PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDDIE BARTE y MENDOZA, accused-appellant.

March 1, 2017
G.R. No. 179749

Syllabi Class: Remedial Law ; Evidence ; Presumption of Regularity ;

Syllabi:

1. Remedial Law; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; Anything short of observance and compliance by
the arresting lawmen with what the law required meant that the former did not regularly perform their
duties.-

—We regard and declare as unwarranted the RTC’s position that the absence of proof showing the
compliance by the arresting lawmen with the procedure outlined under Section 21 of RA No. 9165 was not
fatal to the entrapment. Such noncompliance with the procedural safeguards under Section 21 was fatal
because it cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence presented in court and directly affected the validity
of the buy-bust operation. It put into serious question whether the sachet of shabu had really come from
the accused-appellant, and whether the sachet of shabu presented in court was the same sachet of shabu
obtained from the accused-appellant at the time of the arrest. Testimonies provided by the police officers
and the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties did not override the noncompliance
with the procedural safeguards instituted by our laws. Indeed, anything short of observance and
compliance by the arresting lawmen with what the law required meant that the former did not regularly
perform their duties. The presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties then became
inapplicable. As such, the evidence of the State did not overturn the presumption of innocence in favor of
the accused-appellant. Furthermore, although noncompliance with the prescribed procedural
requirements would not automatically render the seizure and custody of the contraband invalid, that is
true only when there is a justifiable ground for such noncompliance, and the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items are properly preserved. Any departure from the prescribed procedure must then still be
reasonably justified, and must further be shown not to have affected the integrity and evidentiary value
of the confiscated contraband. Otherwise, the noncompliance constitutes an irregularity, a red flag, so to
speak, that cast reasonable doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti.

2. Same; Evidence; Presumption of Regularity; The presumption of regularity can be overturned if

evidence is presented to prove either of two (2) things, namely: (1) that they were not properly performing
their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive.-

—Courts are cognizant of the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties of public officers.
This presumption can be overturned if evidence is presented to prove either of two things, namely: (1)
that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive.
This case sprang from the buy-bust operation conducted by several police officers against the accused-
appellant based on the tip from a caller whose identification was only through the alias of Ogis.
Surveillance was made following such tip, but the same was unrecorded and no other proof was presented
to corroborate the policemen’s conclusion that the man known as Ogis was the same man they were
looking for during the surveillance.
CAPISTRANO DAAYATA, DEXTER SALISI, and BREGIDO MALACAT, JR., petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
March 8, 2017
G.R. No. 205745

Case Nature: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

Syllabi Class: Remedial Law ; Evidence ; Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt ;

1. Same; Evidence; Object Evidence; Physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. It speaks more
eloquently than a hundred witnesses.-

—“Physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred
witnesses.” They have been characterized as “that mute but eloquent manifestations of truth which rate
high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.” Thus, in People v. Vasquez, 280 SCRA 160 (1997), this
Court refused to undiscerningly lend credence to the incriminating assertions of prosecution witnesses as
to an alleged mauling, and stated that “[t]his Court cannot be persuaded by the prosecution’s claim of
perpetration of physical violence in the absence of any marked physical injuries on the various parts of
the victim’s face and body.” As the defense correctly points out, if the prosecution’s assertion of a
relentless assault were true, the greater probability was that Bahian must have been “black and blue all
over.” Quite contrary to the sort of physical evidence that a purported relentless and prolonged assault
should have reasonably yielded, however, there was but one injury that Bahian was noted to have
sustained. Third, Bahian himself was noted to have admitted that his head injury was “caused by [him]
hitting the edge of the concrete pavement.”
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JESSIE GABRIEL y GAJARDO, accused-appellant.
March 15, 2017
G.R. No. 213390

Case Nature: APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

Syllabi Class: Remedial Law ; Evidence ; Witnesses ; Credibility of Witnesses ;

Syllabi:

1. Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Credibility of Witnesses; The trial court’s assessment and
evaluation of the credibility of witnesses vis-à-vis their testimonies ought to be upheld as a matter of
course because of its direct, immediate and firsthand opportunity to observe the deportment of witnesses
as they delivered their testimonies in open court.-

—The trial court’s assessment and evaluation of the credibility of witnesses vis-à-vis their testimonies
ought to be upheld as a matter of course because of its direct, immediate and firsthand opportunity to
observe the deportment of witnesses as they delivered their testimonies in open court. Thus, the trial
court’s findings bearing on the credibility of witnesses on these matters are invariably binding and
conclusive upon the appellate court unless of course, there is a showing that the trial court had overlooked,
misapprehended or misconstrued some fact or circumstance of weight or substance, or had failed to
accord or assign such fact or circumstance its due import or significance.
RENATO S. MARTINEZ, petitioner, vs. JOSE MARIA V. ONGSIAKO, respondent.
March 15, 2017
G.R. No. 209057

Case Nature: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

Syllabi Class: Remedial Law ; Evidence ; Perpetuation of Testimony ;

Syllabi:

1. Remedial Law; Evidence; Perpetuation of Testimony; In proceedings for the perpetuation of testimony,
the right to cross-examine a deponent is an even more vital part of the procedure.-

—In proceedings for the perpetuation of testimony, the right to cross-examine a deponent is an even
more vital part of the procedure. In fact, the Revised Rules on Evidence provide that depositions
previously taken are only admissible in evidence against an adverse party who had the opportunity to
cross-examine the witness. Because depositions are an exception to the general rule on the inadmissibility
of hearsay testimony, the process of cross-examination is an important safeguard against false statements.
As the Court explained in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 648 SCRA 47 (2011): The function of cross-
examination is to test the truthfulness of the statements of a witness made on direct examination. The
opportunity of cross-examination has been regarded as an essential safeguard of the accuracy and
completeness of a testimony. In civil cases, the right of cross-examination is absolute, and is not a mere
privilege of the party against whom a witness may be called. This right is available, of course, at the taking
of depositions, as well as on the examination of witnesses at the trial. The principal justification for the
general exclusion of hearsay statements and for the admission, as an exception to the hearsay rule, of
reported testimony taken at a former hearing where the present adversary was afforded the opportunity
to cross-examine, is based on the premise that the opportunity of cross-examination is an essential
safeguard against falsehoods and frauds.
BEVERLY ANNE C. YAP, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the REGIONAL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), respondent.
March 15, 2017
G.R. No. 199810

Case Nature: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

Syllabi Class: Remedial Law ; Evidence ; Burden of Proof ;

Syllabi:

1. Remedial Law; Evidence; Burden of Proof; Time and again, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the
burden of proof to establish the status of a purchaser and registrant in good faith lies upon the one who
asserts it.-

—Time and again, the Court has ruled that the burden of proof to establish the status of a purchaser and
registrant in good faith lies upon the one who asserts it. This onus probandi cannot be discharged by mere
invocation of the legal presumption of good faith. It must be emphasized that aside from the fact that a
notice of lis pendens was already annotated on OCT No. P-11182 even before Yap and Villamor purchased
the subject property, it was also established that when they did so, the said property was still registered
in the name of Pagarigan since the Bank did not consolidate its title thereto. Stated simply, Yap and
Villamor purchased the subject property not from the registered owner.
NICOLAS VELASQUEZ and VICTOR VELASQUEZ, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
March 15, 2017
G.R. No. 195021

Case Nature: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

Syllabi Class: Remedial Law ; Evidence ; Witnesses ;

Syllabi:

1. Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Witnesses cannot be expected to recollect with exactitude every
minute detail of an event.-

—Jurisprudence is replete with clarifications that a witness’ recollection of crime need not be foolproof:
“Witnesses cannot be expected to recollect with exactitude every minute detail of an event. This is
especially true when the witnesses testify as to facts which transpired in rapid succession, attended by
flurry and excitement.” This is especially true of a victim’s recollection of his or her own harrowing ordeal.
One who has undergone a horrifying and traumatic experience “cannot be expected to mechanically keep
and then give an accurate account” of every minutiae.
PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY (also known as PHILTRUST BANK), petitioner, vs. REDENTOR R. GABINETE,
SHANGRILA REALTY CORPORATION and ELISA T. TAN, respondents.
March 29, 2017
G.R. No. 216120

Case Nature: PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

Syllabi Class: Remedial Law ; Evidence ; Notarized Documents ; Public Documents ;

1. Same; Evidence; Forgery; Handwriting Experts; In Mendoza v. Fermin, 729 SCRA 219 (2014), the
Supreme Court (SC) emphasized that a finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimony of
handwriting experts and that the judge still exercises independent judgment on the issue of authenticity
of the signatures under scrutiny.-

—In Mendoza v. Fermin, 729 SCRA 219 (2014), this Court emphasized that a finding of forgery does not
depend entirely on the testimony of handwriting experts and that the judge still exercises independent
judgment on the issue of authenticity of the signatures under scrutiny.

2. Same; Same; Same; Burden of Proof; One who alleges forgery has the burden to establish his case by
a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which
is offered in opposition to it.-

—As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence,
the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. One who alleges forgery has the burden to establish
his case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than
that which is offered in opposition to it. In this case, the respondent was not able to prove the fact that
his signature was forged.
LYDIA LAVAREZ, MARGARITA LAVAREZ, WILFREDO LAVAREZ, GREGORIO LAVAREZ, LOURDES LAVAREZ-
SALVACION, NORLIE LAVAREZ,** G.J. LAVAREZ, GIL LAVAREZ, and GAY NATALIE LAVAREZ, petitioners,
GODOFREDO LAVAREZ, LETICIA LAVAREZ, LUIS LAVAREZ, REMEDIOS V. ZABALLERO, JOSEPHINE V.
ZABALLERO, FERNANDO V. ZABALLERO, VALENTA V. ZABALLERO, MILAGROS Z. VERGARA, VALETA Z.
REYES, AMADO R. ZABALLERO, EMMANUEL R. ZABALLERO, and FLORENTINO R. ZABALLERO, petitioners,
vs. ANGELES S. GUEVARRA, AUGUSTO SEVILLA, JR., ASTERIA S. YRA, ANTONIO SEVILLA, ALBERTO
SEVILLA, ADELINA S. ALVAREZ, ARISTEO SEVILLA and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LUCENA CITY,
respondents.
March 29, 2017
G.R. No. 206103

Case Nature: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

Syllabi Class: Remedial Law ; Evidence ; Witnesses ;

Syllabi:

1. Same; Same; Same; Settled is the rule that in assessing the credibility of witnesses, the Supreme Court
(SC) gives great respect to the evaluation of the trial court for it had the unique, opportunity to observe
the demeanor of witnesses and their deportment on the witness stand, an opportunity that is unavailable
to the appellate courts, which simply rely on the cold records of the case.-

—Findings of facts made by a trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect by an appellate
tribunal and, without a clear disregard of the evidence before it that can otherwise affect the results of
the case, those findings should not be ignored. Absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness, or
capriciousness committed by the lower court, its findings of facts are binding and conclusive upon the
Court. Settled is the rule that in assessing the credibility of witnesses, the Court gives great respect to the
evaluation of the trial court for it had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and
their deportment on the witness stand, an opportunity that is unavailable to the appellate courts, which
simply rely on the cold records of the case. The assessment by the trial court is even conclusive and binding
if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. Here,
the CA failed to show any presence of abuse, arbitrariness, or any clear disregard of evidence on the part
of the trial court when it gave full credence to Dr. Conde’s expert opinion.

2. Remedial Law; Evidence; Burden of Proof; Basic is the rule of actori incumbit onus probandi, or the
burden of proof lies with the plaintiff.-

—Basic is the rule of actori incumbit onus probandi, or the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. In other
words, upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts. Therefore, petitioners must
establish their case by a preponderance of evidence, that is, evidence that has greater weight, or is more
convincing than that which respondents offered in opposition to it. In civil cases, the one who alleges a
fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.
3. Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Expert Witness; The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily
rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case and when
common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effect.-

—As to Dr. Conde’s expert opinion, it is settled that the testimony of expert witnesses must be construed
to have been presented not to sway the court in favor of any of the parties, but to assist the court in the
determination of the issue before it. Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they
may place whatever weight they may choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the
case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial
court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions upon the witness stand,
the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor
of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he might be a paid witness, the relative opportunities for
study and observation of the matters about which he testifies, and any other matters which deserve to
illuminate his statements. The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered
by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly
fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effect. The problem of the credibility of the expert
witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling on such
is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLITO CLARO y MAHINAY, accused-appellant.
April 5, 2017
G.R. No. 199894

Case Nature: APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

Syllabi Class: Remedial Law ; Evidence ; Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt ;

Syllabi:

1. Same; Same; Same; Requiring proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt necessarily means that mere
suspicion of the guilt of the accused, no matter how strong, should not sway judgment against him.-

—Requiring proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt necessarily means that mere suspicion of the guilt of
the accused, no matter how strong, should not sway judgment against him. It further means that the
courts should duly consider every evidence favoring him, and that in the process the courts should
persistently insist that accusation is not synonymous with guilt; hence, every circumstance favoring his
innocence should be fully taken into account. That is what we must be do herein, for he is entitled to
nothing less.

3. Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; It is a time-honored tenet that the appreciation and assessment
by the trial judge of the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect primarily because the trial judge
personally observed the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses as to enable him or her to determine
whether they were telling the truth or merely fabricating it.-

—It is a time-honored tenet that the appreciation and assessment by the trial judge of the credibility of
witnesses are accorded respect primarily because the trial judge personally observed the conduct and
demeanor of the witnesses as to enable him or her to determine whether they were telling the truth or
merely fabricating it. Another tenet of long standing is that the factual findings of the CA affirming those
of the trial judge are generally binding upon the Court, which is not a trier of facts. Based on these tenets,
it would be easy to simply affirm the conviction of the accused herein especially considering that both the
RTC and the CA regarded AAA as a credible witness whose testimony was worthy of belief.

5. Remedial Law; Evidence; Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt; In every criminal case, the accused is
entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.-

—In every criminal case, the accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable
doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of
error, produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DENR, REGION VI,
ILOILO CITY, petitioner, vs. VALENTINA ESPINOSA, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF NEGROS
OCCIDENTAL, LEONILA CALISTON, and SPOUSES DIOSCORO & ESTRELLA ESCARDA, respondents.
April 5, 2017
G.R. No. 186603

Case Nature: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

Syllabi Class: Remedial Law ; Evidence ; Formal Offer of Evidence ;

Syllabi:

1. Same; Same; Same; As part of fair play and due process, the State is as bound by the rules on formal
offer of evidence as much as every private party is.-

—These principles laid down in SAAD Agro-Industries, Inc. v. Republic, 503 SCRA 522 (2006), undoubtedly
apply here. As part of fair play and due process, the State is as bound by the rules on formal offer of
evidence as much as every private party is. More, the State’s subsequent reclassification of the area where
the property is situated cannot be used to defeat the rights of a private citizen who acquired the land in
a valid and regular proceeding conducted 24 years earlier.

2. Remedial Law; Evidence; Formal Offer of Evidence; The rules require that documentary evidence must
be formally offered in evidence after the presentation of testimonial evidence, and it may be done orally,
or if allowed by the court, in writing.-

—The rules require that documentary evidence must be formally offered in evidence after the
presentation of testimonial evidence, and it may be done orally, or if allowed by the court, in writing. Due
process requires a formal offer of evidence for the benefit of the adverse party, the trial court, and the
appellate courts. This gives the adverse party the opportunity to examine and oppose the admissibility of
the evidence. When evidence has not been formally offered, it should not be considered by the court in
arriving at its decision. Not having been offered formally, it was error for the trial court to have considered
the survey map. Consequently, it also erred in ordering the reversion of the property to the mass of the
public domain on the basis of the same.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GEORGE GACUSAN, accused-appellant.
April 26, 2017
G.R. No. 207776

Case Nature: APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

Syllabi Class: Criminal Law ; Rape ; Evidence ; Hymenal Lacerations ;

1. Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Different people react differently to a given type of situation, and
there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling
or frightful experience.-

—[D]ifferent people react differently to a given type of situation, and there is no standard form of human
behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.” One person
may react aggressively, while another may show cold indifference. Also, it is improper to judge the actions
of children who are victims of traumatic experiences “by the norms of behavior expected under the
circumstances from mature people.” From AAA’s view, it appeared that the danger of losing a family was
more excruciating than physical pain.