Evidence Feb 13

Catungal vs.
Hao have three material requisites: (1) the matter must

be one of common and general knowledge; (2) it
March 22, 2001
must be well and authoritatively settled and not
Kapunan, J. doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to
be within the limits of jurisdiction of the court. The
FACTS: RTC correctly took judicial notice of the nature of
The original owner, Aniana Galang, leased a three- the leased property subject of the case at bench
storey building to BPI. During the existence of the based on its location and the commercial viability.
lease, BPI subleased the ground floor of said The above quoted assessment by the RTC of the
building to respondent Doris Hao. Galang and Baclaran area, where the subject property is located,
respondent executed a contract of lease on the is fairly grounded.
second and third floors of the building. Invoking her RTC decision Reinstated.
right of first refusal purportedly based on the lease
contract between her and Aniana Galang,
respondent filed a complaint for Annulment of Sale
Landbank vs. Wycoco
with Damages. Upon expiration of the lease
agreements, petitioner spouses sent demand letters Jan. 13, 2004
to respondent for her to vacate the building. The
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
institution of the ejectment cases prompted
respondent to file an action for injunction to stop FACTS:
the MeTC from proceeding therewith pending the
settlement of the issue of ownership. The CA Land Bank caused to be published in the Philippine
reversed the RTC and dismissed the case. The Daily Inquirer, a newspaper of general circulation,
MeTC ordered the defendant Doris T. Hao who is in an "Invitation to Pre-Qualify," inviting reputable
actual possession of the property and all persons security agencies to pre-qualify for security guard
claiming rights under her to vacate the premises. services in the different LBP offices, properties and
The MeTC of Parañaque, after the reversal of the installations nationwide. Continental Watchmen
decision for injunction, proceeded with the trial of Agency Incorporated (CWAI), herein private
the ejectment cases. respondent, and other security agencies responded
to the invitation and participated in the public
ISSUE: Whether or not judicial notice can be bidding. After all the bids were opened and
applied in the case. evaluated, it turned out that private respondent was
the lowest bidder for those three areas. The Bid
HELD: YES. The RTC correctly applied and
Committee declared private respondent disqualified
construed the legal concept of judicial notice in the
because (1) its bid price was below the monthly
case at bench. Judicial knowledge may be defined
salary of a guard prescribed by the Philippine
as the cognizance of certain facts which a judge
Association of Detective and Protective Agency
under rules of legal procedure or otherwise may
Operators, Inc.; and (2) it violated petitioner's Bid
properly take or act upon without proof because
Bulletin No. 1 requiring that the bid price should
they are already known to him, or is assumed to
include night differential pay for all the guards.
have, by virtue of his office. Judicial cognizance is
Private respondent filed with the RTC, a petition for
taken only of those matters that are commonly
injunction and damages with a prayer for a
known. The power of taking judicial notice is to be
preliminary mandatory injunction against petitioner
exercised by courts with caution; care must be taken
LBP. The RTC issued a writ of preliminary
that the requisite notoriety exists; and every
injunction. The Court of Appeals issued its assailed
reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly
Decision dismissing the petition. e trial court
resolved in the negative. Matters of judicial notice
rendered a decision in favor of Wycoco. It ruled that
1 LPU LAW – EVIDENCE ; GARVIDA KMC
there is no need to present evidence in support of Hilario et. al vs. Salvador
the land valuation inasmuch as it is of public
April 29, 2005
knowledge that the prevailing market value of
agricultural lands sold in Licab, Nueva Ecija is from Callejo, Sr., J.
P135,000.00 to 150,000.00 per hectare. The court
thus took judicial notice thereof and fixed the FACTS:
compensation for the entire 94.1690 hectare land at Cesar, Ibarra, Nestor, Lina and Prescilla, all
P142,500.00 per hectare or a total of surnamed Hilario, filed a complaint with the RTC
P13,428,082.00. It also awarded Wycoco actual against private respondent Allan T. Salvador. That,
damages for unrealized profits plus legal interest. the plaintiffs are co-owners by inheritance from
ISSUE: Whether or not there is sufficient evidence, Concepcion Mazo Salvador of a parcel of land
when it was only based on the judicial notice of the which property was the hereditary share of their
value of the land. father, Brigido M. Hilario, Jr. when their father was
still single, and which adjudication was known by
HELD: NO. Inasmuch as the valuation of the the plaintiffs. That the defendant constructed his
property of Wycoco is the very issue in the case at dwelling unit of mixed materials on the property of
bar, the trial court should have allowed the parties the plaintiffs father without the knowledge of the
to present evidence thereon instead of practically herein plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest.
assuming a valuation without basis. While market That, demands have been made of the defendant to
value may be one of the bases of determining just vacate the premises but the latter manifested that he
compensation, the same cannot be arbitrarily have (sic) asked the prior consent of their
arrived at without considering the factors to be grandmother, Concepcion Mazo Salvador.
appreciated in arriving at the fair market value of Petitioners contended that the RTC had jurisdiction
the property e.g., the cost of acquisition, the current over the action since the court can take judicial
value of like properties, its size, shape, location, as notice of the market value of the property in
well as the tax declarations thereon. Since these question, which was P200.00 per square meter and
factors were not considered, a remand of the case considering that the property was 14,797 square
for determination of just compensation is necessary. meters, more or less, the total value thereof is
The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised P3,500,000.00. The petitioners opposed the motion.
by courts with caution especially where the case They contended that the RTC had jurisdiction over
involves a vast tract of land. Care must be taken that the action since the court can take judicial notice of
the requisite notoriety exists; and every reasonable the market value of the property in question, which
doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in was P200.00 per square meter and considering that
the negative. To say that a court will take judicial the property was 14,797 square meters, more or
notice of a fact is merely another way of saying that less, the total value thereof is P3,500,000.00.
the usual form of evidence will be dispensed with if Besides, according to the petitioners, the motion to
knowledge of the fact can be otherwise acquired. dismiss was premature and the proper time to
This is because the court assumes that the matter is interpose it is when the [petitioners] introduced
so notorious that it will not be disputed. But judicial evidence that the land is of such value. The trial
notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal court rendered judgment finding in favor of the
knowledge of the judge is not the judicial petitioners. The CA declared that the action of the
knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized to petitioners was one for the recovery of ownership
make his individual knowledge of a fact, not and possession of real property. Absent any
generally or professionally known, the basis of his allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of
action. Petition Dismissed. the property, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) had
exclusive jurisdiction over the action. The

petitioners maintain that the RTC has jurisdiction the United States some time in April 2000. The
since their action is an accion reinvindicatoria, an second dishonor occurred when petitioner Saludo
action incapable of pecuniary estimation; thus, used his principal credit card to pay his account at
regardless of the assessed value of the subject the Hotel Okawa in Tokyo, Japan while he was
property, exclusive jurisdiction falls within the said there with other delegates from the Philippines to
court. attend the Congressional Recognition in honor of
Mr. Hiroshi Tanaka. The dishonor of these AMEX
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC had jurisdiction
credit cards were allegedly unjustified as they
over the action of the petitioners.
resulted from respondents unilateral act of
HELD: YES. The jurisdiction of the court over an suspending petitioner Saludo's account for his
action involving title to or possession of land is now failure to pay its balance. Respondents filed an
determined by the assessed value of the said Opposition to Ex-Parte Motion (to Set Case for Pre-
property and not the market value thereof. The Trial) and Motion for Preliminary Hearing (on
assessed value of real property is the fair market Affirmative Defense of Improper Venue) to which
value of the real property multiplied by the petitioner Saludo filed his Comments and/or
assessment level. It is synonymous to taxable value. Objections to the Affirmative Defense of Improper
The fair market value is the price at which a Venue. He asserted that any allegation refuting his
property may be sold by a seller, who is not residency in Southern Leyte was baseless and
compelled to sell, and bought by a buyer, who is not unfounded considering that he was the congressman
compelled to buy. Even a cursory reading of the of the lone district thereof at the time of the filing of
complaint will show that it does not contain an his complaint. He urged the court a quo to take
allegation stating the assessed value of the property judicial notice of this particular fact. The RTC
subject of the complaint. The court cannot take found the allegations of the complaint sufficient to
judicial notice of the assessed or market value of constitute a cause of action against respondents. The
lands. Absent any allegation in the complaint of the appellate court rendered the assailed decision
assessed value of the property, it cannot thus be granting respondents petition for certiorari as it
determined whether the RTC or the MTC had found that venue was improperly laid. It directed
original and exclusive jurisdiction over the the court a quo to vacate and set aside its Orders. In
petitioners action. Petition Denied. holding that petitioner Saludo is not a resident of
Maasin City, Southern Leyte, the appellate court
referred to his community tax certificate, as
Saludo vs. American Express Int’l. Inc. indicated in his complaints verification and
certification of non-forum shopping, which was
April 19, 2006 issued at Pasay City.
Callejo, Sr., J. ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in not taking
FACTS: judicial notice of the undisputed fact that herein
petitioner is the incumbent congressman of the lone
Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr. filed a complaint for district of Southern Leyte and as such, he is a
damages against the American Express residence (sic) of said district.
International, Inc. (AMEX) and/or its officers. The
complaints cause of action stemmed from the HELD: YES. There is a difference between
alleged wrongful dishonor of petitioner Saludos domicile and residence. Residence is used to
AMEX credit card and the supplementary card indicate a place of abode, whether permanent or
issued to his daughter. The first dishonor happened temporary; domicile denotes a fixed permanent
when petitioner Saludo's daughter used her residence to which when absent, one has the
supplementary credit card to pay her purchases in intention of returning. A man may have a residence
in one place and a domicile in another. Residence is
not domicile, but domicile is residence coupled with Sasan vs NLRC
the intention to remain for an unlimited time. A man
FACTS:
can have but one domicile for one and the same
purpose at any time, but he may have numerous Sasan et al are employed by Helpmate, Inc (HI), a
places of residence. His place of residence generally janitorial and messengerial service provider, and
is his place of domicile, but is not by any means, assigned to E PCI Bank in Gorordo Branch, Cebu
necessarily so since no length of residence without City. Their services were cut off when EPCI
intention of remaining will constitute domicile. That decided to bid out the janitorial and messengerial
petitioner Saludo was the congressman or jobs to two other service providers. Sasan et al then
representative of the lone district of Southern Leyte filed an action for illegal dismissal alleging that
at the time of the filing of his complaint was they are regular employees of PCI, and HI has no
admitted as a fact by the court a quo. In this authority to dismiss them.
connection, it consequently held that, as such,
petitioner Saludos residence in Southern Leyte, the After submission of legal positions to the Labor
Arbiter, it concluded that HI is engaged in labor on
district he was the representing, could be taken
contracting as it operates without substantial capital
judicial notice of. The court a quo cannot be faulted
as required by the Labor Code, declaring PCI as the
for doing so because courts are allowed to take principal employer and awarding money claims to
judicial notice of matters which are of public the employees for their illegal dismissal.
knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable
demonstration, or ought to be known to judges PCI and Hi appealed the LA's decision to the NLRC
because of their judicial functions. Courts are and submitted for the first time photocopy of
likewise bound to take judicial notice, without the documents proving that they have sufficient capital
introduction of evidence, of the law in force in the to operate as an independent contractor. The NLRC
Philippines, including its Constitution. The concept modified the LA's decision taking into
of facts of common knowledge in the context of consideration the documentary evidence submitted
judicial notice has been explained as those facts that by HI.
are so commonly known in the community as to
On charges of illegal dismissal, the NLRC ruled
make it unprofitable to require proof, and so
that the complaint for illegal dismissal was
certainly known to as to make it indisputable among prematurely filed, furhter, deleted the award of
reasonable men. Moreover, though usually facts of backwages and separation pay, but affirmed the
common knowledge will be generally known award of 13th month pay and attorneys' fee.
throughout the country, it is sufficient as a basis for
judicial notice that they be known in the local The petitioners appeal to CA, which affirmed the
community where the trial court sits. Certainly, the NLRC's decision. Further, appealed to the SC,
fact of petitioner Saludo being the duly elected hence, this petition.
representative of Southern Leyte at the time could
be properly taken judicial notice of by the court a Sasan et al are employed by Helpmate, Inc (HI), a
quo, the same being a matter of common knowledge janitorial and messengerial service provider, and
in the community where it sits. Petitioner Saludos assigned to E PCI Bank in Gorordo Branch, Cebu
City. Their services were cut off when EPCI
residence in Southern Leyte could likewise be
decided to bid out the janitorial and messengerial
properly taken judicial notice of by the court a quo.
jobs to two other service providers. Sasan et al then
It is bound to know that, under the Constitution, one filed an action for illegal dismissal alleging that
of the qualifications of a congressman or they are regular employees of PCI, and HI has no
representative to the House of Representatives is authority to dismiss them.
having a residence in the district in which he shall
be elected. Petition Granted After submission of legal positions to the Labor
Arbiter, it concluded that HI is engaged in labor on
contracting as it operates without substantial capital and give merit with the same introduced for the first
as required by the Labor Code, declaring PCI as the time during appeal?
principal employer and awarding money claims to
the employees for their illegal dismissal. The submission of new evidence before the NLRC
is not prohibited by its new Rules of Procedure.
PCI and Hi appealed the LA's decision to the NLRC Rules of evidence prevailing in in courts of law or
and submitted for the first time photocopy of equity are not controlling in labor cases. The NLRC
documents proving that they have sufficient capital and labor arbiters are directed to use every and all
to operate as an independent contractor. The NLRC reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case
modified the LA's decision taking into speedily and objectively, without regard to
consideration the documentary evidence submitted technicalities of law and procedure all in the interest
by HI. of substantial justice.
On charges of illegal dismissal, the NLRC ruled The court further ruled that the petitioners were not
that the complaint for illegal dismissal was illegally dismissed by HI. Upon the termination of
prematurely filed, furhter, deleted the award of the Contract of Service between HI and EPCI , the
backwages and separation pay, but affirmed the petitioners cannot insist to continue work for the
award of 13th month pay and attorneys' fee. latter. Their pull-out from EPCI did not constitute
illegal dismissal.
The petitioners appeal to CA, which affirmed the
NLRC's decision. Further, appealed to the SC,
hence, this petition. Juan Vs Juan
c. Manner of taking judicial
ISSUE: notice and when ( Rule 129,
section 3)
WON the NLRC is allowed to received evidence
and give merit with the same introduced for the first Sec. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. —
time during appeal? During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or
on request of a party, may announce its intention to
HELD: take judicial notice of any matter and allow the
parties to be heard thereon.
The submission of new evidence before the NLRC
is not prohibited by its new Rules of Procedure. After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal,
Rules of evidence prevailing in in courts of law or the proper court, on its own initiative or on request
equity are not controlling in labor cases. The NLRC of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter
and labor arbiters are directed to use every and all and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such
reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.
speedily and objectively, without regard to
technicalities of law and procedure all in the interest 2. Judicial admissions ( rule 129,
of substantial justice. section 4 )
The court further ruled that the petitioners were not Sec 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission,
illegally dismissed by HI. Upon the termination of verbal or written, made by the party in the course of
the Contract of Service between HI and EPCI , the the proceedings in the same case, does not require
petitioners cannot insist to continue work for the proof. The admission may be contradicted only by
latter. Their pull-out from EPCI did not constitute showing that it was made through palpable mistake
illegal dismissal. or that no such admission was made. (Rule 129,
Rules of Court)
WON the NLRC is allowed to received evidence

People vs. Jalandoni (Judicial admissions) necessarily the introduction of proof is utterly
devoid of merit. As shown above the appellant has
Aug. 19, 1984
formally admitted that BPI suffered damage in the
Abad Santos, J. amount of P1,391,780.00. For her now to assert that
the civil liability, if any, is unsettled is an insult to
FACTS: the dignity of this Court. We cannot allow a party to
The information alleged that she issued several state a fact only to disown it afterwards because of
checks drawn against the Rizal Commercial convenience. Motion Granted.
Banking Corporation in favor of the Bank of the
Philippine Islands (BPI); that the checks were
dishonored for lack of funds, a fact which was Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
known by the accused; and that as a result thereof
Aug. 19, 1993
the BPI suffered damage. The trial court found the
accused guilty of estafa. The SC subsequently Melo, J.
acquitted Jalandoni. Subsequently, BPI filed the
FACTS:
aforesaid Motion to Modify Judgment. BPI invoked
a Court of Appeals decision where the court Impleaded before the Sandiganbayan as co-
acquitted the appellant who was accused of defendant in the civil suit for recovery of alleged ill-
malversation of public funds on the ground of gotten wealth against Lucio C. Tan, former
reasonable doubt but nonetheless ordered her to pay President Ferdinand E. Marcos, and Imelda R.
the amount of her civil liability. The Court En Banc Marcos, was Federico B. Moreno, Chairman of
promulgated its decision in the case of Padilla, et al. Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, now
vs. Court of Appeals where it held "that the herein private respondent. Feeling that no genuine
respondent Court of Appeals did not err in awarding factual issue was leveled against him by the
damages despite a judgment of acquittal.” In the Government and wholly convinced that the
instant case, the appellant made the following ad imputations against him are the bereft of factual
missions in her brief: The following facts are bases, private respondent availed himself of a mode
admitted in the information aforequoted: (a) of discovery sanctioned by Rule 26 which he
accused-appellant issued nine (9) RCBC personal followed with a motion for summary judgment
checks; (b) the sum total of the face value of said when the answer to the request for admission
nine (9) checks is P2,150,000.00; (c) of said nine contained a major explicit admission. The Republic
(9) checks, one (1) was honored, namely, RCBC reacted by admitting the genuineness of Exhibits 5-
check No. 2424530 in the amount of 200,000.00, A and 5-B although it offered the caveat that it was
when the checks went through clearing; (d) the not in a position to deny or admit the veracity of the
checks drawn by accusedappellant against said tenor thereof inasmuch as it has no access to files of
personal checks aggregated P2,041,780.00; (e) said the National Tobacco Administration and the
checks were drawn in favor of third parties, not the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration.
accused-appellant; and (f) out of the P2,150,000.00 Defendant FEDERICO MORENO was Chairman of
worth of the nine (9) checks involved, the damaged Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration when
suffered is only P1,391,780.00. Defendant Lucia C. Tan's Fortune Tobacco,
Incorporated enjoyed privileges in violation of
ISSUE: Whether or not the amount of the civil
existing laws, such as but not limited to the
liability, if any, is unsettled then it requires
importation and purchase of Virginia tobacco in
necessarily the introduction of proof.
excess of the ceiling allowed by law. Private
HELD: YES. Jalandoni’s claim that "[t]he amount respondent's counsel initially manifested that he
of the civil liability, if any, is unsettled and requires was withdrawing said motion but changed his mind
when Commissioner Mario C. Jalandoni of the the Chairman of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco
Presidential Commission on Good Government Administration, had no authority or discretion to
declared that the Republic is admitting the deny, much less to approve, the corresponding
genuineness and due execution of the documents license to import tobacco without referring the
containing President Marcos' handwritten approval. matter to the President. Indeed, there would have
The impugned Resolution was promulgated which been no need to submit every application for the
decreed the dismissal of the complaint against President's action if private respondent were clothed
private respondent, but without prejudice to the with the appropriate faculty to decide on the
continuation of the case against the other propriety of importation. Consequently, Paragraph
defendants, thus: Plaintiff's admission, through 14 (h) of the expanded complaint can hardly serve
counsel (Com. Jalandoni) as to the genuineness and as legal basis to inculpate private respondent.
due authenticity of then President Marcos' Petition Dismissed.
handwritten notations approving the questioned
transactions on Exhibits 3-a, 4-a and 5-a of
defendant Moreno's Pre-Trial Brief practically Vda. De Alvarez vs. CA
removed or destroyed any factual or legal bases to
implicate defendant Moreno therein. Plaintiff had March 16, 1994
admitted a vital fact which defendant Moreno had Cruz, J.
offered for admission —that then President Marcos
had approved the implementation of the transactions FACTS:
in question. Coupled with defendant Moreno's In a complaint for "Recovery of Possession" filed
averment in his Answer that no specific act of on January 30, 1981, with the Court of First
illegality had been committed by him, more Instance of Camarines Sur, plaintiff Josefa Almeda
particularly when he denied that he had any dealing alleged that, as the registered owner of the said lot
with Northern Tobacco Redrying Co, Inc.; that the she leased a 170 square-meter thereof, including the
latter was ever authorized to import Virginia building erected on it, to defendant Asuncion
Tobacco; and that he had any acquaintance with his Juanir, Vda. de Alvarez for a monthly rental of
co-defendants. P900.00; that the defendant failed to pay the rentals
ISSUE: Whether or not Jalandoni can be implicated from August to December 1978, from October to
based on the evidence presented. December 1979, and from January 1980 onward,
and did not keep her promise to leave the rented
HELD: NO. What about Paragraph 14 (h) which property after Christmas of 1979; and that despite
inculpates private respondent when he supposedly written demands, she had refused to vacate the
"supervised, approved and/or permitted such premises. In her answer, defendant Alvarez averred
importations and purchases"? It may be recalled that that sometime in 1973, the plaintiff offered to lend
it was this portion of the Amended Complaint her money to settle her unpaid loan of P20,000.00
which the thrust of private respondent's defense that with the Continental Bank, Naga City, provided that
elicited the corresponding admission from the the land given as security for the said loan would be
Republic on the genuineness and due execution of mortgaged to the plaintiff instead. For this purpose,
Exhibits 5-A and 5-B. In so responding, the the plaintiff asked her to sign a document, which
Republic failed to realize that it practically pursued she did not read nor was it read to her, that she
a diametrically opposed and fatal posture because assumed was a mortgage pursuant to their
the candid statement carried with it the express agreement. It was only later that she discovered it
acknowledgment that it was President Marcos, not was a deed of sale of her land together with the
private respondent, who approved the assailed improvements thereon for the sum of P80,000.00.
importations. Withal, the language of Exhibits 2-A, While the case was pending in the trial court,
2-B, 3-A, and 3-B show that private respondent, as
plaintiff Josefa Almeda died and was substituted by SSC vs. CA
her heirs, the private respondents therein. The lower
Feb. 28, 2001
court rendered judgment, declaring that the contract
entered into by the parties was one of absolute sale, Quisumbing, J.
the decision was affirmed by the CA. The petitioner
says Almeda took advantage of her illiteracy but her FACTS:
own evidence reveals her shrewdness and shows SCC Chemicals Corporation (SCC for brevity)
that she is not all that gullible or helpless, as she through its chairman, private respondent Danilo
pretends. She herself negated this pose when she Arrieta and vice president, Pablo (Pablito)
testified that she was able to mortgage the subject Bermundo, obtained a loan from State Investment
lot no less than three times with different banks House Inc., (hereinafter SIHI) in the amount of
without any difficulty or the assistance of a lawyer. P129,824.48. The loan carried an annual interest
She said she knew she could manage by itself. rate of 30% plus penalty charges of 2% per month
ISSUE: Whether or not an admission in a pleading on the remaining balance of the principal upon
in one action may be admitted against the pleader or nonpayment on the due date-January 12, 1984. To
his subsequent trial of the same suit. secure the payment of the loan, Danilo Arrieta and
private respondent Leopoldo Halili executed a
HELD: YES. An Admission in a pleading in one Comprehensive Surety Agreement binding
action may be admitted in evidence against the themselves jointly and severally to pay the
pleader or his successor-in-interest at the obligation on the maturity date. SCC failed to pay
subsequent trial of the same suit or in another action the loan when it matured. SIHI then sent demand
involving the same issue or in which the admission letters to SCC, Arrieta and Halili, but
is pertinent to the issues. It is true that this rule will notwithstanding receipt thereof, no payment was
not apply if the pleading in which the statement is made. In its answer, SCC asserted SIHIs lack of
found was not signed by the party and no proof was cause of action. Petitioner contended that the
presented that he had authorized the making of such promissory note upon which SIHI anchored its
admission. In the case at bar, however, the cause of action was null, void, and of no binding
aforequoted answer bear the signature of the effect for lack or failure of consideration. The court
petitioner, who in fact acknowledged it at the trial. promulgated its decision in favor of SIHI. The
Alvarez now claims that she signed the pleadings appellate court affirmed in toto the judgment
merely upon the prodding of Almeda, who had not appealed from. Petitioner contends that SIHI
read or explained their contents to her. The introduced documentary evidence through the
petitioner's behavior is certainly strange, testimony of a witness whose competence was not
considering that this happened six years after she established and whose personal knowledge of the
and her lawyer came to know about the transfer of truthfulness of the facts testified to was not
the land in Almeda's name. Almeda and Alvarez demonstrated. It argues that the same was in
would have been at loggerheads by that time. Yet violation of Sections 36 and 48, Rule 130 of the
Alvarez, would have this Court believe that she still Rules of Court and it was manifest error for the
willingly left their common defense to Almeda and Court of Appeals to have ruled otherwise. In
willingly signed the pleadings without clearing addition, SCC points out that the sole witness of
them first with her own lawyer. It is inconceivable SIHI did not profess to have seen the document
that Alvarez would still have trusted Almeda if it is presented in evidence executed or written by SCC.
true that she had earlier been deceived by this Thus, no proof of its genuineness was adduced.
person. Petition Denied. SIHI thus ran afoul of Section 2, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court, which requires proof of due
execution and authenticity of private documents

before the same can be received as evidence. Petitioners Republic Glass Corporation (RGC) and
Petitioner likewise submits that none of the Gervel, Inc. (Gervel) together with respondent
signatures affixed in the documentary evidence Lawrence C. Qua (Qua) were stockholders of
presented by SIHI were offered in evidence. It Ladtek, Inc. (Ladtek). Ladtek obtained loans from
vehemently argues that such was in violation of the Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company
requirement of Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of (Metrobank) and Private Development Corporation
Court. It was thus an error of law on the part of the of the Philippines (PDCP) with RGC, Gervel and
appellate court to consider the same. Finally, Qua as sureties. Among themselves, RGC, Gervel
petitioner posits that the non-production of the and Qua executed Agreements for Contribution,
originals of the documents presented in evidence Indemnity and Pledge of Shares of Stocks
allows the presumption of suppression of evidence (Agreements). The Agreements all state that in case
provided for in Section 3 (e), Rule 131 of the Rules of default in the payment of Ladtek's loans, the
of Court, to come into play. parties would reimburse each other the
proportionate share of any sum that any might pay
ISSUE: Whether or not witness, whose personal
to the creditors. Under the same Agreements, Qua
knowledge of the truthfulness of the facts testified
pledged 1,892,360 common shares of stock of
to was not demonstrated.
General Milling Corporation (GMC) in favor of
HELD: NO. The right to cross-examine may be RGC and Gervel. The pledged shares of stock
waived. The repeated failure of a party to served as security for the payment of any sum
crossexamine the witness is an implied waiver of which RGC and Gervel may be held liable under
such right. Petitioner was afforded several the Agreements. RGC and Gervel likewise offered
opportunities by the trial court to cross-examine the as evidence in Foreclosure Case No. 88-2643 the
other partys witness. Petitioner repeatedly failed to Order dismissing Collection Case No. 8364, which
take advantage of these opportunities. No error was RTC-Branch 149 subsequently reversed on
thus committed by the respondent court when it Metrobanks motion for reconsideration. Thus, RTC-
sustained the trial courts finding that petitioner had Branch 149 reinstated Collection Case No. 8364
waived its right to cross-examine the opposing against Qua. The RTC ordered RGC and Gervel to
party’s witness. It is now too late for petitioner to be return the foreclosed shares of stock to Qua,
raising this matter of hearsay evidence. SIHI had no however, the RTC reconsidered its decision. The
need to present the original of the documents as CA rendered the questioned Decision setting aside
there was already a judicial admission by petitioner the 3 May 1996 Order of RTC-Branch 63 and
at pre-trial of the execution of the promissory note reinstating the 12 January 1996 Decision ordering
and receipt of the demand letter. It is now too late RGC and Gervel to return the foreclosed shares of
for petitioner to be questioning their authenticity. Its stock to Qua.
admission of the existence of these documents was
ISSUE: Whether or not the elements of judicial
sufficient to establish its obligation. Petitioner failed
admission are present in the case.
to submit any evidence to the contrary or proof of
payment or other forms of extinguishment of said HELD: NO. A party may make judicial admissions
obligation. Petition Partly Granted, the award of in (a) the pleadings filed by the parties, (b) during
attorneys fees to private respondent SIHI is deleted. the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or
stipulations, or (c) in other stages of the judicial
Rep. Glass Corp. vs. Qua (Adoptive Admission)
proceeding. The elements of judicial admissions are
July 30, 2004 absent in this case. Qua made conflicting statements
in Collection Case No. 8364 and in Foreclosure
Carpio, J. Case No. 88-2643, and not in the same case as
FACTS: required in Section 4 of Rule 129. To constitute
judicial admission, the admission must be made in
the same case in which it is offered. If made in ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners admissions
another case or in another court, the fact of such and declarations, made in various stages of the
admission must be proved as in the case of any proceedings are express admissions, which cannot
other fact, although if made in a judicial proceeding be overcome by allegations of respondents implied
it is entitled to greater weight. Decision Affirmed. admissions.
HELD: NO. The trial courts appreciation of the
witnesses testimonies is entitled to the highest
respect since it was in a better position to assess
Republic vs. De Guzman their credibility. A party who judicially admits a
fact cannot later challenge that fact as judicial
July 15, 2011 admissions are a waiver of proof; production of
Leonardo-De Castro, J. evidence is dispensed with. A judicial admission
also removes an admitted fact from the field of
FACTS: controversy. Consequently, an admission made in
Respondent is the proprietress of Montaguz General the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party
Merchandise (MGM), a contractor accredited by the making such admission and are conclusive as to
PNP for the supply of office and construction such party, and all proofs to the contrary or
materials and equipment, and for the delivery of inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether
various services such as printing and rental, repair objection is interposed by the party or not. The
of various equipment, and renovation of buildings, allegations, statements or admissions contained in a
facilities, vehicles, tires, and spare parts. The PNP pleading are conclusive as against the pleader. A
Engineering Services (PNPES), released a party cannot subsequently take a position contrary
Requisition and Issue Voucher for the acquisition of of or inconsistent with what was pleaded. The
various building materials. MGM and petitioner, petitioner admitted to the existence and validity of
represented by the PNP, through its chief, executed the Contract of Agreement executed between the
a Contract of Agreement (the Contract) wherein PNP and MGM, as represented by the respondent. It
MGM, fundertook to procure and deliver to the likewise admitted that respondent delivered the
PNP the construction materials itemized in the construction materials subject of the Contract, not
purchase order attached to the Contract. Respondent once, but several times during the course of the
claimed that after the PNP Chief approved the proceedings. The only matter petitioner assailed
Contract and purchase order, MGM, proceeded with was respondents allegation that she had not yet been
the delivery of the construction materials, as paid. If Cruz’s testimony were true, the petitioner
evidenced by a Delivery Receipt. Respondent, should have put respondent in her place the moment
through counsel, responded by reiterating her she sent a letter to the PNP, demanding payment for
demand and denying having ever received the LBP the construction materials she had allegedly
check, personally or through an authorized person. delivered. Instead, the petitioner replied that it had
Respondent filed a Complaint for Sum of Money already paid respondent as evidenced by the LBP
against the petitioner. The RTC rendered a decision check and the receipt she supposedly issued. This
in favour of the respondent. The RTC declared that line of defense continued on, with the petitioner
while Cruzs testimony seemed to offer a plausible assailing only the respondents claim of
explanation on how and why the LBP check ended nonpayment, and not the rest of respondents claims,
up with him, the petitioner, already admitted in its in its motion to dismiss, its answer, its pre-trial
Answer that Mhat MGM, did in fact deliver the brief, and even in open court during the respondents
construction materials to the PNP, the CA affirmed testimony. Petition Denied.
the lower court’s decision. Adolfo v. Adolfo
G.R. No. 201427, March 18, 2015
Judgment on the pleadings is proper where an separated; that thereafter, respondent never again
answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits saw or heard from petitioner.
all the material allegations of the adverse party’s Civil Case No. MAN-2683, Respondent sold the
pleading. property to her brother, her brother mortgaged it to
DBP, foreclosed and DBP sold it to the Garcias and
Summary judgment, on the other hand, will be the Garcias sold it to respondent with new TCT.
granted if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, Respondent executed a deed of sale in favor of the
depositions, and admissions on file, show that Gingoyons but refused to partition even Gingoyons
except as to the amount of damages, there is no paid the taxes and selling expenses. That when the
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the sale to the Gingoyons was made, the subject
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of property constituted conjugal property of her
law. marriage with petitioner; when the Garcias executed
the deed of sale, the subject property became a
Civil Case No. MAN-4821 Petitioner Teofilo B. conjugal asset; since petitioner did not sign the deed
Adolfo filed with the RTC Mandaue a Petition for of sale in favor of the Gingoyons as he was in
judicial separation of property against his estranged Davao at the time and knew nothing about the sale,
wife. Parties were married on November 26, 1966, the sale was null and void. RTC nullified the DOS.
the union bore one child; that during the marriage, Meanwhile during the pre-trial of Civil Case No.
they acquired through conjugal funds real properties MAN-4821, respondent failed to file her answer.
that later on the parties separated due to Then RTC found that it’s a conjugal property and
irreconcilable differences. dismissed the case. Respondent appealed to CA.
Since reunion was no longer feasible, petitioner Decision was reversed and set aside. Petitioner
suggested a separation of the conjugal property, but moved to reconsider but in a March 2, 2012
respondent adamantly refused; that respondent Resolution, he was rebuffed. Hence, the present
denied petitioner's co-ownership of the subject Petition was filed on April 30, 2012
property, claiming the same as her paraphernal Issue: whether the subject property is conjugal, or a
property; that several earnest efforts to amicably paraphernal asset of the respondent
settle the matter between them proved unavailing; Ruling: Paraphernal.
and that a judicial separation of property is proper Proceeding from the foregoing consideration, the
under the circumstances and pursuant to Article 135 finding that Lot No.1087-A-2-E is a conjugal
(6) of the Family Code. Petitioner thus prayed that property does not have any basis, hence, does not
judgment be rendered decreeing a separation of the have any merit at all. On the contrary, plaintiffs-
conjugal property. appellants 30 sufficiently proved that the aforesaid
Respondent contended that she is the sole owner of lot was defendant-appellee's 31 paraphernal
the property which is her paraphernal property property as the latter even admitted that she
inherited from her mother. That petitioner is lazy, inherited the same from her mother although she
gambler drunkard, wife abuser and neglectful claimed it as a conjugal property based on the
father. Respondent bought on installment a tricycle TCT's attached to her answer. Another strong
for the petitioner's use in business, but he kept the indication that Lot No. 1087-A-2-E is solely owned
proceeds thereof to himself and used the same in his by defendant-appellee is the fact that in another case
gambling and drinking sprees; that respondent alone (Civil Case No. MAN-2008) involving the same
took the initiative to support the family and found property and the same parties but for a different
ways to take care of the daily needs of her child. issue (road right of way), defendant-appellee alone
One day, petitioner destroyed the roof of the house signed the compromise agreement ceding a portion
that was then being built; that petitioner of the subject lot as a right of way perpetually open
subsequently abandoned her and their child in 1968, and unobstructed for the benefit of plaintiffs-
and transferred to Davao City where he took a appellants, defendant-appellee, their respective
mistress and begot four children by her; that in heirs, assigns and transferees and guests. The same
1986, petitioner returned to Cebu City seeking compromise agreement which became the decision
reconciliation with respondent; that respondent took of the case attained finality without defendant-
petitioner back, but in 1987 they once more
appellee questioning the absence of her husband's companion (Gaudencio Gayop) stole the
signature. items and sold it to Ramon Tan. Manuelito
On June 23, 2007, the above CA decision became asked for Lim’s forgiveness and was
final and executory thereafter forgiven.
The principle of estoppel bars Petitioner from  Lim then did not file a case against
denying the resultant pronouncement by the Manuelito and his companion.
appellate court, which became final and executory,
that the subject property is respondent's paraphernal
property. As an unfortunate consequence, the case
was not appreciated and resolved completely.
 Afterwards, Lim filed with the RTC of
Thus, with the development in Civil Case No.
Manila Branch 19, an information against
MAN-2683 brought upon by the final and executory
Ramon Tan charging him with violation of
decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 78971, petitioner's
PD No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law).
case is left with no leg to stand on. There being no
 According to Lim, that on or about the last
conjugal property to be divided between the parties,
week of February 1991, in the City of
Civil Case No. MAN-4821 must be dismissed.
Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously knowingly receive, keep, acquire
Tan vs People and possess several spare parts and items for
fishing boats all valued at P48,130.00
G.R. No. 132298 belonging to Rosita Lim, which he knew or
should have known to have been derived
26 August 1999
from the proceeds of the crime of theft.
Nature: Appeal for Certiorari Contrary to law.”
 Manuelito then presented her testimony
Ponente: Justice Pardo stating that they delivered said stolen items
FACTS to Ramon Tan, who paid for them in cash in
the amount of P13,000.00. Further, he stated
 The case before the Court is an appeal via that the stolen items from the warehouse
certiorari from a decision of the Court of were placed in a sack and he talked to Mr.
Appeals, affirming that of the Regional Trial Tan first over the phone before he delivered
Court of Manila, Branch 19, convicting the spare parts. It was Mr. Tan himself who
petitioner of the crime of fencing. accepted the stolen items in the morning at
 Complainant Rosita Lim is the proprietor of about 7:00 to 8:00 o’clock and paid
Bueno Metal Industries, engaged in the P13,000.00 for them.
business of manufacturing propellers or  On rebuttal, Ramon Tan denied having
spare parts for boats. talked to Manuelito Mendez over the phone
 Manuelito Mendez was one of the on the day of the delivery of the stolen items
employees working for her. Sometime in and could not have accepted the said items
February 1991, Manuelito Mendez left the personally for every time goods are
employ of the company. delivered to his store, the same are being
 The complainant (Lim) noticed that some accepted by his staff. It is not possible for
items amounting to, more or less P48, 000 him to be at his office at about 7:00 to 8:00
were missing. o’clock in the morning, because he usually
 Lim then informed Victor Sy, uncle of reported to his office at 9:00 o’clock. In
Manuelito and the one who referred him to connection with this case, he executed a
Lim, regarding the loss. counteraffidavit
 Subsequently, Manuelito was arrested in  Then the RTC rendered a judgment adverse
Visayas and admitted the he and his to Tan and found him guilty of violating PD
No. 1612.
 Ramon Tan then filed an appeal to CA,
however CA affirmed in toto the decision of There must be corroboration by evidence of
RTC. The motion for reconsideration filed corpus delicti to sustain a finding of guilt.
by Tan was likewise denied by CA. Hence Corpus delicti means the “body or
this petition.
substance of the crime, and, in its primary
sense, refers to the fact that the crime has
been actually committed.”
ISSUE: The “essential elements of theft are

(1) the taking of personal property;
1. Whether or not herein petitioner violated
PD No. 1612 or the Anti-Fencing Law. (2) the property belongs to another;
(3) the taking away wasdone with intent of
HELD: gain; (
4) the taking away was done without the
1. No, the Court held that herein petitioner did consent of the owner; and
not violate PD No. 1612. According to the
Court, the prosecution must prove the guilt (5) the taking away is accomplished without
of the accused by establishing the existence violence or intimidation against persons or
of all the elements of the crime charged. force upon things (U.S. vs. De Vera, 43 Phil.
Short of evidence establishing beyond 1000).”
reasonable doubt the existence of essential
elements of fencing, there can be no Moreover, there was no showing at all that
conviction for such offense.
the accused have knowledge or should have
known that the very stolen articles were the
In this case, the guilt of the complainant and
ones sold to him. Knowledge refers to a
the elements of the crime of fencing were
mental state of awareness about a fact. Since
not duly established. First, the complainant
the court cannot penetrate the mind of an
Rosita Lim never reported the theft or even
accused and state with certainty what is
loss to the police. She admitted that
contained therein, it must determine such
Manuelito confessed to the unlawful taking
knowledge with care from the overt acts of
but did not prosecute him. Theft is a public
that person. Without petitioner knowing that
crime. It can be prosecuted de officio, or
he acquired stolen articles, he can not be
even without a private complainant, but it
guilty of “fencing.”
cannot be without a victim. As
complainant Lim reported no loss, the first
Hence, the Court reverses and sets aside
element of the crime of fencing is absent,
the decision of CA and the petitioner is
that is, a crime of robbery or theft has been
hereby acquitted.
committed.
Adoptive Admission
Also, the extrajudicial confession of witness
Mendez was not given with the assistance of Estrada vs. Desierto
counsel, hence, inadmissible against the April 3, 2001
witness. Neither may such extrajudicial
Puno, J.
confession be considered evidence against
accused. FACTS:
Petitioner insists he is the victim of prejudicial of Appeals cites the various authorities who explain
publicity. Among others, he assails the Decision for why admissions are not covered by the hearsay rule:
adverting to newspaper accounts of the events and According to Morgan: The admissibility of an
occurrences to reach the conclusion that he has admission made by the party himself rests not upon
resigned. In our Decision, we used the totality test any notion that the circumstances in which it was
to arrive at the conclusion that petitioner has made furnish the trier means of evaluating it fairly,
resigned. We referred to and analyzed events that but upon the adversary theory of litigation. A party
were prior, contemporaneous and posterior to the can hardly object that he had no opportunity to
oath-taking of respondent Arroyo as president. All cross-examine himself or that he is unworthy of
these events are facts which are well-established credence save when speaking under sanction of an
and cannot be refuted. Thus, we adverted to prior oath. A mans acts, conduct, and declaration,
events that built up the irresistible pressure for the wherever made, if voluntary, are admissible against
petitioner to resign. All these prior events are facts him, for the reason that it is fair to presume that
which are within judicial notice by this Court. There they correspond with the truth, and it is his fault if
was no need to cite their news accounts. The they do not. Under our rules of evidence,
reference by the Court to certain newspapers admissions of an agent (Secretary Angara) are
reporting them as they happened does not make binding on the principal (petitioner). Jones very
them inadmissible evidence for being hearsay. In well explains the reasons for the rule, viz: What is
the cases at bar, petitioner had several options done, by agent, is done by the principal through
available to him other than resignation. He proposed him, as through a mere instrument. So, whatever is
to the holding of snap elections. He transmitted to said by an agent, either in making a contract for his
the Congress a written declaration of temporary principal, or at the time and accompanying the
inability. He could not claim he was forced to resign performance of any act within the scope of his
because immediately before he left Malacaang, he authority, having relation to, and connected with,
asked Secretary Angara: Ed, aalis na ba ako? which and in the course of the particular contract or
implies that he still had a choice of whether or not transaction in which he is then engaged, or in the
to leave. language of the old writers, dum fervet opus is, in
legal effect, said by his principal and admissible in
ISSUE: Whether or not there was an improper use
evidence against such principal. Petition Denied.
of the diary of Angara.
HELD:
Rep. vs. Kenrick Dev. Corp.
NO. The Angara diary is not an out of court
statement. The Angara Diary is part of the pleadings Aug. 8, 2006
in the cases at bar. Petitioner cannot complain he
Corona, J.
was not furnished a copy of the Angara Diary. Nor
can he feign surprise on its use. To be sure, the said FACTS:
Diary was frequently referred to by the parties in
their pleadings. Even assuming arguendo that the This case stemmed from the construction by
Angara Diary was an out of court statement, still its respondent Kenrick Development Corporation of a
use is not covered by the hearsay rule. Evidence is concrete perimeter fence around some parcels of
called hearsay when its probative force depends, in land located behind the Civil Aviation Training
whole or in part, on the competency and credibility Center of the Air Transportation Office (ATO) in
of some persons other than the witness by whom it 1996. As a result, the ATO was dispossessed of
is sought to produce it. It has long been settled that some 30,228 square meters of prime land.
these admissions are admissible even if they are Respondent justified its action with a claim of
hearsay. Retired Justice Oscar Herrera of the Court ownership over the property. It presented TCT,
issued in its name and which allegedly originated another’s statement. Where it appears that a party
from TCT No. 17508 registered in the name of one clearly and unambiguously assented to or adopted
Alfonso Concepcion. ATO verified the authenticity the statements of another, evidence of those
of respondents titles with the Land Registration statements is admissible against him. This is the
Authority (LRA). The land allegedly covered by essence of the principle of adoptive admission. An
respondents titles was also found to be within adoptive admission is a party’s reaction to a
Villamor Air Base (headquarters of the Philippine statement or action by another person when it is
Air Force) in Pasay City. By virtue of the report, the reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on admission of something stated or implied by the
September 3, 1996, filed a complaint for revocation, other person. By adoptive admission, a third
annulment and cancellation of certificates of title in persons statement becomes the admission of the
behalf of the Republic of the Philippines (as party embracing or espousing it. Adoptive
represented by the LRA) against respondent and admission may occur when a party: (a) expressly
Alfonso Concepcion. Respondent filed its answer agrees to or concurs in an oral statement made by
which was purportedly signed by Atty. Onofre another; (b) hears a statement and later on
Garlitos, Jr. as counsel for respondent. With Atty. essentially repeats it; (c) utters an acceptance or
Garlito's revelation, the Republic promptly filed an builds upon the assertion of another; (d) replies by
urgent motion to declare respondent in default, way of rebuttal to some specific points raised by
predicated on its failure to file a valid answer. The another but ignores further points which he or she
Republic argued that, since the person who signed has heard the other make or (e) reads and signs a
the answer was neither authorized by Atty. Garlito’s written statement made by another. Here,
nor even known to him, the answer was effectively respondent accepted the pronouncements of Atty.
an unsigned pleading. The trial court issued a Garlitos and built its case on them. At no instance
resolution granting the Republics motion. The trial did it ever deny or contradict its former counsels
court issued a resolution granting the Republics statements. It went to great lengths to explain Atty.
motion. It found respondents answer to be sham and Garlito’s testimony as well as its implications.
false and intended to defeat the purpose of the rules. Petition Granted.
The trial court ordered the answer stricken from the
records, declared respondent in default and allowed
the Republic to present its evidence ex parte. The Not considered judicial admission
appellate court also scrutinized Atty. Garlitos acts
after the filing of the answer and concluded that he Ching vs CA
assented to the signing of the answer by somebody III. Rules of Admissibility ( Rule 130 )
in his stead. This supposedly cured whatever defect
the answer may have had. Hence, the appellate
court granted respondents petition for certiorari. It A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
directed the lifting of the order of default against
respondent and ordered the trial court to proceed to Section 1. Object as evidence. — Objects as
trial with dispatch. The Republic moved for evidence are those addressed to the senses of the
reconsideration but it was denied. The CA found court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue,
it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the
Atty. Garlito's statements in the legislative hearing
court. (1a)
to be unreliable since they were not subjected to
cross-examination. ISSUE: Whether or not the CA People vs. Ison (Object / Real Evidence, section 1)
erred in reversing the trial courts order which May 5, 1989
declared respondent in default for its failure to file a Melencio-Herrera, J.
valid answer. HELD: YES. A party may, by his FACTS:
words or conduct, voluntarily adopt or ratify Facts:
Lappay who testified that fingers could not cause
At the instance of the offended party, Leonila P. the multi-lacerations sustained by complainant.
Santiago, who flied the corresponding criminal
complaint before the Municipal Court, the Accused ISSUE: Whether or not the lapses in the testimony
Danilo Ison was charged with Rape committed in an of the victim negates the existence of rape.
uninhabited place and with grave abuse of
confidence. The evidence for the prosecution sought HELD: NO. The absence of bruises, contusions and
to establish that Complainant, Leonila P. Santiago, abrasions in the body of the complainant is neither
was a 13-year old girl on 17 April 1979. inconsistent with her claim that she was ravished by
Complainant hitched a ride in the jeep of the the accused in the manner she described. It is to be
Accused to go to Roxas, Isabela, to spend the recalled that Complainant was boxed in the
summer vacation. The Accused was actually a abdomen as a result of which she lost
distant uncle, being a third degree cousin of consciousness. It was thus unnecessary to inflict
Complainant's mother. He was a businessman, who other injuries on her. The absence of any discernible
usually made trips to Roxas, Isabela with his helper, trace of a fist blow on Complainant's abdomen is of
Alfredo Lozada, to deliver eggs for sale. Upon no moment either, especially since the medical
reaching the diversion road at Echague, Isabela near examination on her was conducted seventeen (17)
the Echague cemetery, the Accused told days after the incident, at which time no visible
Complainant that they would spend the night there. signs of such injury might be expected any longer.
They slept in the jeep, the Accused lying down on The nonpresentation of Complainant's torn panty
the front seat behind the steering wheel while was due to the fact that she had thrown the same in
Leonila slept in a sitting position at the other end of the garbage can upon reaching Roxas. A simple
the front seat. The legs of the Accused dangled barrio girl like her could not be expected to realize
outside the jeep. While Complainant was thus its evidentiary value in the event of a court
asleep, she was awakened when she felt someone, litigation. Complainant lost no time in denouncing
who turned out to be the Accused, holding her the wrong done to her upon arrival at Roxas by
hands. Complainant struggled and fought to free writing a letter to her mother at Jaen, Nueva Ecija.
herself when the Accused started embracing her. This fact immediately negates any alleged voluntary
She cried for help from all who happened to be at submission of Complainant to the Accused's sexual
the back of the front seat, but instead of helping her, advance. Indeed, Complainant, a thirteen-(13)- year
Al assisted the accused by holding her hands. old girl, could not be expected to personally report
Suddenly, the Accused gave Complainant a fist to the police without the knowledge of her elders.
blow in the abdomen which rendered her The Accused makes much of the alleged
unconscious. She later regained consciousness when inconsistency in the prosecution evidence in that
she felt pain in her private part as the Accused while Complainant testified that she wrote her
succeeded in violating her. She noticed that her mother upon her arrival on 18 April 1979 the
pants and panty were already removed and she was postmark stamped on the envelope shows that it was
in a lying position on the front seat with her left leg received in "Jaen, Nueva Ecija, on April 17, 1979."
hanging from the seat and the Accused was on top The records show, however, that the latter postmark
of her doing the push-and-pull movement. had been crossed out and initialed to correct the
Complainant was shocked and cried for help but mistake in the dates. This conclusion is supported
none was forthcoming. The act consummated, the by two other entries in the envelope which read:
Accused threw her pants and torn panty at her and "Jaen, Nueva Ecija Received April 27, 1979
threatened her not to make any revelation otherwise Philippines" Exhibit B-1-C and "Roxas P.O. 19 IV
he would kill her and her mother. The lower court 79 Isabela" (Exhibit B-I-A These entries show that
found Danilo Ison guilty of Rape. Appellant's the letter was actually mailed at Roxas, Isabela, on
posture that the lacerations in complainant's hymen 19 April 1979 and received at the Jaen, Nueva Ecija
were intentionally induced through the use of Post Office on 27 April 1979. Evidently, if the letter
fingers to simulate a rape case was refuted by Dr. was mailed at Roxas, Isabela on 19 April 1979, it
would be impossible for it to reach the Postal Office
of Jaen, Nueva Ecija, 267 kilometers away on 17 HELD: YES. It is true that in rape cases, the
April 1979 or two (2) days before it was mailed accused may be convicted solely on the testimony
(Section 1, Rule 129, Rules of Court). And, as to of the complaining witness provided such testimony
whether Complainant's mother sent the telegram to is credible, convincing and consistent with human
her brother-in-law via the Bureau of nature and the course of things. In the case at bar,
Telecommunications or RCPI is actually however, the complainant lacked candor and
inconsequential. Decision Affirmed spontaneity as a witness. Her demeanor, composure
and manner of testifying revealed heavy traces of
insincerity and falsehood even to one who is simply
People vs. Aguinaldo reading the transcripts of her testimony. Thus,
Oct. 13, 1999 complainant alleged in her sworn statement that she
Puno, J. bled after her private part was fully penetrated
during the sexual assault. Needless to state,
FACTS: complainant's claim that she bled implies that there
must have been laceration of her sex organ. Unless
This is an automatic review of the Decision there is evidence that she underwent "cosmetic"
imposing the death penalty on Rodrigo Loteyro surgery to restore the hymen's virginal state before
Aguinaldo for committing the crime of rape. the NBI medico-legal officer examined her,
Appellant, who is complainant's father, waived his complainant's claim of bleeding is a manifest
right to a pre-trial and pleaded not guilty to the falsehood. When physical evidence runs counter to
crime charged. The trial court initially subpoenaed testimonial evidence, conclusions as to physical
the complainant Jeannette as the prosecution's first evidence must prevail. Physical evidence is that
witness. Jeannette claimed that something happened mute but eloquent manifestation of truth which rate
while she was sleeping at home. Asked what high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. The
happened, Jeannette hedged. The trial judge inevitable conclusion therefore is that complainant
encouraged her to answer but she kept silent. She was lying through her teeth when she swore that
was on the verge of tears. The trial judge inquired if appellant's organ penetrated hers and that she felt
she wanted the appellant to leave the courtroom. pain and was bleeding even until the morning. That
She agreed. After the appellant left the courtroom, material lapse in her testimony destroys her
Jeannette was again queried why she woke from her credibility. Some of the accused authenticated the
sleep that night. Still, Jeannette stayed as silent as a picture. Decision Reversed.
sphinx. This prompted the defense counsel de oficio
to move for the dismissal of the case. On recross- PO1 CRISPIN OCAMPO y SANTOS v. PEOPLE
examination, Jeannette admitted that she was mad at OF THE PHILIPPINES
her father for mauling her. However, she denied she G.R. No. 194129 June 15, 2015
filed the rape charge because of her maltreatment.
Dr. Bernales opined that there was no penetration of Facts:
the complainant's hymen as it was intact and that
complainant was physically a virgin. On redirect On May 27, 2000, petitioner assaulted and use
examination, appellant charged that Jeannette had a personal violence upon Mario De Luna. Petitioner
"split personality" - one time she would be sweet to fired his service firearm against the victim hitting
him and her siblings and then, for no reason at all, the latter on the chest and other parts of the body.
she would be mad at all of them. The wounds were the direct and immediate cause of
his death. Petitioner pleaded not guilty upon
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused may be arraignment. He admitted to having shot the victim
convicted solely on the testimony of the to death, but claimed to have done so in self-
complaining witness provided such testimony is defense. In support of this claim, defense witness
credible, convincing and consistent with human Marita averred that the shooting incident was
nature and the course of things. precipitated by the victim’s unprovoked knife attack
upon accused-appellant. The Regional Trial Court
convicted petitioner of homicide and upon appeal, 398 SCRA 567, 5 March 2003, EN BANC
the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of
petitioner, but modified some of the monetary Ronnie Rullepa y Guinto (Rullepa), a houseboy,
damages awarded. was charged with Rape before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City for allegedly having
carnal knowledge with “AAA”, three (3) years of
Issue: age, a minor and against her will and without her
Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove consent.
petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt “AAA” described her abuse under the hands of
Rullepa in a plain and matter-of-fact manner in her
Ruling: testimony. The victim and her mother testified that
Yes, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s she was only three years old at the time of the rape.
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, the prosecution did not offer the
victim‘s certificate of live birth or similar authentic
Settled is the rule that for self-defense to prosper, documents in evidence.
the following requisites must be met:
(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; Finding for the prosecution, the RTC
(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to rendered judgment finding Rullepa guilty beyond
prevent or repel the attack; and reasonable doubt of rape and accordingly sentenced
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the him to death. The case was placed for automatic
person engaged in self-defense review of the Supreme Court
In this case, petitioner has failed to prove by clear ISSUE:

and convincing evidence the first element of self-
defense. There was no showing of attack or assault Whether or not the trial court erred in imposing the
that had placed petitioner’s life in imminent or supreme penalty of death upon Rullepa
actual danger. Petitioner’s tale of self-defense is
negated by the physical evidence, specifically the HELD:
trajectory of the bullets that penetrated the victim’s
body. Where the physical evidence on record runs A person‘s appearance, where relevant,
counter to the testimonies of witnesses, the primacy is admissible as object evidence, the same being
of the physical evidence must be upheld. With addressed to the senses of the court. As to the
regard to the second element of self-defense, the weight to accord such appearance, especially in rape
Court finds that the means employed by petitioner cases, the Court in People v. Pruna laid down
was grossly disproportionate to the victim's alleged the guideline.
unlawful aggression. The victim suffered multiple
gunshot wounds in his chest and different parts of Under the guideline, the testimony of a relative with
his body. Indeed, the Advance Information prepared respect to the age of the victim is sufficient to
by the investigator of the case reveals that there was constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt in cases
no mention of either a stabbing incident that (a) and (b) above. In such cases, the disparity
happened or a knife that was recovered from the between the allegation and the proof of age is so
crime scene. Here, the wounds sustained by the great that the court can easily determine from the
victim clearly show the intent of petitioner to kill appearance of the victim the veracity of the
and not merely to prevent or repel an attack. testimony. The appearance corroborates the
relative‘s testimony.
Hence, the prosecution was able to prove
petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As the alleged age approaches the age sought to
be proved, the person‘s appearance, as object
People vs Rullepa evidence of her age, loses probative value. Doubt as
to her true age becomes greater and, following
United States v. Agadas, such doubt must be Ferdinand E. Marcos. Tension and animosity
resolved in favor of the accused. between the two (2) groups sometimes broke into
Because of the vast disparity between the alleged violence. On July 27, 1986, it resulted in the murder
age (three years old) and the age sought to of Stephen Salcedo, a known “Coryista." Several
be proved (below twelve years), the trial court informations were filed in court against eleven
would have had no difficulty ascertaining the persons identified as Marcos loyalists charging
victim‘s age from her appearance. No reasonable them with the murder of Salcedo. The prosecution
doubt, therefore, exists that the second element of presented twelve witnesses, including two
statutory rape is present. eyewitnesses, Ranulfo Sumilang and Renato
Banculo, and the police officers who were at the
Whether the victim was below seven years old, Luneta at the time of the incident. In support of
however, is another matter. Here, reasonable doubt their testimonies, the prosecution likewise presented
exists. A mature three and a half-year old can easily documentary evidence consisting of newspaper
be mistaken for an underdeveloped seven-year old. accounts of the incident and various photographs
The appearance of the victim, as object evidence, taken during the mauling. A commotion ensued and
cannot be accorded much weight and the testimony Renato Banculo, a cigarette vendor, saw the
of the mother is, by itself, insufficient. loyalists attacking persons in yellow, the color of
the "Coryistas." Renato took off his yellow shirt. He
As it has not been established with moral certainty then saw a man wearing a yellow t-shirt being
that “AAA” was below seven years old at the time chased by a group of persons shouting "Iyan,
of the commission of the offense, Rullepa cannot be habulin iyan. Cory iyan!" The man in the yellow t-
sentenced to suffer the death penalty. Only shirt was Salcedo and his pursuers appeared to be
the penalty of reclusion perpetua can be imposed Marcos loyalists. They caught Salcedo and boxed
upon him. and kicked and mauled him. Salcedo died of
"hemorrhage, intracranial traumatic.” The mauling
of Salcedo was witnessed by bystanders and several
2. Documentary evidence ( section 2 ) press people, both local and foreign. The press took
pictures and a video of the event which became
front-page news the following day, capturing
B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE national and international attention. The trial court
rendered a decision finding Romeo Sison, Nilo
Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as Pacadar, Joel Tan, Richard de los Santos and
evidence consist of writing or any material Joselito Tamayo guilty as principals in the crime of
containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols murder qualified by treachery. The CA modified the
or other modes of written expression offered as decision of the trial court by acquitting Annie Ferrer
proof of their contents. (n) but increasing the penalty of the rest of the accused,
except for Joselito Tamayo, to reclusion perpetua.
People vs. Sison The appellate court found them guilty of murder
Nov. 16, 1995 qualified by abuse of superior strength, but
Puno, J. convicted Joselito Tamayo of homicide because the
information against him did not allege the said
FACTS: qualifying circumstance.
The case before us occurred at a time of great ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining
political polarization in the aftermath of the 1986 the testimonies of the two in prosecution
EDSA Revolution. This was the time when the eyewitnesses, Ranulfo Sumilang and Renato
newly-installed government of President Corazon Banculo, because they are unreliable, doubtful and
C. Aquino was being openly challenged in rallies, do not deserve any credence.
demonstrations and other public fora by "Marcos
loyalists," supporters of deposed President
HELD: NO. The evidence shows that Sumilang the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
reported the incident to the police and submitted his produce it after reasonable notice;
sworn statement immediately two hours after the
mauling, even before announcement of any reward. (c) When the original consists of numerous
He informed the police that he would cooperate accounts or other documents which cannot
with them and identify Salcedo's assailants if he be examined in court without great loss of
saw them again. The fact that Banculo executed time and the fact sought to be established
three sworn statements does not make them and his from them is only the general result of the
testimony incredible. The sworn statements were whole; and
made to identify more suspects who were
apprehended during the investigation of Salcedo's (d) When the original is a public record in
death. Banculo's mistake in identifying another the custody of a public officer or is recorded
person as one of the accused does not make him an in a public office. (2a)
entirely untrustworthy witness. It does not make his
whole testimony a falsity. An honest mistake is not Section 4. Original of document. —
inconsistent with a truthful testimony. Perfect
testimonies cannot be expected from persons with (a) The original of the document is one the
imperfect senses. In the court's discretion, therefore, contents of which are the subject of inquiry.
the testimony of a witness can be believed as to
some facts but disbelieved with respect to the (b) When a document is in two or more
others. The rule in this jurisdiction is that copies executed at or about the same time,
photographs, when presented in evidence, must be with identical contents, all such copies are
identified by the photographer as to its production equally regarded as originals.
and testified as to the circumstances under which
they were produced. The value of this kind of (c) When an entry is repeated in the regular
evidence lies in its being a correct representation or course of business, one being copied from
reproduction of the original, and its admissibility is another at or near the time of the transaction,
determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene all the entries are likewise equally regarded
at the time of the crime. The photographer, as originals. (3a)
however, is not the only witness who can identify
the pictures he has taken. Decision Affirmed. People vs. Tan (Documentary evidence, section 2)
July 31, 1959
i. Original Document Rule (Sections 3 & Labrador, J.
4) (Best Evidence Rule)
FACTS:
1. Best Evidence Rule Pacita Madrigal-Gonzales and others charged with

the crime of falsification of the public documents,
Section 3. Original document must be in their capacities as public officials and employees,
produced; exceptions. — When the subject of by having made it appear that certain relief supplies
inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence and/or merchandise were purchased by Pacita
shall be admissible other than the original document Madrigal-Gonzales for distribution to calamity
itself, except in the following cases: indigents or sufferers, in such quantities and at such
prices and from such business establishments or
(a) When the original has been lost or persons as are made to appear in the said public
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, documents, when in fact and in truth, no such
without bad faith on the part of the offeror; distributions of such relief and supplies as valued
and supposedly purchased by said Pacita Madrigal
(b) When the original is in the custody or Gonzales in the public and official documents had
under the control of the party against whom ever been made. In order to prove the charge of
falsification, the prosecution presented to a witness triplicates formed by the used of carbon papers are
a booklet of receipts. As the witness was explaining not admissible in evidence, without accounting first
the figures or words appearing on the triplicates, for the loss of the originals is incorrect and must be
Hon. Bienvenido M. Tan, then presiding in the reversed. The court below is hereby ordered to
court below, interrupted the proceeding holding that proceed in the trial of the case in accordance with
the triplicates are not admissible unless it is first this ruling. No cost. So ordered.
proven that the originals were lost and can not be
produced. Another witness, accountant of the Metro Alfaro vs. CA
Drug Corporation in Manila, was also called by the March 28, 2007
prosecution to testify. He declared that sales in the Tinga, J.
provinces were reported to the Manila office of the
Metro Drug Corporation, and that the originals of There lies an inherent oxymoron to the term
the sales invoices are transmitted to the main office duplicate originals as applied to documents. Yet,
in support of cash journal sheets, but that the even as two duplicate originals of the same
original practice of keeping the original white document are not exactly identical, they may be
copies no longer prevails as the originals are given considered as identical for all legal intents and
to the customers, while only the duplicate or pink purposes. Indeed, each duplicate original may be
copies are submitted to the central office in Manila. considered as the best evidence of the transaction
embodied therein.
ISSUE: Whether or not the triplicates formed by the
used of carbon papers are not admissible in FACTS:
evidence, without accounting first for the loss of the
originals is incorrect and must be reversed. Spouses Olegario and Cecilia Bagano (respondents)
filed a complaint against Spouses Peblia and
HELD: Prosperous Alfaro (petitioners) for Declaration of
Nullity of Sale with Damages and Preliminary
YES. The said confession Exhibit B, being a carbon Injunction before the RTC of Cebu. In the
copy of the original and bearing as it does the complaint, respondents as plaintiffs alleged the
signature of the appellant, is admissible in evidence following: that they were the previous registered
and possess all the probative value of the original, owners of a parcel of land located in Cebu and
and the same does not require an accounting for the covered by a TCT; that respondents executed a Real
non-production of the original. Two principal Estate Mortgage over the lot in favor of petitioners
authors on the law on evidence have sustained the to secure payment of an obligation; that upon
theory of the admissibility of duplicate originals, as payment of the mortgage debt, a Cancellation and
follows: SEC. 386. . . . the best evidence rule is that Discharge of Mortgage was executed; that when
rule which requires the highest grade of evidence respondents demanded the return of their title,
obtainable to prove a disputed fact. A "duplicate petitioners refused, prompting the former to check
sales slip” ; SEC. 420. Duplicate originals. — with the Register of Deeds; that upon verification,
Where letters are produced by mechanical means respondents learned that their title had already been
and, concurrently with the original, duplicate are cancelled and in lieu thereof TCT issued in the
produced, as by placing carbon paper and writing name of petitioners by virtue of a spurious Deed of
on the exposed surface at the same time, all are Absolute Sale purportedly executed by respondents.
duplicate originals, and any one of them may Respondents presented Varona as an expert witness
introduced in evidence without accounting for the on their behalf. Varona affirmed the conclusion
non-production of the other; SEC. 100. Carbon embodied in his Report that the questioned
copies, however, when made at the same time and signatures appearing on Exhibit B were forged. The
on the same machine as the original, are duplicate RTC dismissed the complaint. The CA, in reversing
originals, and these have been held to be as much the trial court declared the Deed of Absolute Sale
primary evidence as the originals. We find that the null and void ab initio, reinstated the TCT in the
ruling of the court below to the effect that the name of respondents.
orders and for her failure to submit her reply within
ISSUE: Whether or not the questioned signatures of the two-day period. Labor Arbiter Manuel Caday
respondents on the Deed of Absolute Sale were rendered judgment declaring that the petitioner was
forged, thereby rendering the document spurious. illegally dismissed. The Labor Arbiter found that
the private respondents were unable to prove the
HELD: NO. On its face, the Deed of Absolute Sale allegation of chronic absenteeism as it failed to
was notarized; as such, it enjoys the presumption of present in evidence the time cards, logbooks or
regularity and carries the evidentiary weight record book which complainant signed recording
conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. her time in reporting for work. These documents,
Mere variance of the signatures cannot be according to the Labor Arbiter, were in the
considered as conclusive proof that the same were possession of the private respondents. In fact, the
forged. What could respondents have done in order record book was mentioned in the notice of
to fortify their claim of forgery following the termination. Hence, the non-presentation of these
manifest indecisiveness of the expert witness they documents gives rise to the presumption that these
had relied on? Considering that the burden was documents were intentionally suppressed since they
upon respondents to establish the alleged forgery, would be adverse to private respondents claim.
they should have presented evidence on rebuttal, Moreover, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the
which they did not do, or even another expert petitioners absences were with the conformity of the
witness to attest to their claim of forgery, which private respondents as both parties had agreed
again they failed to do. Disingenuous as petitioners beforehand that petitioner would not report to work
tactic may have seemed, in using their opponents on Saturdays. The NLRC rendered the assailed
expert witness to advocate the contrary cause, decision which set aside the Labor Arbiters ruling.
respondents were not without remedy to mitigate Insofar as finding the private respondents as having
the damage wrought by said witness. That they failed to present evidence relative to petitioners
failed to introduce rebuttal evidence finally led to absences and tardiness, the NLRC agrees with the
the collapse of their cause of action. Petition Labor Arbiter.
Granted.
ISSUE: Whether or not the best evidence to prove
Purpose of the Rule the infractions is absent.
Asuncion vs. NLRC (Best Evidence Rule, sec. 3) HELD: YES. In the case at bar, there is a paucity of
July 31, 2001 evidence to establish the charges of absenteeism
Kapunan, J. and tardiness. We note that the employer company
submitted mere handwritten listing and computer
FACTS: print-outs. The handwritten listing was not signed
Facts: by the one who made the same. As regards the
print-outs, while the listing was computer
Ester M. Asuncion was employed as an generated, the entries of time and other annotations
accountant/bookkeeper by the respondent Mabini were again handwritten and unsigned. We find that
Medical Clinic. Certain officials of the NCR- the handwritten listing and unsigned computer
Industrial Relations Division of the Department of print-outs were unauthenticated and, hence,
Labor and Employment conducted a routine unreliable. Mere self-serving evidence of which the
inspection of the premises of the respondent listing and print-outs are of that nature should be
company and discovered upon the disclosure of the rejected as evidence without any rational probative
petitioner of (documents) violations of the labor value even in administrative proceedings. For this
standards law such as the non-coverage from the reason, we find the findings of the Labor Arbiter to
SSS of the employees. Petitioner submitted her be correct. Ironically, in the memorandum charging
response to the memorandum. On the same day, petitioner and notice of termination, private
respondent Dr. Juco, through a letter, dismissed the respondents referred to the record book as its basis
petitioner on the ground of disobedience of lawful for petitioners alleged absenteeism and tardiness.
Interestingly, however, the record book was never B, and C, respectively, a photocopy of the
presented in evidence. Private respondents had promissory note supposedly executed by
possession thereof and the opportunity to present respondents, a copy of the demand letter it sent
the same. Being the basis of the charges against the respondents. Petitioner made its formal offer of
petitioner, it is without doubt the best evidence evidence. However, as the original copy of Exhibit
available to substantiate the allegations. The A could no longer be found, petitioner instead
purpose of the rule requiring the production of the sought the admission of the duplicate original of the
best evidence is the prevention of fraud, because if a promissory note which was identified and marked
party is in possession of such evidence and as Exhibit E. Respondents separately filed their
withholds it, and seeks to substitute inferior motions to dismiss on the similar ground that with
evidence in its place, the presumption naturally the exclusion of Exhibits A and E, petitioner no
arises that the better evidence is withheld for longer possessed any proof of respondents alleged
fraudulent purposes which its production would indebtedness. The trial court dismissed the case, the
expose and defeat. Thus, private respondents CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
unexplained and unjustified non-presentation of the
record book, which is the best evidence in its ISSUE: Whether or not the best evidence rule or
possession and control of the charges against the primary evidence must be applied as the purpose of
petitioner, casts serious doubts on the factual basis the proof is to establish the terms of the writing
of the charges of absenteeism and tardiness. meaning the alleged promissory note as it is the
Decision Reversed. basis of the recovery of the money allegedly loaned
to the defendants.
The Consolidated Bank and Trust Co. vs. Del
Monte Motor Works HELD: YES. According to McCormick, an
July 29, 2005 authority on the rules of evidence, the only actual
Chico-Nazario, J. rule that the best evidence phrase denotes today is
FACTS: the rule requiring the production of the original
writing the rationale being: (1) that precision in
Petitioner filed before the RTC of Manila a presenting to the court the exact words of the
complaint for recovery of sum of money against writing is of more than average importance,
respondents, impleading the spouse of respondent particularly as respects operative or dispositive
Narciso O. Morales (respondent Morales) in order instruments, such as deeds, wills and contracts,
to bind their conjugal partnership of gains. since a slight variation in words may mean a great
Petitioner, a domestic banking and trust corporation, difference in rights, (2) that there is a substantial
alleges therein that, it extended in favor of hazard of inaccuracy in the human process of
respondents a loan in the amount of One Million making a copy by handwriting or typewriting, and
Pesos as evidenced by a promissory note executed (3) as respects oral testimony purporting to give
by respondents on the same date. Under the from memory the terms of a writing, there is a
promissory note, respondents Del Monte Motor special risk of error, greater than in the case of
Works, Inc. (respondent corporation) and Morales attempts at describing other situations generally. In
bound themselves jointly and severally to pay the light of these dangers of mistransmission,
petitioner the full amount of the loan through accompanying the use of written copies or of
twenty-five monthly installments. As respondents recollection, largely avoided through proving the
defaulted on their monthly installments, the full terms by presenting the writing itself, the preference
amount of the loan became due and demandable for the original writing is justified. Bearing in mind
pursuant to the terms of the promissory note. that the risk of mistransmission of the contents of a
Petitioner likewise alleges that it made oral and writing is the justification for the best evidence rule,
written demands upon respondents to settle their we declare that this rule finds no application to this
obligation but notwithstanding these demands, case. It should be noted that respondents never
respondents still failed to pay their indebtedness. disputed the terms and conditions of the promissory
Petitioner attached to its complaint as Annexes A, note thus leaving us to conclude that as far as the
parties herein are concerned, the wording or content private respondents dismissal from service was
of said note is clear enough and leaves no room for anchored on past infractions for which she had
disagreement. In their responsive pleadings, already been penalized. The NLRC dismissed the
respondents principal defense rests on the alleged petition, the CA likewise dismissed the petition.
lack of consideration of the promissory note. In
addition, respondent Morales also claims that he did ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners failed to marshal
not sign the note in his personal capacity. These the obligatory quantum of evidence needed to
contentions clearly do not question the precise substantiate a finding of legitimacy or validity in the
wording of the promissory note which should have termination of employment of private respondent,
paved the way for the application of the best the reason for which was supposedly her repeated
evidence rule. It was, therefore, an error for the defiance of company policy.
Court of Appeals to sustain the decision of the trial
court on this point. Decision Reversed. HELD: YES. It is indeed true that administrative
agencies, like the NLRC, are not bound by the
Acebeda Optical vs. NLRC technical rules of procedure and evidence in the
July 17, 2007 adjudication of cases. However, this procedural
Chico-Nazario, J. liberty must not be interpreted to mean an
unfettered license to put forth assertions without at
FACTS: least presenting tangible proof to back them up.
Herein, to our mind, petitioners have not
Petitioners engaged the services of private sufficiently shown that private respondent had
respondent as a packaging clerk. Initially, the willfully disobeyed the company rules and
private respondents employment status was regulations respecting absences and tardiness. The
probationary. Six months later she was regularized. cause for the termination of private respondents
The memorandum was to apprise her of her employment was not simply habitual tardiness
accumulated tardiness of one hour and a half for the and/or absenteeism. Petitioners have alleged time
month; likewise, it served as a warning to her that and again that the basis upon which the dismissal of
habitual tardiness/absenteeism is considered a private respondent was anchored was breach or
violation of company policy. Private respondent violation of company policy. It was their contention
received another memorandum essentially warning that private respondents habitual tardiness and/or
her that habitual tardiness was considered a grave absences were in violation of petitioner company’s
violation of Company Policy; but without actually rules and regulations. Ironically, though petitioners
notifying her of the actual period of her alleged referred to their company policies, they never
tardiness. According to said memorandum, it was to presented a copy of these in evidence except in their
serve as private respondents first written warning as Motion for Reconsideration too late in the day.
well. Be reminded that habitual tardiness is Being the basis of the charge against private
considered a grave violation of Company Policy respondent, it is without doubt the best evidence
and is subject to strict disciplinary action. The available to substantiate the allegations. The
suspension notice was served on her via a purpose of the rule requiring the production of the
Memorandum dated the same day. It was averred best evidence is the prevention of fraud, because if a
that private respondent incurred twenty-six counts party is in possession of such evidence and
of tardiness within the above-specified months withholds it, and seeks to substitute inferior
which number far exceeded the maximum allowable evidence in its place (or none at all save for mere
limit per month of only four times. Private allegation), the presumption naturally arises that the
respondent filed an application for an indefinite better evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes
leave of absence. Labor Arbiter Emerson C. which its production would expose and defeat. By
Tumanon rendered judgment declaring private failing to prove the existence of the company rules
respondent illegally dismissed from service. The in due time, i.e., non-presentation of an
Labor Arbiter held that petitioners failed to accord authenticated copy, unarguably the best evidence,
said employee due process of law; and found that casts skepticism on the factual basis of the charge of
violation thereof; arguably, therefore, it cannot be ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff, the CA
said that the assailed conduct can be considered affirmed the lower court’s decision.
gross neglect of duty. The consistent rule is that if
doubts exist between the evidence presented by the ISSUE: Whether or not the appellate court should
employer and the employee, the scales of justice have disallowed the presentation of secondary
must be titled in favor of the latter. The employer evidence to prove the existence of the Contract,
must affirmatively show rationally adequate following the Best Evidence Rule.
evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable
cause. Having failed to satisfy this burden of proof, HELD:
we find that petitioners dismissed private
respondent without just cause. Consequently, the NO. The Best Evidence Rule, a basic postulate
termination of her employment was illegal. Petition requiring the production of the original document
Denied. whenever its contents are the subject of inquiry, is
contained in Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of
MCMP Construction Corp. vs. Monark Equipment Court. Before a party is allowed to adduce
Corp. secondary evidence to prove the contents of the
Nov. 10, 2014 original, the offeror must prove the following: (1)
Velasco, Jr., J. the existence or due execution of the original; (2)
the loss and destruction of the original or the reason
FACTS: for its non-production in court; and (3) on the part
of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the
MCMP Construction Corporation (MCMP) leased unavailability of the original can be attributed. The
heavy equipment from Monark Equipment correct order of proof is as follows: existence,
Corporation (Monark) for various periods in 2000, execution, loss, and contents. The CA correctly
the lease covered by a Rental Equipment Contract ruled that the above requisites are present. Both the
(Contract). Monark delivered five (5) pieces of CA and the RTC gave credence to the testimony of
heavy equipment to the project site of MCMP in Peregrino that the original Contract in the
Tanay, Rizal and Llavac, Quezon, the delivery possession of Monark has been lost and that diligent
evidenced by invoices as well as Documents efforts were exerted to find the same but to no avail.
Acknowledgment Receipt. MCMP alleged in Such testimony has remained uncontroverted. As
defense that the complaint was premature as has been repeatedly held by this Court, "findings of
Monark has refused to give a detailed breakdown of facts and assessment of credibility of witnesses are
its claims. MCMP further averred that it had an matters best left to the trial court.” Petition Denied
agreement with Monark that it would not be
charged for the whole time that the leased ii. Secondary Evidence
equipment was in its possession but rather only for Rule ( secs. 5-8 )
the actual time that the equipment was used
although still on the project site. Reynaldo
Peregrino (Peregrino), its Senior Account Manager. 2. Secondary Evidence
Peregrino testified that there were two (2) original
copies of the Contract, one retained by Monark, Section 5. When original document is unavailable.
while the other was given to MCMP. He further — When the original document has been lost or
testified that Monark's copy had been lost and that destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the
diligent efforts to recover the copy proved futile. offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and
Instead, Peregrino presented a photocopy of the the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on
Contract which he personally had on file. MCMP his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a
objected to the presentation of secondary evidence recital of its contents in some authentic document,
to prove the contents of the Contract arguing that or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
there were no diligent efforts to search for the (4a)
original copy. The RTC rendered a decision,
Section 6. When original document is in adverse Julio Salvador. The appellee, however, invoking
party's custody or control. — If the document is in section 299 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
the custody or under the control of adverse party, he maintains that said certified copy, Exhibit 2, issued
must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after by the acting registrar of deeds of Iloilo, was
such notice and after satisfactory proof of its properly admitted as evidence in the same manner
existence, he fails to produce the document, that the original deed of sale of said lots said to
secondary evidence may be presented as in the case have been executed by the Martinez sister in favor
of its loss. (5a) of Antonio Domenech, which, copy being a public
document, had the same effect as the original.
Section 7. Evidence admissible when original
document is a public record. — When the original ISSUE: Whether or not the entry in the registry can
of document is in the custody of public officer or is be admitted by the court.
recorded in a public office, its contents may be
proved by a certified copy issued by the public HELD: NO. The best obtainable evidence should be
officer in custody thereof. (2a) adduced to prove every disputed fact, and a failure
to produce it, but an attempt instead to sustain the
Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound issue by inferior evidence, will authorize the
to offer it. — A party who calls for the production inference that the party does not furnish the best
of a document and inspects the same is not obliged evidence because it would tend to defeat, instead of
to offer it as evidence. (6a) sustaining, the issue of his part. In requiring the
production of the best evidence applicable to each
Gov. Of the Phil. Islands vs. Martinez (Secondary particular fact, it is meant that no evidence shall be
Evidence Rule, Secs. 5-8) received which is merely substitutionary in its
Jan. 10, 1918 nature, so long as the original evidence can be had.
Araullo, J. Secondary evidence of the contents of writings if
admitted on the theory that the original cannot be
FACTS: produced by the party by whom the evidence is
offered, within a reasonable time by the exercise of
Julio Salvador, through his attorney, entered his reasonable diligence. And ordinarily secondary
appearance and claimed title to said lots, alleging evidence is not admissible until the nonproduction
that he was in actual possession thereof, and that his of the primary evidence has been sufficiently
predecessors in interest had been in possession accounted for. Under the earlier English decisions
before him for at least fourteen years. Trial having no degrees of secondary evidence are recognized.
been held and the parties having adduced their The American courts, however, have asserted that
evidence, judgment was rendered by the Court of secondary evidence, to be admissible, must be the
First Instance of Iloilo, which took the place of the best evidence obtainable under the circumstances. . .
Court of Land Registration, denying the claim of . It is a rule of evidence, too ancient and too well
Carmen and Dolores Martinez and adjudicating said understood to require proof of its existence, that the
lots to Julio Salvador, on the ground that, in the original instrument is better evidence than a copy.
opinion of the court, it was proved that the Martinez Again, whenever a copy of a record or document is
sisters had sold said land to one named Domenech itself made original or primary evidence, the rule is
and that the latter, in return, sold it to Julio clear and well settled that it must be a copy made
Salvador, who could, therefore, be considered directly from or compared with the original. If the
owner of the disputed lots. As the claimants first copy be lost, or in the hands of the opposite
Martinez denied having sold the aforesaid two lots party, so long as another may be obtained from the
to Antonio Domenech,, as stated by the witness same source, no ground can be laid for resorting to
Saez, and having executed a document of sale of evidence of an inferior or secondary character. Is
said lots in favor of Domenech, the attorney for the failure of the oppositor to present the original
Julio Salvador, besides the document of sale of said document in question was not accounted for; as it is
lots executed by Antonio Domenech in favor of not proper to suppose that the original could not
have been presented within a reasonable time if he defendant-respondent, declaring the latter as owner
had exercised due diligence for he or his counsel of the land in question with the right to retain
had the means, opportunity and time to find the possession of the same. The decision was affirmed
original if it really existed; as no proof was adduced in toto by the Court of Appeals.
that said document had been lost, or destroyed, or
that proper search therefor was made in the general ISSUE: Whether or not the admission by the courts
files of notarial documents in the City of Manila, or a quo of secondary evidence to establish the
that an attempt was made to secure a copy thereof if contents of the first unregistered deed of sale
it existed in said files; as the notary, Gregorio Yulo, executed by Anselmo Lacatan in favor of Apolonio
a person well known in Iloilo, was not asked Lacatan when the loss or destruction of the original
directly and clearly as to the whereabouts of said document has not been established.
document or some particular or data it in order to
obtain from him some conclusive and categorical HELD: NO. The destruction of the instrument may
answer; as said notary has not been presented at the be proved by any person knowing the fact. The loss
trial to be examined on these points; and, lastly, as it may be shown by any person who knew the fact of
was not shown that the party interested in the its loss, or by any one who has made, in the
presentation of said document who is Julio judgment of the court, a sufficient examination of
Salvador, had made a diligent and proper, but the place or places where the document or papers of
fruitless, search for said document in any place similar character are kept by the person in whose
where it could probably be found — therefore the custody the document lost was, and has been unable
secondary evidence presented by the oppositor, to find it; or has made any other investigation which
consisting of the testimony of the witnesses, Saez is sufficient to satisfy the court that the instrument
and Madrenas, and the certified copy issued by the is indeed lost. And "it is not even necessary to prove
registrar of deeds of Iloilo, Exhibit 2, is of no value its loss beyond all possibility of mistake. A
for the purpose intended and such evidence was reasonable probability of its loss is sufficient, and
improperly considered by the court in reaching the this may be shown by a bona fide and diligent
conclusion that said Julio Salvador was the owner search, fruitlessly made, for it in places where it is
of the lots in question. Judgement Reversed likely to be found.” And after proving the due
execution and delivery of the document, together
Paylago vs. Jarabe with the fact that the same has been lost or
March 27, 1968 destroyed, its contents may be proved, among
Reyes, J.B.L., J. others, by the recollection of witnesses. The loss of
the document may be established by the one who
FACTS: conducted the investigation and the one who made
the diligent search, also by the one who examined
The entire lot involved in this suit was originally the place. Decision Affirmed.
covered by Homestead Patent issued on June 7,
1920 under Act No. 926 and later under OCT No. Widows & Orphan Asso. Inc vs. CA
251 of the Registry of Deeds of Mindoro, issued on Aug. 28, 1991
June 22, 1920 in the name of Anselmo Lacatan. Bidin, J.
Vidal Lacatan's heirs, namely, Maximo, Tomas and
Lucia Lacatan, executed a deed of sale (Exh. C) in FACTS:
favor of the spouses Romeo Paylago and Rosario
Dimaandal. By virtue of the registration of the two Widora filed filed before the respondent (trial) court
deeds of sale (Exhs. C and D), a new TCT No. T- an application for registration of title of a parcel of
4208 covering the total area of 6.7908 hectares was land. Widora alleged that the parcel of land is
issued in favor of plaintiffs-petitioners, the Paylago covered by Titulo de Propriedad. Later, Widora
spouses. The lower court held that plaintiffs- filed an amended application for registration of the
petitioners were not purchasers in good faith and, said parcel of land. Dolores Molina filed an
accordingly, rendered judgment in favor of opposition, claiming ownership over 12 to 14
hectares of Lot 8. Ortigas filed a motion to dismiss Oct. 21, 1998
the case alleging, among others, that respondent
court had no jurisdiction over the case, the land Romero, J.
being applied for having been already registered FACTS:
under the Torrens System and in the name of
Ortigas. The respondent (trial) court denied the Petitioners filed an action for reconveyance with
motion to dismiss of petitioner Ortigas, holding, damages against private respondents involving a
among others. In reversing the lower court, the CA parcel of land. In their complaint, petitioners assert
held that: based on the plan and other evidence that the subject land was bought by their
submitted by respondent Ortigas at the hearing of its predecessor-ininterest from the private respondents,
application for preliminary injunction to enjoin the Madrid brothers. The Madrid's denied having
trial court from proceeding with the hearing of LRC
executed the said deed of sale and assuming that
Case No. Q-336, respondent court held that TCT
said document exists, the same is fictitious and
Nos. 77652 and 77653, albeit reflecting their origins
as OCT Nos. 337, 19, 336 and 334, are actually falsified. While they admit petitioners possession of
derivatives of OCT No. 351, the latter having been the land, they assert that this possession is in
issued pursuant to Decree 1425 and that since OCT defiance of their repeated demands that the former
351 is allegedly a copy of Decree 1425, the mere relinquish the same. Pacifico Marquez contends that
fact that the original copy of Decree 1425, or a he is an innocent purchaser for value of the property
certified copy thereof, can no longer be located or having bought the same from the Madrid brothers in
produced, does not mean that Decree 1425 covering 1976. During the trial, petitioners were unable to
the lots embraced in TCT Nos. 77652 and 77653 present the original deed of sale since it was lost.
was not issued. Consequently, they were constrained to offer, as
Exhibit A, a photo copy of the purported original
ISSUE: Whether or not the existence of the carbon copy of the deed of sale in an effort to prove
availability of an original document bars the use of
the transaction. Since at the time of the execution of
secondary evidence.
Teodoro dela Cruz affidavit, a duplicate original
HELD: YES. Undoubtedly, the evidence (i.e., plan carbon copy of the alleged sale was still in his
submitted by respondent Ortigas, testimony of its possession, the plaintiffs must have to account for
surveyor and OCT 351) adduced by private it. No proof was adduced that this remaining copy
respondent to prove the contents of Decree 1425 was lost or destroyed. Since at the time of the
and admitted by respondent court is merely execution of Teodoro dela Cruz affidavit, a
secondary and should not have been admitted in the duplicate original carbon copy of the alleged sale
first place. Before secondary evidence may be was still in his possession, the plaintiffs must have
admitted, there must be 1) proof of the execution of to account for it. No proof was adduced that this
the original writing and 2) that it has been lost or remaining copy was lost or destroyed. Furthermore,
destroyed or cannot be produced in court or that it is no attempt was done to produce the copies retained
in the possession of the adverse party who has
by the notary public although there is a possibility
failed to produce it after reasonable notice. Private
that the same still exist (sic). Neither was there any
respondent has not shown compliance with the
above requisites which would justify the admission proof that the copy sent to the court as required by
of the secondary evidence used and erroneously the notarial law is unavailable. Under these (sic)
relied upon by respondent court. Decision Set state of facts, the Court believes that the xerox copy
Aside. of a certified true copy of the original issued by the
notary public cannot be admitted in evidence to
prove the conveyance of the land in question. The
trial court dismissed petitioners complaint.
Evidently aggrieved by the decision, petitioners
Heirs of Teodoro de la Cruz vs. CA appealed to the Court of Appeals contending that
the trial court erred in holding that: (1) Exhibit A Office of the Ombudsman vs. Valencia
was inadmissible in evidence to prove the
April 13, 2011,
transaction; (2) there was no valid sale of the land in
question; (3) that they (petitioners) are not entitled G.R. No. 183890
to the improvements they had introduced in the
land. The Court of Appeals rendered its judgment Mendoza, J.
which ruled that Exhibit A was admissible in FACTS:
evidence for failure of the private respondents to
object. Not satisfied that the entries made by Valencia in
his SALN were reflective of his actual net worth,
ISSUE: Whether or not Exhibit A is admissible in Napoleon P. Guerrero (Guerrero), Intelligence
evidence. Officer V of the Department of Finance, filed a
complaint/motion for Subpoena/Subpoena Duces
Tecum 7 with the Ombudsman against him for
HELD: YES. It is therefore evident that defendants- violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1379 8 in
appellees never put in issue the inadmissible nature relation to Section 8, 9 R.A. No. 3019. In his
of Exh. A as a mere secondary evidence and that the complaint, Guerrero alleged that Valencia
trial judge did not exclude the same when it was maintained two (2) US dollar time deposit accounts
formally offered, only to ultimately exclude it in its with the Far East Bank and Trust Company
decision. It is true that the originals of Exh. A were (FEBTC). In support of his allegation that Valencia
never produced or accounted for by plaintiffs. Yet, maintained these accounts, Guerrero attached two
notwithstanding this omission, the defense did not (2) Letters of Agreement 12 placing the two US
object to its not being the best evidence when it was dollar time deposit accounts under the custody of
formally offered. Had the defendants interposed an FEBTC and authorizing said bank to apply the
objection to Exh. A on the ground of its proceeds of the accounts to the forward contracts
incompetency for not complying with the best entered into by Valencia and FEBTC. The
evidence rule, it would have been properly excluded complaint also alleged that the house and lot
by the trial court. Defendants omission to object on declared by Valencia in his SALNs was grossly
the proper ground operated as a waiver, as this was undervalued considering that the house, described
a matter resting on their discretion. Unfortunately, as "impressive," was erected on a parcel of land
petitioners victory was shortlived. For the Court of consisting of five (5) contiguous lots. Finally, it was
Appeals, while ruling that Exhibit A was alleged that from the credit card billings of his Bank
admissible, concluded that the same had no of the Philippine Islands (BPI) Mastercard, it could
probative value to support the allegation of the be inferred that Valencia maintained a lavish
petitioners that the disputed land was sold to them. lifestyle. Valencia was dismissed in the
The lone fact that Atty. Tabangay asserted that he administrative complaint. In reversing the RTC, the
recognized his signature on the copy shown by CA reasoned out that to hold Valencia liable for
Teodoro when the loss of the originals was just Dishonesty when in fact the charge against him was
made known to him, does not render Exh. A for Unexplained Wealth, violated Valencia's right to
trustworthy as to the actual execution of the alleged due process, especially his right to be informed of
deed of sale. Exh. A does not even contain a the charges against him and to be convicted only of
reproduction of the alleged signatures of the Madrid the offense charged.
brothers for comparison purposes. The surviving
witness to the alleged execution, Constantino ISSUE: Whether or not there is no substantial
Balmoja was not presented to corroborate Atty. evidence to hold Valencia liable for Dishonesty.
Tabangay's testimony, hinged as the latter was on
secondary evidence. Decision Affirmed.
HELD: NO. The due execution and genuineness of of three sublots of a lot located in Laguna. Lot 248-
the photocopied letters of agreement and monthly A was later on partitioned into two, whereby the
statements of the BPI Mastercard transactions of outer portion along F. Gomez St. became the
Valencia were never verified and confirmed. The property of the respondents, Spouses Tomas and
basic rule is that these photocopied private Leonora Eraa Cardeo. The petitioners had also built
documents are secondary evidence which are a house of light materials on the adjacent land, Lot
inadmissible unless there is ample proof of the loss 248-B, then owned by Frisco Eraa. There is an
of the originals. Absent such proof, these existing pathway or alley on this lot which the
documents are incompetent as evidence. The Court petitioners use as their outlet to F. Gomez St. After
cannot rightly appreciate firsthand the genuineness they bought Encarnacion's property, the petitioners
of an unverified and unidentified document, much wanted to construct a new house at the interior
less, accord it evidentiary value. Regarding the portion of Lot 248-A. They then demanded that
photocopied letters of agreement, these were not they be given a right of way or an outlet to F.
even signed by Valencia. Thus, these letters of Gomez St., claiming that they were entitled thereto
agreement relating to the alleged dollar time under the Pinanumpaang Salaysay executed
deposits of Valencia and his credit card billings are between respondent Leonora Cardeo and
incompetent pieces of evidence unworthy of any Encarnacion Javel, the petitioners predecessor-in-
probative value. To dismiss a public officer or interest. When the respondents refused to give them
employee on the basis of photocopies of private the right of way, the petitioners filed with the RTC
documents which are questioned and disputed is to a complaint for specific performance and/or
set a dangerous precedent. It can be abused by easement of right of way with damages. In their
oppressive or abusive superiors who may want their answer to the complaint, the respondents
own protégé to replace the charged officers or specifically denied the genuineness and due
employees or by any individual who may want to execution of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay, alleging
harass a public employee for no legitimate reason at that it was falsified. The trial court held that the
all. Photocopies should only be considered as petitioners evidence did not support their claim that
evidence if they are not contested, if they are respondent Leonora Cardeo and Encarnacion Javel
admitted, or if they constitute matters which need executed the Pinanumpaang Salaysay or entered
not be proved. Unverified photocopied private into an agreement granting the latter, the petitioners
documents are not evidence which a reasonable predecessor-in-interest, a right of way. The trial
mind might accept as adequate to support a court noted that the petitioners presented only a
conclusion. Nevertheless, granting that these pieces photocopy or machine copy of the purported
of evidence relied upon by the Ombudsman are document, and, during the trial, failed to lay the
admissible in evidence, the Court still finds the foundation or prepare the basis for the admission of
same insufficient to establish the liability of secondary evidence to prove the contents thereof,
Valencia for Dishonesty. Petition Denied the CA affirmed this decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners failed to lay
the foundation or prepare the basis for the
Dioso vs. Tomas, et al.
admission of secondary evidence to prove the
Sept. 11, 2004 contents thereof.
Callejo, Sr., J. HELD: NO. The petitioners argue that they were
able to establish the existence of the Pinanumpaang
FACTS: Salaysay by secondary evidence, and the fact of the
The property subject of the complaint for specific loss or unavailability of the original copy thereof
performance and/or easement of right of way, is one despite the non-admission of the copy certified by
the municipal assessor. The admission of secondary
evidence in case of the loss or unavailability of the An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in
original document is thus warranted upon the written agreement;
satisfactory proof of the following: (1) execution or
existence of the original; (2) loss and destruction of
the original or its non-production in court; and (3)
unavailability of the original is not due to bad faith (b) The failure of the written agreement to express
the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;
on the part of the offeror. Proof of the due execution
of the document and its subsequent loss would
(c) The validity of the written agreement; or
constitute the foundation for the introduction of
secondary evidence. Admittedly, in this case, the (d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the
original document of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay parties or their successors in interest after the
was not presented during trial. However, the execution of the written agreement.
petitioners presented a photocopy thereof, as well as
testimonial evidence to prove its due execution and The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a)
the loss or unavailability of the original document.
Specifically, the existence and due execution of the
Pinanumpaang Salaysay was established by Yldeso, Conde vs. CA (Parol Evidence Rule)
one of the petitioners witnesses, who testified that Dec. 15, 1982
he was one of the witnesses to the execution thereof
and that his signature appears thereon. Petition Melencio-Herrera, J.
Granted.
FACTS:
Paciente Cordero, son-in-law of the Alteras, signed
Edsa Shangrila et al v BF Corp, GR no 145842 - a document in the Visayan dialect. To be noted is
June 7, 2008 the fact that neither of the vendees-a-retro, Pio
Altera nor Casimira Pasagui, was a signatory to the
deed. Petitioner maintains that because Pio Altera
iii. Party who calls for was very ill at the time, Paciente Cordero executed
document not bound the deed of resale for and on behalf of his father-in-
to offer it – sec 9 law. Petitioner further states that she redeemed the
iv. Parol Evidence Rule
property with her own money as her co-heirs were
( sec. 10 )
bereft of funds for the purpose. Pio Altera sold the
Parol Evidence Rule disputed lot to the spouses Ramon Conde and
Catalina T. Conde, who are also private respondents
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. — herein. Their relationship to petitioner does not
When the terms of an agreement have been reduced appear from the records. Nor has the document of
to writing, it is considered as containing all the sale been exhibited. Contending that she had validly
terms agreed upon and there can be, between the repurchased the lot in question in the CFI an action
parties and their successors in interest, no evidence for quieting of title to real property and declaration
of such terms other than the contents of the written of ownership. Petitioner's evidence is that Paciente
agreement. Cordero signed the Memorandum of Repurchase in
representation of his father-in-law Pio Altera, who
However, a party may present evidence to modify, was seriously sick on that occasion, and of his
explain or add to the terms of written agreement if
mother-in-law who was in Manila at the time, and
he puts in issue in his pleading:
that Cordero received the repurchase price. After
trial, the lower Court rendered its Decision
dismissing the Complaint and the counterclaim and
ordering petitioner "to vacate the property in dispute Gutierrez, Jr., J.
and deliver its peaceful possession to the defendants
FACTS:
Ramon Conde and Catalina T. Conde”. The Court
of Appeals upheld the findings of the Court a quo This petition for review invokes the parol evidence
that petitioner had failed to validly exercise her rule as it imputes grave abuse of discretion on the
right of repurchase in view of the fact that the part of the appellate court for admitting and giving
Memorandum of Repurchase was signed by credence to the testimony of the vendor regarding
Paciente Cordero and not by Pio Altera, the vendee- the sale of the disputed lot. The testimony is
a-retro, and that there is nothing in said document to contrary to the contents of the deed of sale executed
show that Cordero was specifically authorized to act by the vendor in favor of the petitioner. The
for and on behalf of the vendee a retro, Pio Altera. petitioner filed a complaint for forcible entry with
damages against the private respondents, alleging
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent must be held
that the latter by means of force, intimidation,
bound by the clear terms of the Memorandum of
strategy and stealth, unlawfully entered lots A and
Repurchase that he had signed wherein he
B, corresponding to the middle and northern portion
acknowledged the receipt assumed the obligation to
of the property owned by the petitioner. She alleged
maintain the repurchaser's in peaceful possession
that they appropriated the produce thereof for
should they be "disturbed by other persons".
themselves, and refused to surrender the possession
HELD: YES. There is nothing in the document of of the same despite demands made by the petitioner.
repurchase to show that Paciente Cordero had The complaint was dismissed. Petitioner appealed
signed the same merely to indicate that he had no to the CFI. While the above appeal was pending, the
objection to petitioner's right of repurchase. petitioner instituted another action before the CFI of
Besides, he would have had no personality to Iloilo for recovery and possession of the same
object. To uphold his oral testimony on that point, property against the private respondents. The two
would be a departure from the parol evidence rule cases were tried jointly. After trial, the court
and would defeat the purpose for which the doctrine rendered judgment. The court dismissed the two
is intended. The purpose of the rule is to give cases altogether, the CA sustained the dismissal.
stability to written agreements, and to remove the
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court had no legal
temptation and possibility of perjury, which would
justification when it subjected the true intent and
be afforded if parol evidence was admissible.
agreement to parol evidence over the objection of
Although the contending parties were legally
petitioner and that to impugn a written agreement,
wanting in their respective actuations, the
the evidence must be conclusive.
repurchase by petitioner is supported by the
admissions at the pre-trial that petitioner has been in HELD: NO. As explained by a leading
possession since the year 1945, the date of the deed commentator on our Rules of Court, the parol
of repurchase, and has been paying land taxes evidence rule does not apply, and may not properly
thereon since then. The imperatives of substantial be invoked by either party to the litigation against
justice, and the equitable principle of laches brought the other, where at least one of the parties to the suit
about by private respondents' inaction and neglect is not party or a privy of a party to the written
for 24 years, loom in petitioner's favor. Decision instrument in question and does not base a claim on
Reversed. the instrument or assert a right originating in the
instrument or the relation established thereby. The
petitioner's reliance on the parol evidence rule is
Lechugas vs. CA misplaced. The rule is not applicable where the
controversy is between one of the parties to the
April 6, 1986
document and third persons. The deed of sale was

executed by Leoncia Lasangue in favor of Victoria
Lechugas. The dispute over what was actually sold
is between petitioner and the private respondents. In
the case at bar, through the testimony of Leoncia ISSUE: Whether or not the parol evidence rule
Lasangue, it was shown that what she really applies only to a particular form of contract.
intended to sell and to be the subject of Exhibit A
was Lot No. 5522 but not being able to read and HELD: NO. In petitioner's assertion that since the
write and fully relying on the good faith of her first promissory note "is not a public deed with the
cousin, the petitioner, she just placed her formalities prescribed by law but x x x a mere
thumbmark on a piece of paper which petitioner commercial paper which does not bear the signature
told her was the document evidencing the sale of of x x x attesting witnesses," parol evidence may
land. The deed of sale described the disputed lot "overcome" the contents of the promissory note.
instead. There can be no other conclusion but that Clearly, the rule does not specify that the written
Lasangue did not intend to sell as she could not agreement be a public document. What is required
have sold, a piece of land already sold by her father is that the agreement be in writing as the rule is in
to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. fact founded on "long experience that written
Petition Dismissed. evidence is so much more certain and accurate than
that which rests in fleeting memory only, that it
Inciong, Jr. vs. CA would be unsafe, when parties have expressed the
terms of their contract in writing, to admit weaker
June 26, 1996
evidence to control and vary the stronger and to
Romero, J. show that the parties intended a different contract
from that expressed in the writing signed by them"
FACTS:
[FRANCISCO, THE RULES OF COURT OF THE
Baldomero Inciong’s liability resulted from the PHILIPPINES, Vol. VII, Part I, 1990 ed., p. 179]
promissory note which he signed with Rene C. Thus, for the parol evidence rule to apply, a written
Naybe and Gregorio D. Pantanosas, holding contract need not be in any particular form, or be
themselves jointly and severally liable to private signed by both parties. As a general rule, bills, notes
respondent Philippine Bank of Communications. and other instruments of a similar nature are not
Private respondent sent petitioner telegrams subject to be varied or contradicted by parol or
demanding payment thereof. Private respondent extrinsic evidence. Petition Denied.
also sent by registered mail a final letter of demand
Heirs of Mario Pacres vs. Heirs of Cecilia Ygoña
to Rene C. Naybe. Since both obligors did not
respond to the demands made, private respondent May 5, 2010
filed a complaint for collection of the sum of money
Del Castillo, J.
against the three obligors. The lower court
reconsidered the dismissal order and required the FACTS:
sheriff to serve the summonses. In the
aforementioned decision of the lower court, it noted Petitioners admitted that at the time of Pastors death
that the typewritten figure "P50,000-" clearly in 1962, his heirs were already occupying definite
appears directly below the admitted signature of the portions of Lot No. 9. The front portion along the
petitioner in the promissory note. Hence, the latter's provincial highway was occupied by the co-owned
uncorroborated testimony on his limited liability Pacres ancestral home, and beside it stood Rodrigo's
cannot prevail over the presumed regularity and hut (also fronting the provincial highway). Mario's
fairness of the transaction, the CA affirmed the house stood at the back of the ancestral house. The
decision. ground floor of the [ancestral home] together with a
lot area of 300 square meters including the area
occupied by the house to respondent Hilario ISSUE: Whether or not to preclude the application
Ramirez (Ramirez), who immediately took of Parol Evidence Rule, it must be shown that at
possession thereof. Subsequently, four of the Pacres least one of the parties to the suit is not party or a
siblings sold their shares in the ancestral home and privy of a party to the written instrument in question
the lot on which it stood to Ramirez. The deeds of and does not base a claim on the instrument or
sale described the subjects thereof as part and assert a right originating in the instrument or the
portion of the 300 square meters actually in relation established thereby.
possession and enjoyment by vendee and her
HELD: YES. It is true that third parties may seek
spouse, Hilario Ramirez, by virtue of a contract of
enforcement of a contract under the second
lease in their favor. With the sale, respondent
paragraph of Article 1311, which provides that if a
Ramirez's possession as lessee turned into a
contract should contain some stipulation in favor of
coownership with petitioners Mario and Vearanda,
a third person, he may demand its fulfillment. This
who did not sell their shares in the house and lot.
refers to stipulations pour autrui, or stipulations for
On various dates, Rodrigo, Francisco, and Simplicia
the benefit of third parties. However, the written
sold their remaining shares in Lot No. 9 to
contracts of sale in this case contain no such
respondent Cecilia Ygoa (Ygoa). In 1983, Margarita
stipulation in favor of the petitioners. While
also sold her share to Ygoa. The complaint for legal
petitioners claim that there was an oral stipulation,
redemption, filed by Mario and Vearanda, was
it cannot be proven under the Parol Evidence Rule.
dismissed on the ground of improper exercise of the
Under this Rule, [w]hen the terms of an agreement
right. The decision was affirmed by the appellate
have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
court filed by Mario and Vearanda, was dismissed
containing all the terms agreed upon and there can
on the ground of improper exercise of the right. The
be, between the parties and their successors in
decision was affirmed by the appellate court and
interest, no evidence of such terms other than the
attained finality in the Supreme Court. The
contents of the written agreement. While the Rule
Republic of the Philippines, through the Department
admits of exception, no such exception was
of Public Works and Highways (DPWH),
pleaded, much less proved, by petitioners. The Parol
expropriated the front portion of Lot No. 9 for the
Evidence Rule applies to the parties and their
expansion of the Cebu south road. The Pacres
successors in interest. Conversely, it has no
siblings (Margarita and Francisco were already
application to a stranger to a contract. For purposes
deceased at that time and were only represented by
of the Parol Evidence Rule, a person who claims to
their heirs) executed a Confirmation of Oral
be the beneficiary of an alleged stipulation pour
Partition/ Settlement of Estate of Pastor Pacres. The
autrui in a contract (such as petitioners) may be
court dismissed Mario's assertion that his siblings
considered a party to that contract. It has been held
sold the rear lots to Ramirez. It held that the deeds
that a third party who avails himself of a stipulation
of sale in favor of Ramirez clearly described the
pour autrui under a contract becomes a party to that
object of the sale as the ancestral house and lot.
contract. Even assuming that the alleged oral
Vearanda and the heirs of Mario filed the instant
undertakings invoked by petitioners may be deemed
complaint for specific performance against Ygoa
stipulations pour autrui, still petitioners claim
and Ramirez. Contrary to Mario's allegations of co-
cannot prosper, because they are barred from
ownership over Lot No. 9 in the legal redemption
proving them by oral evidence under the Parol
case, Mario's heirs insist in the action for specific
Evidence Rule.
performance that the heirs agreed on a partition
prior to the sale. The trial court held that petitioners
failed to prove partition of the lot in accordance
with petitioners version, the CA sustained the ruling Magellan Mnfg. Mktg. Corp. vs. CA (General Rule)
of the lower court. Aug. 22, 1991

Regalado, J. HELD: NO. Petitioner, in effect, is saying that since
there was a mistake in documentation on the part of
FACTS:
private respondents, such a mistake militates against
Magellan Manufacturers Marketing Corp. the conclusiveness of the bill of lading insofar as it
(MMMC) entered into a contract with Choju Co. of reflects the terms of the contract between the
Yokohama, Japan to export 136,000 anahaw fans. parties, as an exception to the parol evidence rule,
As payment thereof, a letter of credit was issued to and would therefore permit it to explain or present
plaintiff MMMC by the buyer. MMMC paid F.E. evidence to vary or contradict the terms of the
Zuellig the freight charges and secured a copy of written agreement, that is, the bill of lading
the bill of lading which was presented to Allied involved herein. Under the parol evidence rule, the
Bank. When petitioner informed private terms of a contract are rendered conclusive upon the
respondents about what happened, the latter issued a parties, and evidence aliunde is not admissible to
certificate stating that its bill of lading it issued is an vary or contradict a complete and enforceable
on board bill of lading and that there was no actual agreement embodied in a document, subject to well
transhipment of the fans. According to private defined exceptions which do not obtain in this case.
respondents when the goods are transferred from The parol evidence rule is based on the
one vessel to another which both belong to the same consideration that when the parties have reduced
owner which was what happened to the Anahaw their agreement on a particular matter into writing,
fans, then there is (no) transhipment. Petitioner filed all their previous and contemporaneous agreements
the complaint in this case praying that private on the matter are merged therein. Accordingly,
respondents be ordered to pay whatever petitioner evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal
was not able to earn from Choju Co., Ltd., agreement is generally not admissible to vary,
amounting to P174,150.00 and other damages like contradict or defeat the operation of a valid
attorney's fees since private respondents are to instrument. The mistake contemplated as an
blame for the refusal of Choju Co., Ltd. to accept exception to the parol evidence rule is one which is
the Anahaw fans. The lower court dismissed the a mistake of fact mutual to the parties. Furthermore,
complaint on the ground that petitioner had given its the rules on evidence, as amended, require that in
consent to the contents of the bill of lading where it order that parol evidence may be admitted, said
is clearly indicated that there will be transhipment. mistake must be put in issue by the pleadings, such
The lower court also said that petitioner is liable to that if not raised inceptively in the complaint or in
pay to private respondent the freight charges from the answer, as the case may be, a party can not later
Japan to Manila and demurrages since it was the on be permitted to introduce parol evidence thereon.
former which ordered the reshipment of the cargo Needless to say, the mistake adverted to by herein
from Japan to Manila, the CA affirmed the decision petitioner, and by its own admission, was
of the lower court. Petitioner insists that supposedly committed by private respondents only
"(c)onsidering that there was no actual transhipment and was raised by the former rather belatedly only
of the Anahaw fans, then there is no occasion under in this instant petition. Clearly then, and for failure
which the petitioner can agree to the transhipment to comply even only with the procedural
of the Anahaw fans because there is nothing like requirements thereon, we cannot admit evidence to
that to agree to" and "(i)f there is no actual prove or explain the alleged mistake in
transhipment but there appears to be a transhipment documentation imputed to private respondents by
in the bill of lading, then there can be no possible petitioner. Decision Affirmed
reason for it but a mistake on the part of the private
Gurango vs. CA
respondents.
Nov. 4, 1962
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a mistake in
documentation on the part of private respondents. Nocon, J.
FACTS: document. "The mistake contemplated as an
exception to the parol evidence rule is one which is
Edward Ferreira sold to petitioner Amado Gurango
a mistake of fact mutual to the parties,” which is not
one (1) booklet of raffle tickets valued at Five
present on this case. Moreover, in view of the
Hundred (P500.00) Pesos consisting of one hundred
parties' conflicting claims regarding the true nature
(100) tickets in connection with a fundraising
of the agreement executed by them, We find the
project sponsored by the Makati Jaycees. Amado
version of the private respondent more credible for
Gurango alleged that he issued a check for the
the terms of said agreement are clear and require no
payment of the 60 raffle tickets. Thereafter,
room for interpretation since the intention of the
petitioner called his cashier, Miriam Burgo, and
parties, as expressly specified in said agreement, do
instructed the latter to fill up the stubs of the one
not contradict each other. Petition Denied.
hundred (100) raffle tickets with the names of his
family members before surrendering the same to the
messenger of private respondent who would go
Marquez vs Espejo
there to collect the check for the payment of said
raffle tickets. As petitioner was in a hurry to finish
his income tax return, he handed all the claim stubs
to the private respondent who selected forty (40) Exceptions
claim stubs from the lot representing the unpaid Robles vs. Lizarraga Hermanos (exceptions)
balance. Thereafter, private respondent asked the
petitioner to put down their agreement into writing July 13, 1927
which the latter did in a piece of yellow paper and Street, J.
in his own handwriting. Petitioner was shown a
copy of Daily Express and learned from an item in FACTS:
said newspaper that ticket No. 162574 won a This action was instituted in the Court of First
Toyota Corolla car but was surprised to find out that Instance of Occidental Negros by Zacarias Robles
the winning stub was among those taken by the against Lizarraga Hermanos, a mercantile
private respondent. Thereafter, private respondent partnership for the purpose of recovering
and petitioner met at the Metro Jaycee Clubhouse compensation for improvements made by the
were the former asked the latter to comply with plaintiff upon the hacienda "Nahalinan" and the
their agreement but petitioner refused and wrote a value of implements and farming equipment
letter to the Makati Jaycees disclaiming said supplied to the hacienda by the plaintiff, as well as
agreement. Eventually, the car was awarded to damages for breach of contract. The plaintiff alleges
petitioners' son. Subsequent demands by the private and the trial court found, upon what we believe to
respondent to the petitioner to comply with their be sufficient proof, that, in consideration that the
agreement were ignored by the latter. The lower plaintiff should shorten the term of his lease to the
court dismissed the complaint, for failure on the extent stated, the defendant agreed to pay him the
part of the plaintiff to have established a cause of value of all betterments that he had made on the
action against the defendants. The appellate court hacienda and furthermore to purchase from him all
reversed the decision of the lower court. that belonged to him personally on the hacienda,
ISSUE: Whether or not the agreement is valid. including the crop of 1917-18, the cattle, farming
implements and equipment, according to a valuation
HELD: NO. When the parties have reduced their to be made after the harvest. The plaintiff agreed to
agreement in writing, the contents of said agreement this; and the instrument of conveyance by which the
are rendered conclusive upon the parties and three owners, Zacarias, Jose and Evarista Robles,
evidence aliunde is inadmissible to change a valid conveyed the property to Lizarraga Hermanos was
and enforceable agreement embodied in a accordingly.
ISSUE: Whether or not the deed of conveyance verbal contract is admissible under the doctrine
purports to transfer to the defendant only such above stated. The rule that a preliminary or
interests in certain properties as had come to the contemporaneous oral agreement is not admissible
conveyors by inheritance. to vary a written contract appears to have more
particular reference to the obligation expressed in
HELD: YES. There is no rule of evidence of wider
the written agreement, and the rule had never been
application than that which declares extrinsic
interpreted as being applicable to matters of
evidence inadmissible either to contradict or vary
consideration or inducement. In the case before us
the terms of a written contract. The execution of a
the written contract is complete in itself; the oral
contract in writing is deemed to supersede all oral
agreement is also complete in itself, and it is a
negotiations or stipulations concerning its terms and
collateral to the written contract, notwithstanding
the subject-matter which preceded the execution of
the fact that it deals with related matters. Trial Court
the instrument, in the absence of accident, fraud or
Decision Affirmed.
mistake of fact (10 R. C. L., p. 1016). But it is
recognized that this rule is to be taken with proper Enriquez vs. Ramos
qualifications; and all the authorities are agreed that
Sept. 29, 1962
proof is admissible of any collateral, parol
agreement that is not inconsistent with the terms of Bautista-Angelo, J.
the written contract, though it may relate to the
same subject-matter As expressed in a standard FACTS:
legal encyclopedia, the doctrine here referred to is Defendant Ramos purchased from plaintiffs 20
as follows: "The rule excluding parol evidence to parcels of land located in Quezon City. Defendant
vary or contradict a writing does not extend so far executed a mortgage in favor of plaintiffs upon the
as to preclude the admission of extrinsic evidence to 20 parcels of land sold and on a half interest over a
show prior or contemporaneous collateral parol parcel of land in Bulacan which was embodied in
agreements between the parties, but such evidence the same deed of sale; that said deed of sale with
may be received, regardless of whether or not the mortgage was registered in the Offices of the
written agreement contains any reference to such Registers of Deeds. Defendant set up as affirmative
collateral agreement, and whether the action is at defense that the contract mentioned in the complaint
law or in equity." It has accordingly been held that, does not express the true agreement of the parties
in case of a written contract of lease, the lessee may because certain important conditions agreed upon
prove an independent verbal agreement on the part were not included therein by the counsel who
of the landlord to put the leased premises in a safe prepared the contract; that the stipulation that was
condition; and a vendor of realty may show by parol omitted from the contract was the promise assumed
evidence that crops growing on the land were by plaintiffs that they would construct roads in the
reserved, though no such reservation was made in lands which were to be subdivided for sale. After
the deed of conveyance. In the case before us the the reception of the evidence, the trial court
deed of conveyance purports to transfer to the sustained the contention of defendant and dismissed
defendant only such interests in certain properties as the complaint on the ground that the action of
had come to the conveyors by inheritance. Nothing plaintiffs was premature. It found that plaintiffs
is said concerning the rights in the hacienda which really assumed the construction of the roads as a
the plaintiff had acquired by lease or concerning the condition precedent to the fulfillment of the
things that he had placed thereon by way of obligation stipulated in the contract on the part of
improvement or had acquired by purchase. The defendant, and since the same has not been
verbal contract which the plaintiff has established in undertaken, plaintiffs have no cause of action.
this case is therefore clearly independent of the
main contract of conveyance, and evidence of such
ISSUE: Whether or not the court a quo erred in about 300 square meters with a house and other
allowing presentation of parole evidence to prove improvements in Cainta. The "Contract to Sell" also
that a contemporaneous oral agreement was also provides that failure on the part of the vendees to
reached between parties. pay the balance on the first week of December,
1983 will automatically annul the contract and the
HELD: NO. It is argued that the court a quo erred in
vendors shall immediately return the downpayment
allowing presentation of parole evidence to prove
and that after full payment of the purchase price the
that a contemporaneous oral agreement was also
vendors shall execute a deed of absolute sale in
reached between parties relative to the construction
favor of the vendee. The private respondents were
of the roads for same is in violation of our rule
not able to pay the balance price on the first week of
which provides that when the terms of an agreement
December 1983. However, the petitioners-spouses
had been reduced to writing it is to be considered as
did not return the P10,000 downpayment. The
containing all that has been agreed upon and that no
private respondents continued to make partial
evidence other than the terms there can be admitted
payments which were received by the petitioners-
between the parties (Section 22, Rule 123). This
spouses. The parties executed a deed of absolute
rule, however, only holds true if there is allegation
sale over the subject property. Thereafter, the
that the agreement does not express the intent of the
petitioners-spouses delivered physical possession of
parties. If there is and this claim is in issue in the
the property to the private respondents. The private
pleadings, the same may be the subject parole
respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court of
evidence (Idem.). The fact that such failure has been
Pasig, Metro Manila a case for specific performance
put in issue in this case is patent in the answer
and damages against the petitioners-spouses. They
wherein defendant has specifically pleaded that the
claimed that in view of the fact that their PAG-IBIG
contract of sale in question does not express the true
loan was not processed on time without fault on
intent of the parties with regard to the construction
their part, the parties executed a Deed of Absolute
of the roads. It appearing that plaintiffs have failed
Sale over the same property. On the other hand, the
to comply with the condition precedent relative to
petitioners-spouses averred that the Contract to Sell
the construction of the roads in the subdivision in
was automatically cancelled when the private
question, it follows that their action is premature as
respondents violated the terms of the contract. After
found by the court a quo. The failure of defendant
due trial, the trial court found for the petitioners-
to pay the realty and income taxes as agreed upon,
spouses. The complaint was dismissed. The trial
as well as to register the mortgage with respect to
court's decision was reversed and set aside by the
the Bulacan property, aside from being minor
Court of Appeals.
matters, appear sufficiently explained in the brief of
defendant-appellee. Decision Affirmed. ISSUE: Whether or not the Parol Evidence Rule
applies.
HELD: NO. It is to be observed that the parties'
Policarpio vs. CA
conflicting evidence centers on the Contract to Sell
March 5, 1991 and Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the parties
on April 9, 1984. The parties introduced conflicting
Gutierrez, Jr., J. testimonies regarding the true nature of the subject
FACTS: documents. This, in effect results in the non-
application of the Parol Evidence Rule under
Meynardo C. Policarpio and Lourdes Policarpio and Section 9, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. The
private respondents Evelyn Romulo and Clemente, record shows that neither of the parties objected to
all surnamed Catabas executed a "Contract to Sell" the different testimonies. Hence, the trial court had
whereby the private respondents agreed to buy and no option but to admit these conflicting testimonies.
the petitioners-spouses to sell a residential lot of The issue was, therefore, reduced to the credibility
of witnesses. After a thorough examination of the ISSUE: Whether or not parol evidence admissible
record we are constrained to reverse the findings of to resolve the controversy between the parties.
the appellate court. RTC Decision Reinstated.
HELD: YES. A similar question cropped up in
Pagsuyuin vs. Intermediate Appellate Court where
this Court ruled as follows: The rule on parol
Mariano vs. CA
evidence recognizes the following exceptions: a.
March 31, 1993 Where a mistake or imperfection of the writing, or
its failure to express the true intent and agreement
Nocon, J. of the parties, or the validity of the agreement is put
FACTS: in issue by the pleadings; b. (Sec. 7, Rule 130). As
can be clearly gleaned from the foregoing, the rule
Petitioner, Julia Ang Eng Mariano, claims that the making a writing the exclusive evidence of the
appellate court erred in declaring the Deed of Sale agreement therein stated, is not applicable when the
executed in her favor by the private respondents, the validity of such agreement is the fact in dispute. A
spouses Faustino, as null and void and the TCT in contract may be annulled where the consent of one
her name cancelled. Emphasizing that the trial of the contracting parties was procured by mistake,
court's findings of fact carry more weight on appeal fraud, intimidation, violence or undue influence
than those of public respondent. Petitioner claims (Art. 1330, New Civil Code). In fact, as early as
that the private respondents approached her for a 1919 in the case of Bough v. Cantiveros, 40 Phil.
loan on the security of a mortgage on their lot 209, this Court laid down the rule that where the
located in Kalookan City and covered by a TCT in validity of the agreement is the issue, parol
their names. Forseeing their inability to pay this evidence may be introduced to establish illegality or
when they become due, private respondents sold the fraud. While the writing itself may have been
same parcel of land mortgaged to petitioner for an accompanied by the most solemn formalities, no
additional amount. Thus, a deed of sale was drawn instrument is so sacred when tainted with fraud as
up on said date and a new TCT issued in petitioner's to place it beyond the scrutiny of extrinsic evidence.
name. However, the private respondents refused to This evidence overcomes the known presumption
turn over possession of the land to her and instead fraus est odiosa et non praesumenda. Petition
sued her for annulment of deed of sale and Dismissed
damages. On the other hand, private respondents'
story is that all they wanted was to transform their American Home Assurance Co. vs. Tantuco
small piece of land, which they had inherited from Enterprises, Inc.
their parents, into a subdivision. They looked for Oct. 8, 2001
financiers who would be able to lend them money
for their project and petitioner expressed her desire Puno, J.
to help them. Being unschooled farmers, and
FACTS:
relying completely on the trust and confidence they
have on petitioner, they signed the prepared Tantuco Enterprises, Inc. is engaged in the coconut
mortgage forms that petitioner told them to sign. oil milling and refining industry. It owns two oil
Private respondents sued petitioner for annulment of mills. Both are located at its factory compound at
the deed of sale and the cancellation of the Transfer Iyam, Lucena City. The two oil mills were
Certificate of Title in her name. The trial court, separately covered by fire insurance policies issued
however, dismissed their complaint relying on the by petitioner American Home Assurance Co.,
validity of the deed of sale as the best evidence of Philippine Branch. A fire that broke out in the early
the transaction between the parties. That CA morning of September 30,1991 gutted and
reversed the lower court’s decision. consumed the new oil mill. Respondent
immediately notified the petitioner of the incident. add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts
The latter then sent its appraisers who inspected the in issue in his pleading, among others, its failure to
burned premises and the properties destroyed. A express the true intent and agreement of the parties
complaint for specific performance and damages thereto. Here, the contractual intention of the parties
was consequently instituted by the respondent with cannot be understood from a mere reading of the
the RTC. The lower court ordered the defendant to instrument. Thus, while the contract explicitly
pay the plaintiff, the appellate court upheld the stipulated that it was for the insurance of the new oil
decision of the lower court. The primary reason mill, the boundary description written on the policy
advanced by the petitioner in resisting the claim of concededly pertains to the first oil mill. This
the respondent is that the burned oil mill is not irreconcilable difference can only be clarified by
covered by any insurance policy. According to it, admitting evidence aliunde, which will explain the
the oil mill insured is specifically described in the imperfection and clarify the intent of the parties.
policy by its boundaries. By way of conclusion, Petition Dismissed
petitioner argues that respondent is barred by the
parole evidence rule from presenting evidence
(other than the policy in question) of its self-serving Sps. Paras vs Kimwa Const. Dev Corp,
intention (sic) that it intended really to insure the GR no
burned oil mill, just as it is barred by estoppel from 171601 - April 8, 2015
claiming that the description of the insured oil mill
in the policy was wrong, because it retained the v. Interpretation of
policy without having the same corrected before the documents ( secs. 11-
fire by an endorsement in accordance with its 20 )
Condition No. 28.
ISSUE: Whether or not the present case falls within 4. Interpretation Of Documents
one of the recognized exceptions to the parole
evidence rule. Section 10. Interpretation of a writing according to
its legal meaning. — The language of a writing is to
HELD: YES. Under the Rules of Court, a party may be interpreted according to the legal meaning it
present evidence to modify, explain or add to the bears in the place of its execution, unless the parties
terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in intended otherwise. (8)
his pleading, among others, its failure to express the
true intent and agreement of the parties thereto. Section 11. Instrument construed so as to give
Here, the contractual intention of the parties cannot effect to all provisions. — In the construction of an
be understood from a mere reading of the instrument, where there are several provisions or
particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be
instrument. Thus, while the contract explicitly
adopted as will give effect to all. (9)
stipulated that it was for the insurance of the new oil
mill, the boundary description written on the policy Section 12. Interpretation according to
concededly pertains to the first oil mill. This intention; general and particular provisions. — In
irreconcilable difference can only be clarified by the construction of an instrument, the intention of
admitting evidence aliunde, which will explain the the parties is to be pursued; and when a general and
imperfection and clarify the intent of the parties. It a particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is
is thus clear that the source of the discrepancy paramount to the former. So a particular intent will
happened during the preparation of the written control a general one that is inconsistent with it.
contract. These facts lead us to hold that the present (10)
case falls within one of the recognized exceptions to
the parole evidence rule. Under the Rules of Court, Section 13. Interpretation according to
a party may present evidence to modify, explain or circumstances. — For the proper construction of an
instrument, the circumstances under which it was i. Qualification of
made, including the situation of the subject thereof witnesses ( sec. 21 )
and of the parties to it, may be shown, so that the -adult witnesses
judge may be placed in the position of those who
language he is to interpret. (11) C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
Section 14. Peculiar signification of terms. — The 1. Qualification of Witnesses

terms of a writing are presumed to have been used
in their primary and general acceptation, but Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. —
evidence is admissible to show that they have a Except as provided in the next succeeding section,
local, technical, or otherwise peculiar signification, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can
and were so used and understood in the particular make their known perception to others, may be
instance, in which case the agreement must be witnesses.
construed accordingly. (12)
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome
Section 15. Written words control printed. — When of the case, or conviction of a crime unless
an instrument consists partly of written words and otherwise provided by law, shall not be ground for
partly of a printed form, and the two are disqualification. (18a)
inconsistent, the former controls the latter. (13)
People vs. Gerones (Qualification of Witnesses -
Section 16. Experts and interpreters to be used in Adult Witnesses)
explaining certain writings. — When the characters Jan. 24, 1991
in which an instrument is written are difficult to be Gutierrez, Jr., J.
deciphered, or the language is not understood by the
court, the evidence of persons skilled in deciphering FACTS:
the characters, or who understand the language, is
admissible to declare the characters or the meaning For the rape of Liliosa Gargantilla, a mental
of the language. (14) retardate, a complaint was filed against Calixto
Raga alias "Calix" and Leonardo Gerones alias
Section 17. Of Two constructions, which preferred. "Nanding or Narding”. An information was
— When the terms of an agreement have been subsequently filed with the RTC charging Leonardo
intended in a different sense by the different parties Gerones and Calixto Raga with the crime of rape.
to it, that sense is to prevail against either party in Both accused pleaded not guilty to the crime
which he supposed the other understood it, and charged. Trial proceeded and a judgment of
when different constructions of a provision are conviction was rendered by the trial court. From the
otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which aforementioned decision, both the accused
is the most favorable to the party in whose favor the appealed. However, only accused Gerones filed his
provision was made. (15) brief. The accused-appellant contends that the
complaint did not give jurisdiction to the trial court
Section 18. Construction in favor of natural right. the same having been signed by a mentally
— When an instrument is equally susceptible of two incompetent woman. The records show that the
interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the victim managed to communicate her ordeal to the
other against it, the former is to be adopted. (16) court clearly and consistently. The trial court found
Liliosa to have the mental capacity of a ten year old.
Section 19. Interpretation according to usage. — We are convinced that a ten year old girl can
An instrument may be construed according to adequately narrate facts which show that she has
usage, in order to determine its true character. (17) been raped. Thus, the trial court observed: ". . . In
the overall, she was able to communicate that the
3. Testimonial Evidence man who is not blind and the man without eyes
helped each other in deflowering her thru force and
intimidation. Her narration was crude but she communication and if sent to buy something from
managed to communicate the traumatic incident” the store, a list of things to buy is written in a piece
of paper clipped together with the money; that she
ISSUE: Whether or not a mental retardate can was followed by the accused who threatened her
become a competent witness. with a long stainless kitchen knife about 9 1/2
inches in length with which she was threatened with
HELD: YES. While the psychiatry report states that the knife; that she was forced to lie down and her
the victim cannot be expected to be a capable panty removed; that with the knife placed at her
witness, at the same time it admitted that Liliosa can breast, she could not do anything but submit to the
comprehend the nature of her acts under a limited forced sexual intercourse which the accused
extent. The same report concludes that she is successfully carried on; that thereafter, she was told
verbally productive although she talks in incomplete firmly never to tell anybody about the matter
sentences at times. What is required by the rules otherwise. she will be killed by the accused; that the
merely is that the witness is able to make her rape was repeated later on; that one day, a local
perception known to others. Thus, Rule 130, Sec. 20 "hilot" (midwife) called the auntie of the victim and
of the Rules of Court states: "Except as provided in informed her that the victim is from five to six
the next succeeding section, all persons who can months pregnant; that the auntie immediately
perceive, and perceiving, can make known their summoned the victim and elicited the name of the
perception to others, may be witnesses. Considering person responsible for the pregnancy; that perhaps
the foregoing, we agree with the trial court that due to fear of the accused and the state of mind of
Liliosa Gargantilla is a competent witness. There is the mentally retarded victim, the auntie had a hard
likewise no reason to doubt her credibility as she time persuading the former to confess as to what
had no motive to testify against the accused. really transpired; that when it was found out from
Decision Affirmed. the victim that it was the town bully who raped her,
the auntie sent for the father of the victim and
People vs. Tomentos advised him not to resort to any kind of violence
July 3, 1993 due to the family shame brought about by the
Paras, J. pregnancy of the victim who was mercilessly raped
despite her being deprived of a normal mind/reason;
FACTS: that the family lost no time in seeking help from the
authorities and a complaint was filed signed by the
A complaint was filed thru Assistant Provincial victim herself The trial court convicted the accused.
Prosecutor, Rodrigo V. Icao, charging
accusedappellant with raping the aforementioned ISSUE: Whether or not the victim, as a witness
victim Salvacion Cabahug. The prosecution has being a mental retardate is incompetent.
established that the accused is in his early fifties, HELD: NO. Immaterial and insubstantial lapses as
married, with eight (8) children; the town bully and to the exact date or dates and minor details in the
a notorious police character with documented nine victim’s testimonies should not be exaggerated and
(9) settled and pending cases filed aside from those taken against the victim. These things are expected
cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court, ranging from a mental retardate. The medical expert on
from Frustrated Homicides, Physical Injuries, mental health, Dr. Angel Somera, has proven that
Thefts, Trespass to Dwelling and Rape; that the the victim does not have hallucinations, is in touch
accused and the victim are neighbors; that the with reality, no fantasies but only has the tendency
victim is a 21-year-old girl with the mind of an 8-10 to convey thoughts through some body language
years old girl, and an IQ of 55-69%; that the victim like checking the name of the accused and
spent three (3) years in grade I being really a mental looking/gazing only at the accused for quite a time
retardee and able to pass Grade V with 75% average when he was seated side by side with the three (3)
which was only made possible because she was other suspected boys in the locality. This makes her
always present in school and with the teachers as a competent witness as she can convey her ideas in
her relatives; that she is not inclined to verbal
many forms like signs, writings and body gestures, persons in the area. Moreover, there was a
aside from words. Decision Affirmed. "gumamela" plant between the appellants and the
witnesses which had been planted in such a way
People vs. Acuña that while the witnesses could see the incident and
Oct. 2, 1995 observe what transpired, the appellants, preoccupied
Romero, J. as they were in committing the criminal act, failed
to notice them in turn.
FACTS:
ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution witnesses
Acuña, Ramos and Dionisio went to the house of are competent.
Tranquilino Mariano in Bulacan. On both
occasions, Mariano declined the invitation of the HELD:
trio to go with them. Between 6:00 and 7:00 o'clock
in the evening of November 22, 1988, the three YES. While it is true that Victoria
came back and Acuña asked the permission of Magaña and Luisa Blanco are first cousins (not
Virginia, Mariano's wife, to allow Mariano to go sisters as alleged by appellants), and also first
with them. Mariano then left the house with the cousins of the victim, their respective fathers being
three while Virginia went to sleep. Since they were the brothers of the victim's mother, such
the only passengers left, the jeepney driver took relationship alone need not affect their credibility.
them to the point nearest their respective residences There is nothing in our laws that disqualifies
("inihatid"). As they alighted from the jeepney in relatives of the victim from testifying in a criminal
front of the house of Ramos, they saw from a case involving said victim as long as said relatives
distance of two arms length, Ramos, Acuña, who were actually present at the scene of the crime,
Dionisio and Mariano quarelling at the "pasibi" of witnessed its execution. Furthermore, the absence of
the house of Ramos. They both saw Acuña hit the evidence showing possible ill motive on the part of
head of Mariano with a "dos por dos" piece of wood prosecution eyewitnesses Victoria and Luisa in
while Ramos and Dionisio were holding the right testifying against appellants raises the presumption
and left hands of Mariano, respectively. As Mariano that they were not so moved. Therefore, their
fell, the three, all armed with bladed weapons, took testimonies must be given full faith and credit. That
turns in stabbing Mariano. Afraid, the two women they failed to report the incident immediately to the
went home. While heeding the call of nature, Precy victim's wife is explained by the fact that they
Bautista went out of her house. As she was passing feared for their lives because the appellants were
through the terrace on her way to the comfort room locally known troublemakers who would intimidate
outside, she saw Ramos, Dionisio and another people once they fell under the influence of liquor.
person who was "small, thin and black," dragging a Their initial reluctance in getting involved in the
person whom she learned the following day to be criminal investigation and prosecution is
Mariano. The trial court rendered the understandable. We take judicial notice of the fact
aforementioned decision convicting Ramos and that when their townmates are implicated in a
Dionisio of the crime of murder for the killing of criminal case, most people turn reticent. They do
Mariano. Appellants assert that, assuming the not promptly report the incident for fear of reprisal.
eyewitnesses' account to be true, it is highly Such reticence has in fact been declared as not
incredible that they had not sensed the presence of affecting credibility. In the same manner, the
Luisa Blanco and Victoria Magaña at the crucial credibility of prosecution witness Precy Bautista
time that the crime was being committed may not be affected. Failing to find a reason strong
considering the distance of two arms length enough to discredit her, appellants claim that her
between them and said witnesses. However, as testimony is flawed by the six-month delay before
correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, it she volunteered her testimony. However, regardless
could be that appellants and Acuña were so of such testimony, the prosecution's case remains on
engrossed in the assault upon Mariano that they solid ground relating as it does to a matter
failed to notice the arrival and presence of other transpiring after the actual commission of the crime
and dovetailing with the account of the two victims statement to Police Officer Mangubat,
eyewitnesses. One witness less on a circumstantial positively identifying Appellant Amaca, a dying
matter cannot possibly reverse a finding of guilt declaration sufficient to overcome the latter's
inasmuch as the testimony of a lone credible defense of alibi.
eyewitness, absent signs of impropriety or
falsehood, suffices to convict an accused. Decision ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in
Affirmed. finding accused Edelciano Amaca guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder on the sole
People vs. Amaca basis of the alleged dying declaration of the victim
May 12, 1997 to Police Officer Bernardo Mangubat.
Panganiban, J. HELD: NO. A dying declaration is worthy of belief
because it is highly unthinkable for one who is
FACTS: aware of his impending death to accuse falsely or
even carelessly anyone of being responsible for his
To prove the injuries sustained by the victim, foreseeable demise. Indeed, when a person is at the
Wilson Vergara, and his cause of death, the point of death, every motive for falsehood is
prosecution presented Dr. Edgar P. Pialago, a silenced and the mind is induced by the most
resident physician of the Guihulngan District powerful consideration to speak the truth. This is
Hospital, Guihulngan, Negros Oriental, who the rationale for this exception to the hearsay rule
testified that on October 2, 1990, he was on duty at under Section 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
the aforesaid hospital, and was able to attend to The elements of such exception are: (1) the
victim Wilson Vergara who had just undergone a deceased made the declaration conscious of his
surgical operation conducted by another doctor, Dr. impending death; (2) the declarant would have been
Gonzaga. The major organs of the victim, namely, a competent witness had he survived; (3) the
the heart, lungs and kidney, were no longer declaration concerns the cause and surrounding
functioning normally, and thus, he was suffering circumstances of the declarants death; (4) the
from multiple organ system failure. Furthermore, declaration is offered in a criminal case where the
there was injury in the pancreas, causing a leak of declarants death is the subject of inquiry; and (5)
the pancreatic juice. Victim suffered two gunshot the declaration is complete in itself. All these
wounds at the back, and x-ray revealed two (2) concur in the present case. True, the victim, Wilson
bullets inside the body, and there was no exit Vergara, was hit at the back by two bullets. But as
wound. The patient was admitted at 10:45 in the the prosecution clearly showed by other evidence,
evening and died at 7:00 in the evening of the Wilson did not lose consciousness upon being shot.
following day. He identified the death certificate, In fact, his ante mortem statement clearly indicates
and the data sheet of the victim and the final that he was able to see and recognize who shot him.
diagnosis. Even with immediate medical attention, In this light, appellant is assailing the credibility,
the victim could not have survived with the wounds not the competency, of the victim. Competency of a
he sustained. Bernardo Mangubat, member of the witness to testify requires a minimum ability to
Philippine National Police of Canlaon City, testified observe, record, recollect and recount as well as an
that as a police investigator one of his companions understanding of the duty to tell the truth. The
in the force fetched him from his residence at about appeal is partially granted. The appellant is guilty
7:00 in the evening of October 1, 1990, and only of homicide, not murder, and civil indemnity
informed him of a shooting incident, where the shall not be awarded to the heirs of the deceased.
victim was at the clinic of Dr. Cardenas, which was
near his residence. Upon reaching the clinic of Dr. People vs. Tuangco
Cardenas, he saw the victim already on board a Nov. 22, 2000
Ford Fiera pick up ready for transport to the Per Curiam
hospital. He inquired from the victim about the
incident, and the former answered he was shot by FACTS:
CVO Amaca and Ogang. The trial court deemed the
The naked cadaver of Aurea Eugenio, a bookkeeper lacerations and massive blood clots within the
employed by the Centro Escolar University Credit vaginal canal, caused, among others, by the entry of
Cooperative in Manila was found lying beside a a hard foreign object like a bottle and that the
creek about 50 meters away from the national abrasions and hematomas on the cadaver indicated
highway in Apalit. Her body bore multiple stab that Eugenio struggled during the assault. Decision
wounds and her private parts were bloodied and Affirmed
showed signs of sexual abuse. Two informations
were filed in court charging Adel Tuangco y Dizon, People vs. Gabawa
Nelson Pineda Jr. alias "Jun Tattoo", and Sonny Feb. 28, 2003
Tuangco y Dizon alias "Baba" with the crimes of Austria-Martinez, J.
rape with homicide and theft. The principal
evidence against the accused consisted of the FACTS:
testimony of an eyewitness, Silvestre Sanggalan, a
deaf-mute. He gave his testimony through sign Eusebia Paloa spent the day washing clothes for
language, which was interpreted by a sign language Teresita C. Alarba her nephew, Randy Cabaging
expert. After the deceased fell down on the ground, and accused Joel Gabawa came by and drank
'Tatoo' inserted a bottle of Pidol cough syrup into coffee; Eusebia ate supper at her house; Eusebia
her private parts. Then 'Baba' pushed the bottle complained of body aches, and the accused, a bone
further into the private parts of the deceased. While setter (hilot), massaged Eusebias shoulders and
the bottle was being pushed, Adel Tuangco was chest; Eusebia and the accused left her house
hugging the deceased who at that time was still together at about 7:00 oclock in the evening; the
alive and resisting the assault. Together, the three following morning, she saw Eusebia in her kitchen
removed the blouse, bra, skirt and panty of Aurea which is separated from her house, lying in a fetal
Eugenio. Adel Tuangco raped the deceased. 'Tatoo' position and bloody in her female organ; Eusebias
and 'Baba' likewise successively raped Aurea in that underwear and short pants were bloody; she
order. At the time that the three accused were raping changed Eusebias clothes before sending her home;
Aurea Eugenio, witness Sanggalan was about three she knew Eusebia even before the incident because
and one half (3) meters away from them. While Eusebia used to roam around; Eusebia was not in a
Adel Tuangco was raping the victim, 'Tatoo' and proper state of mind, and she talked nonsense.
'Baba' were beside them. When 'Baba' and 'Tatoo' When she examined Eusebias genitalia, she saw
took their respective turns in raping the victim the fresh blood coming from it. It is consistent with the
other two were holding her hands. The court found injuries having been inflicted within the first 24
the accused guilty of the crime of Rape with hours and it is possible that the injury was caused
Homicide. by sexual intercourse with a man. The RTC found
Gabawa guilty of the crime of rape. Appellant
ISSUE: Whether or not the unschooled def-mute assails the finding of the trial court that the
person is a competent witness. prosecution has presented enough evidence to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of
HELD: YES. A deaf-mute is not incompetent as a rape by having sexual intercourse with complainant
witness. All persons who can perceive, and Eusebia Paloa. That the complainant was suffering
perceiving, can make known their perception to from chronic schizophrenia. Eusebia would have no
others, may be witnesses. Deaf-mutes are competent capacity to remember later on what happened
witnesses where they (1) can understand and several months back if she was then afflicted with
appreciate the sanctity of an oath; (2) can chronic schizophrenia. Not only could she not state
comprehend facts they are going to testify on; and in detail how she was raped but, worse, she failed to
(3) can communicate their ideas through a qualified demonstrate that she put up any resistance to the
interpreter. Moreover, the testimony of Sanggalan alleged sexual assault committed against her.
was corroborated by the doctor who conducted the
autopsy. Dr. Aguda testified that Eugenio had nine
(9) stab wounds on the neck, fresh hymenal
ISSUE: Whether or not the fact alone that Eusebia
suffered from schizophrenia did not render her
incompetent to testify on the rape incident.
HELD:
YES. Mental deficiency affects the weight accorded

to the testimony, not its admissibility. Accordingly,
an adjudication of feeblemindedness or
unsoundness of mind does not render a witness
incompetent, as long as her mental condition or
mental maturity is not impaired at the time of her
production for the examination. It is established that
schizophrenic persons do not suffer from a clouding
of consciousness and gross deficits of memory.
Though she may not have totally lost her memory, it
was shown that Eusebia was suffering from an
impairment of judgment, which made her incapable
of giving an intelligent consent to the sexual act. It
has been held that where the rape victim is feeble-
minded, even if there may have been no physical
force employed on the victim, the force required by
the statute is the sexual act itself. A Patient with
chronic schizophrenia have good memory, the
memory was not impaired, it means that it has
anything to do with the memory, the memory is still
intact, secondly, if there is any impairment on the
perception of judgment, definitely during the time
the patient is suffering from chronic schizophrenia
there is impairment of patients judgment, as well as
its perception from the time the illness started.
Decision Affirmed.

Evidence Feb 13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence Feb 13

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence Feb 13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Catungal vs.

Hao have three material requisites: (1) the matter must

2 LPU LAW – EVIDENCE ; GARVIDA KMC

5 LPU LAW – EVIDENCE ; GARVIDA KMC

8 LPU LAW – EVIDENCE ; GARVIDA KMC

ISSUE: The “essential elements of theft are

In this case, petitioner has failed to prove by clear ISSUE:

1. Best Evidence Rule Pacita Madrigal-Gonzales and others charged with

32 LPU LAW – EVIDENCE ; GARVIDA KMC

34 LPU LAW – EVIDENCE ; GARVIDA KMC

Section 14. Peculiar signification of terms. — The 1. Qualification of Witnesses

YES. Mental deficiency affects the weight accorded

46 LPU LAW – EVIDENCE ; GARVIDA KMC

You might also like