration of the deceased victim. [41] as it was "a full expression of all that he intended to say as conveying
his meaning. It [was] complete and [was] not merely fragmentary."
To be admissible, a dying declaration must 1) refer to the cause and [47] Testified to by his wife and neighbor, his dying declaration was
circumstances surrounding the declarant's death; 2) be made under not only admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule,
the consciousness of an impending death; 3) be made freely and but was also a weighty and telling piece of evidence.
voluntarily without coercion or suggestions of improper influence; 4)
be offered in a criminal case, in which the death of the declarant is Res Gestae
the subject of inquiry; and 5) have been made by a declarant
competent to testify as a witness, had that person been called upon The fact that the victim's statement constituted a dying declaration
to testify. [42] does not preclude it from being admitted as part of the res gestae, if
the elements of both are present. [48]
The statement of the deceased certainly concerned the cause and
circumstances surrounding his death. He pointed to the person who Section 42 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:
had shot him. As established by the prosecution, petitioner was the
only person referred to as kapitan in their place. [43] It was also "Part of the res gestae. -- Statements made by a person while a
established that the declarant, at the time he had given the dying startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
declaration, was under a consciousness of his impending death. subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be
given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements
True, he made no express statement showing that he was conscious accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a
of his impending death. The law, however, does not require the legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae."
declarant to state explicitly a perception of the inevitability of death.
[44] The perception may be established from surrounding Res gestae refers to statements made by the participants or the
circumstances, such as the nature of the declarant's injury and victims of, or the spectators to, a crime immediately before, during, or
conduct that would justify a conclusion that there was a after its commission. [49] These statements are a spontaneous
consciousness of impending death. [45] Even if the declarant did not reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion,
make an explicit statement of that realization, the degree and without any opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false
14
EVIDENCE CASES
statement. [50] An important consideration is whether there of its evidence, implying that there was no sufficient evidence to
intervened, between the occurrence and the statement, any convict him.
circumstance calculated to divert the mind and thus restore the
mental balance of the declarant; and afford an opportunity for We disagree. The totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution
deliberation. 51] is sufficient to sustain the conviction of petitioner. The dying
declaration made by the victim immediately prior to his death
A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in constitutes evidence of the highest order as to the cause of his death
evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule, when the following and of the identity of the assailant. 53] This damning evidence,
requisites concur: 1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling coupled with the proven facts presented by the prosecution, leads to
occurrence; 2) the statements were made before the declarant had the logical conclusion that petitioner is guilty of the crime charged.
time to contrive or devise; and 3) the statements concerned the
occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. The following circumstances proven by the prosecution produce a
[52] conviction beyond reasonable doubt:
All these requisites are present in this case. The principal act, the First. Santos testified that he had heard a gunshot; and seen smoke
shooting, was a startling occurrence. Immediately after, while he was coming from the muzzle of a gun, as well as the victim staggering
still under the exciting influence of the startling occurrence, the backwards while shouting, "Help me p're, I was shot by the captain."
victim made the declaration without any prior opportunity to contrive This statement was duly established, and the testimony of Santos
a story implicating petitioner. Also, the declaration concerned the one confirmed the events that had occurred. It should be understandable
who shot the victim. Thus, the latter's statement was correctly that "p're" referred to Santos, considering that he and the victim were
appreciated as part of the res gestae. conversing just before the shooting took place. It was also established
that the two called each other "p're," because Santos was the
Aside from the victim's statement, which is part of the res gestae, godfather of the victim's child. [54]
that of Ernita -- "Kapitan, ngano nimo gipatay ang akong bana?"
("Captain, why did you shoot my husband?") -- may be considered to Second. Ernita testified that she had heard a gunshot and her
be in the same category. Her statement was about the same startling husband's utterance, "Help me p're, I was shot by the captain," then
occurrence; it was uttered spontaneously, right after the shooting, saw petitioner in a black jacket and camouflage pants running away
while she had no opportunity to concoct a story against petitioner; from the crime scene while carrying a firearm.
and it related to the circumstances of the shooting.
Third. Ernita's statement, "Captain, why did you shoot my husband?"
Second Main Issue: was established as part of the res gestae.
Sufficiency of Evidence
Fourth. The version of the events given by petitioner is simply
Having established the evidence for the prosecution, we now address implausible. As the incumbent barangay captain, it should have been
the argument of petitioner that the appellate court had effectively his responsibility to go immediately to the crime scene and
shifted the burden of proof to him. He asserts that the prosecution investigate the shooting. Instead, he avers that when he went to the
should never rely on the weakness of the defense, but on the strength situs of the crime, the wife of the victim was already shouting and
15
EVIDENCE CASES
accusing him of being the assailant, so he just left. This reaction was (a) There is more than one circumstance;
very unlikely of an innocent barangay captain, who would simply
want to investigate a crime. Often have we ruled that the first impulse (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
of innocent persons when accused of wrongdoing is to express their
innocence at the first opportune time. [55] (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt." [62]
Fifth. The prosecution was able to establish motive on the part of
petitioner. The victim's wife positively testified that prior to the
shooting, her husband was trying to close a real estate transaction Paraffin Test
which petitioner tried to block. This showed petitioner's antagonism
towards the victim. [56] Petitioner takes issue with the negative results of the paraffin test
done on him. While they were negative, that fact alone did not ipso
These pieces of evidence indubitably lead to the conclusion that it facto prove that he was innocent. Time and time again, this Court
was petitioner who shot and killed the victim. This Court has has held that a negative paraffin test result is not a conclusive proof
consistently held that, where an eyewitness saw the accused with a that a person has not fired a gun. [63] In other words, it is possible to
gun seconds after the gunshot and the victim's fall, the reasonable fire a gun and yet be negative for nitrates, as when culprits wear
conclusion is that the accused had killed the victim. [57] Further gloves, wash their hands afterwards, or are bathed in perspiration.
establishing petitioner's guilt was the definitive statement of the [64] Besides, the prosecution was able to establish the events during
victim that he had been shot by the barangay captain. the shooting, including the presence of petitioner at the scene of the
crime. Hence, all other matters, such as the negative paraffin test
Clearly, petitioner's guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt. result, are of lesser probative value.
To be sure, conviction in a criminal case does not require a degree of
proof that, excluding the possibility of error, produces absolute Corpus Delicti
certainty. [58] Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof
that produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. [59] Petitioner then argues that the prosecution miserably failed to
establish the type of gun used in the shooting. Suffice it to say that
That some pieces of the above-mentioned evidence are circumstantial this contention hardly dents the latter's case. As correctly found by
does not diminish the fact that they are of a nature that would lead the appellate court, the prosecution was able to give sufficient proof
the mind intuitively, or by a conscious process of reasoning, toward of the corpus delicti -- the fact that a crime had actually been
the conviction of petitioner. [60] Circumstantial, vis-- committed. Ruled this Court in another case:
vis direct, evidence is not necessarily weaker. [61] Moreover, the
circumstantial evidence described above satisfies the requirements of "[Corpus delicti] is the fact of the commission of the crime that may
the Rules of Court, which we quote: be proved by the testimony of eyewitnesses. In its legal sense, corpus
delicti does not necessarily refer to the body of the person
"SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. -- Circumstantial murdered, to the firearms in the crime of homicide with the use of
evidence is sufficient for conviction if: unlicensed firearms, to the ransom money in the crime of kidnapping
for ransom, or x x x to the seized contraband cigarettes." [65]
16
EVIDENCE CASES
An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for
To undermine the case of the prosecution against him, petitioner review. It then becomes the duty of this Court to correct any error in
depends heavily on its failure to present the gun used in the shooting the appealed judgment, whether or not included in the assignment of
and on the negative paraffin test result. These pieces of evidence error. [68] The CA upheld the RTC in the latter's award of damages,
alone, according to him, should exculpate him from the crime. His with the modification that unearned income be added.
reliance on them is definitely misplaced, however. In a similar case,
this Court has ruled as follows: We uphold the award of P50,000 indemnity ex delicto [69] to the heirs
of the victim. When death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of
"Petitioner likewise harps on the prosecution's failure to present the the deceased are entitled to this amount as indemnity for the death,
records from the Firearms and Explosives Department of the without need of any evidence or proof of damages. [70] As to actual
Philippine National Police at Camp Crame of the .45 caliber damages, we note that the prosecution was able to establish
Remington pistol owned by petitioner for comparison with the sufficiently only P22,200 for funeral and burial costs. The rest of the
specimen found at the crime scene with the hope that it would expenses, although presented, were not duly receipted. We cannot
exculpate him from the trouble he is in. Unfortunately for petitioner, simply accept them as credible evidence. This Court has already
we have previously held that 'the choice of what evidence to present, ruled, though, that when actual damages proven by receipts during
or who should testify as a witness is within the discretionary power of the trial amount to less than P25,000, the award of P25,000 for
the prosecutor and definitely not of the courts to dictate.' temperate damages is justified, in lieu of the actual damages of a
lesser amount. [71] In effect, the award granted by the lower court is
"Anent the failure of the investigators to conduct a paraffin test on upheld.
petitioner, this Court has time and again held that such failure is not
fatal to the case of the prosecution as scientific experts agree that the As to the award of moral damages, the P500,000 given by the RTC
paraffin test is extremely unreliable and it is not conclusive as to an and upheld by the CA should be reduced to P50,000, consistent with
accused's complicity in the crime committed." [66] prevailing jurisprudence.[72] We also affirm the award of loss of
earning capacity [73] in the amount of P312,000; attorney's fees of
Finally, as regards petitioner's alibi, we need not belabor the point. It P20,000; and payment of the costs.
was easily, and correctly, dismissed by the CA thus:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and
"[Petitioner's] alibi is utterly untenable. For alibi to prosper, it must be Resolution are AFFIRMED, subject to the modification in the award
shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been of damages set forth here. Costs against petitioner.
at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. Here, the
locus criminis was only several meters away from [petitioner's] home. SO ORDERED.
In any event, this defense cannot be given credence in the face of the
credible and positive identification made by Ernita." [67]
Third Issue:
Damages
17
EVIDENCE CASES
was the one who threw the pillbox[2] that caused the explosion,
petitioner and his companions also went after him.
10-30-201
Petitioner Julius Amanquiton was a purok leader of Barangay
Western Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila. As a purok leader and
Time: 10-15 p.m.
barangay tanod, he was responsible for the maintenance of
cleanliness, peace and order of the community.
RECORD purposes
The case against the accused Gil Gepulane is hereby sent to the
The Constitution itself provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the
ARCHIVES to be revived upon the arrest of the accused. Let [a]
accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.[11]
warrant of arrest be issued against him.
An accused is entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is shown
beyond reasonable doubt.[12] It is the primordial duty of the
SO ORDERED.
prosecution to present its side with clarity and persuasion, so that
conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion, with
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal which was given due course. On The necessity for proof beyond reasonable doubt was discussed in
August 28, 2008, the CA rendered a decision[9] which affirmed the People v. Berroya:[14]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing the Decision appealed from is contest with a prior inculpatory finding in its hands; with unlimited
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The accused-appellant is sentenced means of command; with counsel usually of authority and capacity,
to suffer the penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day who are regarded as public officers, as therefore as speaking semi-
of prision correccional maximum up to eight (8) years of prision judicially, and with an attitude of tranquil majesty often in striking
mayor minimum as maximum. In addition to the damages already contrast to that of defendant engaged in a perturbed and distracting
awarded, a fine of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) is hereby struggle for liberty if not for life. These inequalities of position, the
solidarily imposed the proceeds of which shall be administered as a law strives to meet by the rule that there is to be no conviction where
cash fund by the DSWD. there is reasonable doubt of guilt. However, proof beyond reasonable
doubt requires only moral certainty or that degree of proof which
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.[10] The RTC and CA hinged their finding of petitioner's guilt beyond
reasonable doubt (of the crime of child abuse) solely on the supposed
20
EVIDENCE CASES
positive identification by the complainant and his witness (Alimpuyo) importantly, Alimpuyo stated that she was told by Baaga that, while
of petitioner and his co-accused as the perpetrators of the crime. he was allegedly being held by the neck by petitioner, others were
hitting him. Alimpuyo was obviously testifying not on what she
We note Baaga's statement that, when he was apprehended by personally saw but on what Baaga told her.
petitioner and Amante, there were many people around.[15] Yet, the
prosecution presented only Baaga and his aunt, Alimpuyo, as While we ordinarily do not interfere with the findings of the lower
witnesses to the mauling incident itself. Where were the other people courts on the trustworthiness of witnesses, when there appear in the
who could have testified, in an unbiased manner, on the alleged records facts and circumstances of real weight which might have
mauling of Baaga by petitioner and Amante, as supposedly been overlooked or misapprehended, this Court cannot shirk from its
witnessed by Alimpuyo?[16] The testimonies of the two other duty to sift fact from fiction.
prosecution witnesses, Dr. Paulito Cruz and Rachelle Baaga, did not
fortify Baaga's claim that petitioner mauled him, for the following We apply the pro reo principle and the equipoise rule in this case.
reasons: Dr. Cruz merely attended to Baaga's injuries, while Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in question or there is doubt
Rachelle testified that she saw Baaga only after the injuries have on which side the evidence weighs, the doubt should be resolved in
been inflicted on him. favor of the accused.[18] If inculpatory facts and circumstances are
capable of two or more explanations, one consistent with the
We note furthermore that, Baaga failed to controvert the validity of innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt,
the barangay blotter he signed regarding the mauling incident which then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and will
happened prior to his apprehension by petitioner. Neither did he ever not justify a conviction.[19]
deny the allegation that he figured in a prior battery by gang
members. Time and again, we have held that:
All this raises serious doubt on whether Baaga's injuries were really
Republic Act No. 7610 is a measure geared towards the
inflicted by petitioner, et al., to the exclusion of other people. In fact,
implementation of a national comprehensive program for the survival
petitioner testified clearly that Gepulane, who had been harboring a
of the most vulnerable members of the population, the Filipino
grudge against Baaga, came out of nowhere and punched Baaga
children, in keeping with the Constitutional mandate under Article
while the latter was being brought to the police station. Gepulane,
XV, Section 3, paragraph 2, that "The State shall defend the right of
not petitioner, could very well have caused Baaga's injuries.
the children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and
special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty,
Alimpuyo admitted that she did not see who actually caused the
exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development."
bloodied condition of Baaga's face because she had to first put down
This piece of legislation supplies the inadequacies of existing laws
the baby she was then carrying when the melee started.[17] More
treating crimes committed against children, namely, the Revised
21
EVIDENCE CASES
Penal Code and Presidential Decree No. 603 or the Child and Youth ends.
Welfare Code. As a statute that provides for a mechanism for strong
deterrence against the commission of child abuse and exploitation, We reiterate our ruling in People v. Mamalias:[21]
the law has stiffer penalties for their commission, and a means by
which child traffickers could easily be prosecuted and penalized.
We emphasize that the great goal of our criminal law and procedure
Also, the definition of child abuse is expanded to encompass not only
is not to send people to the gaol but to do justice. The prosecution's
those specific acts of child abuse under existing laws but includes
job is to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
also "other acts of neglect, abuse, cruelty or exploitation and other
Conviction must be based on the strength of the prosecution and not
conditions prejudicial to the child's development."[20]
on the weakness of the defense. Thus, when the evidence of the
prosecution is not enough to sustain a conviction, it must be rejected
However, this noble statute should not be used as a sharp sword, and the accused absolved and released at once.
ready to be brandished against an accused even if there is a patent
lack of proof to convict him of the crime. The right of an accused to
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The August 28, 2008
liberty is as important as a minor's right not to be subjected to any
decision and January 15, 2009 resolution of Court of Appeals are
form of abuse. Both are enshrined in the Constitution. One need not
reversed and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Julius Amanquiton is
be sacrificed for the other.
hereby ACQUITTED of violation of Section 10 (a), Article VI of RA
7160.
There is no dearth of law, rules and regulations protecting a child
from any and all forms of abuse. While unfortunately, incidents of
SO ORDERED.
maltreatment of children abound amidst social ills, care has to be
likewise taken that wayward youths should not be cuddled by a
misapplication of the law. Society, through its laws, should correct
the deviant conduct of the youth rather than take the cudgels for
them. Lest we regress to a culture of juvenile delinquency and errant
behavior, laws for the protection of children against abuse should be
applied only and strictly to actual abusers.
FIRST DIVISION
DECISION
23
EVIDENCE CASES
On November 21, 1995, petitioner Union Bank of the Philippines 87/97/761 60,000.00 09/26/97
(Union Bank) and respondent spouses Rodolfo T. Tiu and Victoria N.
Tiu (the spouses Tiu) entered into a Credit Line Agreement (CLA) 87/97/768 30,000.00 09/29/97
whereby Union Bank agreed to make available to the spouses Tiu
credit facilities in such amounts as may be approved.[3] From 87/97/767 180,000.00 09/29/97
September 22, 1997 to March 26, 1998, the spouses Tiu took out
various loans pursuant to this CLA in the total amount of three 87/97/970 110,000.00 12/29/97
million six hundred thirty-two thousand dollars (US$3,632,000.00),
as evidenced by promissory notes: 87/97/747 50,000.00 09/22/97
87/98/071 110,000.00 01/29/98 On June 23, 1998, Union Bank advised the spouses Tiu through a
letter[5] that, in view of the existing currency risks, the loans shall be
87/98/107 135,000.00 02/13//98 redenominated to their equivalent Philippine peso amount on July
15, 1998. On July 3, 1998, the spouses Tiu wrote to Union Bank
87/98/100 75,000.00 02/12/98 authorizing the latter to redenominate the loans at the rate of
US$1=P41.40[6] with interest of 19% for one year.[7]
87/98/197 195,000.00 03/19/98
24
EVIDENCE CASES
On December 21, 1999, Union Bank and the spouses Tiu entered Under the same Restructuring Agreement, the parties declared that
into a Restructuring Agreement.[8] The Restructuring Agreement the loan obligation to be restructured (after deducting the dacion
contains a clause wherein the spouses Tiu confirmed their debt and price of properties ceded by the Tiu spouses and adding: [1] the
waived any action on account thereof. To quote said clause: taxes, registration fees and other expenses advanced by Union Bank
in registering the Deeds of Dation in Payment; and [2] other fees and
charges incurred by the Indebtedness) is one hundred four million six
1. Confirmation of Debt The BORROWER hereby confirms and hundred sixty-eight thousand seven hundred forty-one pesos
accepts that as of December 8, 1999, its outstanding principal (P104,668,741.00) (total restructured amount).[11] The Deeds of
indebtedness to the BANK under the Agreement and the Notes Dation in Payment referred to are the following:
25
EVIDENCE CASES
Burgos St., Mandaue City, covered by TCT No. T-11951 with an area enjoined from proceeding with the auction sale; (3) that Union Bank
of 3,096 square meters.[14] be ordered to return to the spouses Tiu their properties as listed in
the Complaint; (4) that Union Bank be ordered to pay the plaintiffs
the sum of P10,000,000.00 as moral damages, P2,000,000.00 as
The spouses Tiu undertook to pay the total restructured amount exemplary damages, P3,000,000.00 as attorneys fees and
(P104,668,741.00) via three loan facilities (payment schemes). P500,000.00 as expenses of litigation; and (5) a writ of preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order be issued enjoining the
public auction sale to be held on July 18, 2002.[17]
The spouses Tiu claim to have made the following payments: (1)
P15,000,000.00 on August 3, 1999; and (2) another P13,197,546.79
as of May 8, 2001. Adding the amounts paid under the Deeds of The spouses Tiu claim that from the beginning the loans were in
Dation in Payment, the spouses Tiu postulate that their payments pesos, not in dollars. Their office clerk, Lilia Gutierrez, testified that
added up to P89,407,546.79.[15] the spouses Tiu merely received the peso equivalent of their
US$3,632,000.00 loan at the rate of US$1=P26.00. The spouses Tiu
further claim that they were merely forced to sign the Restructuring
Agreement and take up an additional loan of P5,000,000.00, the
Asserting that the spouses Tiu failed to comply with the payment
proceeds of which they never saw because this amount was
schemes set up in the Restructuring Agreement, Union Bank
immediately applied by Union Bank to interest payments.[18]
initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings on the residential
property of the spouses Tiu, covered by TCT No. T-11951. The
property was to be sold at public auction on July 18, 2002.
The spouses Tiu allege that the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged
properties was invalid, as the loans have already been fully paid.
They also allege that they are not the owners of the improvements
The spouses Tiu, together with Juanita T. Tiu, Rosalinda T. King,
constructed on the lot because the real owners thereof are their co-
Rufino T. Tiu, Rosalie T. Young and Rosenda T. Tiu, filed with the
petitioners, Juanita T. Tiu, Rosalinda T. King, Rufino T. Tiu, Rosalie T.
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City a Complaint seeking to
Young and Rosenda T. Tiu.[19]
have the Extrajudicial Foreclosure declared null and void. The case
was docketed as Civil Case No. MAN-4363.[16] Named as defendants
were Union Bank and Sheriff IV Veronico C. Ouano (Sheriff Oano) of
Branch 55, RTC, Mandaue City. Complainants therein prayed for the The spouses Tiu further claim that prior to the signing of the
following: (1) that the spouses Tiu be declared to have fully paid their Restructuring Agreement, they entered into a Memorandum of
obligation to Union Bank; (2) that defendants be permanently Agreement with Union Bank whereby the former deposited with the
26
EVIDENCE CASES
latter several certificates of shares of stock of various companies and WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
four certificates of title of various parcels of land located in Cebu. dismissing the Complaint and lifting and setting aside the Writ of
The spouses Tiu claim that these properties have not been subjected Preliminary Injunction. No pronouncement as to damages, attorneys
to any lien in favor of Union Bank, yet the latter continues to hold on fees and costs of suit.[26]
to these properties and has not returned the same to the former.[20]
On December 16, 2004, the RTC rendered its Decision[25] in Civil mentioned that they turned over the following titles to Union Bank:
Case No. MAN-4363 in favor of Union Bank. The dispositive portion of TCT Nos. 30271, 116287 and 116288 and OCT No. 0-3538. They
the Decision read: also prayed for a partial new trial and for a declaration that they have
fully paid their obligation to Union Bank.[30]
27
EVIDENCE CASES
On January 11, 2005, the spouses Tiu received from Sheriff Oano a On May 9, 2005, Sheriff Oano proceeded to conduct the extrajudicial
Second Notice of Extra-judicial Foreclosure Sale of Lot No. 639 to be sale. Union Bank submitted the lone bid of P18,576,000.00.[37] On
held on February 3, 2005. To prevent the same, the Tiu spouses filed June 14, 2005, Union Bank filed a motion with the Court of Appeals
with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Prohibition and Injunction praying that Sheriff Oano be ordered to issue a definite and regular
with Application for TRO/Writ of Preliminary Injunction.[31] Certificate of Sale.[38] On July 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued
a Resolution denying the Motion and suspending the auction sale at
whatever stage, pending resolution of the appeal and conditioned
The petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00253. The Court of upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P18,000,000.00 by the Tiu
Appeals issued a Temporary Restraining Order on January 27, 2005. spouses.[39] The Tiu spouses failed to file said bond.[40]
[32]
On January 19, 2005, the RTC issued an Order denying Union Joint Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 00190 and CA-G.R. SP No. 00253.
Banks Motion for Partial Reconsideration and the Tiu spouses The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Prohibition, CA-G.R.
Motion for Partial Reconsideration and/or New Trial.[33] SP No. 00253, on the ground that the proper venue for the same is
with the RTC.[41]
Both the spouses Tiu and Union Bank appealed the case to the Court
of Appeals.[34] The two appeals were given a single docket number, On the other hand, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the spouses
CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 00190. Acting on a motion filed by the spouses Tiu in CA-G.R. CV No. 00190. The Court of Appeals held that the
Tiu, the Court of Appeals consolidated CA-G.R. SP No. 00253 with loan transactions were in pesos, since there was supposedly no
CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 00190.[35] stipulation the loans will be paid in dollars and since no dollars ever
exchanged hands. Considering that the loans were in pesos from the
beginning, the Court of Appeals reasoned that there is no need to
convert the same. By making it appear that the loans were originally
On April 19, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution finding
in dollars, Union Bank overstepped its rights as creditor, and made
that there was no need for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
unwarranted interpretations of the original loan agreement.
Injunction as the judgment of the lower court has been stayed by the
According to the Court of Appeals, the Restructuring Agreement,
perfection of the appeal therefrom.[36]
which purportedly attempts to create a novation of the original loan,
was not clearly authorized by the debtors and was not supported by
any cause or consideration. Since the Restructuring Agreement is
void, the original loan of P94,432,000.00 (representing the amount
28
EVIDENCE CASES
received by the spouses Tiu of US$3,632,000.00 using the T-11951, but also any other mortgage over any other property of the
US$1=P26.00 exchange rate) should subsist. The Court of Appeals spouses Tiu.[44]
likewise invalidated (1) the P5,000,000.00 charge for interest in the
Restructuring Agreement, for having been unilaterally imposed by
Union Bank; and (2) the lease of the properties conveyed in dacion en The Court of Appeals likewise found Union Bank liable to return the
pago, for being against public policy. [42] certificates of stocks and titles to real properties of the spouses Tiu in
its possession. The appellate court held that Union Bank made
judicial admissions of such possession in its Reply to Plaintiffs
In sum, the Court of Appeals found Union Bank liable to the spouses Request for Admission.[45] In the event that Union Bank can no
Tiu in the amount of P927,546.79. For convenient reference, we longer return these certificates and titles, it was mandated to
quote relevant portion of the Court of Appeals Decision here: shoulder the cost for their replacement.[46]
To summarize the obligation of the Tiu spouses, they owe Union Bank Finally, the Court of Appeals took judicial notice that before or during
P94,432,000.00. The Tiu spouses had already paid Union Bank the the financial crisis, banks actively convinced debtors to make dollar
amount of P89,407,546.79. On the other hand, Union Bank must loans in the guise of benevolence, saddling borrowers with loans that
return to the Tiu spouses the illegally collected rentals in the amount ballooned twice or thrice their original loans. The Court of Appeals,
of P5,952,000.00. Given these findings, the obligation of the Tiu noting the cavalier way with which banks exploited and manipulated
spouses has already been fully paid. In fact, it is the Union Bank the situation,[47] held Union Bank liable to the spouses Tiu for
that must return to the Tiu spouses the amount of NINE HUNDRED P100,000.00 in moral damages, P100,000.00 in exemplary damages,
TWENTY[-]SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FORTY[-]SIX PESOS and P50,000.00 in attorneys fees.[48]
AND SEVENTY[-]NINE CENTAVOS (P927,546.79).[43
29
EVIDENCE CASES
spouses for the above-litigated debt that has already been fully paid. SPOUSES FROM UNION BANK DESPITE [THE] CLEAR ADMISSION
If a foreclosure sale has already been made over such properties, this OF INDEBTEDNESS BY THE BORROWER-MORTGAGOR TIU
Court orders the cancellation of such foreclosure sale and the SPOUSES.
Certificate of Sale thereof if any has been issued. This Court orders
Union Bank to return to the Tiu spouses the amount of NINE
HUNDRED TWENTY[-]SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
FORTY[-]SIX PESOS AND SEVENTY[-]NINE CENTAVOS GRAVE AND REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT NULLIFIED THE
(P927,546.79) representing illegally collected rentals. This Court also RESTRUCTURING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TIU SPOUSES AND
orders Union Bank to return to the Tiu spouses all the certificates of UNION BANK FOR LACK OF CAUSE OR CONSIDERATION DESPITE
shares of stocks and titles to real properties of the Tiu spouses that THE ADMISSION OF THE BORROWER-MORTGAGOR TIU SPOUSES
were deposited to it or, in lieu thereof, to pay the cost for the OF THE DUE AND VOLUNTARY EXECUTION OF SAID
replacement and issuance of new certificates and new titles over the RESTRUCTURING AGREEMENT.
said properties. This Court finally orders Union Bank to pay the Tiu
spouses ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) in moral
damages, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) in
3. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
exemplary damages, FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) in
GRAVE AND REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT PERMANENTLY
attorneys fees and cost, both in the lower court and in this Court.
ENJOINED UNION BANK FROM FORECLOSING THE MORTGAGE
[49]
ON THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF THE TIU SPOUSES DESPITE
THE ADMISSION OF NON-PAYMENT OF THEIR OUTSTANDING
LOAN TO THE BANK BY THE BORROWER-MORTGAGOR TIU
On June 1, 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed SPOUSES;
Resolution denying Union Banks Motion for Reconsideration.
30
EVIDENCE CASES
5. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED 10. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
GRAVE AND REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT RULED ON THE GRAVE AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AWARDING DAMAGES
ALLEGED RENTALS PAID BY RESPONDENT SPOUSES WITHOUT AGAINST UNION BANK.[50]
ANY FACTUAL BASIS;
9. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS VIOLATED THE unwarranted interpretations of the original loan agreement. This
DOCTRINES AND PRINCIPLES ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Court is not bound by such interpretations made by Union Bank.
When one party makes an interpretation of a contract, he makes it
at his own risk, subject to a subsequent challenge by the other party
and a modification by the courts. In this case, that party making the
interpretation is not just any party, but a well entrenched and highly
31
EVIDENCE CASES
respected bank. The matter that was being interpreted was also a unequivocal terms, or that the old and the new obligations be on
financial matter that is within the profound expertise of the bank. A every point incompatible with each other. Such is not the case in this
normal person who does not possess the same financial proficiency instance. No valid novation of the original obligation took place.
or acumen as that of a bank will most likely defer to the latters Even granting arguendo that there was a novation, the sudden
esteemed opinion, representations and interpretations. It has been change in the original amount of the loan to the new amount
often stated in our jurisprudence that banks have a fiduciary duty to declared in the Restructuring Agreement is not supported by any
their depositors. According to the case of Bank of the Philippine cause or consideration. Under Article 1352 of the Civil Code,
Islands vs. IAC (G.R. No. 69162, February 21, 1992), as a business contracts without cause, or with unlawful cause, produce no effect
affected with public interest and because of the nature of its whatever. A contract whose cause did not exist at the time of the
functions, the bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its transaction is void. Accordingly, Article 1297 of the New Civil Code
depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary mandates that, if the new obligation is void, the original one shall
nature of their relationship. Such fiduciary relationship should also subsist, unless the parties intended that the former relation should
extend to the banks borrowers who, more often than not, are also be extinguished at any event. Since the Restructuring Agreement is
depositors of the bank. Banks are in the business of lending while void and since there was no intention to extinguish the original loan,
most borrowers hardly know the basics of such business. When the original loan shall subsist.[52]
transacting with a bank, most borrowers concede to the expertise of
the bank and consider their procedures, pronouncements and
representations as unassailable, whether such be true or not. Union Bank does not dispute that the spouses Tiu received the
Therefore, when there is a doubtful banking transaction, this Court loaned amount of US$3,632,000.00 in Philippine pesos, not dollars,
will tip the scales in favor of the borrower. at the prevailing exchange rate of US$1=P26.[53] However, Union
Bank claims that this does not change the true nature of the loan as
a foreign currency loan,[54] and proceeded to illustrate in its
Given the above ruling, the Restructuring Agreement, therefore, Memorandum that the spouses Tiu obtained favorable interest rates
between the Tiu spouses and Union Bank does not operate to by opting to borrow in dollars (but receiving the equivalent peso
supersede all previous loan documents, as claimed by Union Bank. amount) as opposed to borrowing in pesos.[55]
But the said Restructuring Agreement, as it was crafted by Union
Bank, does not merely confirm the original loan of the Tiu spouses
but attempts to create a novation of the said original loan that is not We agree with Union Bank on this point. Although indeed, the
clearly authorized by the debtors and that is not supported by any spouses Tiu received peso equivalents of the borrowed amounts, the
cause or consideration. According to Article 1292 of the New Civil loan documents presented as evidence, i.e., the promissory notes,[56]
Code, in order that an obligation may by extinguished by another expressed the amount of the loans in US dollars and not in any other
which substitutes the same, it is imperative that it be so declared in currency. This clearly indicates that the spouses Tiu were bound to
32
EVIDENCE CASES
pay Union Bank in dollars, the amount stipulated in said loan Although the Civil Code took effect on August 30, 1950,
documents. Thus, before the Restructuring Agreement, the spouses jurisprudence had upheld[57] the continued effectivity of Republic
Tiu were bound to pay Union Bank the amount of US$3,632,000.00 Act No. 529, which took effect earlier on June 16, 1950. Pursuant to
plus the interest stipulated in the promissory notes, without Section 1[58] of Republic Act No. 529, any agreement to pay an
converting the same to pesos. The spouses Tiu, who are in the obligation in a currency other than the Philippine currency is void;
construction business and appear to be dealing primarily in the most that could be demanded is to pay said obligation in
Philippine currency, should therefore purchase the necessary amount Philippine currency to be measured in the prevailing rate of exchange
of dollars to pay Union Bank, who could have justly refused payment at the time the obligation was incurred.[59] On June 19, 1964,
in any currency other than that which was stipulated in the Republic Act No. 4100 took effect, modifying Republic Act No. 529 by
promissory notes. providing for several exceptions to the nullity of agreements to pay in
foreign currency.[60]
Such stipulation of payment in dollars is not prohibited by any transaction shall be settled in a currency other than Philippine
prevailing law or jurisprudence at the time the loans were taken. In currency at the time of payment.[64]
Although the Credit Line Agreement between the spouses Tiu and
Art. 1249. The payment of debts in money shall be made in the Union Bank was entered into on November 21, 1995,[65] when the
currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, agreement to pay in foreign currency was still considered void under
then in the currency which is legal tender in the Philippines. Republic Act No. 529, the actual loans,[66] as shown in the
promissory notes, were taken out from September 22, 1997 to March
26, 1998, during which time Republic Act No. 8183 was already in
effect. In United Coconut Planters Bank v. Beluso,[67] we held that:
33
EVIDENCE CASES
In the case at bar, the Restructuring Agreement was signed at the
height of the financial crisis when the Philippine peso was rapidly
[O]pening a credit line does not create a credit transaction of loan or
depreciating. Since the spouses Tiu were bound to pay their debt in
mutuum, since the former is merely a preparatory contract to the
dollars, the cost of purchasing the required currency was likewise
contract of loan or mutuum. Under such credit line, the bank is
swiftly increasing. If the parties did not enter into the Restructuring
merely obliged, for the considerations specified therefor, to lend to the
Agreement in December 1999 and the peso continued to deteriorate,
other party amounts not exceeding the limit provided. The credit
the ability of the spouses Tiu to pay and the ability of Union Bank to
transaction thus occurred not when the credit line was opened, but
collect would both have immensely suffered. As shown by the
rather when the credit line was availed of. x x x.[68]
evidence presented by Union Bank, the peso indeed continued to
deteriorate, climbing to US$1=P50.01 on December 2000.[69] Hence,
in order to ensure the stability of the loan agreement, Union Bank
Having established that Union Bank and the spouses Tiu validly and the spouses Tiu agreed in the Restructuring Agreement to peg
entered into dollar loans, the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the principal loan at P150,364,800.00 and the unpaid interest at
there were no dollar loans to novate into peso loans must necessarily P5,000,000.00.
fail.
Before this Court, the spouses Tiu belatedly argue that their consent
Similarly, the Court of Appeals pronouncement that the novation was to the Restructuring Agreement was vitiated by fraud and mistake,
not supported by any cause or consideration is likewise incorrect. alleging that (1) the Restructuring Agreement did not take into
This conclusion suggests that when the parties signed the consideration their substantial payment in the amount of
Restructuring Agreement, Union Bank got something out of nothing P40,447,185.60 before its execution; and (2) the dollar loans had
or that the spouses Tiu received no benefit from the restructuring of already been redenominated in 1997 at the rate of US$1=P26.34.[70]
their existing loan and was merely taken advantage of by the bank. It
is important to note at this point that in the determination of the
nullity of a contract based on the lack of consideration, the debtor
We have painstakingly perused over the records of this case, but
has the burden to prove the same. Article 1354 of the Civil Code
failed to find any documentary evidence of the alleged payment of
provides that [a]though the cause is not stated in the contract, it is
P40,447,185.60 before the execution of the Restructuring Agreement.
presumed that it exists and is lawful, unless the debtor proves the
In paragraph 16 of their Amended Complaint, the spouses Tiu
contrary.
alleged payment of P40,447,185.60 for interests before the conversion
of the dollar loan.[71] This was specifically denied by Union Bank in
paragraph 5 of its Answer with Counterclaim.[72] Respondent
Rodolfo Tiu testified that they made 50 million plus in cash
34
EVIDENCE CASES
payment plus other monthly interest payments,[73] and identified a A: I think it was on the year 1997.
computation of payments dated July 17, 2002 signed by himself.[74]
Such computation, however, was never formally offered in evidence
and was in any event, wholly self-serving. Q: Could [you] still remember what was then the prevailing exchange
rate between the dollar and the peso at that year 1997?
A: The dollar loan was re-denominated in view of the very unstable spouses Tiu, who attested before the notary public that the
exchange of the dollar and the peso at that time, Restructuring Agreement is their own free and voluntary act and
deed,[77] failed to present sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. It
is difficult to believe that the spouses Tiu, veteran businessmen who
operate a multi-million peso company, would sign a very important
Q: Could you still remember what year this account was re-
document without fully understanding its contents and
denominated from dollar to peso?
consequences.
35
EVIDENCE CASES
This Court therefore rules that the Restructuring Agreement is valid that a formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest
and, as such, a valid and binding novation of loans of the spouses their findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly upon the
Tiu entered into from September 22, 1997 to March 26, 1998 which evidence offered by the parties at the trial. It has several functions:
had a total amount of US$3,632,000.00. (1) to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes for
which the proponent is presenting the evidence; (2) to allow opposing
parties to examine the evidence and object to its admissibility; and (3)
Validity of the Foreclosure of Mortgage to facilitate review by the appellate court, which will not be required
to review documents not previously scrutinized by the trial court.[80]
Moreover, even if such computation were admitted in evidence, the
same is self-serving and cannot be given probative weight. In the
The spouses Tiu challenge the validity of the foreclosure of the
case at bar, the records do not contain even a single receipt
mortgage on two grounds, claiming that: (1) the debt had already
evidencing payment to Union Bank.
been fully paid; and (2) they are not the owners of the improvements
on the mortgaged property.
evidence. Applying Section 34, Rule 132[79] of the Rules of Court, spouses Tiu had already paid the defendant bank the amount of
such computation cannot be considered by this Court. We have held P40,447,185.60 for interests;
36
EVIDENCE CASES
and 21 thereof. Paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 allege the two deeds of
dacion. However, these instruments were already incorporated in the
17. On August 3, 1999 and August 12, 1999, plaintiffs made
computation of the outstanding debt (i.e., subtracted from the
payments in the amount of P15,000,000.00;
confirmed debt of P155,364,800.00), as can be gleaned from the
following provisions in the Restructuring Agreement:
(2) Allegation of third party ownership of the improvements on the they are the owners of the property. They should investigate such
mortgaged lot representations. The courts have made consistent rulings that a
bank, being in the business of lending, is obligated to verify the true
ownership of the properties mortgaged to them. Consequently, this
Court permanently enjoins Union Bank from foreclosing the mortgage
The Court of Appeals, taking into consideration its earlier ruling that
of the residential property of the Tiu spouses which is covered by
the loan was already fully paid, permanently enjoined Union Bank
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 11951 and from pursuing other
from foreclosing the mortgage on the property covered by Transfer
foreclosure of mortgages over any other properties of the Tiu spouses.
Certificate of Title No. 11951 (Lot No. 639) and from pursuing other
If a foreclosure sale has already been made over such properties, this
foreclosure of mortgages over any other properties of the spouses Tiu.
Court orders the cancellation of such foreclosure sale and the
The Court of Appeals ruled:
Certificate of Sale thereof if any has been issued, and the return of
the title to the Tiu spouses.[88]
The Court of Appeals found the lease contracts over the properties
conveyed to Union Bank via dacion en pago to be void for being
Upon careful examination of the evidence, we find that the spouses against public policy. The appellate court held that since the General
Tiu failed to prove that the improvements on Lot No. 639 were owned Banking Law of 2000[92] mandates banks to immediately dispose of
by third persons. In fact, the evidence presented by the spouses Tiu real estate properties that are not necessary for its own use in the
merely attempt to prove that the improvements on Lot No. 639 were conduct of its business, banks should not enter into two-year
declared for taxes in the name of respondent Rodolfo Tius father, contracts of lease over properties paid to them through dacion.[93]
Jose Tiu, who allegedly died on December 18, 1983. There was no The Court of Appeals thus ordered Union Bank to return the rentals
effort to show how their co-plaintiffs in the original complaint, it collected. To determine the amount of rentals paid by the spouses
namely Juanita T. Tiu, Rosalinda T. King, Rufino T. Tiu, Rosalie T. Tiu to Union Bank, the Court of Appeals simply multiplied the
Young and Rosenda T. Tiu, became co-owners of the house. The monthly rental stipulated in the Restructuring Agreement by the
spouses Tiu did not present evidence as to (1) who the heirs of Jose stipulated period of the lease agreement:
Tiu are; (2) if Juanita T. Tiu, Rosalinda T. King, Rufino T. Tiu, Rosalie
T. Young and Rosenda T. Tiu are indeed included as heirs; and (3)
why petitioner Rodolfo Tiu is not included as an heir despite being For the Labangon property, the Tiu spouses paid rentals in the
the son of Jose Tiu. No birth certificate of the alleged heirs, will of amount of P98,000.00 per month for two years, or a total amount of
the deceased, or any other piece of evidence showing judicial or P2,352,000.00. For the A.S. Fortuna property, the Tiu spouses paid
extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Jose Tiu was presented. rentals in the amount of P150,000.00 per month for two years, or a
total amount of P3,600,000.00. The total amount in rentals paid by
the Tiu spouses to Union Bank is FIVE MILLION NINE HUNDRED
In light of the foregoing, this Court therefore sets aside the ruling of FIFTY- TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P5,952,000.00). This Court finds
the Court of Appeals permanently enjoining Union Bank from that the return of this amount to the Tiu spouses is called for since it
foreclosing the mortgage on Lot No. 639, including the improvements will better serve public policy. These properties that were given by
thereon. the Tiu spouses to Union Bank as payment should not be used by the
latter to extract more money from the former. This situation is
analogous to having a debtor pay interest for a debt already paid.
Instead of leasing the properties, Union Bank should have instructed
39
EVIDENCE CASES
the Tiu spouses to vacate the said properties so that it could dispose considered as part of the bank's total investment in real estate,
of them.[94] unless otherwise provided by the Monetary Board.
The Court of Appeals committed a serious error in this regard. As SECTION 52. Acquisition of Real Estate by Way of Satisfaction of
pointed out by petitioner Union Bank, the spouses Tiu did not Claims. Notwithstanding the limitations of the preceding Section, a
present any proof of the alleged rental payments. Not a single receipt bank may acquire, hold or convey real property under the following
was formally offered in evidence. The mere stipulation in a contract circumstances:
of the monthly rent to be paid by the lessee is certainly not evidence
that the same has been paid. Since the spouses Tiu failed to prove
their payment to Union Bank of the amount of P5,952,000.00, we are 52.1. Such as shall be mortgaged to it in good faith by way of
constrained to reverse the ruling of the Court of Appeals ordering its security for debts;
return.
40
EVIDENCE CASES
Section 52.2 contemplates a dacion en pago. Thus, Section 52 The RTC failed to rule on this issue. The Court of Appeals, tackling
undeniably gives banks five years to dispose of properties conveyed to this issue for the first time, ruled in favor of the Tiu spouses and
them in satisfaction of debts previously contracted in the course of its ordered the return of these certificates and titles. The appellate court
dealings, unless another period is prescribed by the Monetary Board. added that if Union Bank can no longer return these certificates or
Furthermore, there appears to be no legal impediment for a bank to titles, it should shoulder the cost for their replacement.[96]
lease the real properties it has received in satisfaction of debts,
within the five-year period that such bank is allowed to hold the
acquired realty. Union Bank, asserting that the Memorandum of Agreement did not,
in fact, push through, denies having received the subject certificates
and titles. Union Bank added that even assuming arguendo that it is
We do not dispute the interpretation of the Court of Appeals that the in possession of said documents, the Restructuring Agreement itself
purpose of the law is to prevent the concentration of land holdings in allows such possession.[97]
a few hands, and that banks should not be allowed to hold on to the
properties contemplated in Section 52 beyond the five-year period
unless such bank has exerted its best efforts to dispose of the The evidence on hand lends credibility to the allegation of Union
property in good faith but failed. However, inquiries as to whether Bank that the Memorandum of Agreement did not push through.
the banks exerted best efforts to dispose of the property can only be The copy of the Memorandum of Agreement attached by the spouses
done if said banks fail to dispose of the same within the period Tiu themselves to their original complaint did not bear the signature
provided. Such inquiry is furthermore irrelevant to the issues in the of any representative from Union Bank and was not notarized.[98]
case at bar.
We, however, agree with the finding of the Court of Appeals that
Order to Return Certificates Allegedly in Union Banks Possession despite the failure of the Memorandum of Agreement to push
through, the certificates and titles mentioned therein do appear to be
in the possession of Union Bank. As held by the Court of Appeals:
In the Amended Complaint, the spouses Tiu alleged[95] that they
delivered several certificates and titles to Union Bank pursuant to a
Memorandum of Agreement. These certificates and titles were not Lastly, this Court will order, as it hereby orders, Union Bank to
subjected to any lien in favor of Union Bank, but the latter allegedly return to the Tiu spouses all the certificates of shares of stocks and
continued to hold on to said properties. titles to real properties of the Tiu spouses in its possession. Union
Bank cannot deny possession of these items since it had made
41
EVIDENCE CASES
judicial admissions of such possession in their document entitled full payment of any and all obligations of the BORROWER under this
Reply to Plaintiffs request for Admission (records, pp. 216-217). Restructuring Agreement any and all moneys or other properties of
While in that document, Union Bank only admitted to the possession the BORROWER which, for any reason, are or may hereafter come
of four real estate titles, this Court is convinced that all the into the possession of the Bank or the Banks agent. All such
certificates and titles mentioned in the unconsummated moneys or properties shall be deemed in the BANKs possession as
Memorandum of Agreement (Records, pp. 211-213) were given by the soon as put in transit to the BANK by mail or carrier.[100]
Tiu spouses to Union Bank for appraisal. This finding is further
bolstered by the admission of the Union Bank that it kept the titles
for safekeeping after it rejected the Memorandum of Agreement. In the first place, notwithstanding the foregoing provision, there is no
Since Union Bank rejected these certificates and titles of property, it clear intention on the part of the spouses Tiu to deliver the
should return the said items to the Tiu spouses. If Union Bank can certificates over certain shares of stock and real properties as
no longer return these certificates and titles or if it has misplaced security for their debt. From the terms of the Memorandum of
them, it shall shoulder the cost for the replacement and issuance of Agreement, these certificates were surrendered to Union Bank in
new certificates and new titles over the said properties.[99] order that the said properties described therein be given their
corresponding loan values required for the restructuring of the
spouses Tius outstanding obligations. However, in the event the
As regards Union Banks argument that it has the right to retain said parties fail to agree on the valuation of the subject properties, Union
documents pursuant to the Restructuring Agreement, it is referring Bank agrees to release the same.[101] As Union Bank itself
to paragraph 11(b), which provides that: vehemently alleges, the Memorandum of Agreement was not
consummated. Moreover, despite the fact that the Bank was aware, or
in possession, of these certificates,[102] at the time of execution of
11. Effects of Default When the BORROWER is in default, such the Restructuring Agreement, only the mortgage over the real
default shall have the following effects, alternative, concurrent and property covered by TCT No. T-11951 was expressly mentioned as a
cumulative with each other: security in the Restructuring Agreement. In fact, in its Reply to
Request for Admission,[103] Union Bank admitted that (1) the titles
to the real properties were submitted to it for appraisal but were
subsequently rejected, and (2) no real estate mortgages were executed
xxxx
over the said properties. There being no agreement that these
properties shall secure respondents obligation, Union Bank has no
right to retain said certificates.
(b) The BANK shall be entitled to all the remedies provided for and
further shall have the right to effect or apply against the partial or
42
EVIDENCE CASES
Assuming arguendo that paragraph 11(b) of the Restructuring lieu thereof, to pay the cost for the replacement and issuance of new
Agreement indeed allows the retention of the certificates (submitted certificates and new titles over the said properties.
to the Bank ostensibly for safekeeping and appraisal) as security for
spouses Tius debt, Union Banks position still cannot be upheld.
Insofar as said provision permits Union Bank to apply properties of Validity of the Award of Damages
the spouses Tiu in its possession to the full or partial payment of the
latters obligations, the same appears to impliedly allow Union Bank
to appropriate these properties for such purpose. However, said
The Court of Appeals awarded damages in favor of the spouses Tiu
provision cannot be validly applied to the subject certificates and
based on its taking judicial notice of the alleged exploitation by many
titles without violating the prohibition against pactum commissorium
banks of the Asian financial crisis, as well as the foreclosure of the
contained in Article 2088 of the Civil Code, to the effect that [t]he
mortgage of the home of the spouses Tiu despite the alleged full
creditor cannot appropriate the things given by way of pledge or
payment by the latter. As regards the alleged manipulation of the
mortgage, or dispose of them[;] [a]ny stipulation to the contrary is
financial crisis, the Court of Appeals held:
null and void. Applicable by analogy to the present case is our
ruling in Nakpil v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[104] wherein
property held in trust was ceded to the trustee upon failure of the
beneficiary to answer for the amounts owed to the former, to wit: As a final note, this Court observes the irregularity in the
circumstances [surrounding] dollar loans granted by banks right
before or during the Asian financial crisis. It is of common
knowledge that many banks, around that time, actively pursued and
For, there was to be automatic appropriation of the property by
convinced debtors to make dollar loans or to convert their peso loans
Valdes in the event of failure of petitioner to pay the value of the
to dollar loans allegedly because of the lower interest rate of dollar
advances. Thus, contrary to respondent's manifestations, all the
loans. This is a highly suspect behavior on the part of the banks
elements of a pactum commissorium were present: there was a
because it is irrational for the banks to voluntarily and actively
creditor-debtor relationship between the parties; the property was
proffer a conversion that would give them substantially less income.
used as security for the loan; and, there was automatic appropriation
In the guise of benevolence, many banks were able to convince
by respondent of Pulong Maulap in case of default of petitioner.[105]
borrowers to make dollar loans or to convert their peso loans to dollar
(Emphases supplied.)
loans. Soon thereafter, the Asian financial crisis hit, and many
borrowers were saddled with loans that ballooned to twice or thrice
the amount of their original loans. This court takes judicial notice of
This Court therefore affirms the order of the Court of Appeals for these events or matters which are of public knowledge. It is
Union Bank to return to the spouses Tiu all the certificates of shares inconceivable that the banks were unaware of the looming Asian
of stock and titles to real properties that were submitted to it or, in
43
EVIDENCE CASES
financial crisis. Being in the forefront of the financial world and during the Asian financial crisis is certainly not of public knowledge.
having access to financial data that were not available to the average The deletion of the award of moral and exemplary damages in favor
borrower, the banks were in such a position that they had a higher of the spouses Tiu is therefore in order.
vantage point with respect to the financial landscape over their
average clients. The cavalier way with which banks exploited and
manipulated the situation is almost too palpable that they openly WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Joint
and unabashedly struck heavy blows on the Philippine economy, Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 00190 and CA-
industries and businesses. The banks have a fiduciary duty to their G.R. SP No. 00253 dated February 21, 2006 is hereby AFFIRMED
clients and to the Filipino people to be transparent in their dealings insofar as it ordered petitioner Union Bank of the Philippines to
and to make sure that the latters interest are not prejudiced by the return to the respondent spouses Rodolfo T. Tiu and Victoria N. Tiu
formers interest. Article 1339 of the New Civil Code provides that all the certificates of shares of stock and titles to real properties that
the failure to disclose facts, when there is a duty to reveal them, as were submitted to it or, in lieu thereof, to pay the cost for the
when the parties are bound by confidential relations, constitutes replacement and issuance of new certificates and new titles over the
fraud. Undoubtedly, the banks and their clients are bound by said properties. The foregoing Joint Decision is hereby SET ASIDE:
confidential relations. The almost perfect timing of the banks in (1) insofar as it permanently enjoined Union Bank of the Philippines
convincing their clients to shift to dollar loans just when the Asian from foreclosing the mortgage of the residential property of
financial crisis struck indicates that the banks not only failed to respondent spouses Rodolfo T. Tiu and Victoria N. Tiu which is
disclose facts to their clients of the looming crisis, but also suggests covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 11951; (2) insofar as it
of the insidious design to take advantage of these undisclosed facts. ordered Union Bank of the Philippines to return to the respondent
[106] spouses Rodolfo T. Tiu and Victoria N. Tiu the amount of
P927,546.79 representing illegally collected rentals; and (3) insofar as
it ordered Union Bank of the Philippines to pay the respondent
We have already held that the foreclosure of the mortgage was spouses Rodolfo T. Tiu and Victoria N. Tiu P100,000.00 in moral
warranted under the circumstances. As regards the alleged damages, P100,000.00 in exemplary damages, P50,000.00 in
exploitation by many banks of the Asian financial crisis, this Court attorneys fees and cost, both in the lower court and in this Court.
rules that the generalization made by the appellate court is
unfounded and cannot be the subject of judicial notice. It is
axiomatic that good faith is always presumed unless convincing No further pronouncement as to costs.
evidence to the contrary is adduced. It is incumbent upon the party
alleging bad faith to sufficiently prove such allegation. Absent
enough proof thereof, the presumption of good faith prevails.[107]
SO ORDERED.
The alleged insidious design of many banks to betray their clients
44
EVIDENCE CASES
FIRST DIVISION
DECISION
45
EVIDENCE CASES
BERSAMIN, J.: That on or about the 30th day of April, 1997, and for sometime
prior and subsequent thereto, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
The Bill of Rights guarantees the right of an accused to be with deliberate intent, with intent to gain and by means of false
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. In order to overcome pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with
the presumption of innocence, the Prosecution is required to adduce the commission of the fraud, to wit: knowing that he did not have
against him nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Such sufficient funds deposited with the Bank of Philippine Islands, and
proof is not only in relation to the elements of the offense, but also in without informing Alberto Ligaray of that circumstance, with intent to
relation to the identity of the offender. If the Prosecution fails to defraud the latter, did then and there issue Bank of the Philippine
discharge its heavy burden, then it is not only the right of the Islands Check No. 0011003, dated May 08, 1997 in the amount of
accused to be freed, it becomes the Courts constitutional duty P200,000.00, which check was issued in payment of an obligation,
to acquit him. but which check when presented for encashrnent with the bank, was
dishonored for the reason drawn against insufficient funds
and inspite of notice and several demands made upon said accused
to make good said check or replace the same with cash, he had failed
The Case
and refused and up to the present time still fails and refuses to do so,
to the damage and prejudice of Alberto Ligaray in the amount
aforestated.
Gilbert R. Wagas appeals his conviction for estafa under the
decision rendered on July 1 1, 2002 by the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 58, in Cebu City (RTC), meting on him the indeterminate
CONTRARY TO LAW. 1
penalty of 12 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 30 years
of reclusion perpetua, as maximum.
Wagas was charged with estafa under the information that reads:
46
EVIDENCE CASES
placed an order for 200 bags of rice over the telephone; that he and In his defense, Wagas himself testified. He admitted having
his wife would not agree at first to the proposed payment of the order issued BPI Check No. 0011003 to Canada, his brother-in-law, not to
by postdated check, but because of Wagas assurance that he would Ligaray. He denied having any telephone conversation or any dealings
not disappoint them and that he had the means to pay them because with Ligaray. He explained that the check was intended as payment
he had a lending business and money in the bank, they relented and for a portion of Canadas property that he wanted to buy, but when
accepted the order; that he released the goods to Wagas on April 30, the sale did not push through, he did not anymore fund the check. 9
1997 and at the same time received Bank of the Philippine Islands
(BPI) Check No. 0011003 for P200,000.00 payable to cash and
postdated May 8, 1997; that he later deposited the check with On cross-examination, the Prosecution confronted Wagas with a
Solid Bank, his depository bank, but the check was dishonored due letter dated July 3, 1997 apparently signed by him and addressed to
to insufficiency of funds; 5 that he called Wagas about the matter, Ligarays counsel, wherein he admitted owing Ligaray P200,000.00 for
and the latter told him that he would pay upon his return to Cebu; goods received, to wit:
and that despite repeated demands, Wagas did not pay him. 6
47
EVIDENCE CASES
declared that Canada, a seafarer, was then out of the country; that
he signed the letter only to accommodate the pleas of his sister and
3. To arrest this problem, we decided to source some funds using the
Canada, and to avoid jeopardizing Canadas application for overseas
subject property as collateral. This other means is resorted to for the
employment. 12 The Prosecution subsequently offered and the RTC
purpose of settling the herein obligation. And as to its status, said
admitted the letter as rebuttal evidence. 13
funds will be rele[a]sed within thirty (30) days from today.
As stated, the RTC convicted Wagas of estafa on July 11, 2002, viz:
(SGD.)
Wagas admitted the letter, but insisted that it was Canada who
had transacted with Ligaray, and that he had signed the letter only 3. To pay said complainant the sum of 30,000.00 by way
because his sister and her husband (Canada) had begged him to of attorneys fees; and
48
EVIDENCE CASES
4. the costs of suit. On October 21, 2002, the RTC denied the motion for new trial
and/or reconsideration, opining that the evidence Wagas desired to
present at a new trial did not qualify as newly discovered, and that
The RTC held that the Prosecution had proved beyond Wagas appealed directly to this Court by notice of appeal. 17
49
EVIDENCE CASES
had meanwhile filed the administrative complaint against the RTC
Judge. 24
The appeal is meritorious.
Issues
Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, provides:
XXXX
In order to constitute estafa under this statutory provision, the act of defrauded Ligaray by issuing the check.
The essential elements of the crime charged are that: (a) a check
is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the A: Yes, sir. He purchased two hundred bags of rice from me.
time the check is issued; (b) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the
check; and (c) damage to the payee thereof. 26 It is the criminal fraud
or deceit in the issuance of a check that is punishable, not the non-
Q: How did this purchase of rice transaction started? (sic)
payment of a debt. 27 Prima facie evidence of deceit exists by law
upon proof that the drawer of the check failed to deposit the amount
necessary to cover his check within three days from receipt of the
notice of dishonor. A: He talked with me over the phone and told me that he would like
to purchase two hundred bags of rice and he will just issue a
check. 29
51
EVIDENCE CASES
Q: After the check was (sic) bounced, what did you do next? It bears stressing that the accused, to be guilty of estafa as
charged, must have used the check in order to defraud the
complainant. What the law punishes is the fraud or deceit, not the
A: I made a demand on them. mere issuance of the worthless check. Wagas could not be held guilty
of estafa simply because he had issued the check used to defraud
Ligaray. The proof of guilt must still clearly show that it had been
Wagas as the drawer who had defrauded Ligaray by means of
Q: How did you make a demand?
the check.
52
EVIDENCE CASES
other means. 32 Without the authentication, incriminating another weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility, and
person just by adverting to the telephone conversation with him the responsibility lies in the first instance with the district court
would be all too easy. In this respect, an identification based on to determine within its sound discretion whether the threshold
familiarity with the voice of the caller, or because of clearly of admissibility has been met. 35 (Bold emphasis supplied)
recognizable peculiarities of the caller would have sufficed. 33
The identity of the caller could also be established by the callers
self- identification, coupled with additional evidence, like the context Yet, the Prosecution did not tender any plausible explanation or offer
and timing of the telephone call, the contents of the statement any proof to definitely establish that it had been Wagas whom Ligaray
challenged, internal patterns, and other distinctive characteristics, had conversed with on the telephone. The Prosecution did not show
and disclosure of knowledge of facts known peculiarly to the caller. 34 through Ligaray during the trial as to how he had determined that
his caller was Wagas. All that the Prosecution sought to elicit from
him was whether he had known and why he had known Wagas, and
Verily, it is only fair that the caller be reliably identified first before he answered as follows:
a telephone communication is accorded probative weight. The identity
of the caller may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence.
According to one ruling of the Kansas Supreme Court: Q: Do you know the accused in this case?
Q: Mr. Witness, you mentioned that you and the accused entered Q: There was no instant (sic) that the accused went to see
into [a] transaction of rice selling, particularly with these 200 sacks you personally regarding the 200 bags rice transaction?
of rice subject of this case, through telephone conversation?
Q: In fact[,] you did not cause the delivery of these 200 bags of rice
Q: But you cannot really ascertain that it was the accused whom you through the accused himself?
are talking with?
Q: So, after that phone call[,] you deliver[ed] th[ose] 200 sacks of rice
Q: Am I right to say [that] that was the first time that you had through somebody other than the accused?
a transaction with the accused through telephone conversation, and
as a consequence of that alleged conversation with the accused
through telephone he issued a check in your favor?
A: Yes, sir. 37
54
EVIDENCE CASES
Ligarays statement that he could tell that it was Wagas who for a crime. Accordingly, the State has the burden of proof to show:
had ordered the rice because he know[s] him was still vague and (1) the correct identification of the author of a crime, and (2) the
unreliable for not assuring the certainty of the identification, and actuality of the commission of the offense with the participation of
should not support a finding of Ligarays familiarity with Wagas as the accused. All these facts must be proved by the State beyond
the caller by his voice. It was evident from Ligarays answers that reasonable doubt on the strength of its evidence and without
Wagas was not even an acquaintance of Ligarays prior to the solace from the weakness of the defense. That the defense the
transaction. Thus, the RTCs conclusion that Ligaray had transacted accused puts up may be weak is inconsequential if, in the first place,
with Wagas had no factual basis. Without that factual basis, the RTC the State has failed to discharge the onus of his identity and
was speculating on a matter as decisive as the identification of culpability. The presumption of innocence dictates that it is for the
the buyer to be Wagas. Prosecution to demonstrate the guilt and not for the accused to
establish innocence. 41 Indeed, the accused, being presumed
innocent, carries no burden of proof on his or her shoulders. For this
The letter of Wagas did not competently establish that he was reason, the first duty of the Prosecution is not to prove the crime but
the person who had conversed with Ligaray by telephone to place the to prove the identity of the criminal. For even if the commission of the
order for the rice. The letter was admitted exclusively as the States crime can be established, without competent proof of the identity of
rebuttal evidence to controvert or impeach the denial of Wagas of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, there can be no conviction. 42
entering into any transaction with Ligaray on the rice; hence, it could
be considered and appreciated only for that purpose. Under the law
of evidence, the court shall consider evidence solely for the purpose There is no question that an identification that does not preclude
for which it is offered, 38 not for any other purpose. 39 Fairness to a reasonable possibility of mistake cannot be accorded any
the adverse party demands such exclusivity. Moreover, the high evidentiary force. 43 Thus, considering that the circumstances of the
plausibility of the explanation of Wagas that he had signed the letter identification of Wagas as the person who transacted on the rice did
only because his sister and her husband had pleaded with him to do not preclude a reasonable possibility of mistake, the proof of guilt did
so could not be taken for granted. not measure up to the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
demanded in criminal cases. Perforce, the accuseds constitutional
right of presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved is not
It is a fundamental rule in criminal procedure that the State carries overcome, and he is entitled to an acquittal, 44 even though his
the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a innocence may be doubted. 45
SO ORDERED.
FIRST DIVISION
56
EVIDENCE CASES
DECISION
57
EVIDENCE CASES
temporal, as maximum, and ordered him to indemnify Lao the
The RTC Ruling amount of P497,000.00 as the value of the stolen diesel fuel, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and the costs.18
58
EVIDENCE CASES
Aggrieved, Candelaria filed a motion for reconsideration26 which was sufficiently established that the 14,000 liters of diesel fuel loaded into
eventually denied in a Resolution27 dated September 3, 2013, hence, the lorry truck with plate number PTA-945 driven by Candelaria for
this petition. delivery to Viron on August 23, 2006 was taken by him, without the
authority and consent of Lao, the owner of the diesel fuel, and that
Candelaria abused the confidence reposed upon him by Lao, as his
The Issue Before the Court
employer.
The main issue for the Courts resolution is whether or not the CA
Candelaria maintains that he should be acquitted considering that
correctly found Candelaria guilty of the crime of Qualified Theft on
his conviction was based merely on circumstantial evidence, as well
the basis of circumstantial evidence.
as on hearsay evidence, i.e., Laos testimony with regard to the
allegation of the deceased helper Romano that Candelaria poked a
The elements of Qualified Theft, punishable under Article 31028 in Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is
relation to Article 30929 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences
amended, are: (a) the taking of personal property; (b) the said are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the
property belongs to another; (c) the said taking be done with intent to circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
gain; (d) it be done without the owners consent; (e) it be doubt.32 Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an accused only
accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against if the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which
persons, nor of force upon things; and (f) it be done under any of the leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused,
circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC, i.e., with grave to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person; the circumstances
abuse of confidence.30 proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the
hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and, at the same time,
inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilt. Corollary
thereto, a conviction based on circumstantial evidence must exclude
In this case, there is a confluence of all the foregoing elements.
each and every hypothesis consistent with innocence.33
Through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it was
59
EVIDENCE CASES
which, as case law holds, is an inherently weak defense due to the
ease by which it can be concocted.35 With these, and, moreover, the
Here, the RTC, as correctly affirmed by the CA, found that the
tell-tale fact that Candelaria has not returned or reported back to
attendant circumstances in this case, as duly established by the
work at Unioil since the incident, the Court draws no other
prosecutions evidence, amply justify the conviction of Candelaria
reasonable inference other than that which points to his guilt. Verily,
under the evidentiary threshold of proof of guilt beyond reasonable
while it is true that flight per se is not synonymous with
doubt. These circumstances are: (a) on August 23, 2006, Viron
guilt,36 unexplained flight nonetheless evinces guilt or betrays the
ordered 14,000 liters of diesel fuel from Laos Unioil; (b) as driver of
existence of a guilty conscience,37 especially when taken together
Unioil, Candelaria was given the task of delivering the same to Viron
with all the other circumstantial evidence attendant in this case.
in Laon Laan, Manila; (c) Candelaria and his helper Romano left the
Thus, all things considered, Candelarias conviction for the crime of
company premises on the same day on board the lorry truck bearing
Qualified Theft stands.
plate number PTA-945 containing the diesel fuel; (d) at around 5
oclock in the afternoon of the same day, Viron informed Lao that its
order had not yet been delivered; (e) Candelaria failed to reply to Laos
The imposable penalty for the crime of Qualified Theft depends upon
phone calls; (f) later in the day, Romano returned to the Unioil office
the value of the thing stolen. To prove the value of the stolen property
sans Candelaria and reported that the latter threatened him with a
for purposes of fixing the imposable penalty under Articles 309 and
weapon; (g) Lao reported the incident to the MPD and Camp Crame;
310 of the RPC, as amended, the Court explained in People v.
(h) the missing lorry truck was subsequently found in Laguna, devoid
Anabe38 that the prosecution must present more than a mere
of its contents; and (i) Candelaria had not reported back to Unioil
uncorroborated estimate.39 In the absence of independent and
since then.34
reliable corroboration of such estimate, the courts may either apply
the minimum penalty under Article 309 or fix the value of the
property taken based on the attendant circumstances of the
Threading these circumstances together, the Court perceives a
case.40 In Merida v. People (Merida),41 which applied the doctrine
congruent picture that the crime of Qualified Theft had been
enunciated in People v. Dator (Dator),42 the Court deemed it
committed and that Candelaria had perpetrated the same. To be
improper to take judicial notice of the selling price of narra at the
sure, this determination is not sullied by the fact that Candelarias
time of the commission of its theft, as such evidence would be
companion, Romano, had died before he could testify as to the truth
unreliable and inconclusive considering the lack of independent and
of his allegation that the former had threatened him with a balisong
competent source of such information.43
on August 23, 2006. It is a gaping hole in the defense that the diesel
fuel was admittedly placed under Candelarias custody and remains
unaccounted for. Candelaria did not proffer any persuasive reason to
However, in the more recent case of Lozano v. People (Lozano),44 the
explain the loss of said goods and merely banked on a general denial,
Court fixed the value of the stolen mag wheels at P12,000.00 as the
60
EVIDENCE CASES
reasonable allowable limit under the August 2006 (i.e., the time of the commission of the crime) is within
circumstances,45 notwithstanding the uncorroborated testimony of the range of P37.60 to P37.86 per liter51 nonetheless remains
the private complainant therein. Lozano cited, among others, the satisfied that such amount must be sustained. As the value of the
case of Francisco v. People46 (Francisco) where the Court ruled that goods may independently and competently be ascertained from the
the trial court can only take judicial notice of the value of goods DOEs price publication, adding too that the defense had not
which are matters of public knowledge or are capable of presented any evidence to contradict said finding nor cross-examined
unquestionable demonstration,47 further explaining that the value Lao anent her proffered valuation, the Court, notwithstanding the
of jewelry, the stolen items in the said case, is neither a matter of solitary evidence of the prosecution, makes this determination
public knowledge nor is it capable of unquestionable following the second prong set by case law and that is, to fix the
demonstration.48 value of the property taken based on the attendant circumstances of
the case. Verily, such circumstances militate against applying the
alternative of imposing a minimum penalty and, more so, the CAs
In this case, Candelaria has been found guilty of stealing diesel fuel. arbitrary valuation of P14,000.00, since the basis for which was not
Unlike in Francisco, where the Court had no reference to ascertain explained. Therefore, for purposes of fixing the proper penalty for
the price of the stolen jewelry, or in Merida and Dator, where the Qualified Theft in this case, the value of the stolen property
Court refused to take judicial notice of the selling price of lumber amounting to P497,000.00 must be considered. Conformably with
and/or narra for lack of independent and competent source of the the provisions of Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC, the proper penalty
necessary information at the time of the commission of the theft, the to be imposed upon Candelaria is reclusion perpetua, 52 without
value of diesel fuel in this case may be readily gathered from price eligibility for parole,53 to conform with prevailing law and
While it is true that the prosecution had only presented the judicious direction, should be sufficiently passed upon during trial
uncorroborated testimony of the private complainant, Lao, to prove and its finding thereon be amply explained in its verdict. Although an
that the value of the diesel fuel stolen is P497,000.00, the Court appeal of a criminal case throws the entire case up for review,55 the
taking judicial notice of the fact that the pump price of diesel fuel in ends of justice, both in its criminal and civil senses, demand nothing
61
EVIDENCE CASES
less but complete and thorough adjudication in the judicial systems Tagged under keywords
every level. Truth be told, the peculiar nature of these cases provides
View Summary
a distinctive opportunity for this ideal to be subserved.
FIRST DIVISION
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January
31, 2013 and the Resolution dated September 3, 2013 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 34470 are
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that petitioner Mel DECISION
Carpizo Candelaria is: (a) sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole; and (b) ordered to indemnify
private complainant Jessielyn Valera Lao the amount of ?497,000.00
representing the value of the stolen property.
BERSAMIN, J.:
SO ORDERED.
In the trial of everycriminal case, a judge must rigidlytest the States
evidence of guilt in order to ensure that such evidenceadheres to the
basic rules of admissibility before pronouncing an accused guilty of
the crime charged upon such evidence. Nothing less is demanded of
the judge; otherwise, the guarantee of due process of law is
nullified.The accused need notadduceanythingto rebut evidence that
is discredited for failing the test.Acquittal should then follow.
Antecedents
ANNA LERIMA PATULA, Petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner was charged withestafaunder an informationfiled in
Respondent. the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in DumagueteCitythat averred:
Petitioner pled not guiltyto the offense charged in the information. At On March 7, 2002, Gos cross examination, re-direct examination
pre-trial, no stipulation of factswas had, and petitioner did not avail and re-crossexamination were completed.
herself of plea bargaining. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The only other witness for the Prosecution was Karen Guivencan,
The Prosecutions first witness was Lamberto Go, who testified that whomFootluckers employed as its store auditor since November 16,
he was the branch manager of Footluckers Chain of Stores, Inc. 1995 until her resignation on March 31, 2001. She declared that Go
(Footluckers) in Dumaguete City since October 8, 1994; that had requested her to audit petitioner after some customers had told
petitioner was an employee of Footluckers, starting as a saleslady in him that they had already paid their accounts but the office ledger
63
EVIDENCE CASES
had still reflected outstandingbalances for them; that she first testimony to be irrelevant because she thereby tended to prove
conducted her audit by going to the customers in places from falsification, an offense not alleged in the information.
Mabinay to Zamboanguitain Negros Oriental, and then in Siquijor;
thatshe discovered in the course of her audit that the amounts
appearing on the original copies of receipts in the possession of TheProsecution thenformally offered its documentary exhibits,
around 50 customers varied from the amounts written on the including Exhibits B to YYand their derivatives (like the originals and
duplicate copies of the receipts petitioner submitted to the office; that duplicates of the receipts supposedly executed and issued by
upon completing her audit, she submittedto Go a written report petitioner), inclusive, the confirmation sheets used by Guivencan in
denominated as List of Customers Covered by Saleswoman LERIMA auditing the accounts served by petitioner, and Guivencans so-
PATULA w/ Differences in Records as per Audit Duly Verified March called Summary (Final Report) of Discrepancies.[5]
16-20, 1997 marked as Exhibit A; and that based on the report,
petitioner had misappropriated the total amount ofP131,286.92.[3]
After the Prosecution rested its case, the Defense decided not to file a
demurrer to evidence although it had manifested the intention to do
During Guivencans stint as a witness, the Prosecution marked the so, and instead rested itscase.The Prosecution and Defense submitted
ledgers of petitioners various customers allegedly with discrepancies their respective memoranda, and submitted the case for decision.[6]
as Exhibits B to YYand their derivatives, inclusive. Each of the
ledgers had a first column that contained the dates of the entries, a
second that identified the invoices by the number, a third that
On January 28, 2004, the RTC, stating that inasmuch as petitioner
statedthe debit, a fourth that noted the credit (or the amounts paid),
had opted not to present evidence for her defense the Prosecutions
and a fifth that summed the balances (debit minus credit).Only 49 of
evidence remained unrefuted and uncontroverted,[7]rendered its
theledgerswere formally offered and admitted by the RTC because the
decision finding petitioner guilty of estafa, to wit:
50thledger could no longer be found.
64
EVIDENCE CASES
law and to indemnify private complainant the amount of P131,286.92 on Evidence, petitioner has directly appealed to the
with interest at 12% per annum until fully paid and to pay the costs. Court via petition for review on certiorari, positing the following
issues, to wit:
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, butthe RTC denied the 2. WHETHER THE ACCUSEDS CONSTITUTIONAL AND
Failure of information to allege falsification of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public
trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
did not violate petitioners right to be informed process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
of thenatureand cause of the accusation
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has
been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Petitioner contends that the RTC grossly violated her Constitutional Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, the rule then in effect when
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation when: the information was filed in the RTC, contained the following
(a) it held that the information did not have to allege her falsification provisions on the proper manner of alleging the nature and cause of
of the duplicate receipts, and (b) when it convicted her of estafa under the accusation in the information, to wit:
Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Codeby relying on
the evidence on falsification.
Section 8.Designation of the offense. Whenever possible, a complaint
or information should state the designation given to the offense by
The contentionof petitioner cannot be sustained. the statute, besides the statement of the acts or omissions
constituting the same, and if there is no such designation, reference
should be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing
it. (7)
The Bill of Rights guaranteessome rightsto every person accused of a
crime, among them the right to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation, viz:
Section 9.Cause of accusation. The acts or omissions complained of
as constituting the offense must be stated in ordinary and concise
language without repetition, not necessarily in the terms of the
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
statute defining the offense, but in such form as is sufficient to
offense without due process of law.
enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is
67
EVIDENCE CASES
intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision
judgment. (8) mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
The crime of estafacharged against petitioner was defined and 4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does
penalized by Article 315, paragraph 1 (b), Revised Penal Code, viz: not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in the four cases mentioned, the
fraud be committed by any of the following means:
The elements of the offense charged were as follows: not an offense separate and distinct from the estafacharged against
her, the Prosecution could legitimately prove her acts of falsification
as its means of establishing her misappropriation or conversion as an
essential ingredient of the crime duly alleged in the information. In
(a) That the offender received money, goods or other personal
that manner, her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under
accusation against her was not infringed or denied to her.
any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to
return, the same;
69
EVIDENCE CASES
In her Memorandum, it is the contention of [the] accused that [the] falsify certain documents to be able to obtain money or goods from
prosecutions evidence utterly fails to prove the crime charged. another person. In other words, the falsification is a necessary means
According to the defense, the essence of Karen Guivencans testimony of committing estafa. However, if the falsification is committed to
is that the accused falsified the receipts issued to the customers conceal the misappropriation, two separate offenses of estafa and
served by her by changing or altering the amounts in the duplicates falsification are committed. In the instant case, when accused
of the receipts and therefore, her testimony is immaterial and collected payments from the customers, said collection which was in
irrelevant as the charge is misappropriation under Art. 315, her possession was at her disposal. The falsified or erroneous entries
paragraph (1b) of the Revised Penal Code and there is no allegation which she made on the duplicate copies of the receipts were contrived
whatsoever of any falsification or alteration of amounts in the to conceal some amount of her collection which she did not remit to
[i]nformation under which the accused was arraigned and pleaded the company xxx.[13]
NOT GUILTY. Accused, thus, maintains that the testimony of Karen
Guivencan should therefore not be considered at all as it tended to
prove an offense not charged or included in the [i]nformation and II
would violate [the] accuseds constitutional and statutory right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her. The Testimonial and documentary evidence,being hearsay,
Court is not in accord with such posture of the accused.
did not prove petitioners guilt beyond reasonable doubt
It would seem that the accused is of the idea that because the crime
charged in the [i]nformation is merely [e]stafa and not [e]stafa [t]hru
[f]alsification of documents, the prosecution could not prove Nonetheless, in all criminal prosecutions, the Prosecution bears the
falsification. Such argumentation is not correct. Since the burden to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
information charges accused only of misappropriation pursuant to doubt. In discharging this burden, the Prosecutions duty is to prove
Art. 315, par. (1b) of the Revised [P]enal Code, the Court holds that each and every element of the crime charged in the information to
there is no necessity of alleging the falsification in the Information as warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any other crime
it is not an element of the crime charged. necessarily included therein.[14] The Prosecution must further prove
the participation of the accused in the commission of the offense.
[15]In doing all these, the Prosecution must rely on the strength of its
Distinction should be made as to when the crimes of Estafa and own evidence, and not anchor its success upon the weakness of the
Falsification will constitute as one complex crime and when they are evidence of the accused. The burden of proof placed on the
considered as two separate offenses. The complex crime of Estafa Prosecution arises from the presumption of innocence in favor of the
Through Falsification of Documents is committed when one has to accused that no less than the Constitution has guaranteed.
70
EVIDENCE CASES
[16]Conversely, as to his innocence, the accused has no burden of inclusive,and that Guivencan based her testimony on the entries
proof,[17]that he must then be acquitted and set free should the found in the receipts supposedly issued by petitioner and in the
Prosecution not overcome the presumption of innocence in his ledgers held by Footluckers corresponding to each customer, as well
favor.In other words, the weakness of the defense put up by the as on the unsworn statements of some of the customers. Accordingly,
accused is inconsequential in the proceedings for as long as the her being the only witness who testified on the entries effectively
Prosecution has not discharged its burden of proof in establishing the deprived the RTC of the reasonable opportunity to validate and test
commission of the crime charged and in identifying the accused as the veracity and reliability of the entries as evidence of petitioners
the malefactor responsible for it. misappropriation or conversion through cross-examination by
petitioner. The denial of that opportunity rendered theentire proof of
misappropriation or conversion hearsay, and thus unreliable and
Did the Prosecution adduce evidence that proved beyond reasonable untrustworthy for purposes of determining the guilt or innocence of
doubt the guilt of petitioner for the estafa charged in the information? the accused.
71
EVIDENCE CASES
In case a witness is permitted to testify based on what she has heard case, if a prosecution witness testifies that he heard the accused say
another person say about the facts in dispute, the person from whom that the complainant was a thief, this testimony is admissible not to
the witness derived the information on the facts in dispute is not in prove that the complainant was really a thief, but merely to show that
court and under oath to be examined and cross-examined. The the accused uttered those words.[22] This kind of utterance ishearsay
weight of such testimony thendepends not upon theveracity of the in character but is not legal hearsay.[23]The distinction is, therefore,
witness but upon the veracity of the other person giving the between (a) the fact that the statement was made, to which the
information to the witness without oath. The information cannot be hearsay rule does not apply, and (b) the truth of the facts asserted in
tested because the declarant is not standing in court as a witness the statement, to which the hearsay rule applies.[24]
andcannot, therefore, be cross-examined.
Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court is understandably not the
It is apparent, too, that a person who relates a hearsay is not obliged only rule that explains why testimony that is hearsay should be
to enter into any particular, to answer any question, to solve any excluded from consideration. Excluding hearsay also aims to preserve
difficulties, to reconcile any contradictions, to explain any the right of the opposing party to cross-examine the originaldeclarant
obscurities, to remove any ambiguities; and that she entrenches claiming to have a direct knowledge of the transaction or occurrence.
herself in the simple assertion that she was told so, and leaves the [25]If hearsay is allowed, the right stands to be denied because the
burden entirely upon the dead or absent author.[19] Thus, the rule declarant is not in court.[26]It is then to be stressed that the right to
against hearsay testimony rests mainly on the ground that there was cross-examine the adverse partys witness,
no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.[20] The testimony
may have been given under oath and before a court of justice, but if it
is offered against a party who is afforded no opportunity to cross- being the only means of testing the credibility of witnesses and their
examine the witness, it is hearsay just the same.[21] testimonies, is essential to the administration of justice.
Moreover, the theory of the hearsay rule is that when a human To address the problem of controlling inadmissible hearsay as
utterance is offered as evidence of the truth of the fact asserted, the evidence to establish the truth in a dispute while also safeguardinga
credit of the assertor becomes the basis of inference, and, therefore, partys right to cross-examine her adversarys witness,the Rules of
the assertion can be received as evidence only when made on the Court offers two solutions. The firstsolution is to require that allthe
witness stand, subject to the test of cross-examination. However, if an witnesses in a judicial trial or hearing be examined only in
extrajudicial utterance is offered, not as an assertion to prove the courtunder oath or affirmation. Section 1, Rule 132 of the Rules of
matter asserted but without reference to the truth of the matter Court formalizes this solution,viz:
asserted, the hearsay rule does not apply. For example, in a slander
72
EVIDENCE CASES
We thus stress that the rule excluding hearsay as evidence is based
upon serious concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability
Section 1. Examination to be done in open court. - The examination
of hearsay evidence due to its not being given under oath or solemn
of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open
affirmation and due to its not being subjected to cross-examination
court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is
by the opposing counsel to test the perception, memory, veracity and
incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of
articulateness of the out-of-court declarant or actor upon
answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally. (1a)
whose reliability the worth of the out-of-court statement depends.[27]
73
EVIDENCE CASES
Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Courtdistinguishes between a document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or because it
public document and a private document for the purpose of their has been acknowledged before a notary public (except a notarial will)
presentation in evidence, viz: or a competent public official with the formalities required by law, or
because it is a public record of a private writing authorized by law, is
self-authenticating and requires no further authentication in order to
Section 19. Classes of documents. For the purpose of their be presented as evidence in court.In contrast, a private document is
presentation in evidence, documents are either public or private. any other writing, deed, or instrument executed by a private person
without the intervention of a notary or other person legally
authorized by which some disposition or agreement is proved or set
forth. Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public
Public documents are:
document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, a private document
requires authentication in the manner allowed by law or the Rules of
Court before its acceptance as evidence in court. The requirement of
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the authentication of a private document is excused only in four
sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, instances, specifically: (a) when the document is an ancient one
whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; within the context of Section 21,[28] Rule 132 of the Rules of Court;
(b) when the genuineness and authenticity of an actionable document
have not been specifically denied under oath by the adverse party;[29]
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills (c) when thegenuineness and authenticity of the document
and testaments, and
Section 20. Proof of private documents. Before any private (Next Page)
document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved either:
A. Yes.
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
Q. You are also familiar with the signature of the accused in this
handwriting of the maker.
case, Anna Lerima Patula?
A. Yes.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is
Q. Why are you familiar with the signature of the accused in this
claimed to be.
case?
Q. Now, these receipts which you mentioned which do not tally receipt from Cirila Askin, kindly go over the signature and tell the
with the original receipts, do you have copies of these receipts? Honorable Court whether you are familiar with the signature?
A. Yes, I have a copy of these receipts, but its not now in my A. Yes, that is her signature.
possession.
INTERPRETER:
Q. Is this the only receipt wherein the name, the signature Bracket the signature &mark it as Exh. A-1. What is the
rather, of the accused in this case appears? number of that receipt?
ATTY. ABIERA:
COURT:
As the excerpts indicate, Gos attempt at authentication of the
Mark the receipt as Exhibit A. signature of petitioner on the receipt with serial number FLDT96 No.
20441 (a document that was marked as Exhibit A, while the
ATTY. ABIERA:
purported signature of petitioner thereon was marked as Exhibit A-1)
And the signature be bracketed and be marked as Exhibit A- immediately fizzled out after the Prosecution admitted that the
1. document was a meremachinecopy, not the original. Thereafter, as if
to soften its failed attempt, the Prosecution expressly promised to
76
EVIDENCE CASES
produce at a later date the originalsof the receipt with serial number petitioners signature on the receipts either because she lacked
FLDT96 No. 20441 and other receipts. But that promise was not even familiarity with such signature, or because she had not seen
true, because almost in the same breath the Prosecution offered to petitioner affix her signature on the receipts, as the following excerpts
authenticate the signature of petitioner on the receiptsthrougha from her testimony bear out:
different witness (though then still unnamed). As matters turned out
in the end, the effort to have Go authenticate both themachinecopy of
the receiptwith serial number FLDT96 No. 20441 and the signature ATTY. ZERNA to witness:
of petitioner on that receipt was wasteful because the machine copy
was inexplicablyforgotten and was no longer evenincluded in the Q. There are two (2) receipts attached here in the
Prosecutions Offer of Documentary Evidence. confirmation sheet, will you go over these Miss witness?
ATTY. ZERNA:
A. Yes.
Q.How do you know that this is her signature?
ATTY. ZERNA:
A.Because we can read the Patula.[34]
78
EVIDENCE CASES
lack of independent knowledge of the veracity of the entries, as the WITNESS:
following excerpts of her testimony show:
A. She has no more balance but in our office she has still a
balance of P10,971.75.
Q. What is your basis of saying that your office records showed Q. Do you have a-whats the basis of saying that the balance of
that this Cecilia Askin has an account of P10,791.75? this customer is still P10,971.75
ATTY. DIEZ:
The question answers itself, You Honor, what is the basis, (Next Page)
office record.
COURT:
ATTY. ZERNA (continuing):
Let the witness answer.
[i]n your office?
WITNESS:
COURT:
A. I made the basis on our ledger in the office. I just copied that
That was already answered paero, the office has a ledger.
and showed it to the customers for confirmation.
A. No, Maam.[35]
ATTY. ZERNA to witness:
79
EVIDENCE CASES
Q. Okay, You said there are discrepancies between the original The confirmation sheet ---
and the duplicate, will you please enlighten the Honorable Court on
that discrepancy which you said?
A. This is the copy of the customer while in the office, in the In the face of the palpable flaws infecting the Prosecutions
original receipt she has still a balance. evidence, it should come as no surprise that petitioners counsel
interposed timely objections. Yet, the RTC mysteriously overruled the
xxx
objections and allowedthe Prosecutionto present the unauthenticated
ATTY. ZERNA: ledgers, as follows:
80
EVIDENCE CASES
Those ledgers were already presented in the last hearing. I
think they were already duly identified by this witness. As a matter of
(Continuation of the Direct Examination of
fact, it was she who brought them to court
(Next Page)
ATTY. ZERNA:
COURT (cont.):
CONTINUATION OF DIRECT-EXAMINATION
because these were the ledgers on file in their office.
ATTY. DIEZ
A It is here. entries there is (sic) correct on the receipts submitted to their office.
Q Here is a ledger of one Divina Cadilig. This Divina Cadilig, how COURT:
Your Honor please before the witness will proceed to answer WITNESS:
the question, let me interpose our objection on the ground that this
A Its the office clerk in-charge.
ledger has not been duly identified to by the person who made the
same. This witness will be testifying on hearsay matters because the COURT:
supposed ledger was not identified to by the person who made the
The one who prepared the ledger is the office clerk.
same.
ATTY. ZERNA:
COURT:
81
EVIDENCE CASES
COURT: (Next Page)
Q (To Witness) The clerk who allegedly was the one who follows:
A She is no longer connected now, Your Honor, to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person
write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the
witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge
of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the
COURT:
handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness
Alright proceed. or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the
party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. (Emphases supplied)
82
EVIDENCE CASES
delivered to and received by the importer, namely the respondent.
Witness Jeanne King, who was assigned to handle respondents
If it is already clear that Go and Guivencan had not themselves seen
importations, including their insurance coverage, has personal
the execution or signing of the documents,the Prosecution surely did
knowledge of the volume of steel billets being imported, and therefore
not authenticate Exhibits B to YY and their derivatives conformably
competent to testify thereon. Her testimony is not hearsay, as this
with the aforequoted rules. Hence, Exhibits B to YY, and their
doctrine is defined in Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of
derivatives, inclusive, were inescapably bereft of probative value as
Court.However, she is not qualified to testify on the shortage in the
evidence. That was the onlyfair and just result, as the Court held
delivery of the imported steel billets. She did not have personal
in Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Philippine Nails and Wires
knowledge of the actual steel billets received. Even though she
Corporation:[38]
prepared the summary of the received steel billets, she based the
summary only on the receipts prepared by other persons. Her
testimony on steel billets received was hearsay. It has no probative
On the first issue, petitioner Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., contends value even if not objected to at the trial.
that Jeanne Kings testimony was hearsay because she had no
personal knowledge of the execution of the documents supporting
respondents cause of action, such as the sales contract, invoice,
On the second issue, petitioner avers that King failed to properly
packing list, bill of lading, SGS Report, and the Marine Cargo
authenticate respondents documentary evidence. Under Section 20,
Policy. Petitioner avers that even though King was personally
Rule 132, Rules of Court, before a private document is admitted in
assigned to handle and monitor the importation of Philippine Nails
evidence, it must be authenticated either by the person who executed
and Wires Corporation, herein respondent, this cannot be equated
it, the person before whom its execution was acknowledged, any
with personal knowledge of the facts which gave rise to respondents
person who was present and saw it executed, or who after its
cause of action. Further, petitioner asserts, even though she
execution, saw it and recognized the signatures, or the person to
personally prepared the summary of weight of steel billets received by
whom the parties to the instruments had previously confessed
respondent, she did not have personal knowledge of the weight of
execution thereof. In this case,respondent admits that King was
steel billets actually shipped and delivered.
none of the aforementioned persons. She merely made the summary
of the weight of steel billets based on the unauthenticated bill of
lading and the SGS report. Thus, the summary of steel billets
At the outset, we must stress that respondents cause of action is actually received had no proven real basis, and Kings testimony on
founded on breach of insurance contract covering cargo consisting of this point could not be taken at face value.
imported steel billets. To hold petitioner liable, respondent has to
prove, first, its importation of 10,053.400 metric tons of steel billets
valued at P67,156,300.00, and second, the actual steel billets
83
EVIDENCE CASES
xxx Under the rules on evidence, documents are either public or Curiously, the RTC excepted the entries in the ledgers from the
private. Private documents are those that do not fall under any of the application of the hearsay rule by also terselystating that the ledgers
enumerations in Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.Section were prepared in the regular course of business.[40]Seemingly, the
20of the same law, in turn, provides that before any private document RTC applied Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be
proved either by anyone who saw the document executed or written,
or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of Section 43. Entries in the course of business. Entries made at, or
the maker. Here, respondents documentary exhibits are private near the time of the transactions to which they refer, by a person
documents. They are not among those enumerated in Section 19, deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts
thus, their due execution and authenticity need to be proved before therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such
they can be admitted in evidence.With the exception concerning the person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the
summary of the weight of the steel billets imported, respondent performance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of
presented no supporting evidence concerning their authenticity. business or duty.
Consequently, they cannot be utilized to prove less of the insured
cargo and/or the short delivery of the imported steel billets. In sum,
we find no sufficient competent evidence to prove petitioners liability.
This was another grave error of the RTC.The terse yet sweeping
mannerof justifying the application of Section 43 was unacceptable
due to the need to show the concurrence of the several requisites
That the Prosecutions evidence was left uncontested because before entries in the course of business could be excepted from the
petitioner decided not to subject Guivencan to cross-examination, hearsay rule. The requisites are as follows:
and did not tender her contrary evidencewas inconsequential.
Although the trial court had overruled the seasonable objections to
Guivencans testimony bypetitioners counsel due to the hearsay
(a) The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify;
character, it could not be denied thathearsay evidence, whether
objected to or not, had no probative value.[39]Verily, the flaws of the
Prosecutions evidence were fundamental and substantive, not merely
technical and procedural, and were defects that the adverse partys (b) The entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to
waiver of her cross-examination or failure to rebutcould not set right which they refer;
or cure. Nor did the trial courts overruling of petitioners objections
imbue the flawed evidence with any virtue and value.
(c) The entrant was in a position to know the facts stated in the
entries;
84
EVIDENCE CASES
indemnify Footluckers in the amount ofP131,286.92 with interest of
12% per annum until fully paid was not yet shown to be factually
(d) The entries were made in his professional capacity or in the
founded. Yet, she cannot now be absolved of civil liability on that
performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral, or religious;
basis. Heracquittal has to bedeclared as without prejudice to the
filing of a civil action against her for the recovery of any amount that
she may still owe to Footluckers.
(e) The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of
business or duty.[41]
SO ORDERED.
IV
85
EVIDENCE CASES
SECOND DIVISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
86
EVIDENCE CASES
who was with him, stunned by the unexpected attack, pleaded to footages of the interview were taken showing Galgarin admitting his
Galgarin to stop. Dennis struggled and succeeded momentarily to guilt while pointing to his nephew Edward Endino as the gunman.
free himself from his attacker. Dennis dashed towards the According to Galgarin, after attacking Aquino, they left for Roxas,
nearby Midtown Sales but his escape was foiled when from out of Palawan, where his sister Langging who is Edward's mother, was
nowhere Edward Endino appeared and fired at Dennis. As Dennis waiting. Langging gave them money for their fare for Manila. They
staggered for safety, the two (2) assailants fled in the direction of the took the boat for Batangas, where they stayed for a few days, and
airport. proceeded to Manila where they separated, with him heading for
Antipolo. Galgarin appealed for Edward to give himself up to the
Meanwhile, Dennis, wounded and bleeding, sought refuge inside
authorities. His interview was shown over the ABS-CBN evening news
the Elohim Store where he collapsed on the floor. He was grasping for
program TV Patrol.
breath and near death. Clara with the help of some onlookers took
him to the hospital but Dennis expired even before he could receive The case against accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin was established
medical attention. According to the autopsy report of Dr. Josephine through the testimony of Clara Agagas who said that she was with
Goh-Cruz, cause of death was "cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to the victim Dennis Aquino standing outside the Soundlab Recording
hypovolemic shock secondary to a stab wound which penetrated the Studio, a barhouse owned by him, when Galgarin suddenly
heart."1 approached them and without any prior warning stabbed Dennis.
Dennis tried to run away, but Edward, a spurned lover who harbored
On 18 October 1991, an Information for the murder of Dennis Aquino
ill-feelings towards her and Dennis, shot Dennis. She recognized
was filed against Edward Endino and accused-appellant Gerry
Edward and Gerry because the street was sufficiently lighted.2
Galgarin and warrants were issued for their arrest. However, as both
accused remained at large, the trial court issued on 26 December The testimony of Clara Agagas was corroborated by Anita Leong,
1991 an order putting the case in the archives without prejudice to next-door neighbor of Dennis, who testified that a little past six
its reinstatement upon their apprehension. o'clock in the evening of 16 October 1991 Gerry Galgarin together
with a companion went to her house looking for Dennis. She
On 19 November 1992, Gerry Galgarin was arrested through the
instructed them to proceed to the Soundlab Recording Studio as
combined efforts of the Antipolo and Palawan police forces at a house
Dennis might still be there. But a few minutes later she heard a
in Sitio Sto. Nio, Antipolo, Rizal. He was immediately taken into
Instinctively, she instructed her two (2) young daughters to duck for
temporary custody by the Antipolo Police. Early in the evening of the
cover while she anxiously waited for her seven (7)-year old daughter
following day, he was fetched from the Antipolo Police Station by PO3
Josephine who was out of the house for an errand for her. Soon
Gaudencio Manlavi and PO3 Edwin Magbanua of the Palawan police
enough she heard Josephine knocking at their door. She was crying
force to be taken to Palawan and be tried accordingly.
because she said her Kuya Dennis had been shot and stabbed.3
Corroborating further accused-appellant's guilt, probably with We do not suggest that videotaped confessions given before media
intense incriminating effect, were his immediate flight after the men by an accused with the knowledge of and in the presence of
slaying, and his attempt at jailbreak12 revealing a guilty conscience, police officers are impermissible. Indeed, the line between proper and
hence, his persistent effort to evade the clutches of the law. invalid police techniques and conduct is a difficult one to draw,
particularly in cases such as this where it is essential to make sharp
Apropos the court a quo's admission of accused-appellant's
judgments in determining whether a confession was given under
videotaped confession, we find such admission proper. The interview
coercive physical or psychological atmosphere.
was recorded on video and it showed accused-appellant unburdening
his guilt willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of newsmen. A word of counsel then to lower courts: we should never presume
Such confession does not form part of custodial investigation as it that all media confessions described as voluntary have been freely
was not given to police officers but to media men in an attempt to given. This type of confession always remains suspect and therefore
elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public. Besides, if he had should be thoroughly examined and scrutinized. Detection of coerced
indeed been forced into confessing, he could have easily sought confessions is admittedly a difficult and arduous task for the courts
succor from the newsmen who, in all likelihood, would have been to make. It requires persistence and determination in separating
symphatetic with him. As the trial court stated in its Decision13 - polluted confessions from untainted ones. We have a sworn duty to
be vigilant and protective of the rights guaranteed by the
Furthermore, accused, in his TV interview (Exh. H), freely admitted
Constitution.
that he had stabbed Dennis Aquino, and that Edward Endino had
shot him (Aquino). There is no showing that the interview of accused With all the evidence tightly ringed around accused-appellant, the
was coerced or against his will. Hence, there is basis to accept the question that next presents itself is whether the trial court correctly
truth of his statements therein. denominated the crime as murder qualified by treachery. Doubtless,
the crime committed is one of murder considering that the victim was
We agree. However, because of the inherent danger in the use of
stabbed while he was simply standing on the pavement with his
television as a medium for admitting one's guilt, and the recurrence
89
EVIDENCE CASES
girlfriend waiting for a ride, blissfully oblivious of the accused's
criminal design. The suddenness of the assault on an unsuspecting
victim, without the slightest provocation from him who had no
opportunity to parry the attack, certainly qualifies the killing to
murder.15
SO ORDERED.
90
EVIDENCE CASES
of Imus, Cavite, were shaded. The guideline in the appreciation of
ballots with overvoting is embodied in Guideline No. 5 used by the
COMELEC. Thus:
G.R. No. 203302 | 2013-04-11 There is a correlated guideline, Guideline No. 2, in the sense that
both guidelines refer to instances of shading. However, as regards the
CONCURRING OPINION covered matter and the consequence, the two rules are hugely
different. Guideline No. 2 is about an entire ballot that is claimed to
have been shaded by two or more persons, and it states:
PEREZ, J.;
On the contrary, in case of over-voting which is the case at number of double-votes" which left it "with no other option but to
hand, Guideline No. 5 outrightly provides the consequence that the dispense with the physical ballots and resort to their digital image."
vote shall be considered stray and will not be credited to any of the
contending parties.
The grave abuse of discretion of the COMELEC is clear from its
own words describing what it did in this case.
92
EVIDENCE CASES
any circumstance showing that the ballot was shaded by persons
other than the voter. Plainly, in the instant case, there is no
2. I concur with the ponencia of Justice Bersamin. I discussed
circumstance independent of the fact of shading that such shading
the lack of factual and legal premise for the decryption done by the
was done by someone other than the voter. Its odd reliance on
COMELEC to punctuate its grave abuse of discretion that even went
the over-voting itself underscores the applicability of the presumption
further and similarly characterized the process of decryption itself.
that, in this case, the voter himself/herself did the shadings.
93
EVIDENCE CASES
FIRST DIVISION
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
That on or about the 29th day of August, 2003, at about 8:45 P.M., in
the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this a dangerous drug, without being authorized by law.[5] (Emphasis
Honorable Court, the said [herein appellant], with deliberate intent, supplied).
and without authority of law, did then and there sell, deliver or give
away to a poseur-buyer:
On the other hand, the Information pertaining to Criminal Case No. Camp Sotero Cabahug, Gorordo Ave., Cebu City. The testimony,
CBU-67097 for violation of Section 11, Article II of the same law, however, of this forensic chemist was later on dispensed with per
95
EVIDENCE CASES
At the target area, PO3 Lawas, Jr. and the two barangay tanod
positioned themselves on the opposite side of the road near the
Based on the reports of some teachers of Barangay Lahug
barangay hall. On the other hand, the trusted informant, who is the
Elementary School in Cebu City, and on the information gathered by
designated poseur-buyer, immediately approached the appellant upon
the trusted informant who is a resident of the place, regarding the
seeing the latter. The trusted informant handed the P20.00 peso bill
illegal sale of dangerous drugs in the area and that the appellant was
marked money to the appellant and the latter, in turn, gave four
among the perpetrators, PO3 Lawas, Jr., being the community cop of
sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes to the former. From his
Barangay Lahug, Cebu City, together with two barangay tanod,
position, PO3 Lawas, Jr. can vividly see the ongoing sale transaction
namely: Celso Nicor (Nicor) and Reuben Laping, was instructed to
between the trusted informant and the appellant, as there was a
closely monitor the said illegal activities. PO3 Lawas, Jr. then
lamppost of the Visayan Electric Company (VECO) one meter away
conducted surveillance. As a result, PO3 Lawas, Jr. confirmed that,
right below the flyover of Barangay Lahug. Upon the consummation
indeed, the appellant plies his illegal drug trade in Barangay Lahug,
of the sale, the trusted informant executed at once their pre-arranged
particularly near the stairway of the flyover, which is also in close
signal by taking off his bull cap. Without ado, PO3 Lawas, Jr. and the
proximity to the barangay hall. Worse, most of his clients are the
two barangay tanod crossed the road to apprehend the appellant.
students of the night high school of the said barangay.[8]
But, before they could do so, another person approached the
appellant and walked with him towards the opposite side of the road.
Nonetheless, PO3 Lawas, Jr. and the two barangay tanod followed
A week after the surveillance, or on 29 August 2003, at around 8:45 them until they apprehended the appellant. Appellants companion,
p.m., PO3 Lawas, Jr. formed a buy-bust team to conduct a buy-bust on the other hand, managed to escape. After the appellant was
operation against the appellant. PO3 Lawas, Jr., the team leader, handcuffed, PO3 Lawas, Jr. recovered from the pocket of the former
designated his trusted informant to act as the poseur-buyer while he eight more sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes. The P20.00 peso
and the two barangay tanod were to serve as back-ups. A P20.00 bill marked money and the cash money amounting to P90.00,
peso bill buy-bust money with markings ABL, representing the consisting of three pieces P20.00 peso bills and six pieces P5.00 peso
initials of PO3 Lawas, Jr., was given to the trusted informant. The coins, believed to be proceeds of appellants illegal activities, were also
buy-bust team agreed to the pre-arranged signal that the trusted recovered from the latters possession.[10]
informant will take off his bull cap upon consummation of the sale
transaction. Thereafter, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target
area of its buy-bust operation, i.e., near the stairway of the flyover
The appellant was, thereafter, brought to the barangay hall and was
that is close to the barangay hall of Barangay Lahug.[9]
later transferred to the Mabolo Police Station. All the seized items
remained with PO3 Lawas, Jr. until they reached the police station.
Upon arrival thereat, Barangay Tanod Nicor marked the four sticks of
handrolled marijuana cigarettes, which were the subject of the sale
96
EVIDENCE CASES
transaction, with BBCJLR 08292003. While the other eight sticks of After hearing both parties, the trial court rendered a Decision dated
handrolled marijuana cigarettes, which were recovered from the 21 June 2007, finding the appellant guilty of the offenses charged.
possession of the appellant during his arrest, were marked by PO3 The dispositive portion of its decision reads:
Lawas, Jr. with CJLR-08292003-18. Afterwards, all the marked
pieces of evidence, together with a Request for Laboratory
Examination of the same, were brought by PO3 Lawas, Jr. to the PNP WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding [herein
Crime Laboratory, where P/S. Insp. Salinas, the forensic chemist, appellant] CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT GUILTY beyond reasonable
conducted qualitative examination on the specimens.[11] Per doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II, [Republic Act
Chemistry Report No. D-1561-2003 dated 30 August 2003, all No. 9165] and sentences him to LIFE IMPRISONMENT, plus fine in
specimens yielded positive result for the presence of marijuana, a the amount of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos; and
dangerous drug.[12] [i]n CBU-67097, the court also finds him guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 11, Article II, [Republic Act
No. 9165], and sentences him to a penalty of imprisonment
To counter the evidence of the prosecution, the defense presented the of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to TWENTY
lone testimony of the appellant, who interposed denial and suggested (20) YEARS, as maximum, plus fine in the amount of Two Hundred
a frame-up for his exculpation. Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos.
Appellant claimed that on 29 August 2003, at around 8:45 p.m., he The four hand rolled marijuana sticks in CBU-67096 and the eight
was beside the barangay hall of Barangay Lahug waiting for his friend rolled marijuana sticks in CBU-67097 are hereby confiscated in favor
named Roy, a driver of a public utility vehicle, as he would clean the of the government and destroyed pursuant to law.
vehicle of the former. However, he was not able to do so as three men
went near him and arrested him for no apparent reason. As he tried
to resist the arrest, one of the men poked a Magnum .357 at the back With cost against the [appellant].[14]
of his head. He was then brought to the barangay hall of Barangay
Lahug, where the arresting officers told him that they had found
something, which looks like a cigarette, inside his pocket. He, in turn,
The trial court found that the elements for the crimes of illegal sale
told the arresting officers that those were not his. Thereafter, he was
and illegal possession of marijuana were sufficiently established by
transferred to the Mabolo Police Station, where he first knew the two
the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The trial
charges filed against him.[13]
court held that appellants weak testimony cannot prevail over the
straightforward, frank, and honest testimony of PO3 Lawas, Jr., a
97
EVIDENCE CASES
police officer, who was just doing his duty. In the same manner, the
trial court stated that PO3 Lawas, Jr. and the two barangay tanod,
Appellant further argues that there was non-compliance with the
who participated in the buy-bust operation, were properly performing
requirements set forth in Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No.
their duties as they were not inspired by any improper motive.
9165, i.e., the physical inventory and the taking of photographs of
the seized items.
98
EVIDENCE CASES
Only moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof which substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty
verdict.[21] The chain of custody requirement performs this function
in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of
Time and again, this Court held that in every prosecution for illegal the evidence are removed.[22]
99
EVIDENCE CASES
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, be proceeds of his illegal activities. Thereafter, the appellant was
the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the brought to the barangay hall and was later transferred to the Mabolo
forensic chemist to the court. Police Station. All the seized items remained with PO3 Lawas, Jr.
until they reached the police station. Upon arrival thereat, Barangay
Tanod Nicor marked the four sticks of handrolled marijuana
A careful perusal of the records shows that while the identities of the cigarettes subject of the sale transaction, while the other eight sticks
seller and the buyer and the consummation of the transaction of handrolled marijuana cigarettes recovered from the possession of
involving the sale of illegal drug on 29 August 2003 have been proven the appellant during his arrest were marked by PO3 Lawas, Jr. These
by the prosecution through the testimony of PO3 Lawas, Jr., this marked pieces of evidence, together with a Request for Laboratory
Court, nonetheless, finds the prosecution evidence to be deficient for Examination of the same, were brought by PO3 Lawas, Jr. to the PNP
failure to adequately show the essential links in the chain of custody, Crime Laboratory.[26] The qualitative examination conducted on the
particularly how the four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes specimens yielded positive result for marijuana, a dangerous drug.
subject of the sale transaction came into the hands of PO3 Lawas, Jr. [27]
From the foregoing set of facts, there was no mention how the four
To note, after the exchange of the buy-bust money and the four sticks sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes, which were the subject of
of handrolled marijuana cigarettes between the trusted informant and the sale transaction, came into the hands of PO3 Lawas, Jr. from the
the appellant, the former gave the pre-arranged signal to PO3 Lawas, trusted informant. PO3 Lawas, Jr.s testimony was lacking as to
Jr. and the two barangay tanod by taking off his bull cap. when, where and how the said four sticks of handrolled marijuana
Immediately, thereafter, PO3 Lawas, Jr. and the two barangay tanod, cigarettes sold by the appellant to the trusted informant were turned
who were positioned on the opposite side of the street, moved towards over to him by the latter. In the same manner, PO3 Lawas, Jr. failed
the other side, where the appellant and the trusted informant were, to state that he actually seized the sold four sticks of handrolled
in order to apprehend the former. But, before they could do so, marijuana cigarettes. Considering that PO3 Lawas, Jr. was not the
another person already approached the appellant and walked with poseur-buyer and he was not even with the poseur-buyer during the
him towards the opposite side of the road. PO3 Lawas, Jr. and the sale transaction as he was on the opposite side of the road, the
two barangay tanod then followed them until they apprehended the turning over to him by the trusted informant of the four sticks of
appellant and whose companion managed to escape. PO3 Lawas, Jr. handrolled marijuana cigarettes sold by the appellant was the
handcuffed the appellant and bodily searched him leading to the supposed first link in the chain of custody. Unfortunately, the
recovery of the following: (1) eight more sticks of handrolled prosecution failed to establish the same. This Court cannot overlook
marijuana cigarettes from the latters pocket; (2) P20.00 peso bill this evidentiary gap as it involves the identification of the sold four
marked money; and (3) cash money amounting to P90.00, believed to sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes. In the absence of the
100
EVIDENCE CASES
aforesaid link in the chain of custody, doubt arises if, indeed, the The procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized
recovered four sticks of hand rolled marijuana cigarettes that PO3 and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, among others, is provided
Lawas, Jr. brought to the barangay hall and then to the Mabolo Police under Section 21(a), paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
Station; subsequently marked by Barangay Tanod Nicor; later thus:
brought to the crime laboratory; and examined by the forensic
chemist, which yielded positive for marijuana, were the same drugs
actually sold by the appellant to the trusted informant. (a) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or
Given the foregoing circumstances, it is beyond any cavil of doubt the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
that the prosecution miserably failed to specifically identify the four or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media
sticks of hand rolled marijuana cigarettes that were actually sold at and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
the buy-bust as among those that were presented in court. This official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and
evidentiary situation effectively translates to the absence of proof of be given a copy thereof. (Emphasis supplied).
corpus delicti, and cannot but lead this Court to conclude that no
valid conviction for the crime of illegal sale of marijuana can result.
[28] The specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody of drugs
have been laid down under the Implementing Rules and Regulations
for Republic Act No. 9165, particularly Section 21(a), Article II
Now, going to the crime of illegal possession of marijuana, there is thereof, and it is the prosecutions burden to adduce evidence that
also no doubt that the prosecution was able to fully satisfy all the these procedures have been complied with in proving the elements of
elements of the crime. The prosecution, however, failed to show that the offense.[29] The said Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing
the apprehending team complied with the required procedure for the Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 reads:
custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered
dangerous drugs set forth in Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165. (a) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or
the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official
101
EVIDENCE CASES
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given forth in Republic Act No. 9165, serious uncertainty is generated as to
a copy thereof; Provided, further that non-compliance with these the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidence. Such doubt cannot be remedied by merely invoking the
the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties for a
apprehending officers/team, shall not render void and invalid such gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural
seizures of and custody over said items.(Emphasis supplied). safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of
official duties.[32] Also in People v. Ancheta, this Court explained
that:
In the present case, the records are bereft of any indication that
would show that the prosecution was able to establish the
apprehending teams compliance with the above procedural Indeed, it is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of
safeguards. The records similarly do not contain any physical the seized items that is of utmost importance in determining the
inventory report or photograph of the confiscated items. Even the admissibility of the evidence presented in court, especially in cases of
lone prosecution witness never stated in his testimony that he or any buy-bust operations. That is why Congress saw fit to fashion a
member of the buy-bust team had conducted a physical inventory or detailed procedure in order to ensure that the integrity and
taken pictures of the items. Although PO3 Lawas, Jr. testified that evidentiary value of the confiscated items would not be
the seized drugs subject of the illegal possession case had been compromised. The marking of the seized items was only a piece in a
marked, nowhere can it be found that the marking thereof was done detailed set of procedural safeguards embodied in [Republic Act No.
in the presence of the appellant or any of the above-mentioned third- 9165]. If the arresting officers were unable to comply with the other
party representatives. requirements, they were under obligation to explain why the
procedure was not followed and prove that the reason provided a
justifiable ground. Otherwise, the requisites under the law would
While this Court recognizes that non-compliance by the buy-bust merely be fancy ornaments that may or may not be disregarded by
team with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal as long as the arresting officers at their own convenience.[33] (Emphasis
there is a justifiable ground therefor, for and as long as the integrity supplied).
and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved
by the apprehending team, these conditions, however, were not met in
the present case.[30] Despite of all the aforesaid major lapses, the In view of the foregoing, serious doubt exists whether the drugs
prosecution neither offered any explanation why the procedure was subject of the illegal possession case presented in court were the
not followed nor mentioned any justifiable ground for failing to same as those recovered from the appellant. Thus, the prosecution
observe the rule. In People v. Ancheta,[31] this Court pronounced likewise failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the
that when there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards set corpus delicti in the crime of illegal possession of marijuana.
102
EVIDENCE CASES
All told, the prosecution failed to establish the element of corpus
delicti with the prescribed degree of proof required for successful
Concededly, the evidence of the defense is weak and uncorroborated.
prosecution of both sale and possession of prohibited drugs, thus, no
This, however, cannot be used to advance the cause of the
valid conviction for the crimes charged can result.
prosecution as the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on
its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of the defense. Moreover, when the circumstances are
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 17
capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, such that one of
March 2011 in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC. No. 000867, is
which is consistent with the presumption of innocence and the other
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant CHARVE JOHN
is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail
LAGAHIT is hereby ACQUITTEDbased on reasonable doubt, and is
and the court must acquit.[34]
ordered to be immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is
confined for any other lawful cause.
103
EVIDENCE CASES
THIRD DIVISION
DECISION
REYES, J.:
For automatic review is the Decision1 dated March 25, 2013 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05374, which upheld
the Decision2 dated November 24, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Pasig City (stationed in Taguig City), Branch 69, in Criminal
Case No. 139521, convicting Anecito Estibal y Calungsag (accused-
appellant) of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A(2), in relation to
104
EVIDENCE CASES
Article 266-B(5)(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by minor at the time of the commission of the crime, which is
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 83533 and in further relation to Section 5(a) aggravated by the circumstances of abuse of superior strength and
of R.A. No. 8369.4 The fallo of the RTC decision reads: dwelling, all to the damage and prejudice of the said victim [AAA].
Antecedent Facts
That on or about the 5th day of February, 2009 in the City of Taguig,
1. That she is a Police Chief Inspector of the PNP particularly
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
assigned at the PNP Crime Laboratory as Medico Legal Examiner;
above-named accused, while taking advantage of his moral authority
and ascendancy and with his intention to gratify his sexual desire
upon his daughter [AAA], by means of force, violence and intimidation 2. That she was the one who conducted the medico-legal examination
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeed in on the minor victim on February 5, 2009;
having sexual intercourse with the latter against her will and
consent, the said crime having been attended by the qualifying
3. That she reduced her examination into writing and issued the
circumstances of relationship and minority, as the said accused
Initial Medico Legal Report Case No. R09-288 which Anogenital
being the natural father of the victim, a thirteen (13)[-]year[-]old, a
105
EVIDENCE CASES
findings are diagnostic of previous blunt force or penetrating trauma
(to the hymen); 5. That they have no personal knowledge as to the incident.11
4. And that she also issued other documents in relation to the Concerning AAA and BBB, several subpoenas were sent to their
examination.10 address for the taking of their testimonies, but they never appeared.
On April 13, 2010, it was reported to the court that they had moved
out of their house, and subsequent subpoenas were returned
The parties also agreed to stipulate on the testimonies of Michael
unserved.12
Estudillo (Estudillo) and Ronillo Perlas (Perlas), members of the
Barangay Security Force (BSF) who arrested the accused-appellant as
he was coming home from work at 6:00 p.m. on February 5, 2009, to
The prosecutions last witness, Police Officer 3 Fretzie S. Cobardo
wit:
(PO3 Cobardo), was the officer assigned at the Philippine National
Police (PNP) Women and Children Protection Center of Taguig City. It
1. That BSF Michael Estudillo and BSF Ronilo Perlas are members of was she who investigated the above incident and took down the
the Barangay Security Force x x x; sworn statement of AAA late in the evening of February 5, 2009. Her
testimony was also stipulated, as follows:
4. That based on the incident, they referred the case to the Taguig the accused for inquest proceedings;
City Police Station for proper disposition; and 7. that she has no personal knowledge as to the incident which gave
rise to this case;
106
EVIDENCE CASES
8. that Exhibit A was the same document executed by the mother of thus, he could not have sexually abused his daughter AAA between
the victim as well as the victim herself before her; 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. on February 5, 2009; that he and his wife
9. that Exhibit G was the same Medico Legal Report that was used to fight about her brothers Romulo and Rey Santos, whom he
transmitted to her by the PNP Crime Laboratory; now suspected of influencing AAA to file the complaint for rape
10. that she was the one who received the Initial Medico-Legal against him, although he treated them as his own brothers; that he
Report.13 was arrested by the Barangay Tanod at 6:00 p.m. on February 5,
2009 as he was coming from work.15
107
EVIDENCE CASES
Q How did you ask the victim? Was it in a question and answer
COURT where first you will ask the victim to narrate the incident?
Some questions from the Court. A Yes[,] Your Honor. First I asked the victim to narrate the incident.
Q PO3 Cobardo[,] you were the one who investigated the minor Q And then you propounded question in the question and answer
victim in this case? form?
A Yes[,] Your Honor. A Yes[,] Your Honor.
Q Could you tell the Court what is the appearance of the victim at Q After obtaining all the facts relative to the incident?
the time of the investigation? A Yes[,] Your Honor.
A At that time Your Honor the victim was together with her mother,
they were crying. Q And you found out that, was that the first time that the incident
happened or several times already?
Q Both were crying? A During that interview[,] Your Honor[,] I found out that the victim
A Yes[,] Your Honor. was sexually abused by her father several times when she was in
Grade III.
Q When you conducted the investigation[,] the mother was present?
A Yes[,] Your Honor, the mother was present. Q You mentioned that the victim and her mother during your
investigation were both crying?
Q You were aware of course when you inquired the age of the A Yes[,] Your Honor[.]
minor?
A Yes[,] Your Honor. Q Did you inquire why?
A The mother told me that she could not imagine that her husband
Q When she narrated the incident[,] was she coached by the molested their daughter.
mother?
A No[,] Your Honor, the victim was not coached by the mother. It Q How about the daughter? Did you inquire? Did you allow her
was the victim who stated all the incident. some time to rest?
A She was crying[,] Your Honor[,] since it was her first time to
Q Did you make, did you use leading questions in conducting, reveal the incident.
propounding the questions?
A No[,] Your Honor. Q So you asked her why she was crying?
A Yes[,] Your Honor.
108
EVIDENCE CASES
Appeal to the CA
WITNESS
Yes[,] Your Honor.
109
EVIDENCE CASES
her during her investigation was part of the res gestae pursuant to appellant their testimonies could not be considered as part of the res
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. The OSG reasoned that AAA had just gestae.
undergone a startling occurrence at the time she told PO3 Cobardo
that she had been raped by her father that morning, a statement
which PO3 Cobardo found spontaneous and credible; that the gap The testimonies of said prosecution witnesses comply with the above-
between the sexual assault and the time when AAA made her mentioned requisites, viz., there is no question that the sexual abuse
narration to PO3 Cobardo was too short to permit fabrication by AAA committed by accused-appellant Estibal against her daughter AAA
of such a serious accusation against her own father; and, that AAA was a startling occurrence and a traumatic experience, at that; she
made the charge in the presence of her mother could only have lent had no opportunity to contrive or devise falsehood when she reported
credence to her claim. Moreover, the claim of rape by AAA is the crime to BSF Estudillo and BSF Perlas and narrated the incident
corroborated by Dr. Baluyots finding that she has genital lacerations, to PO3 Cobardo hours after the incident; and, the statements she
in contrast to the accused-appellants only defense of a general and made was relative to her sexual abuse by accused-appellant Estibal
uncorroborated denial. and its attending circumstances.
The appellate court agreed with the RTC and the OSG that the There might be an intervening period between the time the crime of
testimonies of the three prosecution witnesses, PO3 Cobardo, BSF rape was committed and the first time it was reported by AAA to the
Estudillo and BSF Perlas, form part of the res gestae, although none prosecution witnesses. However, said intervening period of less than
of them was a participant, victim or spectator to the crime. According twenty-four (24) hours is so short a time for AAA to fully recover
to the CA, they heard what [AAA] said when she reported the sexual physically and emotionally from such a traumatic and harrowing
abuse committed against her by accused-appellant Estibal.19 To experience, considering her tender age of only thirteen (13) years and
further quote the CA: the fact that her abuser is her own biological father.
110
EVIDENCE CASES
the mind and thus restore the mental balance of the declarant; and As to the second factor, it may be stressed that a statement made, or
afford an opportunity for deliberation. an act done, at a place some distance from the place where the
principal transaction occurred will not ordinarily possess such
spontaneity as would render it admissible.
There is, of course, no hard and fast rule by which spontaneity may a serious injury, was suffering severe pain, or was under intense
be determined although a number of factors have been considered, excitement. Conversely, a lack of spontaneity may be inferred from
including, but not always confined to: (1) the time that has lapsed the cool demeanor of declarant, his consciousness of the absence of
between the occurrence of the act or transaction and the making of all danger, his delay in making a statement until witnesses can be
the statement, (2) the place where the statement is made, (3) the procured, or from the fact that he made a different statement prior to
condition of the declarant when the utterance is given, (4) the the one which is offered in evidence.
AAA never appeared at the trial proper despite several subpoenas for
her to testify, and subsequent subpoenas could not be served after The gravity of the crime of rape and its imposable penalty, vis--vis
her family moved to a new but unknown address on April 13, 2010. the ease with which a charge of rape can be made, compels the
Recall that at the pre-trial, BBB told the court that she was no longer Supreme Court to conduct a thorough review of rape every
interested in pursuing the case against the accused-appellant since conviction.
her daughter had already pardoned him. It has, however, been held
that even if it is construed as a pardon, AAAs desistance is not by
A charge of rape by its very nature often must be resolved by giving
itself a ground to dismiss the complaint for rape against the accused-
primordial consideration to the credibility of the victims
appellant once the complaint has been instituted in court.21
testimony.24 Because conviction may rest solely thereon, the victims
testimony must be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with
human nature and the normal course of things,25 it must be
In People v. Bonaagua,22 the accused tried to invoke the affidavit of
scrutinized with utmost caution, and unavoidably, the victims
desistance executed by the minor victims mother stating that they
credibility must be put on trial as well.26
would no longer pursue the rape cases against him. But the high
court pointed out that since R.A. No. 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law,
took effect in 1997, rape is no longer considered a crime against
But if for some reason the complainant fails or refuses to testify, as in
chastity. Having been reclassified as a crime against persons, it is no
this case, then the court must consider the adequacy of the
longer considered a private crime, or one which cannot be prosecuted
circumstantial evidence established by the prosecution. In People v.
except upon a complaint filed by the aggrieved party. Thus, pardon by
Canlas,27 the Court said:
112
EVIDENCE CASES
innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that, in the nature of things,
Where the court relies solely on circumstantial evidence, the only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the
combined effect of the pieces of circumstantial evidence must testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme care;
inexorably lead to the conclusion that the accused is guilty beyond and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must succeed or fail on its
reasonable doubt. Conviction must rest on nothing less than moral own merits, and cannot be allowed to derive strength from the
certainty, whether it proceeds from direct or circumstantial weakness of the evidence for the defense.30
evidence.28
In essence, the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule provides that
xxxx the declarations must have been voluntarily and spontaneously
made so nearly contemporaneous as to be in the presence of the
transaction which they illustrate and explain, and were made under
x x x Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or such circumstances as necessarily to exclude the idea of design or
series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by deliberation.
All that is required for the admissibility of a given statement as part There is, of course, no hard and fast rule by which spontaneity may
of res gestae, is that it be made under the influence of a startling be determined although a number of factors have been considered,
event witnessed by the person who made the declaration before he including, but not always confined to, (1) the time that has lapsed
had time to think and make up a story, or to concoct or contrive a between the occurrence of the act or transaction and the making of
falsehood, or to fabricate an account, and without any undue the statement, (2) the place where the statement is made, (3) the
influence in obtaining it, aside from referring to the event in question condition of the declarant when the utterance is given, (4) the
or its immediate attending circum[s]tances.33 (Citations omitted) presence or absence of intervening events between the occurrence
and the statement relative thereto, and (5) the nature and the
circumstances of the statement itself. x x x.36 (Citations omitted and
There are then three essential requisites to admit evidence as part of
italics in the original)
the res gestae, namely: (1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a
startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the
declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and (3) that In People v. Jorolan,37 the Court emphasized that there must be no
114
EVIDENCE CASES
intervening circumstances between the res gestae occurrence and the during, or immediately after the commission of the crime when the
time the statement was made as could have afforded the declarant an circumstances are such that the statements were made as a
opportunity for deliberation or reflection; in other words, the spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the
statement was unreflected and instinctive: occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate
and to fabricate a false statement. The test of admissibility of
evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act,
An important consideration is whether there intervened between the
declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected
occurrence and the statement any circumstance calculated to divert
with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded
the mind of the declarant, and thus restore his mental balance and
as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly
afford opportunity for deliberation. His statement then cannot be
negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture
regarded as unreflected and instinctive, and is not admissible as part
testimony.40 (Citations omitted, emphasis ours and italics in the
of the res gestae. An example is where he had been talking about
original)
matters other than the occurrence in question or directed his
attention to other matters.38 (Citation omitted and emphasis ours)
By way of illustration, in People v. Villarama,41 the 4-year-old rape
victim did not testify, but the accused, an uncle of the victim, was
In People v. Salafranca,39 the Court cited two tests in applying the
convicted on the basis of what the child told her mother. The Court
res gestae rule: a) the act, declaration or exclamation is so intimately
said:
interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it
characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself; and
b) the said evidence clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to The critical factor is the ability or chance to invent a story of rape. At
manufacture testimony. her age, the victim could not have had the sophistication, let alone
the malice, to tell her mother that her uncle made her lie down, took
off her panties and inserted his penis inside her vagina.
The term res gestae has been defined as those circumstances which
are the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act and which
are admissible when illustrative of such act. In a general way, res
The shock of an unwelcome genital penetration on a woman is
gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow
unimaginable, more so to a four-year-old child. Such a brutal
out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so
experience constituted unspeakable trauma. The fact that Elizabeth
spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude
was still crying when her parents arrived reinforces the conclusion
the idea of deliberation and fabrication. The rule on res gestae
that she was still in a traumatic state when she made the statements
encompasses the exclamations and statements made by either the
pointing to appellant.
participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before,
115
EVIDENCE CASES
admissible not as to the veracity thereof but to the fact that they had
been thus uttered.
xxxx
Res gestae speaks of a quick continuum of related happenings, domination of the senses, rather than reason and reflection, and
starting with the occurrence of a startling event which triggered it during the brief period when consideration of self-interest could not
and including any spontaneous declaration made by a witness, have been fully brought to bear, the utterance may be taken as
participant or spectator relative to the said occurrence. The cases expressing the real belief of the speaker as to the facts just observed
this Court has cited invariably reiterate that the statement must be by him. In a manner of speaking, the spontaneity of the declaration
an unreflected reaction of the declarant, undesigned and free of is such that the declaration itself may be regarded as the event
deliberation. In other words, the declarant is spontaneously moved speaking through the declarant rather than the declarant speaking
merely to express his instinctive reaction concerning the startling for himself. Or, stated differently, x x x the events speak for
occurrence, and not to pursue a purpose or design already formed in themselves, giving out their fullest meaning through the unprompted
his mind. In People v. Sanchez,53 the Court belabored to explain that language of the participants. The spontaneous character of the
startling events speak for themselves, giving out their fullest language is assumed to preclude the probability of its premeditation
meaning through the unprompted language of the participants:54 or fabrication. Its utterance on the spur of the moment is regarded,
with a good deal of reason, as a guarantee of its truth.55 (Citations
omitted)
Res gestae means the things done. It refers to those exclamations
and statements made by either the participants, victims, or
spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or immediately after The RTC and the CA held that the inculpatory statements of AAA to
the commission of the crime, when the circumstances are such that the barangay tanod and the police are part of the res gestae
the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance occurrence of the rape. This is error. It is obvious that AAA had by
inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no then undergone a serious deliberation, prodded by her mother, whose
opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false own outrage as the betrayed wife and grieving mother so emboldened
statement. A spontaneous exclamation is defined as a statement or AAA that she finally resolved to emerge from her fear of her father.
exclamation made immediately after some exciting occasion by a Here then lies the crux of the matter: AAA had clearly ceased to act
unthinkingly under the immediate influence of her shocking rape by
118
EVIDENCE CASES
her father, and was now led by another powerful compulsion, a new- whose reliability the entire worth of the out-of-court statement
found resolve to punish her father. depends.57 It is an immemorial rule that a witness can testify only
as to his own personal perception or knowledge of the actual facts or
events. His testimony cannot be proof as to the truth of what he
Hearsay evidence is accorded no probative value for the reason that learned or heard from others.58 But equally important, Section 14(2)
the original declarant was not placed under oath or affirmation, nor of the Bill of Rights guarantees that [i]n all criminal prosecutions,
subjected to cross-examination by the defense, except in a few the accused shall x x x enjoy the right x x x to meet the witnesses
instances as where the statement is considered part of the res gestae. face to face x x x. By allowing the accused to test the perception,
memory, and veracity of the witness, the trial court is able to weigh
the trustworthiness and reliability of his testimony. There is no
gainsaying that the right to confront a witness applies with particular
This Court has a situation where the incriminatory statements
urgency in criminal proceedings, for at stake is a mans personal
allegedly made by AAA were conveyed to the trial court not by AAA
liberty, universally cherished among all human rights.
herself but by PO3 Cobardo, BSF Estudillo and BSF Perlas. In
particular, PO3 Cobardo made a summation of what she claims was
AAAs narration of her ordeal, along with her own observations of her
demeanor during the investigation. But unless the prosecution In Patula v. People,59 the Court rendered a helpful disquisition on
succeeded in invoking res gestae, their testimonies must be hearsay evidence, why it must be rejected and treated as
dismissed as hearsay, since AAAs statements were not subjected to inadmissible, and how it can be avoided:
119
EVIDENCE CASES
presently testifying but from the veracity and competency of the the assertion can be received as evidence only when made on the
extrajudicial source of her information. witness stand, subject to the test of cross-examination. However, if an
extrajudicial utterance is offered, not as an assertion to prove the
matter asserted but without reference to the truth of the matter
In case a witness is permitted to testify based on what she has heard asserted, the hearsay rule does not apply. For example, in a slander
another person say about the facts in dispute, the person from whom case, if a prosecution witness testifies that he heard the accused say
the witness derived the information on the facts in dispute is not in that the complainant was a thief, this testimony is admissible not to
court and under oath to be examined and cross-examined. The prove that the complainant was really a thief, but merely to show that
weight of such testimony then depends not upon the veracity of the the accused uttered those words. This kind of utterance is hearsay in
witness but upon the veracity of the other person giving the character but is not legal hearsay. The distinction is, therefore,
information to the witness without oath. The information cannot be between (a) the fact that the statement was made, to which the
tested because the declarant is not standing in court as a witness hearsay rule does not apply, and (b) the truth of the facts asserted in
and cannot, therefore, be cross-examined. the statement, to which the hearsay rule applies.
It is apparent, too, that a person who relates a hearsay is not obliged Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court is understandably not the
to enter into any particular, to answer any question, to solve any only rule that explains why testimony that is hearsay should be
difficulties, to reconcile any contradictions, to explain any excluded from consideration. Excluding hearsay also aims to preserve
obscurities, to remove any ambiguities; and that she entrenches the right of the opposing party to cross-examine the original
herself in the simple assertion that she was told so, and leaves the declarant claiming to have a direct knowledge of the transaction or
burden entirely upon the dead or absent author. Thus, the rule occurrence. If hearsay is allowed, the right stands to be denied
against hearsay testimony rests mainly on the ground that there was because the declarant is not in court. It is then to be stressed that
no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. The testimony may the right to cross-examine the adverse partys witness, being the only
have been given under oath and before a court of justice, but if it is means of testing the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, is
offered against a party who is afforded no opportunity to cross- essential to the administration of justice.
Moreover, the theory of the hearsay rule is that when a human evidence to establish the truth in a dispute while also safeguarding a
utterance is offered as evidence of the truth of the fact asserted, the partys right to cross-examine her adversarys witness, the Rules of
credit of the assertor becomes the basis of inference, and, therefore, Court offers two solutions. The first solution is to require that all the
witnesses in a judicial trial or hearing be examined only in court
120
EVIDENCE CASES
under oath or affirmation. Section 1, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court We thus stress that the rule excluding hearsay as evidence is based
formalizes this solution, viz.: upon serious concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability of
hearsay evidence due to its not being given under oath or solemn
affirmation and due to its not being subjected to cross-examination
Section 1. Examination to be done in open court.The examination
by the opposing counsel to test the perception, memory, veracity and
of witnesses presented in a trial or hearing shall be done in open
articulateness of the out-of-court declarant or actor upon whose
court, and under oath or affirmation. Unless the witness is
reliability the worth of the out of-court statement
incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different mode of
depends.60 (Citations omitted, emphasis ours and italics in the
answer, the answers of the witness shall be given orally.
original)
SECOND DIVISION
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
After the presentation of its last witness, CSFL filed its Formal Offer
For the first three years, TKI was able to pay its purchase orders and of Exhibits5 seeking the admission of, among others, the sales
the shipments made by CSFL. In 2004, however, TKI started to invoices and order slips earlier objected to by TKI. The latter objected
default in its payments. CSFL granted numerous concessions and to the admission of the documents offered, contending that several of
the sales invoices and order slips should not be admitted because
124
EVIDENCE CASES
they were merely photocopies. TKI also objected to the admission of admitted because the matter was not raised as an issue during the
documents by which CSFL sought to prove its claim for attorneys pre-trial.
fees.6
On June 23, 2011, the RTC issued the order9 denying TKIs motion
On May 13, 2011, the RTC issued the Order7 admitting all the for reconsideration, ruling that the sales invoices and order slips
exhibits offered by CFSL. The Order reads: could be admitted because the duplicate originals of the invoices were
already sufficiently established by the testimony of CSFLs officer and
principal witness, Ms. Susan Chiu (Chiu). Regarding the documents
ORDER
offered by CSFL to prove its claim for attorneys fees, the RTC stated
that the demand for attorneys fees was impliedly included in the
issue of whether or not TKI was liable to CSFL for the entire amount
Acting on Plaintiffs Formal Offer of Exhibits as well as Defendants claimed.
Comment/Opposition on/thereto and finding the said offer to be
well-taken and in order despite the objections made to the
admission of said exhibits by defendant, Exhibits A to ZZZ-1-A,
Instead of presenting evidence, TKI opted to file a petition for
inclusive, are all admitted for the purposes for which the same are
certiorari with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order(TRO) and/or
offered and as part of the testimony of the witness who testified
Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the CA in which it reiterated its
thereon.
argument regarding the inadmissibility of the photocopied evidence
and the erroneous inclusion of those documents proving entitlement
to attorneys fees which matter was not raised during the pre-trial.
Let the presentation of defendants evidence commence on May 25,
2011 at 8:30 oclock in the morning, as previously scheduled.
SO ORDERED. [Emphasis supplied] As there was no injunction order issued by the CA, the RTC
continued the proceedings and directed TKI to present evidence. TKI
refused, citing the petition for certiorari it filed with the CA. Because
of its refusal, the RTC considered TKIs right to adduce countervailing
Not in conformity, TKI filed a motion for reconsideration8 arguing
evidence as waived and ordered CSFL to submit its memorandum.10
that the exhibits formally offered by CSFL were inadmissible in
evidence for being mere photocopies. TKI also argued that the
evidence relating to the claimed legal fees were erroneously
125
EVIDENCE CASES
On October 5, 2011, the CA rendered a decision partially granting CSFL filed a motion for partial reconsideration, but it was denied by
TKIs petition. The dispositive portion of which reads: the CA in its Resolution, dated January 16, 2012.
[Underscoring supplied]
Stripped of non-essentials, the only issue to be resolved is whether or
not the CA correctly modified the RTC order admitting the exhibits
offered by CSFL. 15
Applying Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court,12 the CA
explained that while it was true that the original copies of the sales
invoices were the best evidence to prove TKIs obligation, CSFL merely
presented photocopies of the questioned exhibits. It stated that Chius CSFL basically argues that the excluded documents are admissible in
testimony merely established the existence or due execution of the evidence because it was duly established during the trial that the
original invoices. CSFL, however, did not present the original invoices, said documents were duplicate originals, and not mere photocopies,
only the photocopies, contrary to Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of considering that they were prepared at the same time as the
Court.13 Nonetheless, the CA agreed with the RTCs admission of originals.
CSFLs evidence proving attorneys fees, quoting verbatim its logic and
reasoning.
126
EVIDENCE CASES
On the other hand, TKI counters that CSFLs claim that the In Trans-Pacific Industrial Supplies v. The Court of Appeals and
photocopied documents were duplicate originals was just a unilateral Associated Bank,16 it was stressed that duplicate originals were
and self-serving statement without any supportive evidence. admissible as evidence. Pertinent portions of the said decision read:
The Courts Ruling Respondent court is of the view that the above provision must be
construed to mean the original copy of the document evidencing the
credit and not its duplicate, thus:
127
EVIDENCE CASES
[Emphases supplied]
A Yes sir.17
The Court went over the RTC records and the TSNs and found that,
Q When you prepare a particular invoice pertaining to a particular contrary to the assertion of TKI, the duplicate originals were
transaction Miss Witness, how many copies do you prepare for that produced in court and compared with their photocopies during the
invoice? How many copies of the invoice will you prepare? hearing before the trial court. The transcripts bare all of these but
were missed by the appellate court, which believed the assertion of
TKI that what were produced in court and offered in evidence were
A Two sets of invoice, one to the customer and one for our office mere photocopies. The TSNs further reveal that after the
sir. comparison, the photocopies were the ones retained in the records.18
Q And the copies that you brought today, are those the ones that The Court notes that this case involves a foreign entity and has been
were retained to you in your office, the copies you brought to court? pending since October 6, 2005.19 It is about time that this case be
128
EVIDENCE CASES
decided on the merits. At this juncture, the Court reminds counsel decision to the appropriate appellate court. Moreover, under Rule 45
for TKI of his duty, as an officer of the court, to see to it that the of the Rules of Court, as amended, only questions of law may be
orderly administration of justice be not unduly impeded. properly raised.
[Emphases supplied]
After the admission of CSFLs exhibits as evidence, TKI should have
let trial proceed in due course instead of immediately resorting to
certiorari, by presenting its own testimonial and documentary
WHEREFORE, the October 5, 2011 Decision and the January 16,
evidence and in case of an unfavourable decision, appeal the same in
2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 120413,
accordance with law. After all, the RTC stated that, granting that the
are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as the exclusion of
questioned exhibits were not admissible, there still remained enough
Exhibits D to GG-1 and HH to KK-1 are concerned. The May
evidence to substantiate plaintiffs claim on which the Court can
13, 2011 Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 170, Malabon
validly render judgment upon application of the pertinent law and/or
City, is REINSTATED.
jurisprudence.20 In the case of Johnson Lee v. People of the
Philippines,21 it was written:
The pertinent records of the case are hereby ordered remanded to the
In this case, there is no dispute that the RTC had jurisdiction over Regional Trial Court, Branch 170, Malabon City, for appropriate
the cases filed by the public respondent against the petitioner for proceedings.
estafa. The Order admitting in evidence the photocopies of the
charge invoices and checks was issued by the RTC in the exercise of
its jurisdiction. Even if erroneous, the same is a mere error of
The trial court is directed to give priority to this case and act on it
judgment and not of jurisdiction. Additionally, the admission of
with dispatch.
secondary evidence in lieu of the original copies predicated on proof
of the offeror of the conditions sine qua non to the admission of the
said evidence is a factual issue addressed to the sound discretion of
the trial court. Unless grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess SO ORDERED.
or lack of jurisdiction is shown to have been committed by the trial
court, the resolution of the trial court admitting secondary evidence
must be sustained. The remedy of the petitioner, after the admission
of the photocopies of the charge invoices and the checks, was to
adduce his evidence, and if after trial, he is convicted, to appeal the
129
EVIDENCE CASES
THIRD DIVISION
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
The Facts
The CA added that Lee could not claim deprivation of his life, liberty
Accordingly, defense motion for document and handwriting
and property with the denial of his motion as both Article III, Section
examination by the NBI is hereby DENIED.7
14(2) of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 115(g) of the Rules of Court
Undaunted, Lee filed his Motion for Reconsideration8 on September guarantee his right to the courts compulsory processes to ensure the
26, 2007, or two (2) days after the reglementary period of 15 days. attendance of his witnesses and the production of evidence in his
For Lees failure to comply with the rules, the RTC, through Presiding behalf.
Judge Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, denied his motion for
reconsideration.
132
EVIDENCE CASES
Lastly, the CA stated that the trial court did not err, much less Contrary to the claim of Lee, the RTC and the CA did not "ignore" the
gravely, when it denied Lees motion for consideration because it was traditional "doctrine of liberality" but merely relied upon the
filed out of time. guidelines as to when it is applicable and, after being so guided,
chose not to apply it under the existing circumstances. It is true that
Persistent, Lee interposed this petition for review on certiorari raising
rules of procedure may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice
the following:
commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed
133
EVIDENCE CASES
to cause the NBI to examine the documents already submitted to the disbursement vouchers, purchase requests and authorization
court. In said case, the Court wrote: requests by the NBI from the beginning. Records of the case showed
that right upon his alleged discovery of the forged signatures, while
In this case, the defense interposed by the accused Marquez was that
the case was still with the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), the
his signatures in the disbursement vouchers, purchase requests and
accused already sought referral of the disbursement vouchers,
authorizations were forged. It is hornbook rule that as a rule, forgery
purchase requests and authorization requests to the NBI for
cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and
examination. At that stage, OSP denied his plea. In the case at
convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging
bench, the trial had already started and, worse, the accuseds motion
forgery.
for reconsideration was filed beyond the reglementary period.
At any rate, any finding of the NBI will not be binding on the graft
court.1wphi1 It will still be subject to its scrutiny and evaluation in
line with Section 22 of Rule 132. Nevertheless, Marquez should not
be deprived of his right to present his own defense. How the
prosecution, or even the court, perceives his defense to be is
irrelevant. To them, his defense may seem feeble and his strategy
frivolous, but he should be allowed to adduce evidence of his own
choice. The court should not control how he will defend himself as
long as the steps to be taken will not be in violation of the rules.