November 22, 2017

G.R. No. 204289

FERNANDO MANCOL, JR vs. DBP

MSr represented and negotiated on behalf of MJr in a bid held by DBP over a residential lot in
Calbayog City. During the negotiations, DBP officials allegedly agreed, albeit verbally, to: (1) arrange and
effect the transfer of title of the lot in petitioner's name, including the payment of capital gains tax (CGT);
and (2) to get rid of the occupants of the subject property. After the full payment, DBP executed a Deed
of Absolute Sale. MJr then made a deposit with DBP for the payment of the CGT and documentary stamp
tax. DBP acknowledged the deposit and issued an O.R.
Years later, DBP reneged on its undertaking based on the oral agreement, returned to the
petitioner all the pertinent documents of the sale and issued a Manager's Check. MJr filed a Complaint for
damages for breach of contract against DBP before the RTC of Calbayog City. DBP answered that the terms
of the Deed of Absolute Sale stated no condition that DBP will work on the document of transfer and to
eject the occupants thereon. During trial, V testified that he was the one ordered by the DBP to bring the
necessary documents to BIR-Catbalogan. MSr testified that after the execution and delivery of the Deed
of Absolute Sale, DBP verbally agreed to facilitate the transfer of the title, the payment of the CGT, and to
cause the vacation of the occupants of the house and lot. Should the testimonies of witnesses, V and MSr
be given probative value to establish the alleged contemporaneous verbal agreement in the sale contract?

Suggested Answer:
No.
It is a basic rule in evidence that a witness can testify only on the facts that he knows of his own
personal knowledge, i.e., those which are derived from his own perception. A witness may not testify on
what he merely learned, read or heard from others because such testimony is considered hearsay and
may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned, read or heard.
Guided by these precepts, V's testimony falls within the category of hearsay evidence. Contrary
to petitioner's claim, Villanueva had no personal inkling as to the contemporaneous verbal agreement
between petitioner and DBP. In fact, there was no such verbal agreement. As admitted by the MJr, the
alleged verbal agreement was entered into between DBP and MSr, by virtue of the SPA. V has no personal
knowledge of such fact.
November 22, 2017
G.R. No. 218570
BEN MANANGAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

BM together with 5 unknown accused, conspiring, confederating together and helping one
another, all armed with assorted firearms, with intent to gain and by means of force and intimidation
against person, that is: by poking their firearms towards the persons of OD and members of his family and
at gun point, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stole cash money belonging to the said OD, against his
will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner.
OD’s wife JD testified and positively identified BM stating that they heard BM, their nephew called
his husband from outside their house. When she opened the front door, the armed group of about six,
wearing masks, instructed her to cook. After eating, the remaining three wearing masks asked for their
money, threatening to kill them if they don’t heed. After giving the money, the armed group left. Another
family member FD testified as well as positively identified BM saying she helped JD cooked and confirming
facts stated by JD. Is the contention that BM’s participation in the act was proven based on lackadaisical
application of circumstantial evidence, correct?

Suggested Answer:
No.
Direct evidence is different from circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is evidence which, if
believed, proves the existence of a fact in issue without inference or presumption. It is evidence from a
witness who actually saw, heard, or touched the subject of questioning. On the other hand, circumstantial
evidence is evidence that "indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference which the factfinder draws
from the evidence established."
In this case, the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses constitute direct evidence that proved the
corpus delicti of the crime of robbery by a band because both were actually at the scene of the crime.
They saw with their own eyes that a group of armed and masked men led by the unmasked petitioner
entered their house, ate their food, robbed them and left. The prosecution proved the corpus delicti
because all of the elements of the crime of robbery by a band were proven beyond reasonable doubt. It
was proven that petitioner, a member of the band, was liable for his acts because the requisites for such
crime concurred.
November 22, 2017
G.R. No. 227069
HILARIO LAMSEN, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

AdC died leaving a parcel of a land to her nieces T and C as surviving heirs. When T looked for the
owner’s duplicate title of the subject property it was allegedly nowhere to be found. T executed an
affidavit of loss, which was annotated on the title on file with the RD. T also filed a petition for the issuance
of second owner's duplicate copy before the RTC. The petition was dismissed on the basis of the
opposition of L, who claimed that the original copy of the owner's duplicate title could not have been lost
because it was with him. L requested for a registration of a deed of sale involving the subject property but
later withdrew all the papers. T obtained a certified true copy of the deed of sale and submitted it to the
PNP for examination. Document Examiner II B confirmed that the subject deed was indeed falsified. L
interposed a defense of denial and added that the subject deed was executed, signed, and notarized by
spouses AdC and NT. Is the crime of falsification or forgery present as established by clear, positive and
convincing evidence?

Suggested Answer:
No.
The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature
and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized to have been forged.
Under Rule 132, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, the genuineness of handwriting may be proved in the
following manner: (1) by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has
seen the person write; or he has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or
been charged; (2) by a comparison, made by the witness 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. As against direct evidence consisting of the testimony of a witness who was physically
present at the signing of the contract and who had personal knowledge thereof, the testimony of an
expert witness constitutes indirect or circumstantial evidence at best.
In this case, the prosecution presented an expert witness, B, to prove its allegation of falsification
or forgery. The prosecution failed to present the original copy of the subject deed in court, it likewise did
not provide ample proof that the same was lost, destroyed, or in the custody or under the control of L.
Since mere photocopies of the subject deed were used to examine the questioned and standard
signatures of the spouses no valid comparison can be had between them, thereby rendering B's
declaration inconclusive to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against L
November 8, 2017
G.R. No. 226158
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LIBERA TO PENTECOSTES y CRONICO

L together with A the father of V, as well as 4 other people had a drinking spree at A’s house.
About 2 hours after the drinking ended, L was seen by AV and J carrying V on his back appearing to be
headed towards a nearby body of water. Later that day, with V still missing A her father began searching
for her with the help of some relatives and barangay tanod, but to no avail. The next day, V’s lifeless body
was recovered near the house of J. All those present during the drinking spree were summoned and
investigated by the police. But when L’s turn came, he ran away. V’s cause of death was declared as
drowning. L later gave inconsistent statements as his alibi denying his knowledge of V’s existence, only
knowing her with A asked for his help in searching for her but claimed he saw V with one of the people
drinking with him and A. Does the circumstantial evidence sufficiently prove L’s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt?

Suggested Answer:
Yes.
Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not indispensable to criminal prosecutions; a
contrary rule would render convictions virtually impossible given that most crimes, by their very nature,
are purposely committed in seclusion and away from eyewitnesses. Thus, our rules on evidence and
jurisprudence allow the conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence alone, provided that
the following requisites concur:
(i) there is more than one circumstance;
(ii) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(iii) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.
The facts of the case provide that L was positively identified as the last person seen with Vivian
before she disappeared, the records disclose that Vivian's cause of death was drowning as he was seen
by AV and J carrying V on his back appearing to be headed towards a nearby body of water and he fled
during the investigation. Thus, proving that the evidence presented constituted proof beyond reasonable
doubt.
November 29, 2017
G.R. No. 203121
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GOLEM SOTA and AMIDAL GADJADLI

J, a minor, was awoken by S and G demanding food from her father A in the middle of the night.
As G was carrying a pistol, A was willing to comply on the condition that the food be handed through an
opening on the wall. The group started to burn the house and demanded that A open the door. When A
refused the group started to fire at the house hitting A. J then escaped to her brother’s house nearby. The
day after, J together with her brothers, returned to the house and went to the police station after where
she executed her affidavit. Is J a credible witness?

Suggested Answer:
Yes.
Under Rule 130, Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. -The
following persons cannot be witnesses:
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are
incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others;
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts
respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully.
In the case at bar, J's young age had no bearing on her qualification to testify on what happened
that night. As the rules show, anyone who is sensible and aware of a relevant event or incident, and can
communicate such awareness, experience, or observation to others can be a witness.