The testimony of Carlos P. Rivera, Jr.

is implausible

On 27 January 2017, Carlos P. Rivera, Jr. (Rivera for brevity) was presented as a witness by the
prosecution to prove that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 19 December 1981 was duly notarized and
reported by Atty. Mejia, as the notary public. During his testimony, he made an affirmation that a copy
of said document exists in the record book of Atty. Mejia for the year 1981. He even continued by saying
that a Certification dated 14 December 2001 was issued to confirm the existence of said Deed of Sale in
the notarial record of Atty. Mejia. The Certification was signed by him, as the Administrative Officer I of
the Notarial Unit of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, and by Atty.
Grace S. Belvis, the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. However, his testimony is
implausible.

First, Rivera is not the custodian of the notarial records, but the Clerk of Court, Atty. Grace S. Belvis,
hence, it is only the latter who can be considered as a credible witness, and a relevant public officer who
can testify on the matter. In his Judicial Affidavit, he even admitted that he is not the custodian of the
records and he only files and verifies the notarized documents. A portion of the Judicial Affidavit dated
18 January 2017, reads as follows:

“Q17: In the Certificate, Exhibit “L”, it is stated that the document was compared with the
copy on file with the Office. Who is the custodian of the copies on file with the Office?

A: Atty. Belvis, but I am the one who files and verifies the notarized documents.”

More importantly, Rivera lied under oath when he stated in his Judicial Affidavit that a copy of the Deed
of Absolute Sale was attached in the file of Atty. Mejia’s Notarial Report for the months of November
and December 1981. A pertinent portion of the Judicial Affidavit is quoted as follows:

“Q22: How was the Office copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale kept in your office?

A: It was attached in the file of Atty. Ismael Mejia’s report for the months of November and
December 1981, January, February up to March 1982.”

This is contrary to the document issued by Clerk of Court Grace S. Belvis on 30 April 2003, certifying that
Atty. Mejia did not submit his Notarial Register/Loose Leaf for the Month of November and December
1981. Specifically, the Certification reads as follows:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that according to the records of this Office, ATTY. ISMAEL F. MEJIA was appointed
Notary Public for the Province of Rizal for the year 1981 under Appt. 400 (80-81).
This is to further certify that the said Notary Public did not submit his Notarial Register/Loose leaf for
the Month of November and December, 1981.”

Similarly, in a Certification issued by the National Archives of the Philippines, it confirmed that there is
no copy on file with the said Office of the same Deed of Sale, and based on the notarial record Doc No.
101, Page No. 22, Book No. IV, Series of 1981 refers to a Bidders Bond executed by and between Cesar
Sarausad and Ricardo Manaloto. Said Certification reads as follows:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that no copy is on file with this Office of a DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE,
allegedly executed by TACLOBAN CITY ICE PLANT, INC., in favor of UNIVERSAL BROADCASTING
CORPORATION, ratified on December 15, 1981 before ISMAEL MEJIA, a notary public for and within
Mandaluyong, Metro Manila and acknowledged as Doc. No. 101, Page No. 22, Book No. IV, Series of
1981.

However, research shows that Doc. No. 101, Page No. 22, Book No. IV, Series of 1981 in the
notarial record of the above-mentioned Notary Public in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila refers to a Bidders
Bond executed by and between Cesar Sarausad and Ricardo Manaloto, ratified on December 16, 1981
and is available in our files as a notarial entry only.”

Assuming arguendo that Rivera did not lie when he affirmed the existence of the Deed of Sale in the
Notarial Register of Atty. Mejia, still his testimony cannot be given weight as against the certifications
issued by the Clerk of Court and National Archives denying the existence of the Deed of Sale in their
records. It is a rule in this jurisdiction that testimonial evidence cannot prevail over documentary evidence.
(Romago Electric Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 388 Phil. 964, 976 (2000)

Eugenia Abania is not a competent witness

It is a basic rule in evidence that a witness can testify only on the facts that he knows of his own personal
knowledge, like those which are derived from his own perception.26 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.27 Hearsay evidence is evidence, not of what the
witness knows himself but, of what he has heard from others; it is not only limited to oral testimony or
statements but likewise applies to written statements, such as affidavits.28 Any evidence, whether oral or
documentary, is hearsay if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness.

Eugenia Abania (Abania for brevity) cannot be considered as a competent witness primarily because she has
no personal knowledge on the sale that allegedly transpired between Tacloban City Ice Plant, Inc. and
Universal Broadcasting Corporation. According to her, she became the President of UBC on 14 October 1991,
on the other hand, the alleged sale happened on 08 February 1980, while the Deed of Sale was allegedly
executed on 15 December 1981. She cannot testify on events she did not personally see or witness or those
which were merely relayed to her. She even admitted that the first time she saw the Deed of Sale dated 15
December 2017 was when she became the president of UBC in 1991. She also avowed in having no
knowledge in circumstances relative to the notarization of said deed. The relevant portion of the testimony of
Abania reads as follows:

“Q: This Exhibit “F” has been always with UBC from the time this document was signed up to the present?

A: Yes.

Q: And of course UBS was the one who notarized because that document was with UBC for a long time.
Am I correct?

A: I am not sure who made the notarization because at that time I was not yet at the UBC.

Q: When for the first time did you see Exhibit “F”?

A: When I became the president in 1991.”