64 FRANCISCO VS PEOPLE He did not transact with Pacita regarding Jovita’s missing jewels.
He did not know Jovita and met her only during the preliminary
Ernesto Francisco was charged with violating ANTI FENCING
LAW.
VERSION OF PROSECUTION (state):
JOVITA Rodriguez was a general contractor under the business
name JC Rodriguez Contractors. MACARIO Linghon was one of her
workers.
She and her husband (former Municipal Mayor of Rizal) had
several pieces of JEWELRY placed inside a locked cabinet in a
locked room in their main house.
Jovita hid the key inside the room. They resided inside a
compound and hired PACITA Linghon (Macario’s sister) as one of
their household helpers but she left later.
A month later, PACITA contacted her brother and asked him to sell
some pieces of jewelry. She said her friend owned the jewelry.
Thus, Macario went to the shop of Ernesto Francisco with a poster
that said “WE BUY GOLD”. Macario offered to sell 2 rings and 1
bracelet. Ernesto agreed to buy for P25K and gave additional
P300 as tip.
Later, she asked him again to sell a pair of earrings. He agreed.
They went against to Ernesto who bought it at P18K and gave
P200 as tip. There were about 5 to 6 more transactions that
transpired between them.
Later, JOVITA was asked to be a principal sponsor at a wedding.
She was shocked when she opened the locked cabinet with her
jewelry and found that the box was empty. She also noticed that
the lock was not broken. Among those missing were her heart-
shaped diamond heart-shaped earrings, heart-shaped diamond
ring, white gold bracelet with diamond stones. She suspected
PANCITA, however she was preoccupied by her business.
Later next year, she filed a complaint for THEFT against Pacita and
her mother before the PNP CAMP CRAME.
Thus, Pacita and her mother were investigated without counsel
and gave a sworn statement pointing to ERNESTO as the person
to whom she sold the jewelry to cover the cost of her father’s
operation and for food. However she knew Ernesto to be “Mang
Erning” only. So, accompanied by Pacita, the team went to
Ernesto’s shop, invited him for questioning. He was brought at the
police station in Meycauayan upon his insistence. While there,
Ernesto BRIBED them with P5K not to implicate him. It was
denied.
PACITA was charged with QUALIFIED THEFT, her mother was also
charged with ANTI-FENCING LAW violation.
MEANWHILE, Jovita succeeded in convincing Macario in testifying
against Ernesto.
Jovita executed a sworn statement charging Ernesto for violation
of PD 1612. The court issued a warrant for his arrest.
MEANWHILE, the case against Pacita and her mother was decided
against them.
VERSION OF ERNESTO:
investigation. He denied knowing Pacita and saw her only when
accompanied by policemen to his shop. That he had no transaction
with Macario. He testified that when the police came, they asked
who “Mang Erning” was as the shop sign carried the name. When
he responded, they introduced themselves. He gave them his full
name.
HE was found GUILTY.
ISSUE: CA erred in relying on the conflicting testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses all of which consisted of hearsay evidence.
 That there was failure to present Pacita as prosecution
witness to prove that she stole the jewelry and sold it to
him.
 that the testimonies of Macario and the police officer on
Jovita’s complaint for theft are hearsay
 assuming Macario sold them to him, Macario had no
personal knowledge they belonged to Jovita
 the testimony of Macario is inconsistent thus, should not
be given credence
OSG maintains that prosecution was able to prove elements of PD
1612.
 pacita’s conviction for theft
 Macario identifying Ernesto as the one who bought the
jewelry corroborated by the police officer
 Ernesto had been in the business of buying and selling
jewelry for a long time and had expertise to know the
correct market price of jewelry
 Ernesto must’ve been put on guard when the jewelry
worth PP655K were sold only for P50K.
SC HELD:
Elements of Anti-Fencing:
1. robbery or theft was committed
2. accused, not a principal or accomplice in robbery or
theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires,
conceals, sells or disposes or deals with articles or
objects of value derived from the proceeds of the crime
of robbery or theft.
3. accused knew or should have known them to have been
derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft
4. on the part of accused, there is intent to gain for himself
or for another
Fencing is malum prohibitum, and creates a prima facie
presumption of FENCING from the evidence of possession of such
items. The stolen property is not indispensable to prove the crime,
but merely corroborative of the testimonies adduced by the
prosecution.
AS TO FIRST ELEMENT, based on the testimony of Jovita, she
narrated that her former EE had access to the cabinet and owned
the jewelry. HOWEVER, her conviction is not proof that she stole
the jewelry. There is no showing that the decision in the said
criminal charge was already final and executory when the court
rendered its decision in this case.
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE (Acts or declarations of a person
are not admissible in evidence against a 3rd party)
The testimony that Pacita sold the jewelry to Ernesto is
inadmissible to prove the TRUTH of admission. Ernesto was not a
party in the criminal case for theft.
The rule is that only parties to a case are bound by a judgment of
the trial court. Strangers are not bound by a judgment of said
case. Jovita did not reiterate her testimony in the criminal cases.
Prosecution did not present Pacita to testify, thus, Ernesto was not
able to cross-examine Pacita.
THIRD, the testimony of the police officer that Pacita pointed to
Ernesto as the one who bought the jewelry while he was having a
drinking spree is ADMISSIBLE to prove the fact that the statement
was made but INADMISSIBLE to prove the truth of Pacita’s
declaration to the police that Ernesto bought the jewelry.
 police had no personal knowledge of sale
 Pacita did not testify
IN SUM, the only evidence of the prosecution to prove that
Ernesto bought the jewelry are the ff:
 testimony and affidavit of the police officer
 testimony of Macario during the preliminary investigation
and trial in the court a quo
Although testimony of a single witness is sufficient on which to
anchor a judgment of conviction, it is required that such testimony
be CREDIBLE AND RELIABLE. The testimony of Macario is
dubious, barren of probative weight.
 Macario admitted that his testimony in the court a quo
and the preliminary investigation were inconsistent
 admitted that some portions in his testimony on direct
examination were inconsistent with testimony on re-
direct examination
Preliminary Investigation Direct Examination
He and his sister sold 2 rings He and his sister sold earrings
and 1 bracelet for 25K on for 18K on May.
October, and earrings for 25K
on November
Cross Examination Further cross examination
He and his sister went to He sold the jewelry for 18K
Ernesto’s shop and sold the not 25K only to change it
jewelry again to 25K.
Preliminary Investigation Re-Direct Examination
When he transacted with On October, he and his sister
Ernesto the 2nd time, he was sold 4 pcs of jewelry – 2
with a friend not his sister rings, 1 bracelet, 1 earring
pair contrary to direct
examination
The testimonies are even contrary to the averment that Ernesto
received them from Pancita.
Assuming that Ernesto bought them from Macario, there is no
evidence that Ernesto KNEW they were stolen, even Macario did
not know they were stolen. Pancita only told him that they
belonged to a friend.
An ordinary witness cannot establish the value of the
jewelry, nor may the courts take judicial notice of the
value
The value of jewelry is not a matter of public knowledge not is it
capable of unquestionable demonstration. In the absence of
receipts or any other competent evidence, the court cannot award
the reparation based on their actual value.
63 MANLICLIC & PHIL RABBIT BUS LINES VS CALAUNAN
Vehicles involved are:
1. PH Rabbit Bus owned by PRBL driven by Manliclic
2. owner-type jeep owned by Calaunan
Calaunan, with Mendoza, was on his way to Manila from
Pangasinan on board an owner-type jeep. The Rabbit Bus was also
bound for Manila from Tarlac. The two vehicles COLLIDED. The
impact caused the jeep to move to the shoulder and fall on a ditch
with water. Calaunan suffered minor injuries while his driver was
unhurt.
Due to this, a criminal case was filed charging Manliclic with
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE resulting in Damage to Property with
Physical Injuries. A complaint for DAMAGES was subsequently field
against Manliclic and PRBL.
In the criminal case, among those who testified were Calaunan,
Mendoza and Fernando Ramos.
Tuliao testified that his brother-in-law, Calaunan, left for abroad
and has not returned since then. Ramos took the stand and said
that his brother, Fernando Ramos, left for Jordan to work. The
wife of Mendoza testified that her husband left their residence to
look for a job, she even returned to her husband’s hometown but
was informed that he did not go there.
TC subpoenaed the Clerk in the court of Criminal case to bring the
TSN and other documentary evidence. It was the court interpreter
who appeared before the court and identified the TSNs and other
documents to be adopted in the civil case. Counsel for Calaunan
wanted to mark other TSNs and documents from the criminal case
but since they were not brought to the TC, Calaunan’s counsel
compromised them to be offered by counsel for respondent as
rebuttal evidence.
For DEFENDANTS (Manliclic and conductor, Buan), the testimony
of the investigator of the PRBL in the criminal case was marked
and allowed to be adopted in the civil case on the ground that he
is already dead.
VERSIONS differed on the manner the collision took place.
JEEP – jeep was cruising at the speed of 60-70kph on the slow
lane of the expressway when the bus overtook the jeep and in the
process, the bus hit the jeep.
Ramos and Mendoza corroborated the testimony. Ramos said he
was on another jeep following the bus and the jeep. The jeep
overtook them and was followed by the bus which was running
very fast. The bus then overtook the jeep in which he was riding.
BUS – Manliclic and Buan admitted that the bus bumped the jeep.
However, when the bus was about to overtake, the jeep swerved
to the left because it was about to overtake the jeep in front of it.
THE TC decided in favor of Calaunan and against Manliclic and
PRBL.
ISSUE: TSN containing the testimonies of Calaunan, Mendoza,
Ramos should not be admitted in evidence for failure to comply
with requisites in Sec 47, Rule 130 ROC.
For a testimony given in a former case to be admissible in
a present case as an exception to the Hearsay Rule:
Sec 47, Rule 130 REQUISITES:
1. witness is dead or unable to testify
2. testimony or deposition was given in a former case or
proceeding (judicial or administrative) between the same
parties or those representing the same interests
3. former case involved the same subject as that in the
present case, although on different causes of action
4. issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the
same issue involved in the present case
5. adverse party had an opportunity to cross examine the
witness in the former case
There was failure to show the concurrence of all requisites.
 PRBL was not a party in the former case, and had no
opportunity to cross examine the 3 witnesses. The
criminal case was exclusively filed against Manliclic. This
case pertains to ER’s vicarious liability.
Notwithstanding the fact that PRBL was not a party, the
testimonies are still ADMISSIBLE on the ground of failure to
object.
Objection shall be made at the time when an alleged inadmissible
document is offered in evidence; OW, the objection shall be
treated as waived, since the right to object is merely a privilege
which a party may waive. Thus, it shall be treated like any other
evidence.
PRLB did not object in the criminal case when they were offered in
evidence in the TC. In fact, the TSNs of the testimonies were
admitted by both petitioners. Further, it even offered the
testimony of Ganiban given in the criminal case. To disallow
admission of the TSN of the testimonies of Calauan, Mendoza and
Ramos and admit the testimony of Ganiban would be unfair.
FURTHER, it is too late in the day for PRBL to raise denial of due
process in relation to Sec 47, Rule 130 as a ground for objecting
the admissibility of the TSNs. For failure to object at the proper
time, it waived its right to object that the TSNs did not comply
with Sec 47.
“won the documents in the criminal case should not be admitted
since sec 47 refers only to testimony/deposition” UNTENABLE.
Though it speaks of testimony and deposition, it does not mean
that documents of a former case cannot be admitted. Documents
are admissible they being part of the testimonies of witnesses that
have been admitted.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Version of Manliclic as to how the collision occurred is more
credible.
This is anchored on Manliclic’s acquittal on the charge of Reckless
Imprudence resulting in damage to property with physical injuries
in the CA.
NOTE: the acquittal was based on the ground that he is not the
author of the act complained of.
 extinction of penal does not carry with it the extinction of
the civil action unless the extinction proceeds from a
declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which
the civil case might arise did not exist.
THUS, Manliclic can still be held liable for the mishap. The section
only applies to a civil action arising from a crime and not to a civil
action arising from quasi-delict.
The extinction of civil liability referred to is only to civil
liability founded on Art 100 RPC whereas civil liability for the
same act considered as a QD only and not as a crime is not
extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the
criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed
by the accused. THUS acquittal even if based on a finding that he
is not guilty, does not carry with it the extinction of civil liability
based on QD.
HOWEVER, if the acquittal is based on the fact that he was not the
author of the crime or that the fact from which the civil case might
arise did not exist, this CLOSES the door to civil liability based on
the crime. In which case, the CIVIL ACTION may be instituted on
grounds other than the delict complained of.
Responsibility from fault or negligence in QD is entirely separate
from civil liability arising from negligence under RPC.
Next is discussion on ER’s vicarious liability WON it adduced
sufficient proof to show that it exercised due diligence in S & S.
62 CARMELITA & RODOLFO TAN VS CA & FRANCISCO TAN
C and R Tan, thru their mother, Celestina Daldo as guardian ad
litem sued Francisco Tan for ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND SUPPORT.
Celestina Daldo, after the Tans have presented documentary
evidence and about to rest the case, moved to DISMISS the case
on the ground that the parties had entered into an AMICABLE
SETTLEMENT and prayed that it be dismissed with prejudice and
without recourse of appeal.
Same day, Celestina Daldo subscribed to an AFFIDAVIT
categorically stating that Francisco Tan is NOT the father of her
minor children Carmelita and Rodolfo but another person whose
name she cannot divulge. That she executed the affidavit precisely
to record the truth and to correct any misrepresentation may arise
in the future. CFI DISMISSED THE CASE.
1 year and 8 months after the dismissal, same petitioners filed for
ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND SUPPORT before the Juvenile &
Domestic Relations Court thru their maternal grandfather,
Servillano Daldo, involving the same parties, causes of action, and
subject matter.
This was dismissed by the Domestic Relations Court on the ground The loose character of the mother who admittedly lived
of RES JUDICATA. Parties moved to reconsider, which was and begotten children from several men of different
granted. nationalities, cannot be overlooked.

It held that Carmelita and Rodolfo are the ILLEGITIMATE PNOC SHIPPING & TRANSPORT CORP VS CA AND MARIA
CHILDREN of Francisco Tan. Tan appealed before the CA. EFIGENIA FISHING CORPORATION

CA REVERSED the decision and dismissed the complaint.

Petitioners appeal by way of certiorari in forma pauperis.

SC HELD:
The controlling statute is Sec 41. Rule 130.
TESTIMONY AT A FORMER TRIAL – testimony of a witness
deceased or out of the Philippines or unable to testify, given in a
former case between the same parties, relating to the same
matter, the adverse party having had an opportunity to cross
examine him may be given in evidence.

The witnesses at the former trial were subpoenaed by the JDRC a

number of times but they did not appear to testify. Their
subsequent refusal to appear at the second trial or their hostility
DOES NOT AMOUNT TO INABILITY TO TESTIFY such inability
proceeding from a grace cause, almost amounting to death, as
when the witness is old or has lost the power of speech.

Here, the witnesses were available. They just refused to testify.

The petitioners could have secured other remedies like arrest or
contempt.

There is no danger here of tampering with witnesses it is often a

problem in case of trials; issue on “buying” witnesses is not in the
non-enforcement of Sec 41, Rule 130.

MERITS –
C and R tried to prove that Celestina Daldo and Francisco Tan
lived together as husband and wife for more than 8 years. C and R
are allegedly fruits of their cohabitation. Francisco denies this
averring that he is a married man with several children.

Celestina, by her own admission, had been a nursemaid in

Francisco’s residence but only for a short period not less than 1
year in 1939. Carmelita was born in 1942 and Rodolfo in 1944.
Further, Celestina executed an affidavit where she deposed that
Francisco was not the father but another person ( note that this
was executed after the petitioners had finished their oral and
documentary evidence and were about to submit the case, when
the counsel had a grasp of the situation).

The evidence of petitioners fall short of the clear strong and

convincing evidence requirement, in view of the ff:
1. The former testimonies of witnesses are inadmissible
2. the baptismal certificates are not admissible proofs of
filiation to prove the dates of birth considering that the
period of cohabitation or intimate relations between their
mother and Francisco has been denied and not
satisfactorily proved (date of birth is material only if it
coincides with the period of cohabitation as admitted).p
3. The birth certificate are inadmissible when the alleged
illegitimate father did not sign under oath
4. oral evidence consisting of testimonies of the grandfather
and of the mother are unsatisfactory as it is inconsistent.