You are on page 1of 16

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE In this case, Cudia has not particularly identified any documents,

witness testimony, or oral or written presentation of facts


CUDIA vs. PMA submitted at the hearing that would support his defense. The Court
The case stemmed out from Cudia’s apparent tardiness in his may require that an administrative record be supplemented, but
English class. When made to explain, Cudia stated that his being late only where there is a 'strong showing of bad faith or improper
was out of his control because his Operations Research class was behavior' on the part of the agency—both of which are not present
dismissed at 3pm while his English class started at 3pm also. here. Cudia did not specifically indicate the nature of the concealed
However, his professor in OR testified that she did not dismiss the evidence, if any, and the reason for withholding it. What he did was
class late. simply suppose that his guilty verdict would be overturned with the
production and examination of such documents, footages, and
Cudia was then made to face the Honor Committee for his alleged recordings. Besides even if such records were produced, they would
dishonesty. The HC ruled against his favor. Cudia appealed to the HC not necessarily relieve Cudia’s predicament. If at all, their non-
Chairman but his appeal was denied. The Superintendent of the production was a harmless procedural error.
PMA then ordered the dismissal of Cudia from the PMA.
G.R. No. 185374, March 11, 2015
The case of Cudia was then referred to the Cadet Review and
Appeals Board of PMA (CRAB). Notably, however, the HC did not SIMPLICIA CERCADO-SIGA AND LIGAYA CERCADO-BELISON,
submit all of its records of the proceedings, including video footages Petitioners, v. VICENTE CERCADO, JR., MANUELA C. ARABIT,
of the deliberations and voting on the ground of confidentiality of LOLITA C. BASCO, MARIA C. ARALAR AND VIOLETA C. BINADAS,
records. Eventually, the CRAB ruled against Cudia. AFP Chief of Staff Respondent.
affirmed. Cudia then argued that PMA has no legal basis for the
Herein petitioners claimed that they are the legitimate children of
claim of confidentiality of records. He contended that it is the
the late Vicente and Benita Castillo. Petitioners likewise alleged that
ministerial duty of the HC to submit to the CRAB all its records of
by virtue of intestate succession, ownership over a land owned by
the proceedings.
their parents pertained to them as heirs. Petitioners thereafter
ISSUE: WON PMA’s failure to sumbit to CRAB all of its records learned that the estate of Vicente and a certain Leonora Ditablan
pertaining to Cudia’s case is fatal to its cause. has been extrajudicially settled by their heirs, respondents herein.
Petitioners now insist that Vicente and Leonora were not married or
HELD: NO. if they were so married, then said marriage was null and void by
reason of the subsisting marriage of their parents. To prove the
marriage between Vicente and Benita, petitioners presented
amongst others the duplicate original of the Contrato Matrimonial only Simplicia testified that her mother gave her the marriage
of Vicente and Benita which was issued by the Iglesia Filipina contract. Unfortunately however, she was not present during its
Independiente Church. execution nor could she identify Benita’s handwriting because
Simplicia admitted that she is illiterate.
RTC ruled in favour of petitioners. The appellate court, however,
found that the Contrato Matrimonial of Vicente and Benita, being a Moreover, the copy presented by the petitioners. A signed carbon
private document, was not properly authenticated, hence, not copy or duplicate of a document executed at the same time as the
admissible in evidence. original is known as a duplicate original and maybe introduced in
evidence without accounting for the non- production of the original.
Petitioners insist that the Contrato Matrimonial is a public
But, an unsigned and uncertified document purporting to be a
document because it is required by law to be recorded in the local
carbon copy is not competent evidence. It is because there is no
civil registrar and the NSO. =Moreover, even assuming that the
public officer acknowledging the accuracy of the copy.
Contrato Matrimonial is a private document, petitioners maintain
that said document should be considered an ancient document Next, while petitioners concede that the marriage contract is a
which should be excluded from the requirement of authentication. private document, they now argue that it is an ancient document
which need not be authenticated. Petitioners’ argument still has no
ISSUES: WON the petitioners were able to prove the validity of the
merit.
marriage between Vicente and Benita through the Contracto
Matrimonial they presented Ancient documents are considered from proper custody if they
come from a place from which they might reasonably be expected
HELD: NO
to be found. Custody is proper if it is proved to have had a
Church registries of marriages made subsequent to the legitimate origin or if the circumstances of the particular case are
promulgation of General Orders No. 6823 and the passage of Act such as to render such an origin probable. If a document is found
No. 190 are no longer public writings, nor are they kept by duly where it would not properly and naturally be, its absence from the
authorized public officials. They are private writings and their proper place must be satisfactorily accounted for.
authenticity must therefore be proved as are all other private
G.R. No. 199270, October 21, 2015
writings in accordance with the rules of evidence. The Contrato
Matimonial falls under this. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VERGEL
ANCAJAS AND ALLAIN* ANCAJAS, Accused-Appellants.
Petitioners failed to present any witnesses to authenticate the said
contract as required under Sec. 20, Rule 132 of the ROC. In fact,
On October 19, 1998, appellants were charged with the crime of and appellant Vergel punched her in the stomach which caused her
Rape under the following Information, the accusatory portion of to lose consciousness.
which states:
At about 1 o'clock in the morning of July 17, 1998, AAA regained her
That on the 16th day of July 1998, between the hours of 8:00 to consciousness and she noticed that she was only wearing her t-shirt
9:00 o'clock in the evening, at the house of the victim at Taytayan, as her bra, panty and maong pants were on her side. She felt pain
Municipality of Bogo, Province of Cebu, Philippines and within the all over her body. Her vagina hurt and it was covered with blood.
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, confederating Her panty and maong pants were also stained with blood. She went
and conspiring with one another, with deliberate intent, by means back to her employers' house and told them that she was raped by
of force and violence by boxing her on the stomach thereby appellants.
rendering her unconscious, with intimidation and lewd design, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have carnal At around 9 o'clock in the morning of the same day, AAA was
accompanied by the Spouses Cuevas to the police station in Bogo,
knowledge with AAA,3 while she was in a state of unconsciousness.
Cebu to report the rape incident.20 The rape incident was
AAA, nineteen (19) years old, is a household help of the spouses contained in a police blotter and AAA was later instructed to
Constantino and Elvira Cueva. At around 8 o'clock in the evening of undergo a physical examination which she did.
July 16, 1998, she asked permission from her employers to go to her
parents' house. AAA's house is located in Barangay Taytayan, Bogo, Dr. Mary Ann Jabat (Dr. Jabat) of the Severo Verallo Memorial
District Hospital, Bogo, Cebu, conducted an examination on AAA
Cebu,7 the same barangay where her employers' house is situated.
On her way to her parents' house, she met appellants Vergel and and issued a Medical Certificate22 dated July 17, 1998. The medical
Allain who wanted to go with her but she refused. They suddenly findings and testimony of Dr. Jabat revealed that AAA had
lacerations in the perineum and hymen (at 3 o'clock and 10 o'clock
held her hands but she was able to get free from their hold. She
then decided to return to her employers' house9 but when she positions); her labia majora had erythema and slight edema; and
thought about her parents' need for the money,10 she just stayed the vaginal swab indicated the presence of spermatozoa. She said
and waited at the side of the road hoping that the appellants would that the lacerations in the perineum and the hymen were due to the
go away. insertion of a foreign object or the male organ23 and that the
presence of spermatozoa signifies recent sexual intercourse.
Thinking that appellants had already left, she continued walking to
her parents' house but appellants reappeared and held her hands On the other hand, appellants strongly denied the accusation and
again.12 She shouted for help and struggled to be freed from their interposed the defense of alibi. They both claimed that they were
hold but appellant Allain covered her mouth with a handkerchief13 not at the crime scene where AAA's alleged rape happened as they
were somewhere else. Appellants' sister Lucille and their mother inconsistencies in her testimony and that her conduct after the
Amparo Ancajas corroborated their alibis. alleged rape negate the commission thereof.

The defense also presented Dr. Jesus Cerna, a medico legal expert, Appellants' claim that rape was not was established as AAA had
who gave a different explanation on Dr. Jabat's medical findings,30 been unconscious during its alleged commission is not persuasive.
and Doroteo Booc, appellants' brother-in-law, to show that he saw
While it is true that there was no direct evidence to establish that
AAA walking with a male companion on that fateful night.31
Appellant Allain's birth certificate was presented to show that he appellants had carnal knowledge of AAA as the latter was
was still seventeen (17) years old at the time the alleged rape of unconscious, however, proof of the commission of the crime need
AAA was committed.32 Also presented was the police blotter.which not always be by direct evidence, for circumstantial evidence could
contained four (4) names as suspects on AAA's rape but the.same also sufficiently and competently establish the crime beyond
police blotter also contained in the progress report that AAA only reasonable doubt.41 Indeed, the Court had affirmed convictions for
suspected accused-appellants as her rapists arid refused to rape based on circumstantial evidence.
acknowledge the other two. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if (1) there is
more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the
On March 28, 2007, RTC found Vergel Ancajas and Allain Ancajas
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. inferences are derived are proven; (3) and the combination of all
the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
The RTC ratiocinated that the elements of the crime of rape were reasonable doubt.43 A judgment of conviction based on
duly proven by the prosecution and the fact of rape had been circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the circumstances
corroborated in its material details by the medical findings of Dr. proved form an unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable
Jabat. It found that AAA had positively identified appellants whom conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as
she was familiar with being her neighbors and childhood friends. On the perpetrator.
April 27, 2011, the CA rendered its Decision affirming the RTC
decision. Here, AAA was on her way to her parents' house when appellants,
her neighbors since childhood, appeared and held her hands. She
Appellants now claim that based on AAA's testimony, the element struggled and shouted but appellant Allain covered her mouth with
of carnal knowledge was not established since she claimed to be a handkerchief to prevent her from shouting, while appellant Vergel
unconscious, hence, she would not know the act allegedly done to punched her in the stomach which caused her to lose
her; that she only believed that they had carnal knowledge of her consciousness. When she regained consciousness, she felt pain all
because she felt pain on her vagina. They claim that there were over her body and her vagina. She found her bra, bloodied parity
and maong pants beside her. She went back to her employers' raped her. She knew them as they were neighbors since childhood.
house and told them that appellants raped her. AAA's testimony Denial fails in the light of AAA's positive declaration.
was corroborated by Dr. Jabat's declaration that the lacerations in
AAA's perineum and hymen were due to the insertion of a foreign Appellants' argument that AAA's conduct after the alleged sexual
object or the male organ and the presence of spermatozoa signified assault, i.e., washing her bloodied panty and maong pants, and
recent sexual intercourse. It is well settled that when the victim's washing her private part, are not the normal behavior of a woman
testimony is corroborated by the physician's finding of penetration, who had just been raped deserves scant consideration.
there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the It is not accurate to say that there is a typical reaction or norm of
essential requisites of carnal knowledge.45 The lacerations, behavior among rape victims.53 On the contrary, people react
whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible differently to emotional stress and no standard form of behavior
defloration. can be anticipated of a rape victim following her defilement.54
We find no error committed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, in What is notable in the records was the fact that after she had
giving credence to AAA's testimony. In fact, it was put down in regained consciousness at 1 o'clock in the morning of July 17, 1998,
record that AAA was crying while she was testifying before the trial she immediately went back to her employers' house and narrated
court.47 It has been held in several cases that the crying of a victim to them what appellants had done to her, later reported the rape
incident to the police and underwent a physical examination of her
during her testimony is evidence of the truth of the rape charges,
for the display of such emotion indicates the pain the victim feels private parts. Her actions indeed showed her desire to obtain justice
when she recounts the detail of her traumatic experience.48 for what appellants did to her.

The prosecution had established that appellants held AAA's hands, Appellants' contention that if AAA was positive as to their
identification as the perpetrators of the crime charged, why were
and when she tried to shout, appellant Allain covered her mouth
with a handkerchief and appellant Vergel punched her in the there two other names included in the police blotter, is also
abdomen which caused her to lose consciousness. It is fundamental unmeritorious.
for conspiracy to exist that there must be unity of purpose and unity The same police blotter stated a notation that:
in the execution of the unlawful objective which were present in
this case. Progress Report on Rape Alarm (Entry Nr. 98-257). As per sworn
statement of offended party AAA that the alleged suspects were
We find that the RTC correctly rejected appellants' defense of denial Allain Ancajas and Vergel Ancajas and she refused (sic) the other
and alibi. AAA positively identified appellants as the persons who suspects.
The inclusion of the two additional names was cured by the sworn Government a total of P135 million for the same period. Hence,
statement of AAA and her categorical declaration in open, court DOTC awarded the project to Paircargo Consortium (that later
that appellants were the perpetrators of the crime charged and no organized itself as PIATCO). A Concession Agreement with PIATCO
other. It is well entrenched that entries in a police blotter, although for the construction, development, and operation of the NAIA-IPT III
regularly done in the course of the performance of official duty, are under a build-operate-transfer scheme was made to authorized
not conclusive proof of the truth of such entries, for these are often PIATCO to build, operate, and maintain the NAIA-IPT III during the
incomplete and inaccurate. These, therefore, should not be given concession period of twenty-five (25) years.
undue significance or probative value as to the facts stated therein.
On March 31, 2000, PIATCO engaged the services of Takenaka and
Appellants' claim that a DNA test on the spermatozoa found on Asahikosan to aid in constructing the project. However, PIATCO
AAA's vagina should have been submitted for DNA testing to know defaulted on its obligation to pay Takenaka and Asahikosan
whether the sperm indeed came from both appellants or from pursuant to their respective contracts. Takenaka and Asahikosan
AAA's boyfriend. agreed to defer PIATCO’s payments until June 2003. In 2002,
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo declared in her speech that the
It has already been established that appellants were the ones who Government would not honor the PIATCO contracts. On the same
raped AAA. The DNA test is not essential, while there exists other day, Takenaka and Asahikosan notified PIATCO that they were
evidence pinning down appellants as the perpetrators.58 Moreover,
suspending the construction of the NAIA-IPT III for PIATCO’s failure
if the prosecution had not conducted such DNA test, appellants to provide adequate security. September 17, 2002, petitioners
should have moved for such test during the trial to prove their Demosthenes Agan, et al., asked the Court to nullify the PIATCO
innocence. contracts, and to prohibit the DOTC and the MIAA from
BEST EVIDENCE RULE implementing these contracts for being contrary to law. The case,
entitled Agan v. PIATCO, was docketed as G.R. No. 15500.
REPUBLIC vs. MUPAS
May 5, 2003, the Court nullified the PIATCO contracts after finding
AEDC submitted an unsolicited proposal to the Government for the that Paircargo Consortium (that later incorporated into PIATCO) was
construction and development of the NAIA-IPT III under a build- not a duly pre-qualified bidder for failure to meet the minimum
operate-and-transfer (BOT) arrangement. On the other hand, equity requirements for the NAIA-IPT III project.
Paircargo Consortium submitted its competitive proposal to the
Prequalification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC).Paircargo Security Bank (member of the Paircargo Consortium) invested its
Consortium offered to pay the Government a total of P17.75 billion entire net worth in a single undertaking or enterprise in gross
as guaranteed payment for 27 years while AEDC offered to pay the violation of Section 21-B of the General Banking Act (which limits a
commercial bank’s equity investment, whether allied or non-allied, PIATCO, Takenaka, and Asahikosan sought to nullify the RTC
to fifteen percent (15%) of its net worth). decision for alleged violation of their right to due process. They
complained that they were only furnished copies of the BOC Final
PIATCO contracts contained provisions that substantially departed Report only after the promulgation of the May 23, 2011
from the draft Concession Agreement decision.103 They averred that the RTC violated Sections 7 and 8,
December 21, 2004, the Government filed a complaint for Rule 67 of the Rules of Court which provide that the clerk of court
expropriation of the NAIA-IPT III before the RTC of Pasay, Branch 11 shall serve copies of the commissioners’ report on all interested
parties, with notice that they be allowed ten days within which to
RTC issued a writ of possession in favor of the Government. January file objections to the findings of the report, if they so desire
4, 2005, the RTC modified its December 21, 2004 order and
directed: (1) the Land Bank to immediately release to PIATCO the the offer to pay through an escrow account is not equivalent to
amount of US$62,343,175.7725cralawred that would be deducted direct payment. PIATCO further denied the Government’s
from the just compensation; (2) the Government to submit to the allegations that there were several claimants on the just
RTC a Certificate of Availability of Funds for the payment of just compensation.
compensation; and (3) the Government to maintain and preserve
RTC ruled that it has residual jurisdiction to adjudicate the
the NAIA-IPT III pending the expropriation proceedings and the full Government’s Manifestation and Motion considering that the
payment of just compensation. The RTC likewise prohibited the motion was filed prior to the parties’ filing of the Notice of Appeal.
Government from performing acts of ownership over the NAIA-IPT
The RTC opined that the Manifestation and Motion was akin to a
III such as awarding concessions or leasing any part of the NAIA-IPT motion for execution pending appeal. The Manifestation and
III to other parties Motion showed the Government’s intent to voluntarily comply with
RTC appointed three Commissioners28 to determine just the May 23, 2011 decision which was pending appeal before the CA.
compensation without consulting the Government and PIATCO Under Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the RTC has the
residual power to issue orders for the protection and preservation
Republic v. Gingoyon Case, G.R. No. 166429 of the parties’ rights, and to order the execution of a decision
pending appeal. Furthermore, Section 6, Rule 136 of the Rules of
Government, et al., filed a petition for certiorari with the Court
Court provides that courts have incidental power to issue orders
assailing the validity of the January 4, 7, and 10, 2005 orders of the
that are necessary to effectuate their judgments.
RTC in the expropriation case
The CA Rulings
CA upheld the validity of the RTC’s May 23, 2011 decision. The CA Under the best evidence rule, when the subject of inquiry relates to
ruled that the parties did not need to be furnished the BOC Final the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other
Report since RA 8974 is silent on the appointment of the BOC, as than the original document itself. In proving the terms of a written
held in Gingoyon. document, the original of the document must be produced in court.

However, the CA modified the RTC rulings and arrived at its own The best evidence rule ensures that the exact contents of a
formula of the NAIA-IPT III’s replacement cost document are brought before the court. In deeds, wills, and
contracts, a slight variation in words may mean a great difference in
The CA likewise observed that PIATCO’s summarized computation the rights and obligations of the parties. A substantial hazard of
of attendant costs was self-serving and unsubstantiated by relevant inaccuracy exists in the human process of making a copy by
evidence. handwriting or typewriting. Moreover, with respect to oral
CA further ordered Takenaka and Asahikosan to share in the testimony purporting to give the terms of a document from
expenses of the BOC. Since Takenaka and Asahikosan’s inputs on memory, a special risk of error is present, greater than in the case of
the construction costs of the NAIA-IPT III were heard by the RTC, attempts at describing other situations generally.286cralawrednad
they should share in the expenses of the BOC. The best evidence rule likewise acts as an insurance against fraud. If
Upon finality of judgment, interest on the sum due by then shall be a party is in the possession of the best evidence and withholds it,
at 6% per annum until fully paid pursuant to BSP Circular No. 799, and seeks to substitute inferior evidence in its place, the
series of 2013 which took effect on 01 July 2013, and which presumption naturally arises that the better evidence is withheld for
effectively modified the interest rate rulings in Eastern Shipping fraudulent purposes that its production would expose and defeat.
Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals. Eastern Shipping was the basis of the The rule likewise protects against misleading inferences resulting
Court’s earlier imposition of a 12% interest from finality of from the intentional or unintentional introduction of selected
judgment. portions of a larger set of writings.287cralawrednad

The main issue in this petition is the propriety of the appointment As exceptions to the best evidence rule, Section 3, Rule 130 of the
of DG Jones and Partners as an independent appraiser of the NAIA- Rules of Court provides that non-original documents may be
IPT III. produced in court in the following cases:

Held: (a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under control of the before the trial court to prove the attendant costs that it incurred in
party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to the construction of the NAIA-IPT III. The trial court may admit a
produce it after reasonable notice; summary of voluminous original documents, in lieu of original
documents, if the party has shown that the underlying writings are
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other numerous and that an in-court examination of these documents
documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of would be inconvenient. In other words, Section 3 (c), Rule 130 of
time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the the Rules of Court does away with the item-by-item court
general result of the whole; and identification and authentication of voluminous exhibits which
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a would only be burdensome and tedious for the parties and the
public officer or is recorded in a public office. (Emphasis supplied) court.

Secondary evidence of the contents of writings is admitted on the However, as a condition precedent to the admission of a summary
theory that the original cannot be produced by the party who offers of numerous documents, the proponent must lay a proper
the evidence within a reasonable time by the exercise of reasonable foundation for the admission of the original documents on which
diligence. the summary is based. The proponent must prove that the source
documents being summarized are also admissible if presented in
PIATCO argues that its non-submission of original documents before court.
the trial court is justified under Section 3 (c), Rule 130 of the Rules
of Court. It points out that a party need not submit the original In concrete terms, the source documents must be shown to be
when it consists of numerous accounts or other documents which original, and not secondary. Furthermore, the source documents
cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact must likewise be accessible to the opposing party so that the
sought to be established from them is only the general result of the correctness of the summary of the voluminous records may be
whole. PIATCO insists that the lower courts erred in not giving tested on cross-examination and/or may be refuted in pleadings. In
probative value to the report prepared by Reyes Tacandong& Co., ordinary trial-type proceedings, a proper foundation for the
an auditing firm, validating PIATCO’s computation of attendant introduction of a summary may be established through the
costs. Significantly, Reyes Tacandong& Co. failed to state that it “testimony of the person who is responsible for the summary's
examined the original documents in validating PIATCO’s preparation, or the person who supervised the preparation of the
computation of attendant costs. summary.”

We agree with PIATCO that it need not submit numerous and The primary reason for these procedural foundations is that the
voluminous invoices, official receipts, and other relevant documents summary of numerous documents is, in strict terms, hearsay
evidence. The trial court should not haphazardly allow a party to photocopies is justified under Section 3 (a), (b), and/or (d), Rule 130
present a summary of numerous documents and immediately admit of the Rules of Court. He must establish the presence of all the
and give probative value to such summary without sufficiently elements under these provisions.
laying these foundations. If the source documents of the summary
are non-original, the trial court would commit a grave error in In the case of lost or destroyed documents, the offeror of non-
admitting and/or giving probative value to the summary of non- original documents must first prove the following elements before
original documents; the evidence admitted would be double secondary evidence is admitted before the court: (a) the existence
or due execution of the original; (b) the loss and destruction of the
hearsay.
original, or the reason for its non-production in court; and (c) the
Furthermore, when a party invokes Section 3 (c), Rule 130 of the absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror to which the
Rules of Court, he does not similarly invoke Section 3 (a), (b), and/or unavailability of the original can be attributed. To conclude
(d), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. He does not likewise claim that otherwise is to allow the party to circumvent the best evidence rule
the original documents have been lost or destroyed. The party and the requirements under Section 3 (a), (b), and (d), Rule 130 of
merely asserts that the numerous documents cannot be examined the Rules of Court by merely invoking Section 3 (c), Rule 130 of the
in court without great loss of time and that the fact sought to be Rules of Court.
established from these documents is only the general result of the
In the present case, PIATCO attached to its Compliance dated
whole.
December 14, 2010, the photocopies of numerous documents, and
Whenever a party seeks an exemption under the best evidence rule the validation of PIATCO’s computation of attendant costs prepared
pursuant to Section 3 (c), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, he asks by Reyes Tacandong& Co., among others. PIATCO justifies the non-
permission from the trial court to produce a summary of numerous presentment of original documents pursuant to Section 3 (c), Rule
documents, whose originals are available to the adverse party for 130 of the Rules of Court.
inspection. He does not ask permission from the trial court to
present in evidence the numerous non-original documents. We affirm the lower courts’ uniform findings that PIATCO failed to
Otherwise, the very purpose of Section 3 (c), Rule 130 of the Rules establish its attendant costs. PIATCO failed to establish that the
of Court would be defeated. In that case, every exhibit of non- photocopied documents fall under Section 3 (a), (b), and/or (d),
original documents would be identified, authenticated, and cross- Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. These photocopied documents are
hearsay evidence. They are mere scraps of paper and have no
examined, leading to a tedious and protracted litigation.
weight as basis for the attendant costs of the NAIA-IPT III.
Thus, if a party desires to present photocopies of the original
documents, he must first establish that the presentation of
We likewise cannot give weight to the summary prepared by Reyes On the other hand, Anastacio P. Macapaz, Jr. (Anastacio, Jr.) and
Tacandong& Co. for being double hearsay. Reyes Tacandong& Co., Alicia Macapaz-Ritua (Alicia) (respondents) are the children of
whose letter was addressed to PIATCO and not to the trial court, did Silvestra's brother, Anastacio Macapaz, Sr. (Anastacio, Sr.) and
not state in its report that it examined the original documents Fidela O. Poblete Vda. de Macapaz (Fidela).
allegedly proving attendant costs. Moreover, in a letter dated
December 14, 2010, Reyes Tacandong& Co stated it does not The subject property is and was duly registered in the names of the
“express any assurance on the attendant costs:” petitioner and Silvestra. In its certificate of title, appearing as Entry
No. 02671 is an annotation of an Adverse Claim of Fidela, Slivestra’s
We have performed the procedures agreed with Philippine niece.
International Air Terminals, Co., (“the Company”) with respect to
the Company’s attendant costs incurred in building NAIA Terminal 3 On November 11, 2002, Silvestra died without issue. On July 7,
from 1997 to 2004. Our engagement was undertaken in accordance 2005, TCT No. 183088 was cancelled and a new certificate of title,
with the Philippine Standard on Related Services applicable to TCT No. 221466,7 was issued in the name of the petitioner by virtue
of a Deed of Sale8 dated January 18, 2005 whereby Silvestra
agreed-upon procedures engagements.
allegedly sold her 99-sq-m portion to the petitioner for
The sufficiency of the procedures is solely the responsibility of the P300,000.00. Included among the documents submitted for the
specified users of the report. Consequently, we make no purpose of cancelling TCT No. 183088 was an Affidavit9 dated July
representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures either 12, 2005 purportedly executed by both the petitioner and Silvestra.
for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any It was stated therein that the affidavit of adverse claim filed by
other purpose. Fidela was not signed by the Deputy Register of Deeds of Makati
City, making the same legally ineffective. On September 16, 2005,
Because the procedures do not constitute either an audit or a
Fidela passed away.
review of financial statements made in accordance with Philippine
Standards on Auditing, we do not express any assurance on the On December 15, 2005, Anastacio, Jr. filed a criminal complaint for
attendant costs. two counts of falsification of public documents under Articles 171
and 172 of the Revised Penal Code against the petitioner. However,
G.R. No. 191936, June 01, 2016 said criminal charges were eventually dismissed.
VIRGINIA D. CALIMAG, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF SILVESTRA N.
On March 2, 2006, the respondents, asserting that they are the
MACAPAZ, REPRESENTED BY ANASTACIO P. MACAPAZ, JR., heirs of Silvestra, instituted the action for Annulment of Deed of
Respondents.
Sale and Cancellation of TCT No. 221466 with Damages against the that a birth certificate not signed by the alleged father is not
petitioner and the Register of Deeds of Makati City. competent evidence of paternity.

In her Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim,13 the petitioner HELD:


averred that the respondents have no legal capacity to institute said
civil action on the ground that they are illegitimate children of The petitioner's contentions are untenable.
Anastacio, Sr. As such, they have no right over Silvestra's estate "A certificate of live birth is a public document that consists of
pursuant to Article 992 of the Civil Code which prohibits illegitimate entries (regarding the facts of birth) in public records (Civil Registry)
children from inheriting intestate from the legitimate children and made in the performance of a duty by a public officer (Civil
relatives of their father and mother. Registrar)." Thus, being public documents, the respondents'
certificates of live birth are presumed valid, and are prima facie
in order to prove their legitimate filiation, the respondents
presented their respective Certificates of Live Birth issued by the evidence of the truth of the facts stated in them.
National Statistics Office38 where Fidela signed as the Informant in The petitioner's assertion that the birth certificate must be signed
item no. 17 of both documents. by the father in order to be a competent evidence of legitimate
The petitioner asserts that said documents do not conclusively filiation does not find support in law and jurisprudence. Verily,
prove the respondents' legitimate filiation, albeit, without offering under Section 5 of Act No. 3753,46 the declaration of either parent
any evidence to the contrary. The certificates of live birth contain no of the new-born legitimate child shall be sufficient for the
entry stating whether the respondents are of legitimate or registration of his birth in the civil register, and only in the
illegitimate filiation, making said documents unreliable and registration of birth of an illegitimate child does the law require that
unworthy of weight and value in the determination of the issue at the birth certificate be signed and sworn to jointly by the parents of
hand. the infant, or only by the mother if the father refuses to
acknowledge the child.
Moreover, the petitioner states that in the respondents' certificates
of live birth, only the signature of Fidela appears, and that they GR No. 202514, Jul 25, 2016
were not signed by Anastacio, Sr. She argues that the birth ANNA MARIE L. GUMABON v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK
certificate must be signed by the father in order to be competent
evidence to establish filiation, whether legitimate or illegitimate, On August 12, 2004, Anna Marie filed a complaint for recovery of
invoking Roces v. Local Civil Registrar of Manila40 where it was held sum of money and damages before the RTC against the Philippine
National Bank (PNB) and the PNB Delta branch manager Silverio
Fernandez (Fernandez). The case stemmed from the PNB's refusal PNB also confirmed that the total deposits amounted to P-
to release Anna Marie's money in a consolidated savings account 2,734,207.36. Anna Marie, her mother, and the PNB executed a
and in two foreign exchange time deposits, evidenced by Foreign Deed of Waiver and Quitclaim dated May 23, 2003[10] to settle all
Exchange Certificates of Time Deposit (FXCTD). questions regarding the consolidation of the savings accounts. After
withdrawals, the balance of her consolidated savings account was
In 2001, Anna Marie, together with her mother Angeles and her P250,741.82.
siblings Anna Elena and Santiago, (the Gumabons) deposited with
the PNB Delta Branch $10,945.28 and $16,830.91, for which they On July 30, 2003, the PNB sent letters to Anna Marie to inform her
were issued FXCTD Nos. A-993902[5] and A-993992,[6] respectively. that the PNB refused to honor its obligation under FXCTD Nos.
993902 and 993992,[11] and that the PNB withheld the release of
The Gumabons also maintained eight (8) savings accounts[7] in the the balance of P-250,741.82 in the consolidated savings
same bank. Anna Marie decided to consolidate the eight (8) savings account.[12] According to the PNB, Anna Marie pre-terminated,
accounts and to withdraw P-2,727,235.85 from the consolidated
withdrew and/or debited sums against her deposits.
savings account to help her sister's financial needs.
Thus, Anna Marie filed before the RTC a complaint for sum of
Anna Marie called the PNB employee handling her accounts, Reino
money and damages against the PNB and Fernandez.
Antonio Salvoro (Salvoro), to facilitate the consolidation of the
savings accounts and the withdrawal. When she went to the bank As to the two FXCTDs, Anna Marie contended that the PNB's refusal
on April 14, 2003, she was informed that she could not withdraw to pay her time deposits is contrary to law. The PNB cannot claim
from the savings accounts since her bank records were missing and that the bank deposits have been paid since the certificates of the
Salvoro could not be contacted. time deposits are still with Anna Marie.

On April 15, 2003, Anna Marie presented her two FXCTDs, but was As to the consolidated savings account, Anna Marie stated that the
also unable to withdraw against them. Fernandez informed her that PNB had already acknowledged the account's balance in the Deed
the bank would still verify and investigate before allowing the of Waiver and Quitclaim amounting to P2,734,207.36. As of January
withdrawal since Salvoro had not reported for work. 26, 2004, the remaining balance was P250,741.82. PNB presented
no concrete proof that this amount had been withdrawn.
Thus, Anna Marie sent two demand letters[8] dated April 23 and
April 25, 2003 to the PNB. Anna Marie prayed that the PNB and Fernandez be held solidarily
liable for actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as
After a month, the PNB finally consolidated the savings accounts attorney's fees, costs of suit, and legal interests because of the
and issued a passbook for Savings Account (SA) No. 6121200.[9] The PNB's refusal to honor its obligations.
In its answer,[15] the PNB argued that: (1) Anna Marie is not Third, Anna Marie is only entitled to receive $10,718.87 instead of
entitled to the balance of the consolidated savings account based the full amount of $17,235.41 covered by FXCTD No. 993992
on solutio indebiti; (2) the PNB already paid the $10,058.01 covered because: (a) the amount of $1,950.00 was part of the money used
by FXCTD No. 993902; (3) the PNB is liable to pay only $10,718.87 of by Anna Marie to purchase the manager's check; (2) the amount of
FXCTD No. 993992, instead of the full amount of $17,235.41; and (4) $2,566.54 was credited to Current Account No. 227-810961-8
Anna Marie is guilty of contributory negligence. The PNB's owned by Anna Marie's aunt, Lolita Lim; and (3) the amount of
arguments are discussed below. $2,000.00 was credited to Current Account No. 2108107498 of Anna
Marie and Savings Account No. 212-5057333 of Anna Marie/or
First, Anna Marie is not entitled to the alleged balance of Angeles or Santiago/or Elena (all surnamed Gumabon). Hence,
P250,741.82. The PNB's investigation showed that Anna Marie these amounts should be deducted from the amount payable to
withdrew a total of P251,246.81[16] from two of the eight savings
Anna Marie.
accounts and she used this amount to purchase manager's check
no. 0000760633.[17] Hence, P251,246.81 should be deducted from Finally, the PNB alleged that Anna Marie was guilty of contributory
the sum agreed upon in the Deed of Waiver and Quitclaim. The PNB negligence in her bank dealings.
offered photocopies of the PNB's miscellaneous ticket[18] and the
manager's check as evidence to prove the withdrawals. The PNB In her reply, Anna Marie argued that the best evidence of her
withdrawals is the withdrawal slips duly signed by her and the
argued that unjust enrichment would result if Anna Marie would be
allowed to collect P-250,741.82 from the consolidated savings passbooks pertaining to the accounts. PNB, however, failed to show
account without deducting her previous withdrawal of P251,246.81. any of the withdrawal slips and/or passbooks, and also failed to
present sufficient evidence that she used her accounts' funds.
Second, Anna Marie is not entitled to receive $10,058.01 covered by
The RTC ruled in Anna Marie's favour. It held that the PNB had not
FXCTD No. 993902. Based on the PNB's records, Anna Marie pre-
terminated FXCTD No. 993902 on March 11, 2002, and used the yet paid the remaining balance of $10,058.01 under FXCTD No.
deposit, together with another deposit covered by FXCTD No. 993902. Anna Marie's SOA,[22] which the PNB relied upon, is a
993914 (for $8,111.35), to purchase a foreign demand draft (FX mere photocopy and does not satisfy the best evidence rule.
Demand Draft No. 4699831) payable to Anna Rose/Angeles Moreover, there is no indication on the stated amounts in the SOA
Gumabon. The PNB presented a facsimile copy of Anna Rose's that the funds have come from FXCTD No. 993902.[23] The PNB
Statement of Account (SOA)[19] from the PNB Bank to prove that failed to obtain the deposition of a PNC Bank officer or present any
other evidence to show that the amounts stated in the SOA came
the amount covered by FXCTD No. 993902 was already paid.
from FXCTD No. 993902. The RTC also held that the alleged pre-
termination of FXCTD No. 993902 on March 11, 2002, is hard to
believe since the certificate shows that the last entry was made on York. The CA stated that the RTC should have allowed the taking of
March 24, 2003, with a reflected balance of $10,058.01. the deposition of the PNB bank officer.

On FXCTD No. 993992, the RTC held that the PNB failed to prove The CA also relied on the PNB's investigation and concluded that the
Anna Marie's alleged withdrawals. These alleged withdrawals are PNB had already paid the amounts claimed by Anna Marie under
not reflected at the back of the certificate. Anna Marie's ledger was FXCTD Nos. 993902 and 993992.
also not presented as evidence to show that several withdrawals
had been made against FXCTD No. 993992. As to Anna Marie's consolidated savings account, the CA gave
credence to the miscellaneous ticket and the manager's check
On the consolidated savings account, the RTC held that the PNB presented by the PNB to prove that it had already paid the balance.
failed to prove that Anna Marie withdrew the balance of
Anna Marie moved but failed to obtain reconsideration of the CA's
P250,741.82. The RTC excluded PNB's evidence, i.e., photocopies of
the miscellaneous ticket and manager's check, to prove the alleged decision; hence, the present petition.
withdrawals, since these documents were just photocopies and thus Anna Marie now argues that: first, the CA should not have
failed to satisfy the best evidence rule. disregarded the RTC's conclusive findings; second, the CA erred in
The RTC awarded damages to Anna Marie due to the PNB's considering the PNB New York bank officer's affidavit because it was
mishandling of her account through its employee, Salvoro. The RTC not formally offered as evidence; third, the CA erroneously relied on
also held that the PNB failed to establish Anna Marie's contributory a foreign demand draft[27] to prove the PNB's payment of the
negligence. The CA reversed the RTC's ruling. amount due under FXCTD No. 993902; fourth, the CA erroneously
considered the miscellaneous ticket and the manager's check
The CA held that the PNB had paid the actual amounts claimed by because these documents are mere photocopies and inadmissible
Anna Marie in her complaint. The CA noted Anna Marie's suspicious under the best evidence rule; and fifth, the CA's conclusion about a
and exclusive dealings with Salvoro and the Gumabons' instruction purported "connivance" between Anna Marie and Salvoro has no
to Salvoro to make unauthorized and unrecorded withdrawals. evidentiary basis.
Hence, there are no entries of withdrawals reflected in Anna
In its comment, the PNB counters that: first, the CA can rectify the
Marie's passbook.
RTC's factual findings since the RTC committed errors in its
The CA also considered Anna Rose's SOA as proof that the PNB had appreciation of the evidence; second, the RTC completely ignored
paid the remaining balance of $10,058.01 on FXCTD No. 993902. the PNB's several evidence proving its payment of Anna Marie's
The CA held that the PNB verified the SOA and it was corroborated FXCTDs; third, Anna Marie did not refute the PNB's allegations of
by the affidavit[25] of the PNB Branch Operations Officer in New payment; fourth, the CA has the right to review even those exhibits
which were excluded by the RTC; and fifth, the CA correctly ruled
that the PNB should not be faulted about the unrecorded
transactions, and that the PNB had done its duty to its depositors
when it conducted investigations and an internal audit of Anna
Marie's accounts.

****RULING: PDF****