DNA EVIDENCE

1. G.R. No. 171713 December 17, 2007

ESTATE OF ROGELIO G. ONG, Petitioner, - versus - Minor JOANNE RODJIN

DIAZ, Represented by Her Mother and Guardian, JINKY C. DIAZ, Respondent.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

FACTS: A Complaint for compulsory recognition with prayer for support pending
litigation was filed by minor Joanne Rodjin Diaz (Joanne), represented by her mother
and guardian, Jinky C. Diaz (Jinky), against Rogelio G. Ong (Rogelio) before RTC.

Jinky and Rogelio got acquainted. This developed into friendship and later blossomed
into love. At this time, Jinky was already married to a Japanese national, Hasegawa
Katsuo.

They cohabited and lived together. From this live-in relationship, minor Joanne Rodjin
Diaz was conceived and was born.

Rogelio abandoned minor Joanne and Jinky, and stopped supporting minor Joanne,
falsely alleging that he is not the father of the child.

RTC: rendered judgement declaring Joanne Rodjin Diaz to be the illegitimate child of
defendant Rogelio Ong with plaintiff Jinky Diaz.

CA: remanded the case to the court a quo for the issuance of an order directing the
parties to make arrangements for DNA analysis for the purpose of determining the
paternity of plaintiff minor Joanne Rodjin Diaz.

ISSUE: WON DNA Analysis is no longer feasible due to the death of Rogelio Ong. NO

HELD: Petitioners argument is without basis especially as the New Rules on DNA
Evidence allows the conduct of DNA testing, either motu proprio or upon application of
any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation.

It can be said that the death of the petitioner does not ipso facto negate the application of
DNA testing for as long as there exist appropriate biological samples of his DNA.

The term biological sample means any organic material originating from a persons body,
even if found in inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. This includes
blood, saliva, and other body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones.

Thus, even if Rogelio already died, any of the biological samples as enumerated above
 as may be available, may be used for DNA testing. In this case, petitioner has not shown
the impossibility of obtaining an appropriate biological sample that can be utilized for
the conduct of DNA testing.

PARAFFIN TEST

1. GR. No. 212930 August 3, 2016

People of the Philippines, Plaintiff- Appellee, v. Angelo Buenafe, Accused-

Appellant.

PEREZ, J.:

FACTS: Kenneth dela Torre, (Kenneth) a 15 year old farmhand, went to Alpa Farm to
apologize to his employer, Rommel Alvarez (Rommel), who scolded him that day.
However, upon reaching the farm, he saw appellant and two (2) unidentified men alight
from a vehicle. Thereafter, while Rommel was unwarily texting inside the tent, the two
men suddenly restrained his arms behind his back. Subsequently, appellant approached
Rommel and delivered several blows to his abdomen until he crumpled to the ground.
After which, appellant walked towards a nearby hut while the two men dragged
Rommel.

Inside the hut, appellant shot the victim using a lead pipe ("sumpak"). After fixing
something, appellant and the two other men hurriedly proceeded to the car.

Kenneth revealed to Marissa what he saw.

The appellant was invited by the police and underwent fingerprinting analysis and
paraffin test. These tests resulted negative.

RTC: convicted the appellant of Murder.

CA: affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE: WON the paraffin test conducted is conclusive. NO

HELD: The positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses bears more weight
than the negative fingerprint analysis and paraffin tests results conducted the day after
the incident.

The absence of latent fingerprints does not immediately eliminate the possibility that the
appellant could have been at the scene of the crime.
 In this case, Kenneth testified in the trial court that it was indeed the appellant who
killed Rommel. It should also be considered that the fingerprint analysis and the
paraffin test were conducted the following day after the incident. Thus, it is possible for
appellant to fire a gun and yet bear no traces of nitrate or gunpowder as when the hands
are bathed in perspiration or washed afterwards.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

1. G.R. No. 174673 January 11, 2016

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

vs.
FE ROA GIMENEZ AND IGNACIO B. GIMENEZ,Respondents.

LEONEN, J.:

FACTS: The Republic, through PCGG, instituted a Complaint for Reconveyance,

Reversion, Accounting, Restitution and Damages against the Gimenez Spouses before
the Sandiganbayan. "The Complaint seeks to recover . . . ill-gotten wealth . . . acquired
by [the Gimenez Spouses] as dummies, agents[,] or nominees of former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda Marcos[.]"

The Sandiganbayan noted that the Republic failed to file its Formal Offer of Evidence
notwithstanding repeated extensions and the lapse of 75 days from the date it
terminated its presentation of evidence. Thus, it declared that the Republic waived the
filing of its Formal Offer of Evidence.

Ignacio Gimenez filed a Motion to Dismiss on Demurrer to Evidence. He argued that the
Republic showed no right to relief as there was no evidence to support its cause of
action. Fe Roa Gimenez filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of failure to prosecute.

The Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration [of the first assailed Resolution] and to
Admit Attached Formal Offer of Evidence.

The reasons invoked by the plaintiff to justify its failure to timely file the formal offer of
evidence fail to persuade this Court.

SANDIGANBAYAN: denied the plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit

Attached Formal Offer of Evidence. Granted the Motion to Dismiss on Demurrer to
Evidence. Dismissed the case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in denying petitioner’s Motion
to Admit Formal Offer of Evidence on the basis of mere technicalities, depriving
petitioner of its right to due process. YES
 HELD: The purpose of procedure is not to thwart justice. Its proper aim is to facilitate
the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties. It was created not to
hinder and delay but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice.

Weighing the amount of time spent in litigating the case against the number of delays
petitioner incurred in submitting its Formal Offer of Evidence and the state’s policy on
recovering ill-gotten wealth, this court is of the belief that it is but only just that the
Rules be relaxed and petitioner be allowed to submit its written Formal Offer of
Evidence. The Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions should be reversed.

2. G.R. No. 190846 February 3, 2016

TOMAS P. TAN, JR., Petitioner, v. JOSE G. HOSANA, Respondent.

BRION,J.:

FACTS: Jose G. Hosana (Jose) married Milagros C. Hosana (Milagros) and bought a
house and lot which lot was covered by TCT.

Milagros sold to the petitioner Tomas P. Tan, Jr. (Tomas) the subject property, as
evidenced by a deed of sale executed by Milagros herself and as attorney-in-fact of Jose,
by virtue of an SPA executed by Jose in her favor.

Jose filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale/Cancellation of Title/Reconveyance and

Damages against Milagros, Tomas, and the Register of Deeds. In the complaint, Jose
averred that Milagros, without his consent and knowledge, conspired with Tomas to
execute the SPA by forging Jose’s signature.

Tomas maintained that he was a buyer in good faith and for value. Before he paid the
full consideration of the sale, Tomas claimed he sought advice from his lawyer-friend
who told him that the title of the subject lot was authentic and in order.

With the assurance that all the documents were in order, Tomas made a partial payment
of P350,000.00 and another P350,000.00 upon the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale
(Deed of Sale). Tomas noticed that the consideration written by Milagros on the Deed of
Sale was only P200,000.00; he inquired why the written consideration was lower than the
actual consideration paid. Milagros explained that it was done to save on taxes.

RTC: decided in favor of Jose and nullified the sale of the subject property to Tomas.

CA: affirmed the RTC's decision and directed Jose and Milagros to reimburse Tomas the
purchase price of P200,000.00, with interest, under the principle of unjust enrichment.
 ISSUE: WON the CA correctly ordered the reimbursement of P200,000.00, which is the
consideration stated in the Deed of Sale. YES

HELD: While the terms and provisions of a void contract cannot be enforced since it is
deemed inexistent, it does not preclude the admissibility of the contract as evidence to
prove matters that occurred in the course of executing the contract, i.e., what each party
has given in the execution of the contract.

There is no provision in the Rules of Evidence which excludes the admissibility of a void
document. The Rules only require that the evidence is relevant and not excluded by the
Rules for its admissibility.

In the present case, the deed of sale was declared null and void by positive provision of
the law prohibiting the sale of conjugal property without the spouse’s consent. It does
not, however, preclude the possibility that Tomas paid the consideration stated therein.

3. G.R. No. 204056, June 01, 2016

GIL MACALINO, JR., Petitioner, v. ARTEMIO PIS-AN, Respondent.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS: Emeterio Jumento (Emeterio) was the owner of the half portion, and his
children Hospicio Jumento (Hospicio) and Severina Jumento (Severina) of the other half
in equal shares, of Lot 3154. When Hospicio and Severina died, Emeterio inherited the
portions and thus became the owner of the whole lot. Subsequently, Emeterio also
passed away. The lot was divided into three portions (A, B, and C).

Artemio and the other heirs of Emeterio executed an Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate
and Absolute Sale adjudicating among themselves Lot 3154 and selling a 207-square
meter portion of the same to the spouses Wilfredo and Judith Sillero (spouses Sillero).
The document, did not, however, identify the portion being sold as Lot No. 3154-A but
simply stated as "a portion of Lot 3154 which is 207 square meters.

The spouses Sillero sold Lot 3154-A to petitioner Gil Macalino, Jr. (Gil) by virtue of a
Deed of Sale.

Intending to have Lot 3154-A registered in his name, Gil caused the survey of the same
by Engr. Dorado) sometime in 1998.14 Engr. Dorado, however, discovered that the
portion occupied by Gil consists of 140 square meters only and not 207.

The Land Management Bureau issued an approved Subdivision Plan wherein Lot 3154
 was subdivided into four sub-lots, to wit: Notably, the Subdivision Plan which was
based on the survey conducted by Engr. Dorado refers not only to Lot 3154-A as Gil's
property but also to Lot 3154-C.

RTC: rendered a judgement in favor of Gil Macalino against Artemio, declaring Gil
Macalino the rightful owner of Lot 3154-A and Lot 3154-C.

CA: concluded that the sale between the spouses Sillero and Gil involved Lot 3154-A
only and not Lot 3154-C. Defendant-appellant Artemio Pis-an is declared as the true and
legal owner of Lot 1354-C.

ISSUE: WON the admitted contents of the said documents adequately and correctly
express the true intention of the parties.

HELD: It has been held that "[w]hen the parties admit the contents of written documents
but put in issue whether these documents adequately and correctly express the true
intention of the parties, the deciding body is authorized to look beyond these
instruments and into the contemporaneous and subsequent actions of the parties in
order to determine such intent." In view of this and since the Parol Evidence Rule is
inapplicable in this case, an examination of the parties' respective parol evidence is in
order. Indeed, examination of evidence is necessarily factual and not within the province
of a petition for review on certiorari which only allows questions of law to be raised.
However, this case falls under one of the recognized exceptions to such rule, i.e., when
the CA's findings are contrary to that of the trial court.

4. G.R. No. 204700 November 24, 2014

EAGLERIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MARCELO N. NAVAL and

CRISPIN I. OBEN,Petitioners,
vs.
CAMERON GRANVILLE 3 ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., Respondent.

LEONEN, J.:

FACTS: For resolution is respondent Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc.'s

motion for reconsideration of our April 10, 2013 decision, which reversed and set aside
the Court of Appeals' resolutions and ordered respondent to produce the Loan Sale and
Purchase Agreement (LSPA) dated April 7, 2006, including its annexes and/or
attachments, if any, in order that petitioners may inspect or photocopy the same.

The motion for reconsideration raises that the production of the LSPA would violate the
parol evidence rule.
ISSUE: WON the production of the LSPA would violate the parol evidence rule. NO

HELD: The parol evidence rule does not apply to petitioners who are not parties to the
deed of assignment and do not base a claim on it. Hence, they cannot be prevented from
seeking evidence to determine the complete terms of the deed of assignment.

Even assuming that Rule 130, Section 9 is applicable, an exception to the rule under the
second paragraph is when the party puts in issue the validity of the written agreement,
as in the case a quo.

Besides, what is forbidden under the parol evidence rule is the presentation of oral or
extrinsic evidence, not those expressly referred to in the written agreement.
"[D]ocuments can be read together when one refers to the other." By the express terms of
the deed of assignment, it is clear that the deed of assignment was meant to be read in
conjunction with the LSPA.

As we have stated in our decision, Rule 132, Section 1761 of the Rules of Court allows a
party to inquire into the whole of the writing or record when a part of it is given in
evidence by the other party. Since the deed of assignment was produced in court by
respondent and marked as one of its documentary exhibits, the LSPA which was made a
part thereof by explicit reference and which is necessary for its understanding may also
be inquired into by petitioners.