RULES OF EVIDENCE It may be ascertained in:

1. pleadings submitted by the parties

2. pre-trial order
3. issues which are tried with the express or implied consent of the
parties. (Sec. 5, Rule 10)

RULE 128 NOTE: If fact is admitted, there is no more factum probandum

because there is no fact in issue.

FACTUM PROBANS - the material evidencing the proposition. It is

General Provisions the fact by which the factum probandum is established.

Section 1. Evidence defined. ? Evidence is

the means, sanctioned by these rules, of
truth respecting a matter of fact. (1)

Page 1 of 233
 Factum probandum Factum probans
"ultimate facts" "intermediate facts"
Proposition to be established Material evidencing the
proposition
Hypothetical Existent
Section 2. Scope. ? The rules of evidence
shall be the same in all courts and in all Q: What are the four component elements?
trials and hearings, except as otherwise
A: Means of ascertainment – includes not only the procedure or manner
provided by law or these rules. (2a) of ascertainment but also the evidentiary fact from which the truth
respecting a matter of fact may be ascertained
Sanctioned by the rules – not excluded by the Rules of Court
Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. ? In a judicial proceeding – contemplates an action or proceeding filed
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant in a court of law
The truth respecting a matter of fact – refers to an issue of fact and is
to the issue and is not excluded by the both substantive (determines the facts needed to be established) and
law of these rules. (3a) procedural (governs the manner of proving said facts).

Q: Why is evidence required?

Section 4. Relevancy; collateral It is required because of the presumption that the court is not aware
of the veracity of the facts involved in a case. It is therefore incumbent
matters. ? Evidence must have such a upon the parties to prove a fact in issue thru the presentation of
relation to the fact in issue as to induce admissible evidence (Riano, Evidence: A Restatement for the Bar, p.
2, 2009 ed.).
belief in its existence or non-existence.
Evidence on collateral matters shall not ALVIN TUASON y OCHOA, petitioner,
be allowed, except when it tends in any vs.
reasonable degree to establish the
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE
probability or improbability of the fact in
issue. (4a) PHILIPPINES, respondents.1995 February 23
2nd Division
G.R. Nos. 113779-80 DECISION
BASIC CONCEPTS

Evidence - It is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of PUNO, J.:

ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of
fact. The first duty of the prosecution is not to prove
TWO PRINCIPAL PROBLEMS IN EVIDENCE:
the crime but to prove the identity of the
How to determine which evidence is admissible; and criminal. For even if the commission of the crime
Having determined that the evidence is admissible, how to present can be established, without proof of identity of
that evidence in a manner that would make the court admit it
once it is offered. the criminal beyond reasonable doubt there can
SOURCES: be no conviction. In the case at bench, the
Rules of Court, Rule 128-133
Constitution identification of the petitioner cannot rest on
Special Laws (e.g.Anti-Wiretapping Act) an assured conscience. We rule that petitioner
Revised Penal Code, Civil Code, etc.
is entitled to a mandatory acquittal.
Every evidential question involves the relationship between the factum
probans and the factum probandum.

FACTUM PROBANDUM - the ultimate fact sought to be established.

Page 2 of 233
Petitioner Alvin Tuason y Ochoa, John Doe, Torres' bed, her body facing the bedroom door
Peter Doe, and Richard Doe were charged with her back on the vault. They also gagged
before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City her mouth and ransacked Torres' room. One of
1 with Robbery 2 (Article 294, paragraph 5 of the accused stumbled upon a box containing
the Revised Penal Code) and Carnapping 3 keys. They used the keys to open drawers and in
(republic Act No. 6539). the process found the car key. Petitioner was
then summoned upstairs and given the car key.
Of the four (4) accused, only petitioner was He tried it on the car and succeeded in starting
apprehended. The other three (3) are still at- its engine.
large.
In twenty (20) minutes, accused were able to
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not loot the vault and other valuable items in the
guilty to both charges and was tried. house. They then tied Madaraog's hands and
feet to the bed's headboard and escaped using
We come to the facts. Torres' car.

Complainant CIPRIANA F. TORRES is a public Still gripped with fear, Madaraog loosened her
school teacher of Kaligayahan Elementary ties with her fingers, hopped to the stairs and
School, Novaliches. Her work requires her to cried for help. 8 Her neighbor Semia Quintal
leave her maid, JOVINA MADARAOG TORRES, responded and untied her. They also sought the
alone in her house at Block 45, Lot 28, Lagro help of Angelina Garcia, another neighbor. It was
Subdivision, Novaliches, Quezon City. Her Garcia who informed Torres that her house was
husband is in Australia while her children go to burglarized.
school.
Torres reported the robbery to the police
The incident transpired at around 8:45 in the authorities at Fairview, Quezon City and the
morning of July 19, 1988. Somebody knocked at National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). On July
the gate of the Torres residence pretending to 25, 1988, Madaraog and Quintal described the
buy ice. As the maid Madaraog handed the ice physical features of the four (4) robbers before
to the buyer, one of the robbers jumped over the NBI cartographer. One of those drawn by
the fence, poked a gun at her, covered her the artist was a person with a large mole
mouth, and opened the gate of their house. 4 between his eyebrows. 9 On August 30, 1988,
The ice buyer and his companions barged in. petitioner was arrested by the NBI agents. The
Numbering four (4), they pushed her inside next day, at the NBI headquarters, he was
Torres' house and demanded the keys to the pointed to by Madaraog and the other
car and the safety vault. 5 She told them she prosecution witnesses as one of the
did not know where the keys were hidden. 6 perpetrators of the crimes at bench.
They tied up her hands and dragged her to the
second floor of the house. Petitioner was SEMIA QUINTAL 10 averred that she saw
allegedly left downstairs as their lookout. 7 petitioner allegedly among the three (3) men
whiling away their time in front of Alabang's
On order of the accused, Madaraog sat on store some time before the crimes were

Page 3 of 233
committed. Quintal is a neighboring maid. story. She testified that on July 17, 1988 she
asked her sister Mary Ann to remind petitioner
MARY BARBIETO 11 likewise declared that she to work early on July 19, 1988 since Mondays,
saw petitioner allegedly with several companions Tuesdays, and Wednesdays are busy days as she
standing by at Torres' house that morning of caters to schools.
July 19, 1988. She is a teacher and lives within
the block where the crimes were committed. The trial court in a Joint Decision convicted
petitioner of the crimes charged and sentenced
Petitioner ALVIN TUASON, 12 on the other him as follows:
hand, anchored his defense on alibi and xxx xxx xxx
insufficient identification by the prosecution. "In Q-88-396 (carnapping) or an indeterminate
he has lived within the neighborhood of the term of SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and FOUR (4)
Torres family since 1978. He averred that on MONTHS as minimum and TWENTY (20) YEARS
July 19, 1988, he was mixing dough and rushing as maximum; and in Q-88-397 (robbery) for a
cake orders from 7:00 o'clock in the morning till term of ONE (1) YEAR, SEVEN (7) MONTHS
1:00 o'clock in the afternoon at his sisters' and ELEVEN (11) DAYS as minimum and TWO (2)
TipTop Bakeshop in Antipolo Street, Tondo, YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS and TWENTY (20)
Manila. It takes him two (2) hours to commute DAYS as maximum.
daily from Lagro, Novaliches to Tondo.
On the civil aspect, the court hereby orders
He was arrested more than one (1) month after Alvin Tuason y Ochoa as follows:
the robbery. On August 30, 1988 at about 8:00
o'clock in the evening, he was in their house In Q-88-396 (carnapping) to return to Mrs.
watching a basketball game on T.V. and went out Cipriana Torres and her husband the carnapped
to buy a cigarette. On his way back, a person Toyota Corona Sedan, Model 1980 with Plate No.
accosted him and asked his name. After he NPZ 159 or to pay its value of P180,000.00
identified himself, 13 a gun was poked at his which the court finds to be the reasonable value
right side, a shot was fired upward, and five (5) of said car; and.
men swooped on him without any warrant of
arrest. He asked them if he could wear t-shirt In Q-88-397 (robbery) to return to Mrs.
as he was naked from waist up. They refused. Cipriana Torres and her husband the stolen
They turned out to be NBI agents of one of items mentioned in the information filed in
whom a certain Atty. Harwin who lived in Lagro, said case and hereinabove stated or pay the
Novaliches. He was shoved into the car and corresponding values thereof or a total of
brought to the NBI headquarters. 14 He was P280,550.00 which the court finds to be the
surprised when an NBI agent, whose identity was reasonable values.
unknown to him, pointed to him as one of the
suspects in the robbery in the presence of The civil liability is joint and solidary with the
Madaraog and the other prosecution witnesses. co-conspirators of accused Alvin Tuason.

Petitioner's sister ANGELI TUASON, 15 part- In case of appeal, the bail bonds are fixed at
owner of TipTop Bakeshop corroborated his TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND PESOS

Page 4 of 233
(P280,000.00) fro criminal case No. Q-88-396 D.
and ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS [F]OR IGNORING OR DISREGARDING THE
(P100,000.00) for criminal case No. Q-88-397. GLARING AND FATAL INFIRMITIES OF THE
TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION
Costs against the accused. WITNESSES, SPECIALLY AS
IDENTIFICATION, AS WELL AS TO THE
SO ORDERED." 16 PALPABLE IMPROBABILITY OF HEREIN
PETITIONER HAVING BEEN A SUPPOSED
Petitioner appealed to respondent Court of PARTICIPANT IN THE OFFENSES CHARGED,
Appeals. On December 16, 1993, the Eleventh THE ERROR BEING TANTAMOUNT TO GROSS
Division of the appellate court gave no MISAPPREHENSION OF THE RECORD.
credence to the exculpatory allegations of
petitioner and affirmed in toto the assailed E.
Decisions. 17 On February 4, 1994, petitioner's [I]N AFFIRMING THE CLEARLY REVERSIBLE
Motion for Reconsideration was denied for lack DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT.
of merit. 18
We reverse.
In this petition for certiorari, petitioner contends
that respondent appellate court erred: Time and again, this Court has held that
evidence to be believed, must proceed not only
A. from the mouth of a credible witness but the
[I]N WRONGLY APPLYING TO THE CASE AT same must be credible in itself. 19 The trial
BAR THE PRINCIPLE THAT FINDINGS OF court and respondent appellate court relied
TRIAL COURTS ARE GENERALLY NOT mainly on the testimony of prosecution witness
DISTURBED ON APPEAL, PARTICULARLY Madaraog that from her vantage position near
CONSIDERING THAT THE FINDINGS OF the door of the bedroom she clearly saw how
THE TRIAL COURT IN THIS CASE ARE petitioner allegedly participated in the robbery.
BASED ON CERTAIN REFUTABLE REASONS After a careful review of the evidence, we find
EXPRESSLY STATED IN ITS DECISION. that the identification of petitioner made by
Madaraog and Quintal is open to doubt and
B. cannot serve as a basis for conviction of
[I]N WRONGLY APPLYING TO THE petitioner.
TESTIMONY OF HEREIN PETITIONER THE
CONCEPT AND ATTENDING INFIRMITY OF Firstly, it must be emphasized that of the four
"SELF-SERVING EVIDENCE." prosecution witnesses, only the maid
Madaraog actually saw petitioner in the act of
C. committing the crimes at bench. Witnesses
[I]N WRONGLY APPLYING TO THE Quintal and Barbieto testified they only saw
TESTIMONY OF HEREIN PETITIONER THE petitioner at the vicinity of the crimes before
CONCEPT AND ATTENDING INFIRMITY OF they happened. There is, however, a serious
"NEGATIVE EVIDENCE." doubt whether Madaraog and Quintal have
correctly identified petitioner. At the NBI

Page 5 of 233
headquarters, Madaraog described petitioner as A: A mole, sir." 25
5'3" tall and with a big mole between his xxx xxx xxx
eyebrows. 20 While Quintal also described "Q: Among the four drawings prepared by the
petitioner as 5'3" and with a black mole between cartographer section of the NBI, you will agree
his eyebrows. 21 On the basis of their with me Madam Witness that it is only on
description, the NBI cartographer made a Exhibit "J" when that rounded mole appear?
drawing of petitioner showing a dominant mole A: No sir, it is the third one." 26
between his eyes. 22 As it turned out,
petitioner has no mole but only a scar between xxx xxx xxx
his eyes. Moreover, he is 5'8 1/2" and not 5'3" "Q: You did not call the attention of the NBI
tall. There is a big difference between a mole that the third one whom you identified as
and a scar. A scar is a mark left in the skin by a Exhibit "J -3" did not bear that rounded mole
new connective tissue that replaces tissue as mentioned by you, did you?
injured. 23 On the other hand, a mole is a small A: I did not remember.
often pigmented spot or protuberance on the
skin. 24 If indeed Madaraog and Quintal had a Why did you not remember having called
good look at petitioner during the robbery, they the attention of the NBI to that deficiency in
could not have erroneously described petitioner. the drawing?
Worthy to note, petitioner was not wearing any I was not able to call the attention of
mask in the occasion. Madaraog's attempt to the NBI (sic) because there were four of us
explain her erroneous description does not at all who made the description." 27
convince, viz.:
xxx xxx xxx Secondly, the trial court and the respondent
"Q: We come now to the third person 'iyong appellate court unduly minimized the importance
namang isa ay mga 28 o 29 ang edad, mga 5'2" of this glaring discrepancy in the identification
o 5'3" ang taas, payat, medyo kulot ang buhok of the petitioner. The trial court resorted to
at maiksi at mayroong malaking bilog na nunal sa wild guesswork. It ruled:
pagitan ng kilay sa noo. Mahaba at malantik ang xxx xxx xxx "[T]he court has observed that
pilikmata,' who is that? Alvin has a prominent scar in between his two
(2) eyebrows. It is not within the realm of
Interpreter: improbability that Alvin covered up that scar
Witness referring to Exhibit "J-3." with a black coloring to make it appear that he
has a 'nunal' which was therefore the one
Madam witness where is that round mole that described by Jovina and, which reinforces her
appears in the two eyebrows of the person? testimony that she had a good eye view of Alvin
It is probably the cartographer that made a from the start of the robbery to its
mistake. conclusion." 28

I am referring to you now Exhibit "J". I call your This is a grave error. The trial court cannot
attention to that black rounded figure at the convict petitioner on the basis of a deduction
middle of the bridge of the nose between the two that is irrational because it is not derived from
eyebrows, what was that represent? an established fact. The records do not show

Page 6 of 233
any fact from which the trial court can logically you not call the attention of the investigator
deduce the conclusion that petitioner covered that some of your narrations were not
up his scar with black coloring to make it appear incorporated therein?
as a mole. Such an illogical reasoning cannot A: No, I did not because he did not ask me.
constitute evidence of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. This palpable error was perpetrated by [Y]ou did not come forward to volunteer that
respondent appellate court when it relied on the some portions of your narration were not
theory that this "fact" should not be disturbed incorporated therein?
on appeal because the trial court had a better [T]he investigator knew it.
opportunity to observe the behavior of the
prosecution witnesses during the hearing. This is You mean to tell the Honorable Court that
a misapplication of the rule in calibrating the after reading Exhibit "M", the NBI investigator
credibility of witnesses. The subject finding of knew that there were some lapses or omissions
the trial court was not based on the demeanor in your statement?"
of any witness which it had a better opportunity It's up to the investigator." 30
to observe. Rather, it was a mere surmise, an
illogical one at that. By no means can it be Barbieto is a school teacher and the kind of
categorized as a fact properly established by excuses she proffered does not enhance her
evidence. credibility. Moreover, she and Quintal merely
testified they saw petitioner within the vicinity
And thirdly, corroborating witness Barbieto has where the crimes were committed. By itself, this
serious lapses in her testimony that diluted her circumstance cannot lead to the conclusion that
credibility, thus: petitioner truly committed the crimes at bench.
xxx xxx xxx Petitioner, we note, lives in the same vicinity as
"Q: I am showing to you Exhibit "M" and please the victim. To use his words, he lives some six
point to this Honorable Court that portion where posts from the house of Torres. His
the accused (Alvin Tuason) allegedly asked from presence in the said vicinity is thus not
you the price of that plastic pack of ice. A: I did unnatural.
not state it in my statement.
The doubtful identification of petitioner was not
Why did you say a moment ago that you place it at all cured by the process followed by the NBI
there (Sinumpaang Salaysay)? agents when petitioner was pointed to by
But that is the truth, sir. Madaraog and the other prosecution witnesses in
their headquarters. Madaraog's identification of
I am not asking you the truth or falsehood . . petitioner from a line-up at the NBI was not
. I am only asking you why you said a moment spontaneous and independent. An NBI agent
ago that the portion of your testimony now is improperly suggested to them petitioner's
incorporated in Exhibit "M." person. Petitioner thus testified:
[B]ecause they asked the price of the ice." xxx xxx xxx
29 "Q: Mr. Witness (Alvin Tuason) do you know of
xxx xxx xxx any reason why these two witnesses in the
"Q: After reading Exhibit "M", did you or did persons of Jovina Madaraog Torres and Mary

Page 7 of 233
Barbieto would be testifying in the manner presentation of a single suspect to a witness for
that they did against you? purposes of identification. Together with its
At the NBI, I saw them with the NBI aggravated forms, it constitutes the most
agent. After the agent pointed at me, later on grossly suggestive identification procedure now
they also pointed at me." 31 or ever used by the police. 33

On cross-examination, he declared: The respondent appellate court, however,

xxx xxx xxx dismissed this claim of petitioner as self-
"Q: Do you know the reason why they testified serving. Again, the ruling misconstrues the
and pointed to you as one of the robbers of meaning of self -serving evidence. Self -serving
July 19, 1988? evidence is not to be literally taken as evidence
Because when I was at the NBI, the that serves one's selfish interest. Under our law
NBI agent pointed at me. of evidence, self-serving evidence is one made
by a party out of court at one time; it does not
Did you see them at the NBI when include a party's testimony as a witness in court.
they pointed at you? It is excluded on the same ground as any
They were outside a room where there was hearsay evidence, that is the lack of opportunity
a glass window. for cross-examination by the adverse party, and
on the consideration that its admission would
So you can see those persons outside open the door to fraud and to fabrication of
the room? testimony. On the other hand, a party's
Yes, sir. testimony in court is sworn and affords the
other party the opportunity for cross -
When they pointed you and identified examination. 34 Clearly, petitioner's testimony
you were there other persons with you when in court on how he was identified by the
you were lined up during that time? prosecution witnesses in the NBI headquarters
In the second line I was in the line-up. is not self-serving.

When was the first time they pointed you Petitioner's main defense is alibi. He professed
as one of the suspects? that on July 19, 1988 he was mixing dough at
In the Office of the Chief Unit there, to the TipTop Bakeshop from 7:00 o'clock in the
third floor of the NBI building." 32 morning till 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon. With
the usual traffic jam, it takes him two (2) hours
This damaging testimony of the petitioner was to commute from Lagro to Tondo. It was thus
not rebutted by the prosecution. The NBI physically impossible for him to be at the locus
agent present during the identification of criminis. He said he learned about the robbery
petitioner was not presented to belie thru his neighbor three (3) days thereafter. He
petitioner's testimony. Consequently, the did not flee. He was arrested by the NBI
identification of the petitioner in the NBI agents more than one (1) month after the
headquarters is seriously flawed. According to crimes were perpetrated.
writer Wall, the mode of identification other
than an identification parade is a show-up, the Angeli Tuason's corroborative testimony

Page 8 of 233
established that her brother had an eye
examination on July 17, 1988 35 and she SO ORDERED.
reminded him to work early on July 19,
1988 which he did. Narvasa, C.J., Bidin, Regalado and Mendoza,
JJ., concur.
Judges should not at once look with disfavor at
Distinguish Evidence in Civil Cases from Evidence in
the defense of alibi. Alibi should be considered Criminal Cases.
in the light of all the evidence on record for it A: Civil Cases Criminal Cases
can tilt the scales of justice in favor of the The party having the burden of The guilt of the accused has to
proof must prove his claim by a be proven beyond reasonable
accused. 36 In People vs. Omega, 37 we held: preponderance of evidence doubt
An offer of compromise is not an An offer of compromise by the
admission of any liability, and is accused may be received in
"Although alibi is known to be the weakest of all not admissible in evidence evidence as an implied
defenses for it is easy to concoct and difficult against the offeror admission of guilt
to disprove, nevertheless, where the evidence The concept of presumption of The accused enjoys the
innocence does not apply constitutional presumption of
for the prosecution is weak and betrays lack of innocence
concreteness on the question of whether or not
the accused committed the crime charged, the
WHEN EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY
defense of alibi assumes importance."
Evidence is the means of proving a fact. It becomes necessary to
present evidence in a case when the pleadings filed present factual
The case at bench reminds us of the warning issues. Factual issues arise when a party specifically denies material
that judges seem disposed more readily to allegations in the adverse party’s pleading. These are the issues which
the judge cannot resolve without evidence being presented thereon.
credit the veracity and reliability of Thus, whether a certain thing exists or not, whether a certain act was
done or not, whether a certain statement was uttered or not, are
eyewitnesses than any amount of contrary questions of fact that require evidence for their resolution. Questions of
evidence by or on behalf of the accused, fact exist when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or
falsehood of alleged facts.1 Other than factual issues, the case
whether by way of alibi, insufficient invariably presents legal issues. On the other hand, a question of law
identification, or other testimony. 38 They are exists when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a
certain state of facts. Legal issues are resolved by simply applying the
unmindful that in some cases the emotional law or rules applicable, or interpreting the law applicable considering
the facts of the case. Generally, no evidence need be presented on
balance of the eyewitness is disturbed by her what the applicable law is. Everyone, including the judge, is presumed
experience that her powers of perception to know the law.

becomes distorted and her identification is When the parties’ pleadings fail to tender any issue of fact, either
frequently most untrustworthy. Into the because all the factual allegations have been admitted expressly or
impliedly (as when a denial is a general denial), there is no need of
identification, enter other motives, not conducting a trial, since there is no need of presenting evidence
anymore. The case is then ripe for judicial determination, either
necessarily stimulated originally by the accused through a judgment on the pleadings2 or by summary judgment.3
personally - the desire to requite a crime, to
find a scapegoat, or to support, consciously or
Q: Distinguish proof from evidence.
unconsciously, an identification already made by
another. 39

IN VIEW THEREOF, the Decision of

December 16, 1993 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE and petitioner Alvin Tuason is
ACQUITTED. No costs.

Page 9 of 233
A: Proof Evidence
The effect when the requisite The mode and manner of
quantum of evidence of a particular proving competent facts in
fact has been duly admitted and judicial proceedings
given weight

Page 10 of 233
The probative effect of evidence The means of proof Depending on its DEGREE OF VALUE:
Conclusive – that which is
incontrovertible or one which the law
_ KINDS OF EVIDENCE does not allow it to be contradicted. It
Depending on its ability to establish the is insurmountable evidence.
fact in dispute: Prima facie – that which suffices
Direct – that which proves the fact in for the proof of a particular fact, until
dispute without the aid of any inference contradicted and overcome by other
or presumption. evidence.
_ Example: In case of arson, that _ If notice of non-payment by the
the witness saw the defendant apply drawee bank is not sent to the maker
the torch which lighted the fire. or drawer of the bum check, or if there is no other proof as to
Circumstantial – proof of facts from when
which, taken collectively, the such notice was received by the
existence of the particular fact in drawer, then the presumption of
dispute may be inferred as a knowledge as provided in Section 2
necessary or probable of B.P. 22 cannot arise, since there
consequence. would simply be no way of reckoning
_ Such evidence is founded on the crucial five-day period.(Rico vs.
experience and observed facts and People, G.R. 137191, Nov. 18, 2002)
coincidences establishing a
connection between the known and Cumulative – additional evidence of
proven facts and the facts which are the same kind bearing on the same
sought to be proved. point.
Depending on its weight and acceptability: _ Example: When testimony has been
Primary or Best Evidence – that given by one or more witnesses as to
which affords the greatest certainty an assault and other witnesses are
of the fact in question. produced to testify to the same state
Secondary or Subtitutionary – that of facts and to no new fact, the
which is necessarily inferior to evidence given by such witnesses is
primary evidence and shows on its merely cumulative.
face that better evidence exists. d. Corroborative – additional evidence
Depending on its NATURE: of a different kind and character tending
to prove the same point.
Object (real/physical) – that which is _ While cumulative is additional
addressed to the senses of the court, evidence of the SAME kind and
as where the objects are exhibited for character, corroborative is also
the personal observation of the judge. It additional evidence but of
is also called autopic proference
(evidence of one’s own senses). (5 DIFFERENT kind and character.
Moran) (Jones on Evidence)
Documentary – consists of writing, or Depending on its QUALITY:
any material containing letters, words, Relevant – if it has any value in
numbers, figures, symbols or other reason as tending to prove any matter
modes of written _expression offered provable in an action.
as proof of their contents. (Sec. 2, Rule _ Evidence is relevant when it has a
130) tendency in reason to establish the
_ supplied by written instruments or probability or improbability of a fact
derived from conversational symbols in issue. (Sec. 4, Rule 128)
and letters by which ideas are Material – if it is directed to prove a
represented on material substances. fact in issue as determined by the
Testimonial (oral/verbal) – consists rules of substantive law and pleadings.
of narration or deposition by one who (Wigmore on Evidence)
has observed or has personal knowledge Admissible- if it is relevant to the
of that to which he is testifying. issue and is not excluded by law or by
_ A witness is reliable when his the Rules of Court.
answers are prompt, concise, d. Credible- if it is not only admissible
responsive to interrogatories, but also believable and used by the court
outspoken and entirely devoid of in deciding a case.
evasion and any semblance of Depending on its FUNCTION:
shuffling. (People vs. Francisco, 74 a. Rebuttal – that which is given to
SCRA 158). explain, repel, counteract or disprove facts given in evidence
Positive- when the witness by the adverse
affirms that a fact did or did not party.
occur, it is entitled to greater weight b. Sur-rebuttal – that which is given to
since the witness represents of his explain, repel, counteract or disprove
personal knowledge the presence facts introduced in rebuttal.
or absence of a fact.
Negative – when the witness
states that he did not see or know the Quantum of Evidence
occurrence of a fact there is total a. Proof beyond reasonable doubt required
disclaimer of personal knowledge.

Page 11 of 233
 in criminal cases; does not
mean such degree of proof as Distinguish admissibility of evidence from probative value of
excluding possibility of error, and/or evidence.
producing absolute certainty. Moral A: Admissibility Probative Value
certainty is only required, or that degree Question of whether certain pieces Question of whether the
of proof which produces conviction in of evidence are to be considered at admitted evidence proves an
an unprejudiced mind. all. issue.
b. Preponderance of evidence required
in civil cases; evidence which is
of greater weight, or more convincing,
than that which is offered in opposition MANOLO P. FULE, petitioner,
thereto. (Sec. 2, Rule 133)
Substantial evidence- sufficient in vs.
administrative proceedings; that amount THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify respondent.
a conclusion. (Sec. 5, Rule 133)
1988 June 22 En Banc
G.R. No. 79094
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
DECISION
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
The study of the law on Evidence involves two main problems, viz.: (1)
determining whether a given piece of evidence is admissible; and (2)
the proper presentation of that evidence so that the court will consider This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the
it in resolving the issues and deciding the case. Although evidence
may, by itself, be admissible, the court may not admit or consider it in Decision of respondent Appellate Court, which
the resolution of the case unless the evidence was properly presented. affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial
Axiom of Admissibility of Evidence
Court, Lucena City, Branch LIV, convicting
petitioner (the accused -appellant) of Violation
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issues and is of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (The Bouncing Checks
competent, i.e., it is not excluded by the law or the Rules of Court.4
Evidence is relevant if it tends in any reasonable degree to establish Law) on the basis of the Stipulation of Facts
the probability or improbability of a fact in issue.5 It is of a lesser
degree of reliability as evidence than material evidence. Material entered into between the prosecution and the
evidence directly proves a fact in issue. Thus, the testimony of an defense during the pre-trial conference in the
eyewitness to the commission of a crime is material; the evidence of
motive or flight of the accused may be relevant. Evidence that is Trial Court. The facts stipulated upon read:
material or relevant must also be competent to be admissible. For
example, although the testimony of the eyewitness may be material, it
may be inadmissible if it is excluded by the marital disqualification rule. "a) That this Court has jurisdiction over the
Relevancy or materiality of evidence is a matter of logic, since it is
person and subject matter of this case;
determined simply by ascertaining its logical connection to a fact in
issue in the case. It is therefore inadvisable for a judge to ask an
objecting counsel why an offered piece of evidence is irrelevant or "b) That the accused was an agent of the
immaterial. By his inquiry, he shows his unfamiliarity with the issues in
the case. A judge is expected to be aware of the issues which he was
Towers Assurance Corporation on or before
supposed to have defined and limited in his mandatory pre-trial order. January 21, 1981;
On the other hand, the grounds for objection to the competency of
evidence must be specified6 and are determined by the Rules or the
law.
"c) That on January 21, 1981, the accused
The opposites of the three requisites for admissibility of evidence, viz, issued and made out check No. 26741, dated
irrelevancy, immateriality or incompetency, are the general grounds for January 24, 1981 in the sum of P2,541.05;
objection. The first two are valid grounds for objection without need of
specification or explanation. The third ground for objection,
incompetency, if offered without further explanation, is not valid for
being unspecific, except when invoked in reference to the lack of "d) That the said check was drawn in favor of
qualification of a witness to answer a particular question or give a the complaining witness, Roy Nadera;
particular evidence.

"e) That the check was drawn in favor of the

complaining witness in remittance of collection;

Page 12 of 233
 "f) That the said check was presented for "SEC. 4. Pre-trial agreements must be signed.
payment on January 24, 1981 but the same was No agreement or admission made or entered
dishonored for the reason that the said during the pre-trial conference shall be used in
checking account was already closed; evidence against the accused unless reduced to
writing and signed by him and his counsel." (Rule
"g) That the accused Manolo Fule has been 118)
properly identified as the accused party in
this case." By its very language, the Rule is mandatory. Under
the rule of statutory construction, negative words
At the hearing of August 23, 1985, only the and phrases are to be regarded as mandatory
prosecution presented its evidence consisting while those in the affirmative are merely
of Exhibits "A," "B" and "C." At the subsequent directory (McGee vs. Republic, 94 Phil. 820 [1954])
hearing on September 17, 1985, petitioner- . The use of the term "shall" further emphasizes
appellant waived the right to present evidence its mandatory character and means that it is
and, in lieu thereof, submitted a Memorandum imperative, operating to impose a duty which may
confirming the Stipulation of Facts. The Trial be enforced (Bersabal vs. Salvador, No. L-35910,
Court convicted petitioner-appellant. July 21, 1978, 84 SCRA 176). And more
importantly, penal statutes whether substantive
On appeal, respondent Appellate Court and remedial or procedural are, by consecrated
upheld the Stipulation of Facts and affirmed rule, to be strictly applied against the government
the judgment of conviction. 1 and liberally in favor of the accused (People vs.
Terrado, No. L-23625, November 25, 1983, 125
Hence, this recourse, with petitioner-appellant SCRA 648).
contending that:
The conclusion is inevitable, therefore, that the
"The Honorable Respondent Court of Appeals omission of the signature of the accused and his
erred in affirming the decision of the Regional counsel, as mandatorily required by the Rules,
Trial Court convicting the petitioner of the renders the Stipulation of Facts inadmissible in
offense charged, despite the cold fact that the evidence. The fact that the lawyer of the
basis of the conviction was based solely on the accused, in his memorandum, confirmed the
stipulation of facts made during the pre -trial Stipulation of Facts does not cure the defect
on August 8, 1985, which was not signed by the because Rule 118 requires both the accused and
petitioner, nor by his counsel." his counsel to sign the Stipulation of Facts.
What the prosecution should have done, upon
Finding the petition meritorious, we resolved to discovering that the accused did not sign the
give due course. Stipulation of Facts, as required by Rule 118, was
to submit evidence to establish the elements of
The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which the crime, instead of relying solely on the
became effective on January 1, 1985, applicable supposed admission of the accused in the
to this case since the pre -trial was held on Stipulation of Facts. Without said evidence
August 8, 1985, provides: independent of the admission, the guilt of the
accused cannot be deemed established beyond

Page 13 of 233
reasonable doubt. the witness will not be allowed to testify. If the witness is otherwise
allowed to testify, he shall be sworn in, either by taking an oath or
making an affirmation.9 It is essential that the proper foundation for the
testimony of a witness must be laid. An ordinary witness must be
Consequently, under the circumstances obtaining shown to have personal knowledge of the facts he shall testify to;
in this case, the ends of justice require that otherwise, his testimony will be hearsay, or he will be incompetent to
answer the questions to be asked of him. An expert witness must be
evidence be presented to determine the specifically qualified as such; otherwise, he cannot validly give his
opinion on matters for which he may have been summoned as a
culpability of the accused. When a judgment has witness.
been entered by consent of an attorney without
However, the requirement of qualifying an expert witness may be
special authority, it will sometimes be set aside or dispensed with if:
reopened (Natividad vs. Natividad, 51 Phil.
613 [1928]). the adverse counsel stipulates on the expert’s
qualification; or

WHEREFORE, the judgment of respondent the court takes judicial notice of the witness’ expertise,
because the judge happens to be aware thereof on
Appellate Court is REVERSED and this case is account of the judge’s judicial functions.
hereby ordered RE-OPENED and REMANDED to
Documentary evidence
the appropriate Branch of the Regional Trial
Court of Lucena City, for further reception of Documentary evidence is (1) marked; (2) identified as the document
evidence. which it is claimed to be (as when the witness asserts that the
document presented to him is the same contract which he claims was
executed between the two parties); (3) authenticated, if a private
document, by proving its due execution and genuineness; and (4)
SO ORDERED. formally offered after all the proponent’s witnesses have testified.

Rule 132, Sec. 34 provides that the court shall consider no evidence
Yap (C.J.), Fernan, Narvasa, Cruz, Feliciano, which has not been formally offered, and that the purpose for which the
Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, evidence is offered must be specified. In this connection, it has been
asked whether it would be proper for the judge to disregard a witness’
Griño-Aguino and Medialdea, JJ., concur. direct testimony given without the prior formal offer thereof which Rule
132, Sec. 35 requires, and corollarily, whether the adverse party may
be required to cross-examine that witness. In People v. Marcos,11 the
Supreme Court ruled that if a witness has given unoffered direct
testimony without objection from the adverse party, the latter is
Proper Presentation Of Evidence estopped from raising that objection which he is deemed to have
waived; hence, although not formally offered, the testimony may be
Every piece of evidence, regardless of its nature, requires certain considered by the court.
processes of presentation for its admissibility and admission.
The view can be advanced, however, that although the aforesaid
1. Object evidence testimony was not expressly formally offered, it was nonetheless
formally offered, albeit impliedly and automatically, the moment each
question was propounded to elicit an answer. This view is premised on
Object evidence must generally be marked (Exhibit A, B, etc. for the two related provisions in Rule 132, Sec. 36, i.e., that 'Objection to
plaintiff; Exhibit 1, 2, 3, etc. for the defendant) either during the pre-trial evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is
or during its presentation at the trial. It must also be identified as the made,' and that 'Objection to a question propounded in the course of
object evidence it is claimed to be. This requires a testimonial sponsor. the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the
For example, a forensic chemist identifies marijuana leaves as those grounds therefor shall have become reasonably apparent.' Clearly, the
submitted to him in the case for examination. Further, object evidence purpose of the express formal offer of oral evidence before the witness
must be formally offered after the presentation of a party’s testimonial testifies is merely to determine, on the basis of the stated substance of
evidence. the testimony and its purpose, whether the witness shall be allowed to
testify. Once the witness is allowed to testify, each question
2. Oral evidence propounded to elicit specific oral evidence may still be objected to as
soon as a ground for objection becomes reasonably apparent. But it is
fundamental that an objection to evidence can be validly raised only
Oral evidence is presented through the testimony of a witness. Under after an offer is made. Thus, every question asked of a witness
the 1989 Rules on Evidence, oral evidence must be formally offered at especially on direct examination presupposes a formal offer of the
the time the witness is called to testify.8 Objections may then be raised answer, the oral evidence, sought to be elicited. It would seem
against the testimony of the witness. If the objection is valid, as when therefore that unlike documentary and object evidence which are
the witness’ testimony is barred by the hearsay rule or the opinion rule,

Page 14 of 233
formally offered only after all the witnesses of a party have testified, TYPES OF ADMISSIBILITY
oral evidence is offered twice: once, expressly, before the witness a. Multiple Admissibility Rule –
testifies, and again, with each question propounded to the witness. evidence is relevant and competent for
two or more purposes.
_ Evidence will be received if it satisfies all the
Formal Offer Of Evidence; Need For Statement Of The
requirements prescribed by law in order that it
Purpose Of Evidence
may be admissible for the purpose for which it was presented, even if
it does not satisfy the other requirements for its admissibility for other
Evidence not formally offered will not be considered by the court in purposes. (5 Moran)
deciding the case. _ Under the rule of multiple admissibility o evidence, even if Consunji’s
confession may not be
competent as a against his co accused Panganiban, being hearsay
A party makes a formal offer of his evidence by stating its substance or as to the latter, or to prove conspiracy between them without
nature and the purpose or purposes for which the evidence is conspiracy being established by
offered.13 Without a formal offer of evidence, and hence without a other evidence, the confession of Consunji was, nevertheless,
disclosure of its purpose, it cannot be determined whether it is admissible as evidence of the declarant’s own guilt (People vs. Yatco,
admissible or not. This is so because it is the intended purpose of a 97 Phil. 941).
piece of evidence which determines what rule of evidence will apply for
its admissibility. A piece of evidence may be admissible if offered for b. Conditional Admissibility Rule –
one purpose but may be inadmissible if offered for another. For evidence that which appears to be immaterial is admitted by the court
example, the testimony of a witness, in a libel case, that he heard the subject to the condition that its connection with other facts
defendant call the plaintiff a liar and a crook is certainly inadmissible subsequently to be proved will be
for being hearsay, if offered to prove the truth of the perceived established. (People vs. Yatco, 97 Phil. 940).
statement. However, the same testimony is perfectly admissible if
offered simply to prove that the statement was uttered. For that
_ A fact offered in evidence mayappear to be immaterial unless it is
purpose, the witness would be the only person qualified to testify on,
connected with other facts to be subsequently proved. In such a
and prove, what he heard defendant say. Similarly, the declaration of a case, evidence of that fact may be received on condition that the
dying person made without consciousness of his impending death will other facts be
not qualify as a dying declaration, although it may be admissible if
afterwards proved. On failure to comply with this condition,
offered as part of the res gestae.
the evidence already given shall be stricken out. (5 Moran)

It must be noted that the mere marking, identification, or authentication c. Curative Admissibility Rule evidence,
of documentary evidence does not mean that it will be, or has been, otherwise improper, is admitted to contradict improper
offered as part of the evidence of a party. This was the ruling of the evidence introduced by the other party. (1 Wigmore)
Supreme Court in People v. Santito, Jr.
_ Improper evidence admitted on one side without objection, does
not give the other side the right to introduce in reply the same kind of
Annexes attached to pleadings, if not offered formally, are mere scraps evidence if objected to; however, when a plain and unfair prejudice
of paper and should not be considered by the court, unless the truth of would
their contents has been judicially admitted. otherwise inure to the opponent, the court may permit him to use
a curative counter-evidence to contradict the improper evidence
To the general rule that the court shall not consider any evidence not presented. (5 Moran)
formally offered, there are certain exceptions:
Digital evidence or electronic evidence is
Under the Rule on Summary Procedure, where no full any probative information stored or transmitted in
blown trial is held in the interest of speedy administration digital form that a party to a court case may use
of justice;
attrial.[1] Before accepting digital evidence a court
In summary judgments under Rule 35 where the judge will determine if the evidence is relevant, whether
bases his decisions on the pleadings, depositions, it is authentic, if it is hearsay and whether a copy
admissions, affidavits and documents filed with the court;
is acceptable or the original is required.[1]
Documents whose contents are taken judicial notice of The use of digital evidence has increased in the
by the court; past few decades as courts have allowed the use
of e-mails, digital photographs, ATM transaction
Documents whose contents are judicially admitted; logs, word processing documents, instant
message histories, files saved
Object evidence which could not be formally offered
because they have disappeared or have become lost from accounting programs, spreadsheets, internet
after they have been marked, identified and testified on browser histories,databases, the contents
and described in the record and became the subject of
cross-examination of the witnesses who testified on them of computer memory, computer backups,
during the trial, e.g., marijuana involved in a prohibited computer printouts, Global Positioning
drugs prosecution.
System tracks, logs from a hotel’s electronic door
locks, and digital video or audio files.[2]
Many courts in the United States have applied

Page 15 of 233
the Federal Rules of Evidence to digital evidence in a a continuing objection is properly made.20 Objection to the purpose for
similar way to traditional documents, although which evidence is offered is not proper.
according to
some have noted important [

B. A motion to strike out answer or testimony is proper in the

whom? following instances:
] differences. For
example, that digital evidence
tends to be more voluminous, more difficult to
The witness answers prematurely.21
destroy, easily modified, easily duplicated,
potentially more expressive, and more readily The answer is incompetent, irrelevant or improper.22
available. As such, some courts have sometimes
treated digital evidence differently for purposes of The incompetency referred to here is limited to the
authentication, hearsay, the best evidence rule, and incompetency of the witness to answer the question
posed; it does not extend to the general concept of
privilege. In December 2006, strict new rules were incompetency of evidence for being excluded by law or
enacted within the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the Rules.
requiring the preservation and disclosure of
electronically stored evidence. Digital evidence is The answer given is unresponsive.

often attacked for its authenticity due to the ease

The ground for objection was not apparent when the
with which it can be modified, although courts are question was asked.
beginning to reject this argument without proof of
tampering.[3]1 Uncompleted testimony – e.g., a witness who gave direct
testimony becomes unavailable for cross-examination
through no fault of the cross-examiner.

Unfulfilled condition in conditionally admitted testimony.

MODES OF EXCLUDING INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE

Objections and Ruling

There are two ways of excluding inadmissible evidence. One is by
objection and the other is by a motion to strike out.
Objections to evidence may be formal or substantive.
A. Evidence is objected to at the time it is offered and not
before: Formal objections are based on the defective form of the
question asked. Examples:
Oral evidence is objected to after its
express formal offer before the witness leading questions which suggest to the witness
testifies.17 When thereafter the witness is the answer desired.23
allowed to testify, objection to a question
propounded in the course of the oral
If counsel finds difficulty in avoiding
examination of a witness shall be made as
leading questions, the judge may
soon as the grounds therefor shall become suggest, to expedite questions, that
reasonably apparent.18 counsel begin his
questions with the proper
Documentary and object evidence are interrogative pronouns, such as
objected to upon their formal offer after the "who", "what", "where", "why",
presentation of a party’s testimonial "how", etc.
evidence.
Leading questions are allowed of
Failure to seasonably object to offered evidence amounts to a waiver witness who cannot be reasonably
of the grounds for objection. The rules of exclusion are not self- expected to be led by the examining
operating. They must be properly invoked. counsel, as (a) on cross-
examinations;24 (b) when the
witness is unwilling or hostile, after it
The grounds for objection must be specified.19 Grounds not raised are has been demonstrated that the
deemed waived. However, repetition of objection is unnecessary when witness had shown unjustified

Page 16 of 233
 reluctance to testify or has an Substantive objections are those based on the
adverse interest or had misled the inadmissibility of the offered evidence, e.g.;
party into calling him to the witness
stand, and in either case after having
irrelevant, immaterial
been declared by the court to be
indeed unwilling or hostile;25 or (c)
when the witness is an adverse party best evidence rule
or an officer, director, or managing
agent of a public or private
parol evidence rule
corporation or of a partnership or
association with is an adverse
party.26 disqualification of witness

c. Leading questions may also be privileged communication

asked when there is difficulty in
getting direct and intelligible answers
res inter alios acta
from a witness who is ignorant, or a
child of tender years, or is feeble
minded, or a deaf-mute.27 hearsay

d. Leading questions may moreover opinion

be asked on preliminary matters, i.e.,
on facts not in controversy, and
offered only as basis for more evidence illegally obtained
important testimony to follow. For
example, "You are Mrs Maria (10)private document not authenticated
Morales, wife of the plaintiff in this
case?"
The ruling by the court on an objection must be given immediately after
an objection is made, unless the court desires to take a reasonable
misleading questions, which assume as true a time to inform itself on the question presented; but the ruling shall
fact not testified to by the witness ("question always be made during the trial and at such time as will give the party
has no basis"), or contrary to that which he has against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the situations
previously stated;28 presented by the ruling.29 Thus, an objection to a question asked of a
witness must be at once resolved by the court by either sustaining or
double or multiple questions, which are two or overruling the objection. It would be incorrect for a judge to consider
more queries in one. For example, Q: "Did you the objection "submitted" or "noted". Unless the objection is resolved,
see the defendant enter the plaintiff’s house, the examination of the witness could not be expected to continue
and was the plaintiff there?" since, in all likelihood, the next question would depend on how the
objection is resolved. If the issue raised by the objection is a
particularly difficult one, it would not be improper for the judge to
vague; ambiguous; indefinite or uncertain perhaps declare a brief recess to enable him to quickly study the
questions - not allowed because the witness matter. But certainly, the resolution must be given before the trial
cannot understand from the form of the resumes.
question just what facts are sought to be
elicited.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be
stated. However, if the objection is based on two or more grounds, a
repetitious questions; or those already ruling sustaining the objection, or one or some of them, must specify
answered. However, on cross-examination, the the ground or grounds relied upon.30
cross-examiner may ask a question already
answered to test the credibility of the witness.
Judges are advised to judiciously consider the validity of the grounds
for objections and carefully rule on them. A ruling that all evidence
argumentative questions, which challenge a formally offered are "admitted for whatever they may be worth" will not
witness’ testimony by engaging him in an reflect well on the judge, as it implies a hasty and ill-considered
argument, e.g., Q: "Isn’t it a fact Mr Witness resolution of the offer and the objections. Besides, the phrase "for
that nobody could possibly see all the whatever they may be worth" is improper since it refers to the weight or
circumstances you mentioned in a span of credibility of the evidence; the weight of the evidence shall be
merely two seconds, and that either your considered only after the evidence shall have been admitted. Another
observations are inaccurate or you are lying?" ruling that is ludicrous and even nonsensical is "Evidence admitted
subject to the objections". This is a non-ruling.

In case of an honest doubt about the admissibility of evidence, it is

better policy to rule in favor of its admission. An erroneous rejection of
evidence will be unfair to the offeror since the judge cannot validly

Page 17 of 233
consider it even if after the trial, the judge realizes his mistake. On the and the signer’s public key can accurately determine:
other hand, if the judge had erred in admitting a piece of evidence, he whether the transformation was created using the private key
may simply give it little or no weight when deciding the case. that corresponds to the signer’s public key; and,
whether the initial electronic document had been altered after
the transformation was made.
Note: An electronic signature or a digital signature is deemed as the
THE RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
functional equivalent of the signature of a person on a written
A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC
document.
Effective August 1, 2001
Asymmetric or Public Cryptosystem – a system capable of
Scope: Unless otherwise provided in this Rule, generating a secure key pair, consisting of a private key for creating a
it shall apply whenever an electronic document digital signature, and a public key for verifying the digital signature.
or electronic data message is offered or used
in evidence.
Ephemeral Electronic Communication – refers to
telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions,
Coverage: The Rules shall apply to all civil streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms
actions and proceedings, as well as of communication the evidence of
quasijudicial and administrative cases.
which is not recorded or retained.
_ R.A. 8792 gave recognition to the admissibility of
RULES:
electronic documents and electronic data messages as
1. A recording of the telephone conversation
evidence. The law says that “for evidentiary purposes, an
or ephemeral electronic communication may be offered as ephemeral
electronic document shall be the functional
evidence in the same way as in presenting audio, photographic or
equivalent of a written document under existing laws.:
video evidence to the court.
Electronic Documents as Functional Equivalent of Paper-Based
_ To be admissible must maintained its
Documents: Whenever a rule of evidence
integrity, reliability and must be capable
refers to the term writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum
of being authenticated.
or any other form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an
electronic document.
_ Definitions:
The TOTAL EXCLUSIONARY RULE: Evidence obtained in
Electronic Document – refers to information or the representation violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights must be suppressed from
of information, data, figures, symbols the government’s case in
or other modes of written expression, described or chief.
however represented, by which a right is established or an
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree / But For/ Taint Doctrine- posits
obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may
that all evidence (the fruit) derived from an illegal search (the
be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, poisonous tree) must be suppressed, whether it was obtained directly
transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved, or through the illegal search itself or indirectly using information
produced electronically. obtained din the illegal search.
What Electronic Document Includes _ Scope of Exclusionary Rule
(a) Digitally signed document; or Right against unreasonable search and seizure.
(b) Any print-out or output, readable by sight or other means, Right to privacy and inviolability of communication.
which accurately reflects the electronic data Right under investigation for an offense.
message or electronic document. Right against self-incrimination.
Digitally Signed – refers to an electronic document or electronic _ Note: The rule is limited only to evidence obtained by law
data message bearing a digital enforcers except as otherwise provided by law.
signature verified by the public key listed in a certificate.
Republic of the Philippines
Electronic Data Message – refers to information generated,
sent, received or stored by electronic, SUPREME COURT
optical or similar means. ¨ For purposes of the Rules on Manila
Electronic Evidence, the term “electronic document” may be
used interchangeably with “electronic data message.”

Electronic Signature – refers to any distinctive mark,

THIRD DIVISION
characteristic and/or sound in electronic form,
representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically
associated with the electronic data message or electronic document G.R. No. 170491 April 4, 2007
or any methodology or procedure
employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by
such person with the intention of authenticating, signing or NATIONAL POWER
approving an electronic data message or electronic document. It
includes digital signatures. CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
Digital Signature – refers to an electronic signature consisting of
a transformation of an electronic HON. RAMON G. CODILLA, JR., Presiding
document or an electronic data message using an asymmetric
or untransformed electronic document Judge, RTC of Cebu, Br. 19, BANGPAI
SHIPPING COMPANY, and WALLEM
public cryptosystem such that a person having the initial

Page 18 of 233
SHIPPING, INCORPORATED, Respondents. likewise filed a Motion to Dismiss which was
also denied by public respondent Judge in an
DECISION Order issued on 24 January 2003.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Petitioner, after adducing evidence during the

trial of the case, filed a formal offer of
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari evidence before the lower court on 2 February
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 2004 consisting of Exhibits "A" to "V"
1
assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals together with the sub-marked portions
in CA-G.R. CEB -SP No. 00848, dated 9 thereof. Consequently, private respondents
November 2005, which dismissed the Petition Bangpai Shipping Co. and Wallem Shipping, Inc.
for Certiorari filed by the National Power filed their respective objections to petitioner‘s
Corporation seeking to set aside the formal offer of evidence.
2
Order issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Cebu, Branch 19 dated 16 November 2004, On 16 November 2004, public respondent judge
denying admission and excluding from the issued the assailed order denying the admission
records plaintiff‘s (herein petitioner) Exhibits and excluding from the records petitioner‘s
"A", "C", "D", "E", "H" and its sub-markings, "I", Exhibits "A", "C", "D", "E", "H" and its sub-
"J", and its sub-markings, "K", "L", "M" and its markings, "I", "J" and its sub-markings, "K", "L",
sub-markings, "N" and its sub-markings, "O", "P" "M" and its sub-markings, "N" and its sub-
and its sub-markings, "Q" and its sub-markings, markings, "O", "P" and its sub -markings, "Q"
"R" and "S" and its sub-markings. and its sub-markings, "R" and "S" and its sub-
markings. According to the court a quo:
On 20 April 1996, M/V Dibena Win, a vessel of
foreign registry owned and operated by private The Court finds merit in the objections raised
respondent Bangpai Shipping, Co., allegedly and the motion to strike out filed respectively
bumped and damaged petitioner‘s Power Barge by the defendants. The record shows that the
209 which was then moored at the Cebu plaintiff has been given every opportunity to
International Port. Thus, on 26 April 1996, present the originals of the Xerox or
petitioner filed before the Cebu RTC a photocopies of the documents it offered. It
complaint for damages against private never produced the originals. The plaintiff
respondent Bangpai Shipping Co., for the alleged attempted to justify the admission of the
damages caused on petitioner‘s power barges. photocopies by contending that "the
photocopies offered are equivalent to the
Thereafter, petitioner filed an Amended original of the document" on the basis of the
Complaint dated 8 July 1996 impleading herein Electronic Evidence (Comment to Defendant
private respondent Wallem Shipping, Inc., as Wallem Philippines‘ Objections and Motion to
additional defendant, contending that the latter Strike). But as rightly pointed out in defendant
is a ship agent of Bangpai Shipping Co. On 18 Wallem‘s Reply to the Comment of Plaintiff, the
September 1996, Wallem Shipping, Inc. filed a Xerox copies do not constitute the electronic
Motion to Dismiss which was subsequently evidence defined in Section 1 of Rule 2 of the
denied by public respondent Judge in an Order Rules on Electronic Evidence as follows:
dated 20 October 1998. Bangpai Shipping Co.

Page 19 of 233
"(h) "Electronic document" refers to information the records. However, these excluded evidence
or the representation of information, data, should be attached to the records of this case
figures, symbols or other models of written to enable the appellate court to pass upon them
expression, described or however represented, by should an appeal be taken from the decision on
which a right is established or an obligation the merits to be rendered upon the termination
extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved of the trial of this case.
and affirmed, which is received, recorded,
transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or Exhibits "S" and its sub-markings are also
produced electronically. It includes digitally signed DENIED admission for lack of proper
documents and any printout, readable by sight or identification since the witness who brought
other means which accurately reflects the these pictures expressly admitted that he was
electronic data message or electronic document. not present when the photos were taken and had
For the purpose of these Rules, the term not knowledge when the same where taken.
3

"electronic document" may be used

interchangeably with "electronic data message". Upon denial of petitioner‘s Motion for
Reconsideration in an Order dated 20 April
The information in those Xerox or photocopies 2005, petitioner filed a Petition
was not received, recorded, retrieved or for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
produced electronically. Moreover, such Civil Procedure before the Court of Appeals
electronic evidence must be authenticated maintaining that public respondent Judge acted
(Sections 1 and 2, Rule 5, Rules on Electronic with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
Evidence), which the plaintiff failed to do. or excess of jurisdiction in denying the
Finally, the required Affidavit to prove the admission of its Exhibits "A", "C", "D", "E", "H"
admissibility and evidentiary weight of the and its sub-markings, "I", "J" and its sub-
alleged electronic evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 9, markings, "K", "L", "M" and its sub -markings,
Ibid) was not executed, much less presented in "N" and its sub-markings, "O", "P" and its sub-
evidence. markings, "Q" and its sub-markings, "R", and "S"
and its sub-markings.
The Xerox or photocopies offered should,
therefore, be stricken off the record. Aside On 9 November 2005, the appellate court issued
from their being not properly identified by a Decision dismissing petitioner‘s petition for
any competent witness, the loss of the certiorari, the pertinent portions of which
principals thereof was not established by any elucidate:
competent proof.
After a judicious scrutiny of the record of the
xxxx case on hand, together with the rules and
jurisprudence which are applicable in the
WHEREFORE, plaintiff‘s Exhibits "A", "C", "D", premises, we have come up with a finding that
"E", "H" and its sub-markings, "I", "J", and its sub- the petition for certiorari filed in this case is
markings, "K", "L", "M" and its sub-markings, "N" not meritorious.
and its sub-markings, "O", "P" and its sub-
markings, "Q" and its sub-markings, and "R" are It appears that there is no sufficient showing by
hereby DENIED admission and excluded from the petitioner that the respondent judge acted

Page 20 of 233
with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the inquiry are the contents of documents, no
assailed orders in Civil Case No. CEB-18662. As evidence shall be admissible other than the
what our jurisprudence tells us, grave abuse of original documents themselves, except in
discretion is meant such capricious and certain cases specifically so enumerated
whimsical exercise of judgment as would be therein, and the petitioner has not shown that
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction x x x. the non-presentation or non-production of its
original documentary pieces of evidence falls
In the case at bench, what has been shown to under such exceptions. As aptly pointed out by
the contrary by the totality of the record on the respondent judge in the order issued by him
hand is that the respondent judge acted on November 16, 2004:
correctly and within the pale of his sound
discretion in issuing the assailed order, dated "x x x The record shows that the plaintiff
November 16, 2004, in Civil Case No. CEB-18662. (petitioner herein) has been given every
opportunity to present the originals of the
Indeed, it appears that the pieces of Xerox or photocopies of the documents it
petitioner‘s documentary evidence which were offered. It never produced said originals."
denied admission by the respondent judge were
not properly identified by any competent So, the petitioner has only itself to blame for
witness. As pointed out by the respondent the respondent judge‘s denial of admission of
Bangpai Shipping Company in its comment on the its aforementioned documentary evidence.
petition filed in this case which reproduces some
excerpts of the testimonies in the court a Of course, the petitioner tries to contend that
quo of Atty. Marianito De Los Santos, Engr. the photocopies of documents offered by it are
Nestor Enriquez, Jr. and Mr. Rodulfo I. equivalent to the original documents that it
Pagaling, the said witnesses did not have sought to offer in evidence, based on the Rules
personal knowledge of and participation in the on Electronic Evidence which were in force and
preparation and making of the pieces of effect since August 1, 2001. However, such a
documentary evidence denied admission by contention is devoid of merit. The pieces of
respondent judge x x x. In other words, there documentary evidence offered by the
was lack of proper identification of said pieces petitioner in Civil Case CEB-18662 which were
of documentary evidence. x x x. denied admission by the respondent judge do
not actually constitute as electronic evidence as
Then another ground for denying admission of defined in the Rules on Electronic Evidence. The
petitioner‘s Exhibits A, C, D, E, H, I, J, K, L, M, informations therein were not received,
N, O, P, Q, R, and S by the respondent judge is retrieved or produced electronically. The
that said pieces of documentary evidence were petitioner has not adequately established that
merely photocopies of purported documents or its documentary evidence were electronic
papers. There is no gainsaying the fact that the evidence. it has not properly authenticated such
respondent judge acted within the pale of his evidence as electronic documents,
discretion when he denied admission of said assuming arguendo that they are. Lastly, the
documentary evidence. Section 3 of Rule 130 of petitioner has not properly established by
the Rules of Court of the Philippines is very affidavit pursuant to Rule 9 of the Rules on
explicit in providing that, when the subject of Electronic Evidence the admissibility and

Page 21 of 233
evidentiary weight of said of the Rules on Electronic Evidence is not limited
documentary evidence. to information that is received, recorded,
retrieved or produced electronically. Rather,
Thus, by any legal yardstick, it is manifest that petitioner maintains that an "electronic
the respondent judge did not commit grave document" can also refer to other modes of
abuse of discretion in denying admission of the written expression that is produced
aforementioned documentary evidence of electronically, such as photocopies, as included in
petitioner. the section‘s catch-all proviso: "any print-out or
output, readable by sight or other means".
But even if it be granted just for the sake of
argument that the respondent judge committed We do not agree.
an error in denying the aforementioned
documentary evidence of the petitioner, still the In order to shed light to the issue of whether
petition for certiorari filed in this case must or not the photocopies are indeed electronic
fail. Such error would at most be only an error documents as contemplated in Republic Act No.
of law and not an error of jurisdiction. In Lee vs. 8792 or the Implementing Rules and Regulations
People, 393 SCRA 397, the Supreme Court of of the Electronic Commerce Act, as well as the
the Philippines said that certiorari will not lie in Rules on Electronic Evidence, we shall enumerate
case of an error of law. x x x. the following documents offered as evidence by
the petitioner, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises,
judgment is hereby rendered by us Exhibit "A" is a photocopy of a letter
DISMISSING the petition filed in this case and manually signed by a certain Jose C.
AFFIRMING the assailed orders issued by Troyo, with "RECEIVED" stamped
respondent judge in Civil Case No. CEB-18662.
4 thereon, together with a handwritten
date;
Aggrieved by the aforequoted decision,
petitioner filed the instant petition. Exhibit "C" is a photocopy of a list of
estimated cost of damages of petitioner‘s
The focal point of this entire controversy is power barges 207 and 209 prepared by
petitioner‘s obstinate contention that the Hopewell Mobile Power Systems
photocopies it offered as formal evidence Corporation and manually signed by
before the trial court are the functional Messrs. Rex Malaluan and Virgilio Asprer;
equivalent of their original based on its
inimitable interpretation of the Rules on Exhibit "D" is a photocopy of a letter
Electronic Evidence. manually signed by a certain Nestor G.
Enriquez, Jr., with "RECEIVED" stamped
Petitioner insists that, contrary to the rulings of thereon, together with a handwritten
both the trial court and the appellate court, the notation of the date it was received;
photocopies it presented as documentary
evidence actually constitute electronic evidence Exhibit "E" is a photocopy of a Standard
based on its own premise that an "electronic Marine Protest Form which was filled up
document" as defined under Section 1(h), Rule 2 and accomplished by Rex Joel C.

Page 22 of 233
Malaluan in his own handwriting and addressed to Rex Joel C. Malaluan,
signed by him. Portions of the Jurat were manually signed by Jaime S. Patinio, with
handwritten, and manually signed by the a handwritten notation of the date it was
Notary Public; received. The sub-markings also contain
manual signatures and/or handwritten
Exhibit "H" is a photocopy of a letter notations;
manually signed by Mr. Nestor G.
Enriquez, Jr. with "RECEIVED" stamped Exhibit "N" is a photocopy of a
thereon, together with a handwritten letter of termination with attachments
notation of the date it was received; addressed to VIrgilio Asprer and
manually signed by Jaime S. Patino. The
Exhibit "I" is a photocopy of a sub-markings contain manual signatures
computation of the estimated energy and/or handwritten notations;
loss allegedly suffered by petitioner
which was manually signed by Mr. Nestor Exhibit "O" is the same photocopied
G. Enriquez, Jr.; document marked as Annex C;

Exhibit "J" is a photocopy of a letter Exhibit "P" is a photocopy of an

containing the breakdown of the cost incident report manually signed by
estimate, manually signed by Mr. Messrs. Malaluan and Bautista and by the
Nestor G. Enriquez, Jr., with Notary Public, with other handwritten
"RECEIVED" stamped thereon, notations;
together with a handwritten notation of
the date it was received, and other Exhibit "Q" is a photocopy of a
handwritten notations; letter manually signed by Virgilio Asprer
and by a Notary Public, together with
Exhibit "K" is a photocopy of the other handwritten notations.
Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad Testificandum
written using a manual typewriter, signed On the other hand, an "electronic document"
manually by Atty. Ofelia Polo-De Los refers to information or the representation of
Reyes, with a handwritten notation when information, data, figures, symbols or other
it was received by the party; models of written expression, described or
however represented, by which a right is
Exhibit "L" is a photocopy of a portion established or an obligation extinguished, or by
of the electricity supply and operation which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which
and maintenance agreement between is received, recorded, transmitted, stored,
petitioner and Hopewell, containing processed, retrieved or produced
5
handwritten notations and every page electronically. It includes digitally signed
containing three unidentified manually documents and any printout, readable by sight or
placed signatures; other means which accurately reflects the
electronic data message or electronic
Exhibit "M" is a photocopy of the document.
6

Notice of Termination with attachments

Page 23 of 233
The rules use the word "information" to define an its sub-markings, "Q" and its sub-markings, and
electronic document received, recorded, "R". The trial court was correct in rejecting
transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or these photocopies as they violate the best
produced electronically. This would suggest that evidence rule and are therefore of no probative
an electronic document is relevant only in terms value being incompetent pieces of evidence.
of the information contained therein, similar to Before the onset of liberal rules of discovery,
any other document which is presented in and modern technique of electronic copying, the
7
evidence as proof of its contents. However, what best evidence rule was designed to guard
differentiates an electronic document from a against incomplete or fraudulent proof and the
paper-based document is the manner by which the introduction of altered copies and the
8
information is processed; clearly, the information withholding of the originals. But the modern
contained in an electronic document is received, justification for the rule has expanded from the
recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, prevention of fraud to a recognition that
retrieved or produced electronically. writings occupy a central position in the
9
law. The importance of the precise terms of
A perusal of the information contained in the writings in the world of legal relations, the
photocopies submitted by petitioner will reveal fallibility of the human memory as reliable
that not all of the contents therein, such as the evidence of the terms, and the hazards of
signatures of the persons who purportedly inaccurate or incomplete duplicate are the
signed the documents, may be recorded or 10
concerns addressed by the best evidence rule.
produced electronically. By no stretch of the
imagination can a person‘s signature affixed Moreover, as mandated under Section 2, Rule
manually be considered as information 130 of the Rules of Court:
electronically received, recorded, transmitted,
stored, processed, retrieved or produced. "SECTION 2. Original writing must be
Hence, the argument of petitioner that since produced; exceptions. — There can be no
these paper printouts were produced through an evidence of a writing the contents of which is
electronic process, then these photocopies are the subject of inquiry, other than the original
electronic documents as defined in the Rules on writing itself, except in the following cases:
Electronic Evidence is obviously an erroneous, if
not preposterous, interpretation of the law. When the original has been lost,
Having thus declared that the offered destroyed, or cannot be produced in
photocopies are not tantamount to electronic court;
documents, it is consequential that the same
may not be considered as the functional When the original is in the possession
equivalent of their original as decreed in the law. of the party against whom the evidence is
offered, and the latter fails to produce
Furthermore, no error can be ascribed to the it after reasonable notice;
court a quo in denying admission and excluding
from the records petitioner‘s Exhibits "A", "C", When the original is a record or other
"D", "E", "H" and its sub-markings, "I", "J" and document in the custody of a public
its sub-markings, "K", "L", "M" and its sub- officer;
markings, "N" and its sub-markings, "O", "P" and

Page 24 of 233
 768ĀȀĀ⸀Āᜀ When the original has been opportunities given by the trial court for it to
recorded in an existing record a certified present the originals of the photocopies it
copy of which is made evidence by law; presented yet comes before us now praying that
it be allowed to present the originals of the
769ĀȀĀ⸀Āᜀ When the original consists exhibits that were denied admission or in case
of numerous accounts or other the same are lost, to lay the predicate for the
documents which cannot be examined in admission of secondary evidence. Had petitioner
court without great loss of time and the presented the originals of the documents to the
fact sought to be established from them court instead of the photocopies it obstinately
is only the general result of the whole." offered as evidence, or at the very least laid
the predicate for the admission of said
When the original document has been lost or photocopies, this controversy would not have
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the unnecessarily been brought before the appellate
offeror, upon proof of its execution or court and finally to this Court for adjudication.
existence and the cause of its unavailability Had it not been for petitioner‘s intransigence,
without bad faith on his part, may prove its the merits of petitioner‘s complaint for damages
contents by a copy, or by a recital of its would have been decided upon by the trial court
contents in some authentic document, or by the long ago. As aptly articulated by the Court of
testimony of witnesses in the order Appeals, petitioner has only itself to blame for
11
stated. The offeror of secondary evidence is the respondent judge‘s denial of admission of its
burdened to prove the predicates thereof: (a) aforementioned documentary evidence and
the loss or destruction of the original without consequently, the denial of its prayer to be given
bad faith on the part of the proponent/offeror another opportunity to present the originals of
which can be shown by circumstantial evidence the documents that were denied admission nor
of routine practices of destruction of to lay the predicate for the admission of
12
documents; (b) the proponent must prove by a secondary evidence in case the same has been
fair preponderance of evidence as to raise a lost.
reasonable inference of the loss or destruction
of the original copy; and (c) it must be shown WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
that a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the
search has been made for the document in the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 00848,
13
proper place or places. However, in the case at dated 9 November 2005 is hereby AFFIRMED.
bar, though petitioner insisted in offering the Costs against petitioner.
photocopies as documentary evidence, it failed
to establish that such offer was made in SO ORDERED.
accordance with the exceptions as enumerated
under the abovequoted rule. Accordingly, we MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
find no error in the Order of the court a quo Associate Justice
denying admissibility of the photocopies offered
by petitioner as documentary evidence. WE CONCUR:

Finally, it perplexes this Court why petitioner CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO

continued to obdurately disregard the Associate Justice

Page 25 of 233
 Chairperson Branch XX, Court of First
Instance, Manila, respondent.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
MARTINEZ Adm. Matter No. 1114-CFI May 31, 1976
Asscociate Justice
Associate Justice
FRANCISCO GREGO, complainant,
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA vs.
Associate Justice HON. JUAN DE BORJA, District Judge,
Branch XX, Court of First Instance,
Manila, respondent.
-oOo-
RESOLUTION
Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA 4200)
_ An Act to prohibit and penalize Wire-Tapping and other Related
Violations of the Privacy of Communications, and for other purpose FERNANDO, J.:
_ This law provides that it shall be unlawful for any person, not
being authorized by all the parties to any
private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by Administrative charges usually arise from a deep
using any other device commonly known as a Dictaphone or
dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or taperecorder, or sense of grievance on the part of complainants.
however otherwise
described.
They are often, as a result, made to appear much
graver than the facts warrant. Even with due
_ What are Covered by the
Prohibition allowance made for that tendency, what is
Knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record or evident on a most cursory appraisal of these
any other such record, or copies thereof, of any
communication or spoken word; or cases against respondent Judge Juan de Borja
Replay the same for any other person;
Communicate the contents thereof either verbally or in writing; or of the Court of First Instance of Manila, is that
Furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any no curb was placed on such propensity to
other persons.
Rules: exaggerate matters. The language of hyperbole
Any information obtained in violation of this act shall not be
admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative
was employed. In the first, he was accused by
or administrative hearing or investigation. Rolando Bartolome, who Identifies himself as a
Law Limited to Wiretapping Device: The law refers to a “tap” of a
wire or cable or the use of a “device or arrangement” for the purpose labor regulation officer in the Department of
of secretly overhearing,
intercepting, or recording the communication. There must be either:
Labor, of oppression and deliberate violation of
physical interruption through a wiretap, or the penal laws, gross ignorance of the law and
deliberate installation of a device or arrangement
in order to overhear, intercept, or record the deliberate intent to place the Secretary of
spoken words.
Instances Not Covered by the Act
Labor and the Office of The President in a very
Listening to telephone extension lines. bad light, as well as grave misconduct in the
Telephone party lines.
proceedings had with reference to a certiorari
Republic of the Philippines 1
SUPREME COURT petition. In the other, with a certain Francisco
Manila Grego as complainant, he is indicted for serious
misconduct, characterizing what was done by him
EN BANC in a pending criminal case where the complainant
was the accused as oppressive, whimsical,
2
A.M. No. 1096-CFI May 31, 1976 capricious, arbitrary and despotic. Respondent
Judge was required to answer each of the above
ROLANDO BARTOLOME, complainant, complaints by the then Judicial Consultant,
vs. retired Justice Manuel P. Barcelona of the Court
HON. JUAN DE BORJA, District Judge,

Page 26 of 233
of Appeals. He did so in pleadings couched in a vehement in his accusation that respondent
dispassionate tone with citation of the Judge's actuation was not only oppressive in
authorities to lend support to the way he character but likewise violative of the aforesaid
discharged his functions. After a study of the penal statutes. It was also characterized by him
records of the case, this Court is of the opinion as manifesting gross ignorance of the law as well
that no disciplinary action is warranted. Another as deliberate intent to place the Secretary of
judge may have ruled differently on the Labor and the President "in a very bad light," all
questions submitted, but it would not conduce to of which he summarized as constituting grave
the proper administration and the prized Ideal misconduct that would justify the removal of
of independence that a man on the bench is respondent Judge. In the answer submitted by
expected to cherish if he is held to such a respondent Judge, he noted that while there
strict degree of accountability that for the were three separate headings in the complaint,
exercise of his discretion, he is made to suffer. the discussion "is rather repetitious and, in
The complaints must be dismissed. parts at least, disorganized, [he therefore]
found it more convenient to take up the matters
It was a detailed administrative complaint that involved in the order they are discussed by
was submitted by Rolando Bartolome in 6
complainant." Then came an analysis of the
support of his charges that there was 7
Anti-wire Tapping Act to show there was no
oppression and deliberate violation of the violation thereof on his part. Then respondent
3
Anti-Wire Tapping Act, as well as the Judge referred to the next main charge which
provisions on libel in the Revised Penal dealt with "the admission of allegedly libelous
4 8
Code. In essence the gravamen of such testimony." It is his submission that as a
charges consisted of respondent Judge allowing matter of law, he could not refuse the
the replay of a taped telephone conversation introduction of any evidence as long as the
between complainant and Adelina Velasco who adverse party does not object to it.
with her father was accused of violating the Furthermore, he pointed out that considering
Minimum Wage Law and found guilty thereof by the nature of the petition for prohibition and
the Department of Labor. The matter was then mandamus, he could not very well refuse
elevated in a petition for prohibition and evidence of such character, adding that
mandamus filed with the Court of First Instance Solicitor Kilayko, who represented respondent
and assigned to the sala of respondent public officials did not interpose any
5 9
Judge to show the grave abuse of discretion as objection. It is not amiss to refer to what was
well as the motivation of the complainant against stressed in the opening portion of his answer:
them. Permission was sought for the court to "At the outset, I should like to make one general
listen to a taped telephone conversation observation with respect to recurring
between her and the complainant. It was made statements in the letter-complaint to the effect
at her instance without the knowledge of the that I "deliberately" committed one thing or
latter. The lower court granted the request. another. In every case tried before my court, I
Information derogatory to complainant thus have always tried to act deliberately, never
came to light. Moreover, certain portions of the rashly, impetuously or carelessly. I know of
testimony of Adelina Velasco were likewise course that neither deliberation or
damaging to his reputation. Complainant is most deliberateness can ensure infallibility; they

Page 27 of 233
merely tend to safeguard against mindless or 21, 1975. He stated there: "Since the letter -
careless errors. In Civil Case No. 94698 I complaint of Francisco Grego adopted as his
likewise acted or at least tried to act carefully grounds therefor the allegations and annexes of
and with deliberation but not for the purpose, his petition for certiorari in the Court of
design or motives alleged by complainant."
10 Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 04579), the undersigned is
adopting as his answer to the letter-complaint
The impression readily yielded by the other his answer to said petition for certiorari, with
complaint lodged by Francisco Grego was his annexes, and the decision of the Court of
resolute determination to avoid being tried on a Appeals of October 22, 1975 dismissing the
libel charge by respondent Judge. On at least petition. It seems that this complainant, instead
five occasions, he filed motions for of facing manfully the charges in Crim. Case No.
postponement alleging as ground that The 20079 pending against him in this court, is trying
Department of Justice had not finished to avoid at all cost going to trial, to the point of
reviewing the case. Thus while originally set by employing harassing tactics against the judge, of
respondent Judge for arraignment and trial on which the letter-complaint is only the
11
March 6, 1975, and he was arraigned but not latest." He summarized in his answer to the
tried on that day, as of August 22, 1975, after Court of Appeals what he considered the
such repeated postponements, the case had not background facts of the pending libel case in his
been heard. On that day in view of the absence sala against complainant Francisco Grego: "1. The
of complainant, respondent Judge issued a information in the case was filed on January 29,
warrant for his arrest as was done on a previous 1975 and an order for the arrest of the accused
occasion although later on set aside. Again, was issued on February 4, 1975. 2. The accused
complainant felt he had a legitimate grievance filed on February 12, 1975 a motion to reduce
as he was then suffering from pharyngitis and the amount of the bail bond from P1,750.00 to
had to stay at home. On these occasions, when P1,000.00 and the same was granted by the
as could have been expected, the patience of Court on the same date. 3. The bail bond was
respondent Judge was sorely tried, it was filed the following day. On February 17, 1975
asserted by complainant that respondent acted the accused filed a motion to suspend
not in a calm and dispassionate manner but with arraignment and trial on the ground that the
visible indignation. On September 8, 1975, he resolution of the fiscal who filed the case had
went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari to been appealed to the Department of Justice. the
nullify the warrant of arrest and was able to motion was denied. 4. The accused was arraigned
obtain a restraining order. It is on the on March 6, 1975 and he entered a plea of not
allegations of such a petition that he based this guilty. 5. The case was set for hearing on March
complaint to this Court. It likewise contained 20, 1975 but postponed to April 18, 1975 upon
assertions that the respondent Judge, giving motion of the accused. 6. On April 14, 1975 the
vent to his ire when postponements were sought accused filed a motion for postponement, which
or orders set aside, did employ intemperate and was denied by the Court, and when be failed to
vile language, at times addressed to his wife, appear at the hearing he was ordered arrested.
who was sent by him in his stead when he was However, no warrant of arrest was actually
unable to appear in person. When asked to issued and the case was again set for hearing on
comment respondent Judge did so on November June 6, 1975. As the accused was not

Page 28 of 233
represented by counsel, a counsel de oficio was his branch clerk of court denying "as
appointed for him in the person of Atty. falsifications and falsehoods certain allegations
Florencio Paredes. 7. On June 6, 1975 the made in the petition regarding statements they
13
accused again failed to appear the hearing and allegedly made to petitioner and his wife." It
another order for his arrest was issued. 8. On bears repeating that the Court of Appeals
June 30, 1975, the accused filed a motion to lift dismissed the certiorari petition of complainant
order of arrest and confiscation of the bail in a decision promulgated on October 22, 1975,
bond and the motion was granted on the same the opinion being penned by Justice San Diego
date. The case was set for hearing on July 10, with the concurrence of Justices Melencio-
1975. On that date the counsel de oficio moved Herrera and Domondon.
for postponement and the hearing was reset for
July 17, 1975. 9. The hearing on that date was Complainants in These two administrative cases
not held because of a motion of the prosecuting would have this Court remove respondent Judge
fiscal for suspension of the proceedings, alleging for the acts imputed to him. They should have
that the Chief State Prosecutor had asked that realized that for such a plea to prosper there
the case be elevated to the Department of must be a showing of ."serious misconduct or
14
Justice for review. On August 22, 1975 the inefficiency." Proceedings of this character,
15
Court issued an order denying the motion to according to In re Horrilleno, as set forth in
suspend proceedings. * * * On the same date the the opinion of Justice Malcolm, are "in their
Court issued an order for the arrest of the nature highly penal in character and to be
accused and the confiscation of his bond. A governed by the rules of law applicable to
motion for reconsideration was filed by the criminal cases. The charges must, therefore, be
16
accused on the same date, which was granted by proved beyond a reasonable doubt." that
the Court on September 4, 1975, at the same 1922 decision has been subsequently adhered
17
time setting the case for hearing on October 2, to. It is quite obvious then, why as set forth
1975 10. The accused filed a motion addressed at the outset, complainants must fail.
to the Executive Judge on September 4, 1975
to transfer the case to another sala. The same The charge of serious misconduct is without
was referred to Branch XX by the Executive support, even on the assumption that no
Judge. On September 12, 1975 the Court issued exaggeration was indulged in by complainants.
an order considering the motion as one to have That is evidently the case as far as the alleged
the Judge inhibit or disqualify himself from grievance of Rolando Bartolome is concerned.
trying the case, on ground of bias, and denying What was objected to by him was the replay of a
the same as without merit. The Chief State tape-recording which did cast reflection on his
Prosecutor has Advised the prosecuting fiscal actuations. It is his contention that thereby
that the records of the case are being returned respondent Judge was guilty of oppression.
to the latter without action on the petition for Clearly it would be to impart a novel concept to
review filed by the accused. The case may the accepted meaning of what is oppressive to
therefore be heard by the Court without assent to such a view. It is equally so as far as
further impediment, unless ordered otherwise the alleged misconduct imputed to respondent
12
by this Honorable Tribunal." He likewise by complainant Francisco Grego. His orders
enclosed affidavits subscribed to by him and by denying repeated motions for postponement and
when appropriate issuing warrants of arrest for

Page 29 of 233
non-appearance of the accused did not fail to respondent officials, [in Civil Case No. 946987]
conform to the norm expected of a judge. So was satisfied, after hearing testimony that
the Court of Appeals held in dismissing Adelina Velasco, with whom complainant had the
Grego's certiorari petition. In both cases tape recorded telephone conversation, was the
therefore, respondent Judge clearly cannot be one who "initiated" or took a recording of the
held accountable for misconduct, much less conversation, that there was no violation of the
serious misconduct. prohibition of sections 1 to 3 of RA 4200
because the recording was taken by one of the
Now as to respondent Judge having laid himself parties to the conversation or that the use of
open to charges of inefficiency. The complaint the tapes was authorized by the above-quoted
filed by Francisco Grego is bereft of any such proviso of section 1. The failure of Solicitor
allegation. If at all respondent perhaps would not Kilayko to object to the replay of the tape
have been proceeded against if he were less recording or the transcripts thereof on the
insistent on procedural regularity, more tolerant ground that they were in violation of the anti-
for the pleas for postponement, as well as the wire tapping law, cannot be imputed to his
failure of complainant to appear in court when ignorance of that law because he tried to cross-
required to do so. On the other hand, the examine Adelina Velasco precisely for the
complaint filed by Rolando Bartolome did indict reason, as he manifested, that "we were trying
respondent Judge for gross ignorance of the law. to find out whether there was any violation of
If such a charge could be substantiated, it would any law in the tape recording of telephone
follow that inefficiency, serious inefficiency at conversation" * * * In the circumstances
that, could be imputed to respondent. The root mentioned above, and finding that the grounds
cause of the matter, as was made plain before, was offered against the replay (to wit, that "it was
the replay of the taped telephone conversation sufficiently established that his voice is that of
between Adelina Velasco and complainant. The Rolando Bartolome's voice," quoted on p. 2 of the
accusation is that in so allowing it, respondent complaint) and the grounds ("hearsay and self-
violated the Anti-Wire Tapping Act.
18
In his serving and immaterial") offered against the
transcript * * * of the tape recording * * * to be
answer to this Court, respondent Judge to refute
untenable, I believed that as a judge I had no
such a contention relied on the second paragraph
alternative except to allow the replay and to
of its first section with this proviso: "That the use
20
of such record or any copies thereof as evidence admit the transcript in evidence." Complainant
in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of Grego would likewise indict respondent Judge
offense mentioned in Sec. 3 hereof shall not be for gross ignorance of the law when instead of
19 merely conforming to the rules and regulations
covered by this prohibition." He further
of The Department of Labor, he did rely on the
justified the action taken by him thus: "I may be
explicit wording of Presidential Decree No. 21.
further stated that, * * * the tape replay and the
If there is an awareness on the part of
admission in evidence of the transcript thereof
complainant of the ruling of this Court, he ought
to have realized that as held in Nation Multi
* * * were objected to on the other grounds, but 21
never on the ground that they were in violation Service Labor Union v. Agcaoili, the explicit
of the anti-wire tapping law, RA 4200. wording of the decree is controlling. Neither can
Apparently, Solicitor Kilayko, representing the respondent Judge be held accountable for

Page 30 of 233
entertaining the petition for as was decided by would have sufficed. Nonetheless, it was felt
this Court in San Miguel Corporation v. more appropriate to explain the action taken by
22 the Court in some detail, conformably to its
Secretary of Labor the judiciary possesses
the power to review acts of administrative policy of assuring each and every complainant
agencies exercising quasi-legislative power in that due attention is paid to any administrative
appropriate cases especially so when a due charge against a member of the judiciary. As
25
process question is involved. It would seem, was noted in Tobias v. Ericta: "The
therefore, that respondent Judge, far from constitutional right to a petition, to enable the
being ignorant, acted after due deliberation in citizen to air his grievances, would certainly be
the light of his understanding of statutes or emasculated if the response of the governmental
presidential decrees, as well as decisions of this body to which it is addressed is one of
tribunal. Even on the assumption, however, that indifference. The fate of the people and the
his interpretation was erroneous, still he could supremacy of the Constitution would thereby be
not be held accountable to gross ignorance of sorely tested. What is worse, a safety valve
the law. At the most, he could have been against a violent reaction would be closed. This
mistaken. That does not render him liable to constitutional guarantee requires then that
administrative sanction. As was declared by the complaints against officialdom be seriously
then Chief Justice Makalintal in Vda. de Zabala attended to. Where meritorious, the remedy
23 could be supplied. If found to be devoid of
v. Pamaran: "No one, called upon to try the
facts or interpret the law in the process of substance, the party charged is vindicated with
administering justice, can be infallible in his the complainant having the satisfaction of at
24 least having been listened to. There is thus
judgment." In the complaint of Rolando
fidelity to what the Constitution
Bartolome, characterized by prolixity, there is 26
likewise reference to the possible violation of ordains." There is this additional beneficial
the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on libel result of such a policy. It emphasizes even more
as well as the Civil Code. All that needs be said the need for occupants of the bench to live up
is that if it were prepared by him unaided — he to the Ideal of a disinterested and impartial
is a layman — it is understandable why the arbiter, dispensing justice with an even hand in a
conclusions reached by him on such questions do calm and dispassionate manner. For the
not bear the mark of orthodoxy. On the other appearance, no less than the reality of justice,
hand, if he relied on a legal practitioner, it is does count. As far as the behavior of a trial
quite probable that the one consulted, even if judge is concerned, however, it is not realistic to
possessed of the requisite skill, did try to lend assume, considering the nature and the burden
plausibility to what at bottom are essentially laid on his shoulders, that he will at all times
groundless charges by a rather strained reading personify equanimity. It is understandable if
of legal doctrines. What emerges clearly then is there may be occasions when he is visibly
that the failing of inefficiency cannot be annoyed or irked and that he would react
imputed to respondent Judge. accordingly. Francisco Grego did complain of
such conduct on the part of respondent. It could
In the light of the foregoing, there would have happened thus, but certainly complainant
have been nothing amiss if the two complaints ought to have realized that his stubbornness in
were summarily dismissed. A brief opinion then seeking postponements and his failure to be

Page 31 of 233
present at scheduled hearings could not have _ Example: Where A sues B on a written contract, and the only
defense pleaded by B is a denial that he executed the contract,
been expected to have gone unnoticed or to have evidence offered by him as to a release would be immaterial, and
hence irrelevant.
been overlooked. Such being the case, there is b. Probative Value- the tendency of
nothing objectionable to the use of vigorous and evidence to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove.

strong language to characterize what for the

DEGREE OF PROBATIVENESS REQUIRED:
judge would be attempts to obstruct the
To be relevant, evidence need not be absolutely determinative of the
administration of justice. This is not to condone fact which it is directed, in other words, it need not be conclusive. To
resort to what had been referred to as an be relevant, the
evidence must merely help a little.
epithetical response. If there be display of wit _ Example: Flight by no means proves guilt or makes guilt more likely
than not. Evidence of flight merely makes guilt somewhat more likely.
or sarcasm, however, that is not to be deplored. _ Collateral facts – those other than the facts in issue and which are
They are qualities associated, as Shaw noted, offered as a basis for inference as to the existence or non-existence of
the facts in issue. (Sec. 4,
with intellectuals. There certainly can be no Rule 129)
objection to having people on the bench gifted a. CLASSIFICATION OF COLLATERAL MATTERS:
with such talent, although Cardozo would counsel Prospectant Collateral matters are those preceding of the fact in
issue but pointing forward to it.
moderation. For it is a truism that the law is Example: moral character, motive, conspiracy.
Concomitant Collateral matters- are those accompanying the fact
both a noble and learned profession. in issue and pointing to it.
Example: alibi, or opportunity and incompatibility;
Retrospectant Collateral matters- are those succeeding the fact
WHEREFORE, the charges of Rolando Bartolome in issue but pointing backward
and of Francisco Grego are dismissed for lack of to it.
Example: flight and concealment, behavior of the
merit. Let a copy of this resolution be entered accused upon being arrested, fingerprints or footprints,
articles left at the scene of the crime which may identify the culprit.
on the record of respondent Judge Juan de (1 Wigmore)
Borja. Rules:
1. Rule: Collateral matters are not allowed.
Exception: Admissible when they tend in any reasonable degree
Castro, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, Muñoz Palma, Knowledge, motive, or intent may often be ascertained from
evidence of transactions, apparently collateral, and such evidence, if
Aquino and Martin JJ., concur. shown to be relevant, is admissible for such and similar purpose. Such
evidence is admissible in both civil and criminal cases.
The rule is that when a person’s conduct is in issue the fact that
Concepcion Jr., J., is on leave. the person engaged in conduct of the same sort on a different
occasion may be shown as tending to shed some light on some
quality of the conduct in question such as intent, knowledge, good or
bad faith, malice or other state of mind or bodily feeling. (1 Jones)

Section 4. Relevancy; Collateral Matters SECOND DIVISION

Test of Relevancy
Every fact or circumstance tending to throw light on the issue
[G.R. Nos. 140538-39. June 14, 2004]
is relevant, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.
Evidence is relevant from which the fact in issue is logically
inferable; GODOFREDO B. ADOR and DIOSDADO B.
Any circumstance is relevant which tends to make the proposition
at issue more or less probable, or which is calculated to explain or ADOR III, appellants.
establish facts pertinent to the inquiry; DECISION
The test is whether the evidence conduces to the proof of a
pertinent hypothesis, such hypothesis being one which, if PUNO, J.:
sustained, would logically influence the issue;
Facts are relevant if they fairly tend to prove the offense charged. The quiescence of the fading day was shattered
by bursts of gunfire, startling the otherwise
_ Components of Relevant Evidence
a. Materiality- looks to the relation between the propositions tranquil but sanguine folks of Pacol, Naga City. As
for which the evidence is offered and the issues of the case.
_ Test of Materiality: Whether the evidence is offered upon a matter the fusillade of shots ceased and the wisp of
properly in issue. The question is, “Is this relevant?” smoke cleared, frolicking promenaders

Page 32 of 233
stumbled upon Ompong Chavez who was gasping sixteen (16) witnesses: Mercy Beriña, Larry
his last, clutching his intestines which had Cado, Medico-Legal Officer of Naga City Dr.
spewed out from his bloodied stomach. He did Joel S. Jurado, Police Inspector Ma. Julieta
not in fact reach the hospital alive. A breath Razonable, SPO1 Benjamin Barbosa, SPO3
away, Abe Cuya lay lifeless on the pavement. He Augusto Basagre, Major Ernesto Idian,
died on the spot. For the twinned deaths, the Inspector Reynaldo F. Fulgar, SPO1 Noli Reyes
Adors, six (6) of them, were haled to court. Sol, SPO3 Eduardo C. Bathan, Inspector Vicente
In two (2) separate informations, Diosdado Sr., C. Lauta, Ernani Castillo, PO3 Augusto I.
Diosdado Jr., Diosdado III, Godofredo, Rosalino Nepomuceno, Absalon Cuya Sr., Efren Chavez
and Allan, all surnamed Ador, were charged with and Pablo Calsis.
the murder of Absalon ―Abe‖ S. Cuya III and From the evidence of the prosecution, it appears
Rodolfo ―Ompong‖ S. Chavez. The that on March 10, 1997, at around seven-thirty
Informations in Crim. Cases Nos. 97-6815 and in the evening, while Mercy Beriña, Larry Cado
97-6816 identically read: and some eleven (11) others were leisurely
That on or about March 10, 1997, in the City of walking along Kilometer 11 on their way to Zone
Naga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of 1, Kilometer 10, Pacol, Naga City, to attend a
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, wedding anniversary, they heard several
conspiring, confederating together and mutually gunshots. Shortly after, they met a certain
helping one another, with intent to kill, with Pablito Umali who told them that ―Ompong‖
treachery and the aid of armed men, did then Chavez had been shot. They ran to Chavez
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously straight off and saw him already lying on the
shoot ABSALON ―ABE‖ CUYA III (RODOLFO ground, about 1½ meters away from a lighted
―OMPO‖ CHAVEZ y SAN ANDRES for Crim. electric post, holding on to his intestines which
Case No. 97-6816) with firearms, inflicting upon were starting to come out. Beriña shook Chavez
him multiple and mortal gunshot wounds which and asked him what had happened. Chavez replied
caused his death, to the damage and prejudice ―tinambangan kami na Ador‖ (―We were
of his heirs. ambushed by the Adors‖) and requested that he be
With the aggravating circumstance of evident brought to the hospital as he was
premeditation and nighttime. dying. About eight (8) meters from where Chavez
CONTRARY TO LAW. was, in a dark spot, lay ―Abe‖ Cuya, dead. Upon
However, only four (4) of the six (6) Adors, learning of the shooting incident through their
namely, Diosdado Sr., Godofredo, Rosalino and radio communication, SPO1 Benjamin Barbosa,
Allan, were taken into custody. The two (2), together with PO2 Alexander Diaz, immediately
Diosdado Jr. and Diosdado III, remained at proceeded to the crime scene to conduct an
large. Trial thus proceeded only against investigation. SPO3 Eduardo Bathan and SPO1
Diosdado Sr., Godofredo, Rosalino and Allan who Wilfredo Fernandez, among others, were already
all pleaded not guilty. Diosdado Sr. is the father there. SPO1 Barbosa collected some pieces of
of Diosdado Jr., Diosdado III and Godofredo, evidence, took some pictures and made some
while Rosalino is the father of Allan. Diosdado sketches. SPO1 Fernandez on the other hand
Sr. and Rosalino are brothers. interviewed one Cresenciana Mendoza in her house
In its effort to secure the conviction of the which was nearby, and when he heard people shout
accused, the prosecution presented a total of that Chavez was still
That same evening, upon being informed that the
Adors had a long-standing grudge against the
alive, he brought Chavez to the hospital but the
Cuyas, SPO1 Barbosa sought the help of then
latter expired on the way.
Barangay Captain Josue Perez to accompany him
Page 33 of 233
to the residence of the Adors. They arrived at
the Adors at around ten o‘clock that evening and gunshots. PO3 Nepomuceno identified the gun
spoke with their patriarch, Diosdado Ador Sr. as a caliber .38 ―paltik‖ handgun which had no
SPO1 Barbosa looked for the other male serial number. PO3 Nepomuceno then turned
members of the Ador family but was told by over the handgun to Major Idian who likewise
Diosdado Sr. that they were already identified it as a .38 caliber revolver. Major
asleep. Diosdado Sr. nevertheless promised to Idian returned the handgun to PO3 Nepomuceno
present them the following day. for ballistic and paraffin examination.
The following morning, March 11, 1997, Barangay Thereafter, PO3 Nepomuceno placed his initials
Captain Perez accompanied the Adors, namely, on the gun and put it in his private locker while
Diosdado Sr., Diosdado III, Godofredo, preparing the documents for the examinations
Rosalino, Allan and Reynaldo, to SPO1 Barbosa at and the possible filing of a case for Illegal
the PNP Central Police Headquarters. The Adors Possession of Firearm.
were informed of their constitutional rights to Also, on the same day, March 11, 1997, Dr. Joel
remain silent and to choose their own counsel. S. Jurado, Medico-Legal Officer of Naga City,
They were then brought to the PNP Crime conducted an autopsy on the bodies of Chavez
Laboratory at the Provincial Headquarters and and Cuya. Based on the autopsy reports, Dr.
subjected to paraffin tests. On the way to the Jurado testified that Cuya sustained five (5)
crime laboratory, Godofredo told his police gunshot wounds and died from ―cardio-pulmonary
escort that he had been entrusted with a arrest, massive intra-thoracic, intra -abdominal,
handgun which he kept in his residence. The intra-cranial hemorrhage secondary to multiple
information was relayed to Major Ernesto Idian, gunshot wounds penetrating the heart, brain,
then Deputy Chief of Police of Naga City, who lungs and digestive tract.‖ Chavez on the other
ordered PO3 Augusto I. Nepomuceno to hand had three (3) gunshot wounds and died from
accompany him in recovering the gun because ―traumatic shock and massive intra-abdominal
Godofredo said that he would turn in the gun hemorrhage secondary to multiple gunshot
only to PO3 Nepomuceno. Thus, Major Idian, wounds penetrating the right kidney and the
PO3 Nepomuceno and some others accompanied internal abdominal organs.‖ Dr. Jurado further
Godofredo to the latter‘s residence. testified that that he recovered a slug from
Upon reaching the Ador residence, Godofredo, Cuya‘s head three (3) days after he conducted the
together with PO3 Nepomuceno, went to their autopsy - after Cuya‘s relatives called his
backyard, retrieved the gun from under a fallen attention to a protruding mass in Cuya‘s head.
coconut trunk and turned it in to the Thus, he had Cuya‘s cadaver sent back to the
latter. Godofredo allegedly told the police that funeral parlor, opened it and was able to extract
he fired the said gun outside their house on the a deformed .38 caliber slug which he thereafter
night of March 10 after he heard several submitted to the City Prosecutor‘s Office.

Police Inspector Reynaldo Fulgar, Chief of the

Firearm Identification Section of the PNP
Crime Laboratory, Camp Ola, Legaspi City,
testified that based on the ballistic examination
he conducted on the bullets submitted to his
office, the .38 caliber slug recovered from

Page 34 of 233
Cuya‘s head matched the three (3) .38 caliber liquor caused him physical injury. The witness
test bullets which were test-fired from the likewise presented an official receipt showing
suspected firearm surrendered by Godofredo. that the family spent P3,500.00 for the funeral
He however averred that the .38 caliber bullets of the deceased Chavez. After presenting
were actually fired from a .357 Smith and Chavez, the prosecution rested its case.
Wesson Magnum homemade revolver without On April 7, 1998, the four (4) accused filed a
serial number, and not from a .38 caliber demurrer to evidence ―for utter lack of
revolver. evidence.‖ On May 13, 1998, the trial court
The paraffin casts taken from the Adors were dismissed the cases against Diosdado Sr.,
also transmitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory Rosalino and Allan but denied the demurrer to
Services for examination and yielded the evidence against Godofredo –
presence of gunpowder nitrates, thus – WHEREFORE, this Court finds the demurrer to
Diosdado A. Ador – both hands, positive; evidence to be justified for the accused
Diosdado B. Ador III – right hand, Diosdado A. Ador, Allan T. Ador and Rosalino
positive; left hand, negative; Ador, hence, the same is hereby granted insofar
Godofredo B. Ador – right hand, positive; as these accused are concerned. Said accused
left hand, negative; therefore, namely: Diosdado A. Ador, Allan T.
Rosalino A. Ador – both hands, positive; Ador and Rosalino Ador are ACQUITTED in
Reynaldo T. Ador – both hands, negative; Crim. Cases Nos. 97-6815 and 97-6816. The
Allan T. Ador – both hands, positive. bailbonds posted for their provisional liberty are
Absalon Cuya Sr., father of deceased Cuya III, hereby cancelled.
said that the killing of his son was driven by Trial of the case insofar as Godofredo B. Ador is
the long-standing feud between the Adors and concerned shall proceed. SO ORDERED.
his family. He said that Diosdado Jr. had
earlier accused his other son Liberato of Thus, trial proceeded against Godofredo. For
frustrated homicide for allegedly stabbing him his defense, Godofredo denied any participation
(Diosdado Jr.). Then, Adelina, a daughter of in the killings of Cuya and Chavez. He said that
Diosdado Sr., filed a case for abduction with on March 10, 1997, at around seven o‘clock in the
multiple rape against him, Absalon III, Rayne evening, he heard several gunshots while he was
and Josephine, all surnamed Cuya, after the having dinner with his wife and four (4) children
romantic relationship between Adelina and his in their house in Pacol, Naga City. Since his wife
deceased son Absalon III turned sour. He also advised him not to go out anymore, he slept
presented official receipts of the funeral and after dinner. The following day, while he was
burial expenses which amounted to P10,230.00. gathering pili nuts, his long-time friend
Efren Chavez, brother of deceased Chavez, Dominador Bautista arrived and asked him to go
likewise spoke of the animosity between the down from the
Chavez and the Ador families. He produced a tree. Bautista wanted to borrow money and on his
certification from the PNP Naga City Police way to see him, found a gun by the footpath.
Station that on February 17, 1997, a blotter was Bautista gave the gun to him. It was his first time
entered in the Daily Record of Events showing to hold a gun. He tried it out and fired three (3)
that deceased Chavez reported a certain Ricardo times. After firing the gun, he removed the empty
Ador who while under the influence of shells from its chambers and

Page 35 of 233
threw them away. He then wrapped the gun with November 23, 1998, both Diosdado Jr. and
plastic and hid it under a coconut Diosdado III were arraigned and entered a
trunk. Bautista left when he told him that he plea of not guilty. Hence, trial against them
had no money. He then continued to gather pili commenced and proceeded jointly with the case
nuts until Major Idian and three (3) other of the remaining accused, Godofredo.
policemen came. The prosecution presented Pablo Calsis as a
Godofredo‘s father told him that they were witness against Diosdado Jr. and Diosdado
being suspected of killing Chavez and Cuya the Calsis testified that on March 10, 1997, at
night before. Thus, they went to the provincial around 7:30 in the evening, he dropped by the
headquarters, were subjected to paraffin house of Cresenciana Mendoza whom he fondly
testing and made to sign a blank bond called Lola Kising at Kilometer 10, Pacol, Naga
paper. After that, they went back to the central City, before going home from work. After asking
police station. At the central police station, permission from her to go home and while about
Godofredo narrated to a certain Calabia that to urinate outside her house, he heard several
that morning, his friend Bautista found a gun gunshots. He ducked by a sineguelas tree at a
along the road and gave it to him. He hid the gun nearby flower plantation. As he was about to
under a coconut trunk. Calabia relayed the stand up, he saw Disodado Jr., Diosdado III,
information to Major Idian who directed PO3 Godofredo and another unidentified man run
Nepomuceno to go with Godofredo to get the away. Godofredo was carrying a short firearm
gun. Godofredo led PO3 Nepomuceno to where while Diosdado Jr. had a long firearm. He saw
he hid the gun, retrieved it and handed it to the Chavez and Cuya lying on the
latter. They then returned to the police road. Chavez was about five (5) meters away
headquarters where he was jailed. He asserted from where he stood while Cuya was ten (10)
that the gun presented in court is different meters away. The place was illuminated by a
from the gun he surrendered to the police. bright light from an electric post. There were
Bautista corroborated Godofredo‘s story. He no other people around. Calsis ran away for fear
testified that he found the gun which Godofredo that he might be identified by the assailants.
yielded to PO3 Nepomuceno. He said that he was He heard Chavez mumbling but shirked
on his way to see Godofredo to borrow money nevertheless.
when he chanced upon the handgun on the Calsis narrated to Absalon Cuya Sr. what he saw
pathway. He gave the gun to Godofredo and the only after about one (1) year and nine (9)
latter tested it by pulling its trigger. After months. Fear struck him. He maintained that he
firing the gun, Godofredo removed the empty knew the assailants because he and his wife
shells and threw them. Godofredo then wrapped lived in the house of Lola Kising after they got
the gun with plastic and hid it under a fallen married. Immense fear prevented him from
coconut trunk. attending to Chavez, even while he heard him
Meanwhile, Diosdado Jr. was arrested on murmuring, and from informing the families of
October 9, 1998, at Barangay Doña, Orani, the victims of the incident that very same night.
Bataan, and committed to the Naga City Jail on He was about to tell the Chavez family the
November 17, 1998, while Diosdado III following morning but was counseled by his Lola
surrendered to the court and was committed to Bading, the sister of his Lola Kising, against
the same city jail on November 22, 1998. On getting involved in the case. Calsis and his family

Page 36 of 233
left their residence in Pacol one (1) month the killings of Chavez and Cuya. Upon reaching
after the incident because he was afraid the the police headquarters, they were interviewed
assailants might have identified him. Even Lola by the media and afterwards brought to the
Kising left her residence two (2) months after provincial headquarters where they were
the incident. It was only after he learned from subjected to paraffin tests. They were then
Absalon Cuya Sr. that the trial court dismissed brought back to the Central Police Headquarters
the cases for lack of evidence insofar as some and later allowed to go back home to Pacol.
of the original accused were concerned that he Then, sometime in October, 1997, his father was
took pity on the respective families of the arrested by the police. Diosdado III was at
victims who have failed to get justice for the their residence when his father was picked
death of their loved ones. up. Only his father was taken by the police. He
In defense, Diosdado Jr. testified that on continued to reside in their house until April,
March 10, 1997, he was in Marikina City working 1998, when he transferred to Sagurong, San
as a warehouseman and timekeeper of the Miguel, Tabaco, Albay, to work as a
Consuelo Builders Corporation. He was there the fisherman. On November 21, 1998, he received
whole time from February 15, 1997, until March a letter from his father telling him to come
24, 1997. Pablo Aspe, a co-worker of Diosdado home. Thus, he went home the following day. On
Jr., corroborated the latter‘s testimony. He said November 23, 1998, he surrendered to the
that on February 15, 1997, he and Diosdado Jr. court.
left Pacol, Naga City, together to work in The defense also presented Barangay Captain
Consuelo Construction in Marikina City. They Josue Perez and an uncle of Diosdado Jr. and
were with each other in Marikina City the whole Disodado III, Jaime Bobiles. Perez testified
time from February 15, 1997, until he (Aspe) that he was the barangay captain of Pacol from
went home to Naga City on March 22, 1982 until May, 1997. In 1996, Cresenciana
1997. While in Marikina City, they resided and Mendoza left their barangay permanently to live
slept together in their barracks at the with her children in Manila because she was
construction site. sickly and alone in her house. He said that
Diosdado III also took the witness stand. On Mendoza never came back. He does not know
March 10, 1997, at around seven o‘clock in the any Pablo Calsis and the latter could not have
evening, he was at their house at Zone 1, Pacol, talked to Mendoza on March 10, 1997, because
Naga City, watching television with his parents at that time, Mendoza was not there and her
and cousins Reynaldo and Allan when they heard house was already abandoned. Similarly, Bobiles
gunshots. They ignored the gunshots, continued confirmed the testimony that Diosdado III
watching television and slept at eight worked as a fisherman in Tabaco and stayed in
o‘clock. The following day, at around six o‘clock in his residence from May 1, 1998, until November
the morning, while he was fetching water, four 1998 when Diosdado III received a letter from
policemen arrived at their house and talked his father and had to go home.
to his father. Thereafter, his father called him, In rebuttal however, prosecution witness SPO1
his brother Godofredo, uncle Rosalino and Fernandez asserted that he interviewed
cousins Allan and Reynaldo. The policemen then Cresenciana Mendoza that fateful night of
requested all of them to go to the PNP Central March 10, 1997. After the rebuttal witness was
Police Headquarters for investigation regarding presented, the cases were finally submitted for

Page 37 of 233
decision. them running away from the scene of the crime
On August 2, 1999, the trial court held that ―a was concocted. The handgun turned in by
chain of circumstances x x x lead to a sound Godofredo was not the same gun presented by
and logical conclusion that indeed the accused the prosecution during the trial. The unusual
(Diosdado III and Godofredo) committed the discovery of a slug from the head of the
offense charged‖ and as such rendered judgment deceased - three (3) days after the autopsy was
– conducted and after the cadaver was turned
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court over to the family of the victim - was quite
finds the accused Godofredo B. Ador and doubtful. Even the supposed dying declaration
Diosdado B. Ador III GUILTY beyond of the victim specifically pointed to neither
reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER, Diosdado III nor Godofredo. And, the trial
defined and penalized under the provisions of court erred in admitting in evidence those taken
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as against them in violation of their constitutional
amended by Republic Act 7659 in Criminal Cases rights to counsel during custodial investigation.
Nos. 97-6815 and 97-6816, hereby sentences The rules of evidence allow the courts to rely on
the said accused Godofredo B. Ador and circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion
Diosdado B. Ador III to suffer the penalty of of guilt. It may be the basis of a conviction so
RECLUSION PERPETUA in Criminal Case No. 97- long as the combination of all the circumstances
6815; RECLUSION PERPETUA in Criminal Case proven produces a logical conclusion which
No. 97-6816, to pay the heirs of Absalon ―Abe‖ suffices to establish the guilt of the accused
Cuya III P25,000 each by way of actual damages beyond reasonable doubt. All the circumstances
and P50,000 in each criminal case by way of must be consistent with each other, consistent
indemnity. To pay the heirs of Rodolfo with the theory that all the accused are guilty
―Ompong‖ Chavez the sum of P50,000 in each of the offense charged, and at the same time
criminal case by way of indemnity, such inconsistent with the hypothesis that they are
accessory penalties as provided for by law and to innocent and with every other possible, rational
pay the cost. For insufficiency of the hypothesis except that of guilt. The evidence
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused must exclude each and every hypothesis which
Diosdado B. Ador, Jr. beyond reasonable doubt, may be consistent with their innocence. Also, it
he is hereby ACQUITTED in Crim. Cases Nos. should be acted on and weighed with great
97-6815 and 97-6816. caution. Circumstantial evidence which has not
The Jail Warden of the Naga City District Jail been adequately established, much less
is hereby ordered to forthwith release from its corroborated, cannot by itself be the basis of
custody the accused Diosdado B. Ador, Jr., conviction.
unless his further detention is warranted by Thus, for circumstantial evidence to suffice, (1)
any other legal cause or causes. there should be more than one circumstance; (2)
SO ORDERED. the facts from which the inferences are derived
Hence, this joint appeal interposed by Disodado are proven; and (3) the combination of all the
and Godofredo. They maintain that the trial circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
court gravely erred in convicting them of murder beyond reasonable doubt. Like an ornate
based on circumstantial evidence. The testimony tapestry created out of interwoven fibers which
of prosecution witness Pablo Calsis that he saw cannot be plucked out and assayed a strand at a

Page 38 of 233
time apart from the others, the circumstances You said you recognized the persons running,
proved should constitute an unbroken chain which could you tell us their names?
leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that PABLO CALSIS:
the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is Yes sir.
guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The test to Name them?
determine whether or not the circumstantial Godofredo Ador, Jr., Sadang III.
evidence on record are sufficient to convict the How about the others?
accused is that the series of the circumstances I could not tell his name but if I see him I
proved must be consistent with the guilt of the could identify him.
accused and inconsistent with his innocence. The 4 persons whom you saw that night, if
Accordingly, we have set guidelines in appreciating they are present in court, please point them out?
circumstantial evidence: (1) it should be acted upon Yes sir.
with caution; (2) all the essential facts must be Point particularly Godofredo Ador, Jr.?
consistent with the hypothesis of guilt; (3) the (Witness pointed or tapped the shoulder of
facts must exclude every theory but that of guilt; a person inside the courtroom who answered by
and (4) the facts must establish such a certainty the name Diosdado Ador, Jr.)
of guilt of the accused as to convince the How about this Sadang III?
judgment beyond a reasonable doubt that the (Witness tapped the shoulder of a man who
accused is the one who committed the offense. answered by the name of Diosdado Ador III.)
Likewise, point to the third person?
Measured against the guidelines set, we cannot (Witness pointed to a man…)
uphold the conviction of the accused based on COURT:
the circumstantial evidence presented. Delete that portion from the record, he is
The first circumstance which the prosecution not on trial.
sought to prove is that the accused were ATTY TERBIO:
supposedly seen fleeing from the locus criminis, You said you saw 4 persons, is the fourth one
armed with their respective weapons. Thus, the inside the courtroom?
trial court, gleaning from the evidence None sir.
presented, found that ―[w]hen about to stand, But if you saw that person, will you be
Calsis saw Godofredo B. Ador, Diosdado B. Ador, able to recognize him?
Jr. and Diosdado B. Ador III, and a person going Yes sir.
to the direction of the house of the Adors which Why do you know these persons whom you
is about 500 meters away.‖ In fact, prosecution just tapped the shoulder?
witness Calsis allegedly even saw Diosdado Jr. xxx xx
carrying ―a long firearm but x x x could not x xxx
determine what kind of gun it was.‖ However, I know these persons having lived in
the trial court acquitted Diosdado Jr. But only the house of Lola Kising.
rightly so. For, Calsis had difficulty in How far?
identifying the Adors notwithstanding his Around 100 meters.
assertion that he knew and saw them On the said date and time and place, you
personally. We defer to his direct examination – said you saw them running, how far were you
ATTY. TERBIO (Private Prosecutor): from them?

Page 39 of 233
A. Around 10 meters. (Emphases supplied) the persons he allegedly saw or if he was even
The testimony of Calsis, if at all, could hardly be where he said he was that evening. For, it is
used against Diosdado III whom he miserably elementary that the positive identification of
failed to positively identify during trial. In fact, the accused is crucial in establishing his guilt
the acquittal of Diosdado Jr. by the trial court beyond reasonable doubt. That is wanting in the
renders the entire testimony of Calsis in serious instant case.
doubt. Calsis was presented to positively What is more, Calsis‘ asseverations, at the
identify the assailants who were supposedly outset, could no longer be used against
personally known to him and were just ten (10) Godofredo since both the prosecution and the
meters away from him. It puzzles us no end why defense have already rested and the case
he cannot even identify the Adors in open court. against Godofredo was already submitted for
Thus, despite Calsis‘ assertion that Diosdado Jr. decision when Calsis was presented. Neither can
was one of the assailants, the trial court they still be used against Diosdado Jr. who was
doubted him and gave credence to the alibi of already acquitted by the trial court.
Diosdado Jr. that the latter was in Nangka, Both Diosdado III and Godofredo denied the
Marikina, when the killings took place. The trial charges hurled against them. But, while it is
court favored the unbiased testimony of Aspe true that alibi and denial are the weakest of the
who said that Diosdado Jr. worked as a defenses as they can easily be fabricated,
timekeeper and warehouseman with him at the absent such clear and positive identification,
Consuelo Construction at Nangka, Marikina, from the doctrine that the defense of denial cannot
February 15, 1997, until March 22, 1997, and prevail over positive identification of the
went home to Pacol only on May 27, 1997. This accused must yield to the constitutional
ruling is strengthened by the fact that on the presumption of innocence. Hence, while denial is
morning following the killings, all the male concededly fragile and unstable, the conviction
members of the Ador family were brought to of the accused cannot be based thereon. The
the police headquarters for paraffin rule in criminal law is firmly entrenched that
examination and Diosdado Jr. was not among verdicts of conviction must be predicated on the
them. We thus respect the finding of the trial strength of the evidence for the prosecution
court that indeed Diosdado Jr. was not at the and not on the weakness of the evidence for the
scene of the crime absent any indication that defense.
the lower court overlooked some facts or The second circumstance is the handgun turned
circumstances which if considered would alter in by Godofredo. But this was bungled by the
the outcome of the case. prosecution. Major Idian, Deputy Chief of Police
While it is true that the courts are not bound to of the Naga City Police Station, to whom the
accept or reject an entire testimony, and may handgun was turned over after Godofredo
believe one part and disbelieve another, our surrendered it, identified it as a caliber .38
Constitution and the law mandate that all doubts revolver, thus –
must be resolved in favor of the accused. Calsis ATTY TERBIO (Private Prosecutor):
committed an obvious blunder in identifying the What kind of firearm was it?
supposed assailants which this Court cannot simply MAJOR IDIAN:
let go. On the contrary, it creates reasonable Revolver handgun, caliber .38 with 6 rounds
doubt in our minds if Calcis really saw ammunition.

Page 40 of 233
 What is the caliber? Consequently, even the third circumstance, the
.38 caliber. .38 caliber slug supposedly recovered from the
Similarly, PO3 Nepomuceno who then had been head of the victim three (3) days after the
with the PNP for eight (8) years already and to autopsy was conducted loses evidentiary value as
whom Godofredo turned in the handgun, its source is now highly questionable. It has
likewise identified it as a caliber .38, thus – become uncertain whether the deformed slug
ATTY TERBIO (Private Prosecutor): was fired from the .38 caliber revolver turned in
What is the caliber of that gun? by Godofredo or from a .357 caliber handgun as
PO3 NEPOMUCENO: attested to by the Chief of the Firearm
A. .38 caliber. Identification Section of the PNP Crime
However, Insp. Fulgar, Chief of the Firearm Laboratory.
Identification Section of the PNP Crime Neither can this Court rely on the dying
Laboratory, testified that ―[t]he indorsement declaration of the dying Chavez nor on the
coming from the City Prosecutors Office x x x results of the paraffin tests to convict either
alleged that the .38 caliber live bullet was fired Diosdado III or Godofredo or both. To refute
from a .38 caliber revolver. But our office these, we need not go far and beyond the 13 May
found out that the firearm was not a .38 1998 Order of the trial court partially granting
caliber revolver but a .357 caliber revolver.‖ the demurrer to evidence filed by the accused –
Could it be that the handgun was replaced The only direct evidence introduced by the
before it was turned over to the PNP Crime prosecution is the testimony of Mercy Beriña,
Laboratory? While the prosecution traced the that she heard Rodolfo ―Ompong‖ Chavez say
trail of police officers who at every stage held ―tinambangan kami na Ador‖ (We were ambushed
the gun supposedly recovered from Godofredo, by the Adors). Sad to say, no specific name was
it never clarified this discrepancy which is quite ever mentioned by the witness. Neither was she
glaring to ignore. It is difficult to believe that a able to tell how many (persons) ―Adors‖ were
Deputy Chief of Police and a police officer of involved. This testimony if it will be given
eight (8) years will both mistake a .357 caliber credence may inculpate any person with the
for a .38 caliber handgun. Likewise, a Chief of family name Ador as assailant. The prosecution
the Firearm Identification Section of the PNP therefore was not able to establish with moral
Crime Laboratory cannot be presumed not to certainty as to who of the Adors were
know the difference between the two (2) perpetrators of the offense x x x x Paraffin
handguns. Suffice it to say that the prosecution tests are not conclusive evidence that indeed a
failed to clear up the variance and for this Court person has fired a gun.
to suggest an explanation would be to venture The fact that the accused-appellants tested
into the realm of pure speculation, conjecture positive of gunpowder nitrates does not
and guesswork. Thus, faced with the obvious conclusively show that they fired the murder
disparity in the suspected firearm used in the weapon, or a gun for that matter, for such
crime and that which was turned over by forensic evidence should be taken only as an
Godofredo, his declaration that the handgun indication of possibility or even of probability,
presented in court was different from the gun but not of infallibility, since nitrates are also
he gave to the police deserves serious, if not admittedly found in substances other than
sole consideration. gunpowder. (People v. Abellarosa, G.R. No.

Page 41 of 233
121195, 27 November 1996; People v. de Guzman, authorities. The police had already begun to
250 SCRA 118; People v. Nitcha, 240 SCRA 283) focus on the Adors and were carrying out a
Thus, while a dying declaration may be process of interrogations that was lending itself
admissible in evidence, it must identify with to eliciting incriminating statements and
certainty the assailant. Otherwise, it loses its evidence: the police went to the Ador residence
significance. Also, while a paraffin test could that same evening upon being informed that the
establish the presence or absence of nitrates on Adors had a long-standing grudge against the
the hand, it cannot establish that the source of Cuyas; the following day, all the male members
the nitrates was the discharge of firearms – a of the Ador family were told to go to the police
person who tests positive may have handled one station; the police was also informed of the
or more substances with the same positive dying declaration of deceased Chavez pointing
reaction for nitrates such as explosives, to the Adors as the assailants; the Adors were
fireworks, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, tobacco all subjected to paraffin examination; and,
and leguminous plants. In People v. Melchor, this there were no other suspects as the police was
Court acquitted the accused despite the not considering any other person or group of
presence of gunpowder nitrates on his hands – persons. The investigation thus was no longer a
[S]cientific experts concur in the view that the general inquiry into an unsolved crime as the
result of a paraffin test is not conclusive. While Adors were already being held as suspects for
it can establish the presence of nitrates or the killings of Cuya and Chavez.
nitrites on the hand, it does not always Consequently, the rights of a person under
indubitably show that said nitrates or nitrites custodial investigation, including the right to
were caused by the discharge of firearm. The counsel, have already attached to the Adors, and
person tested may have handled one or more of pursuant to Art. III, Sec. 12(1) and (3), 1987
a number of substances which give the same Constitution, any waiver of these rights should be
positive reaction for nitrates or nitrites, such as in writing and undertaken with the assistance of
explosives, fireworks, pharmaceuticals and counsel. Admissions under custodial investigation
leguminous plants such as peas, beans and made without the assistance of counsel are barred
alfalfa. A person who uses tobacco may also have as evidence. The records are bare of any indication
nitrate or nitrite deposits on his hands since that the accused have waived their right to
these substances are present in the products of counsel, hence, any of their admissions are
combustion of tobacco. The presence of nitrates inadmissible in evidence against them. As we have
or nitrites, therefore, should be taken only as an held, a suspect‘s confession, whether verbal or
indication of a possibility but not of infallibility non-verbal, when taken without the assistance of
that the person tested has fired a gun. counsel without a valid waiver of such assistance
regardless of the absence of such coercion, or the
In fine, the admissions made by Godofredo to fact that it had been voluntarily given, is
Major Idian and PO3 Nepomuceno including the inadmissible in evidence, even if such confession
gun in question cannot be considered in evidence were gospel truth. Thus, in Aballe v. People, the
against him without violating his constitutional death weapon, a four-inch kitchen knife, which was
right to counsel. Godofredo was already under found after the accused brought the police to his
custodial investigation when he made his house and pointed to them the pot where he
admissions and surrendered the gun to the police

Page 42 of 233
had concealed it, was barred from admission as suspicions and speculations can never be the
it was discovered as a consequence of an basis of conviction in a criminal case. Courts
uncounseled extrajudicial confession. must ensure that the conviction of the accused
With hardly any substantial evidence left, the rests firmly on sufficient and competent
prosecution likewise played up the feud between evidence, and not the results of passion and
the Adors on one hand and the Chavezes and the prejudice. If the alleged inculpatory facts and
Cuyas on the other hand, and suggested that the circumstances are capable of two (2) or more
Adors had an axe to grind against the Chavezes explanations, one of which is consistent with the
and the Cuyas. For sure, motive is not sufficient innocence of the accused, and the other
to support a conviction if there is no other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence is
reliable evidence from which it may reasonably not adequate to support conviction. The court
be adduced that the accused was the must acquit the accused because the evidence
malefactor. Motive alone cannot take the place does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is
of proof beyond reasonable doubt sufficient to therefore insufficient to support a judgment of
overthrow the presumption of innocence. conviction. Conviction must rest on nothing less
All told, contrary to the pronouncements of the than a moral certainty of the guilt of the
trial court, we cannot rest easy in convicting the accused. The overriding consideration is not
two (2) accused based on circumstantial whether the court doubts the innocence of the
evidence. For, the pieces of the said accused but whether it entertains a reasonable
circumstantial evidence presented do not doubt as to his guilt. It is thus apropos to repeat
inexorably lead to the conclusion that they are the doctrine that an accusation is not, according
guilty. The prosecution witness failed to identify to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt –
the accused in court. A cloud of doubt continues the prosecution must overthrow the presumption
to hover over the gun used and the slug of innocence with proof of guilt beyond
recovered. The dying declaration and paraffin reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to
examination remain unreliable. Godofredo‘s discharge its burden. Accordingly, we have to
uncounseled admissions including the gun he acquit.
turned in are barred as evidence. And, the IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision of the
supposed motive of the accused is simply Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Br. 25, in
insufficient. Plainly, the facts from which the Crim. Cases Nos. 97-6815 and 97-6816 dated
inference that the accused committed the crime August 2, 1999, finding accused-appellants
were not proven. Accordingly, the guilt of the Godofredo B. Ador and Diosdado B. Ador III
accused cannot be established, more so to a guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts
moral certainty. It is when evidence is purely of murder and imposing on them the penalty of
circumstantial that the prosecution is much reclusion perpetua, is hereby REVERSED and
more obligated to rely on the strength of its own SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Godofredo B.
case and not on the weakness of the defense, Ador and Diosdado B. Ador III are
and that conviction must rest on nothing less ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and their
than moral certainty. IMMEDIATE RELEASE is hereby ORDERED
Consequently, the case of the prosecution has unless they are being held for some other legal
been reduced to nothing but mere suspicions and cause. SO ORDERED.
speculations. It is hornbook doctrine that Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and

Page 43 of 233
Tinga, JJ., concur. poking a knife at him. They tied up his hands and
Both dated 12 November 1997; Rollo, pp. 17-18. made him lie flat on his stomach and asked for
the key to his cabinet. Fearing for his life and
[1993V331] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, that of his companions, he reluctantly told them
plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOEL SARTAGODA y where the key was kept.
BOCANEGRA, JIMMY BASCUÑA y LAZARTE, Just on the other room was Vilma, who heard
VICENTE STA. ANA y GUTIERREZ and whispers (kaluskos) but simply played
JOHN DOE, accused-appellants.1993 April possum. When the three saw her on the bed,
072nd DivisionG.R. No. 97525D E C I S I O N they approached her. One covered her mouth
CAMPOS, JR., J.: as another poked a knife at her neck. They
The Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial threatened to kill her if she should make an
Region, Branch 36, Calamba, Laguna convicted all outcry.
three accused-appellants in its decision ** They raised her blouse and removed her
dated November 7, 1990, the dispositive portion underwear. They tied both her hands so that she
of which reads: could offer no resistance. She was at such a
"WHEREFORE, the court hereby finds the pitiful state when the accused Jimmy Bascuña
accused Joel Sartagoda y Bocanegra, Jimmy went on top of her, kissing her on different
Bascoña (sic) y Lazarte and Vicente Sta. Ana y parts of her body, while Vicente Sta. Ana held
Gutierrez all guilty beyond reasonable doubt as her legs apart. Jimmy finally inserted his sex
co-principals of the crime of Robbery With organ inside her and satisfied his bestial desire.
Rape, defined and penalized in Article 294, After Jimmy was over, Vicente took his turn and
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code; there then Joel. After the three of them had
being two aggravating circumstances without successfully deflowered Vilma, they left,
any mitigating circumstance to offset the same, carrying with them the money and other
hereby sentences each of the said accused to personal belongings of the de Belen family.
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with After the three men left, Rogelio, with his hands
the accessories provided for by the law. and feet still tied up, tried to get up from the
Each of the three accused is ordered to bed and switched the lights on and called to his
indemnify the offended party Vilma de Belen neighbors for help. Vilma, meanwhile, had lost
the sum of P30,000.00, and each of them shall consciousness due to shock.
recognize the offspring if there be any. Meanwhile, Petra Lamire, his sister-in-law who
The said accused are likewise ordered to lives right next to his house responded to his
return the personal properties stolen or pay its cry for help. She went to their house and untied
equivalent amount of P17,490.00 to Rogelio de Rogelio. She saw Vilma with her upper body
Belen, the lawful owner thereof. naked and sobbing so she covered Vilma with a
SO ORDERED." 1 blanket. Soon after, his other sister-in-law also
The facts of the case may be summarized arrived. They reported the incident to the
as follows: Barangay Captain.
It was the evening of July 2, 1988 while Rogelio They had Vilma examined by Dr. Danilo A.
de Belen, his two daughters and his sister Vilma Ramirez at Dr. Jose Rizal Memorial Hospital at
de Belen were sleeping in their house at Calamba, about 10:00 that same morning. He conducted
Laguna, when appellant broke in and woke him up, external and internal examinations. His external

Page 44 of 233
examination showed no physical injuries except fingerprint examination. The latent fingerprints
that he noted several abrasions at the genital are actually oily substances adhering to the
area. His internal examination showed fresh surfaces of objects that come in contact with
lacerations of the hymen at 9:00 and 4:00 the fingers. By their very nature, oily
positions. The vagina admitted two fingers substances easily spread such that when the
with ease. fingers slide against the surface they touch, no
In the present appeal the lone assigned error identifiable latent print is left, only smudges
is: THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT instead. Not all police investigators are aware
DECLARING (THAT) THE EVIDENCE OF THE of the nature of latent fingerprints so as to be
PROSECUTION UTTERLY FAILED TO PROVE guided accordingly in deciding which objects to
THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND submit for fingerprint lifting and examination.
REASONABLE DOUBT HENCE, THEIR Noting the interplay of many circumstances
ACQUITTAL IS INEVITABLE. involved in the successful lifting and
This appeal has no merit. identification of proper latent fingerprints in a
The accused -appellants fault the trial court of particular crime scene, the absence of one does
ignoring the fingerprint examination report not immediately eliminate the possibility that
submitted by the Crime Laboratory of the the accused-appellants could have been at the
PC/INP Camp Crame which stated that none of scene of the crime. They may be there yet they
the specimen latent fingerprints were found to had not left any identifiable latent fingerprint.
be positive. It is their contention that since Besides, in the case at bar, only ten latent
their fingerprints were not found in the fingerprints are involved. The findings in this
objects found in the scene of the crime they particular fingerprint examination are not
cannot be held guilty of the crime charged sufficient to cast even just a reasonable doubt
beyond reasonable doubt. in their finding of guilt for the crime charged.
Although We agree with their opinion that a
positive finding of matching fingerprints has The accused-appellants likewise contend that
great significance, We cannot sustain their the police line-up had been irregularly conducted
theory that from the negative findings in the revealing suggestibility to their prejudice. They
fingerprint examination conducted in the course accused Pat. Reyes of coaching complainant Vilma
of the investigation in the instant case, it must de Belen when she identified her three
be concluded that they could not have been at assailants. They claim that it was Pat. Reyes'
the scene of the crime. Negative findings do not fault that "they were not allowed to select their
at all times lead to a valid conclusion for there positions at the line -up; that they were not
may be logical explanations for the absence of placed in line under a numeral against a wall
identifiable latent prints other than their not marked to indicate their respective height in
being present at the scene of the crime. feet and inches; that there was no record made
Only latent fingerprints found on smooth of their descriptions and physical
surface are useful for purposes of comparison characteristics; that the witness/victim was not
in a crime laboratory because prints left on out of view of the three (3) accused lined-up for
rough surfaces result in dotted lines or broken identification purposes." 2
lines instead of complete and continuous lines.
Such kind of specimen cannot be relied upon in a We find these claims of irregularities of little if

Page 45 of 233
not, of no significance at all when considered in in the morning". 5 There is no truth to this claim.
the light of the natural desire in the victim to In fact, there was no categorical or positive
seek retribution not simply from anybody who assertion on the part of Dr. Ramirez that the
may be put before her but from the very same sexual intercourse with Vilma was committed on
offenders who actually did violence against her. the very date when the alleged "robbery with
It would be most illogical for an outraged victim rape" took place on July 2, 1988.
to direct her anger against anyone other than
her three offenders. We cannot accept the This is a clear distortion of the testimony of
accused-appellants' claim that it was on Pat. Dr. Ramirez who on cross-examination testified
Reyes' suggestion that the victim pointed to the as follows:
accused-appellants as her assailants. No amount
of coaching will be sufficient to counter the "ATTY. MAIQUEZ:
natural outrage of a rape victim against her You cannot also determine when was the first
abuser when said abuser is presented before and when was the last intercourse as per your
her in a police line-up. The outrage displayed by examination?
the rape victim was a spontaneous reaction. She
identified her assailants because of no other FISCAL Objection, witness is incompetent.
reason except to let people know who hurt her.
COURT Witness may answer.
Whether or not there was a previous police line-
up, the fact is that they were positively The findings suggest that because of
identified at the trial. There is no law requiring hymenal laceration the injuries was (sic) recent
a police line-up as essential to a proper not more than one week, sir.
identification. 3 The complainant's recognition
of the accused-appellants as her attackers When you say it is not more than one
cannot be doubted for she had during the carnal week, could it be 6 or 5 days?
acts ample opportunity to see the faces of the A Possible, sir.
men who ravaged her. It is the most natural
reaction for victims of criminal violence to When you say it is possible that the victim
strive to see the looks and faces of their could have experienced sexual intercourse 6 to
assailants and observe the manner in which the 5 days that was indicated in your examination
crime was committed. Most often the face of marked as Exh. A, can you determine as per your
the assailant and body movements thereof, finding?
create a lasting impression which cannot easily
be erased from their memory. 4 Well, yes, sir, I placed fresh hymenal
laceration because laceration will determine
The accused-appellants further claim that "the whether it is fresh or old because of the
Medical Findings of Dr. Danilo Ramirez concludes characteristice (sic) of the laceration, sir.
that the alleged victim of rape, Vilma de Belen
must have had sexual experienced (sic) five (5) At the time you examined the patient in
to six (6) days before the alleged incident your medical opinion it could have been 5 or 6
happened on July 2, 1988 at about 3 to 4 o'clock days had elapsed?

Page 46 of 233
A Yes, sir. Q In other words from one to 5 days?
A Yes, your Honor.
ATTY. MAIQUEZ: That will be all." 6
COURT:

The trial court, in the exercise of its But it is possible that it could be more than
discretion to seek clarification in witness' one or two days?.
testimony proceeded as follows: WITNESS:
A Yes, your Honor." 7
"COURT:
Doctor, in your findings you noted that there It is evident that Dr. Ramirez never
was an abrasion? categorically concluded that the sexual
A Yes, your Honor. intercourse causing the fresh hymenal
lacerations took place five to six days before
Is that more than one abrasion? the date of her examination. The accused-
A I found 3 mm., your Honor. appellants' claim that the sexual intercourse
took place on June 26 or 27, 1988 is
WITNESS (continuing): conjectural and without factual basis.
and on the lower opening of the vagina on
the right side, that is the only place, sir. The claim of the accused-appellants that the
prosecution failed to present rebuttal evidence
COURT: to refute the averments of Joel Sartagoda
Aside from that injury or rater (sic) that that they tried in vain to persuade him to admit
portion there is no other injury which you found? the charge against him and to implicate his two
A None, your Honor. (2) co-accused did not deserve the attention of
the trial court nor does it deserve Ours, being
Because laceration stated in your per se unacceptable and unbelievable in the
medicolegal certificate that there was fresh light of human experience.
hymenal laceration noted at 9 and 4 o'clock on
the face of the clock? Finally, they claim that the fact that Vicente
A Yes, your Honor. Sta. Ana and Jimmy Bascuña did not flee, even
when they had all the opportunities to do so,
Do we gather it right when you stated in prove their innocence. When they were allowed
your medicolegal certificate fresh it is not yet to go home after Vilma failed to identify them
healed? during the first confrontation at the police
A Yes, your Honor. station, they stayed home and did not flee until
they were again required to appear at the police
From that finding of yours regarding the station for the second time. The accused -
existence of fresh hymenal laceration you appellants in effect posit that if flight is an
said that it least one or 2 days had elapsed indication of guilt, non-flight or the decision not
before you have conducted the physical to flee, having the opportunity to do so, is a sign
examination? A Yes, your Honor. of innocence.

Page 47 of 233
We do not agree. Although it is settled that after another, raped a woman, neither of the
unexplained flight indicates guilt, it does, not accused was ordered to recognize the
necessarily follow that absence thereof offspring simply because it was impossible to
proves innocence, specially so when there is determine the paternity thereof.
overwhelming evidence to establish their guilt.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
This Court finds no reversible error having been appealed decision is AFFIRMED with the
committed by the trial court in convicting the MODIFICATION that the accused-appellants
three accused-appellants for the crime of are held jointly and severally liable to indemnify
robbery with multiple rape under Article 294 Vilma de Belen for multiple rape in the amount
par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code. We affirm its of P90,000. 00, and that none of the accused is
findings of fact which are firmly grounded on required to recognize the offspring.
the evidence presented at the trial. We
reiterate our ruling thus: SO ORDERED.
Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Padilla, Regalado and
"There is need to stress anew that this Court Nocon, JJ., concur.
has long been committed to the principle that ---------------
the determination by a trial judge who could
weigh and appraise the testimony as to the facts RULE 129
WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
duly proved is entitled to the highest respect,
unless it could be shown that he ignored or
disregarded circumstances of weight or Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory.
influence sufficient to call for a different A court shall take judicial notice, without
finding." 8 the introduction of evidence, of the
existence and territorial extent of states,
We are for the affirmance of the conviction of their political history, forms of government
and symbols of nationality, the law of
the three accused-appellants. With regard to
nations, the admiralty and maritime courts
the indemnity to Vilma de Belen for multiple
of the world and their seals, the political
rape, there having been evidence of conspiracy, constitution and history of the Philippines,
the act of one being the act of all, each must be the official acts of legislative, executive and
liable for all the three rapes committed, they judicial departments of the Philippines, the
must be held solidarily liable 9 for said laws of nature, the measure of time, and
indemnity which the trial court fixed at the geographical divisions. (1a)
P30,000.00 for each offender or a total of
P90,000.00. 10 Section 2. Judicial notice, when
discretionary. ? A court may take judicial
notice of matters which are of public
However, this Court cannot uphold the trial knowledge, or are capable to
court's ruling ordering each of the accused to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to
"recognize the offspring if there be any". In be known to judges because of their
multiple rape, not one maybe required to judicial functions. (1a)
recognized the offspring of the offended
woman. In a case 11 where three persons, one

Page 48 of 233
Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing time which would be lost in establishing, in the ordinary
necessary. ? During the trial, the court, on way, facts which do not admit of contradiction.
its own initiative, or on request of a party,
may announce its intention to take judicial Definitions:
notice of any matter and allow the parties Judicial Notice – no more than that the court will
to be heard thereon. bring to its aid and consider, without proof of the facts,
its knowledge of those matters of public concern which
After the trial, and before judgment or on are known by all well-informed persons.
Judicial Knowledge – cognizance of certain facts
appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative which a judge under rules of legal procedure or
or on request of a party, may take judicial otherwise may properly take or act upon without proof
notice of any matter and allow the parties to because they are already known to him, or is assumed
be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of to have, by virtue of his office.
a material issue in the case. (n)
Q: What is judicial notice?
It is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may
Section 4. Judicial admissions. ? An properly take and act upon without proof because they
admission, verbal or written, made by the are supposed to be known to them. It is based on
party in the course of the proceedings in considerations of expediency and convenience. It
the same case, does not require proof. The displaces evidence, being equivalent to proof.
Note: Judicial notice fulfils the objective which the
admission may be contradicted only by evidence intends to achieve. It is not equivalent to
showing that it was made through judicial knowledge or that which is based on the
palpable mistake or that no such personal knowledge of the court; rather, it is the
admission was made. (2a) cognizance of “common knowledge.” Judicial notice
relieves the parties from the necessity of introducing
evidence to prove the fact notified. It makes evidence
Judicial notice is a rule in the law of evidence that
allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the unnecessary.
truth of that fact is so notorious or well known, or so
authoritatively attested, that it cannot reasonably be Q: What are the facts that need not be proved?
doubted. This is done upon the request of
Those which the courts may take judicial notice
the party seeking to rely on the fact at issue. Facts
and materials admitted under judicial notice are (Rule 129);
accepted without being formally introduced by a witness Those that are judicially admitted (Rule 129);
or other rule of evidence, and even if one party wishes Those that are conclusively presumed (Rule 131); and
to lead evidence to the contrary.
Judicial notice is frequently used for the simplest,
Those that are disputably presumed
most obvious common sense facts, such as which day of but uncontradicted (Rule 131).
the week corresponded to a particular calendar date.2
What are the requisites of judicial notice?
It is the authority of a judge to accept as facts certain
matters which are of common knowledge from sources which
guarantee accuracy or are a matter of official record, 1. The matter must be one of common and general
without the need for evidence establishing the fact. knowledge;
Examples of matters given judicial notice are public and 2. It must be well and authoritatively settled and
court records, tides, times of sunset and sunrise, not doubtful or uncertain; and
government rainfall and temperature records, known
historic events or the fact that ice melts in the sun.3
3. It must be one which is not subject to a reasonable
dispute in that it is either:
Generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of
_ The function of judicial notice is that, it displaces the trial court; or
evidence, since as it stands for proof, it fulfills the object Capable of accurate and ready determination by
which evidence is designed to fulfill and makes resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably
evidence unnecessary. be questionable (Expertravel & Tours, Inc. v. CA, G.R.
_ It is based upon obvious reasons of convenience and No. 152392, May 26, 2005).
expediency and operates to save trouble, expense, and
Note: The principal guide in determining what facts may
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_notice be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety
2

3 http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1065

Page 49 of 233
is so notoriously known as to make it proper to At around three o'clock in the early morning of
assume its existence without proof.
December 15, 1991, thirty-three year old Cesar
When is a matter considered “common Victoria was stabbed to death while sleeping by
knowledge”? his seven-year old son Christopher in a rented
They are those matters coming to the knowledge of
men generally in the course of ordinary experiences of
makeshift room in Tondo, Manila.
life, or they may be matters which are generally Appellant Roman Meneses was charged with the
accepted by mankind as true and are capable of murder of Cesar Victoria, in an Information
ready and unquestioned demonstration.
Note: Thus, facts which are universally known, and dated December 27, 1991, which reads:
which may be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or That on or about December 15, 1991, in the City
other publications, are judicially noticed, provided, they of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with
are of such universal notoriety and so generally
understood that they may be regarded as forming part of evident premeditation and treachery, did then
the common knowledge of every person. A court and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
however cannot take judicial notice of any fact which, in with intent to kill, attack, assault and use
part, is dependent on the existence or non-existence of a
fact of which the court has no constructive knowledge personal violence upon one CESAR VICTORIA y
(Expertravel & Tours, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 152392, May FERNANDEZ, by then and there stabbing the
26, 2005). latter with a fan knife (balisong) on the
Q: What is mandatory notice? different parts of his body, thereby inflicting
If the fact sought to be proved are: upon the said CESAR VICTORIA y
Existence and territorial extent of States; FERNANDEZ mortal wounds which were the
Political history, forms of government and symbols
of nationality; direct and immediate cause of his death
Law of nations; immediately. 2 The prosecution presented the
Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their following witnesses: Christopher R. Victoria,
seals;
Political constitution and history of the Philippines; SPO3 Jaime Mendoza, SPO3 Eduardo Gonzales
Official acts of legislative, executive and and Medico-Legal Officer Florante Baltazar.
judicial departments of the Philippines; Christopher R. Victoria testified that he
Laws of nature;
witnessed the stabbing of his father. He
Measure of time; and
Geographical divisions (Sec. 1). testified that while he lived with his Kuya
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- Odeng on Kasipagan Street, Tondo, on the night
appellee, of December 14, 1991, he went to his father's
vs. rented makeshift room to sleep after he
ROMAN MENESES Y MARIN, accused- (Christopher) was whipped by his brother.
appellant. Christopher's other siblings lived elsewhere in
1998 March 26 3rd Division G.R. Tondo and his mother was living in Quezon. He
No. 111742 D E C I S I O N further testified that he was awakened from
KAPUNAN, J: sleep and saw his father being stabbed in the
Eyewitness identification is vital evidence and, in heart with a "veinte nueve." After the assailant
most cases, decisive of the success or failure of ran away, Christopher cried.
the prosecution. 1 Subject of the Court's SPO3 Jaime Mendoza, a police investigator of
scrutiny in the instant criminal case is the the Western Police District testified that on
credibility of a child's alleged eyewitness December 15, 1991, a kagawad of Barangay 123,
account on which the appellant's conviction by Zone 9, Tondo, Manila called the precinct
the trial court was solely anchored. informing him that Cesar Victoria was found

Page 50 of 233
stabbed to death. With three policemen, and his companions merely "invited" appellant to
Mendoza immediately went to the crime scene, go with them to the police station for
arriving there at around three o'clock in the investigation, but that at the police station,
morning. Mendoza described the scene as a appellant verbally admitted to stabbing Cesar
makeshift room about three by five square Victoria. 5
meters. The room was connected by a divider Medico-Legal Officer Florante P. Baltazar of
with a door to a house owned by the Spouses the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory
Ardiete, the victim's landlord. The policemen conducted the autopsy on the victim. He
saw the victim's bloodied body, with several stab testified in court that the cause of death of the
wounds, lying on a wooden bed. victim, as stated in his Autopsy Report, was
Mendoza testified that when he questioned "cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and
Christopher, who was then in the house, hemorrhage secondary to stab wounds," and that
Christopher could not identify nor describe the the victim sustained five external injuries, two
attacker, but that the child said he could identify of which were fatal. 6 He opined that based on
him because he knew his face. On re-direct the direction of the stab wounds, the victim was
examination however, Mendoza said that not lying down when stabbed, but could have
Christopher identified the assailant as appellant. been standing or sitting when stabbed by the
attacker who could have also been standing. 7
Mendoza and the policemen brought Christopher The lone witness for the defense was the
to the precinct where his statement was taken. appellant himself, Roman Meneses. He
3 After the appellant was arrested and turned interposed the defense of denial and alibi.
over to the investigators on December 26, 1991, Appellant testified that the victim, who was his
Christopher was again brought to the precinct brother -in-law, and Christopher used to live
where, during a confrontation with appellant, with him and his wife Angelina, the victim's
Christopher identified appellant as the person sister, in their house at A. Tuazon Street,
who stabbed his father. 4 Tondo, Manila. On the day of the crime,
SPO3 Eduardo C. Gonzales testified that at appellant alleged that he was in San Isidro,
about two o'clock in the morning of December Mexico, Pampanga, and had been there since the
25, 1991, he arrested appellant. The arrest was tenth or eleventh of that month, after he had a
based on the report of Angelina Victoria, misunderstanding with Angelina.
appellant's wife, who implicated appellant in the He further testified that he was arrested on
crime. The policemen found appellant at the December 24, 1991, without a warrant after
place pointed to by Angelina, which was a being implicated in the crime by his wife. He was
flower box at the corner of Tuazon and Mithi brought to the police station where he was
Streets. Frisked, appellant yielded a balisong. mauled by policemen; he never admitted though
After announcing that they were policemen and to killing Cesar Victoria, his brother-in-law.
that appellant was being arrested as the Appellant also denied that there was animosity
suspect in the stabbing of Cesar Victoria, between him and his brother-in-law. In fact,
Gonzales and his companions brought appellant when Cesar was stabbed after he (Cesar) got out
to Police Station No. 2. Appellant was later of prison, appellant even brought him to the
transferred to the Homicide Section. hospital and paid for his medical expenses.
On cross-examination, Gonzales stated that he Appellant even sent his nephew Christopher to

Page 51 of 233
school. 8 season, it is still quite dark and that daylight
In a Decision dated July 26, 1993, the comes rather late in this time of year. 13
trial found appellant guilty, thus: Nowhere in the description of the crime scene
by witness SPO3 Mendoza in his testimony was
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered it established that there was light or
convicting the accused of the crime of Murder, illumination of any sort by which Christopher
and he is hereby sentenced with the penalty of could see the attacker. SPO3 Mendoza testified
Reclusion Perpetua. thus:
The accused is hereby ordered to indemnify and Q. You said you found the body of the victim,
pay the heirs of the victim Cesar Victoria the what (sic) did you found (sic) at the body of
sum of P50,000.00 as damages sustained by the victim?
them on account of the victim's death. 9 We found the body of the victim on adjacent
In this appeal, appellant assigns to the trial makeshift of the No. 1324.
court the following errors: The makeshift room which was adjacent to
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING the house, whose house of that makeshift was
EXCULPATORY WEIGHT TO THE EVIDENCE adjacent?
ADDUCED BY THE DEFENSE. It was owned by Cesar Victoria and his
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING son Christopher.
APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED You said you interviewed a couple named
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF Ardiete, where did you see this couple?
THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT Inside the house, sir.
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. How far is that house to the house of
ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT APPELLANT IS the victim?
GUILTY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN Only a division within that house, only division
CONVICTING HIM OF MURDER INSTEAD separate.
OF HOMICIDE ONLY. 10
The issue in the instant case is credibility. The COURT:
judgment of appellant's conviction is anchored Q. You said that the makeshift was adjacent to
entirely on the testimony of the single the house, does the Court understand from you
eyewitness, Christopher Victoria, who identified that the makeshift was attach to the house?
appellant as the one who he allegedly saw stab A. Part of the house, Your Honor.
his father. Q. Is there an opening on it?
We find that the trustworthiness of the A. Yes, Your Honor.
identification of appellant by Christopher is Q. How wide?
dubious, raising reasonable doubt in the mind A. The main door going to the house.
of the Court as to appellant's culpability. Q. Did you come to know, what that makeshift
It was established that the crime took place in was for?
the wee hours of the morning, before the crack A. It was occupied intended for the victim Cesar
of dawn, at around three o'clock. 11 The court Victoria and his son, they actually rented the
can take judicial notice of the "laws of nature," space.
12 such as in the instant case, that at around Q. So the place where you found the victim is a
three in the morning during the Christmas place which can be used for living purposes?
A. Because that portion, there was a door, there
was a door before you can get inside.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did you come to that conclusion?
Page 52 of 233
FISCAL SULLA:
Q. How big is that room more or less? COURT:
A. More or less about three meters or five Did you talked (sic) to the son of the victim?
meters. Yes, sir.
Q. Now who occupied the room adjacent to the What did he tell you?
room occupied by the victim? A. The spouses He told me he can remember the suspect
Ardiete, sir. 14 whenever he sees him again.
Then he can identify him?
The crime took place in a makeshift room Yes, Your Honor.
measuring about three by five square meters. ATTY. SARMIENTO:
While the room had a door, there was no mention Q. So at the time that you were there, the son
of a window which could have allowed entry of of the victim was not able to tell you who the
some kind of light from the outside. It is highly suspect was?
improbable that a young boy, just roused from
sleep and his eyes adjusting to the unlit room, A. Yes, sir.
could identify the attacker, much less identify xxx xxx xxx
the knife used, as Christopher did, as a "veinte Q. Neither the wife nor the husband [referring
nueve." to the spouses Ardiete], nor the son tell you
The prosecution failed to paint a crystal-clear that they saw the killing?
picture of the environ by which Christopher A. The son of the victim said that he can
could have made an accurate and reliable identified (sic) the suspect.
identification of the attacker. Christopher's Q. Did you asked (sic) him if he can identify?
testimony being improbable, is not credible. A. Yes, sir.
Evidence is credible when it is "such as the Q. And what did he tell you?
common experience of mankind can approve as A. He knows the face of the suspect.
probable under the circumstances. We have no Q. Did you ask him the name of the suspect,
test of the truth of human testimony, except if he knows him at that time? A. He can't tell
its conformity to our knowledge, observation, the name.
and experience." 15 Q. Did he tell you the description of the
We now consider the identification itself. We suspect?
note a glaring discrepancy, not inconsequential, A. He can't tell the description of the suspect
in the testimony of SPO3 Mendoza regarding but he insist (sic) that if he can see him again,
Christopher's identification of appellant. he can identify. 16
SPO3 Mendoza testified thus:
Q. Where was the son of the victim when you During his direct and cross-examination, SPO3
arrived? Mendoza asserted that Christopher could not
A. Inside the house, sir. name his father's attacker nor give a
description; however, in his re-direct
examination he said that Christopher
mentioned categorically appellant's name,
Roman Meneses, thus:
Q. When you responded to the scene of the
crime, and talking to Christopher Victoria who

Page 53 of 233
can identify the suspect, did you asked [sic] determine the motive behind the knife-slaying
him why he can identify the suspect? and efforts will be exerted to establish the
identity of suspect. 19
A. Yes, sir. Indeed, it taxes the credibility of
Q. What did he say? Christopher's testimony that while he knew
A. He remember [sic] the face. appellant prior to the crime, being his uncle, who
Q. And did you ask him why he can for some time he was staying with, he failed to
remember the face? point to appellant as the attacker when
A. Yes, sir. Because he openly sees the face, sice questioned by the police immediately after the
(sic) he was his uncle. incident. Wall 20 in his work on eyewitness
Q. Did you asked [sic] the son what is the name identification expounds on the danger signals
of his uncle? which a trial court judge and the appellate
A. Yes, sir. courts should watch out for when considering
xxx xxx xxx Q. What is the name? identifications in criminal cases, thus:
A. Roman Meneses. 17 When a person has been the victim of a crime
committed by a friend, acquaintance, relative, or
other person previously familiar to him, and
This inconsistency in the testimony of SPO3 decides to make a complaint to the police, it is to
Mendoza not only tolls on his credibility as well be expected that he would immediately inform
as the credibility of his testimony, but more them of the name (or it that be unknown, then at
significantly, casts doubt on the least the identity) of the person whom they
trustworthiness, veracity and reliability of the should arrest. The victim would normally tell the
alleged identification itself. Significantly, this police that he had been hit by John Smith, or
inconsistency was noted by the trial court with that her purse had been snatched by the
vexation, but the Court merely glossed over the grocer's delivery boy. Of course, some crimes
same, stating that the identification of are never reported, for one reason or another.
appellant by Christopher during the subsequent But once the victim decides to make a criminal
confrontation rendered such inconsistency complaint, then he will almost invariably name or
unimportant. designate the perpetrator of the crime
Even in the Advance Information 18 prepared immediately, if he is able to do so. The
by SPO3 Mendoza on December 15, 1991, no occasional failure of a complainant to do this is a
mention was made regarding an identification danger signal of which the courts have
made by Christopher when questioned sometimes taken note.
immediately after the crime. Mendoza wrote: In an Idaho prosecution for rape, for example,
the complaining witness identified the defendant
CHRISTOPHER VICTORIA, 8 years old, son of at the trial, but had not accused him when
victim, who was sleeping beside the latter during making her original complaint to the police, even
the commission of the crime when interviewed though he was previously known to her. As an
stated that he was awakened, while his father explanation, she testified that she had not
was being stabbed by suspect, whom he claimed recognized him during the commission of the
he can identify if he can see him again. crime. The ensuing conviction was reversed on
Case to be further investigated and follow-up to the ground that the evidence of identification

Page 54 of 233
was insufficient. In an Iowa prosecution for them 17 months later as the defendant . . .
assault with intent to commit rape, the Certainly, if, at the time of the incident, they
complainant was a young married woman who had had recognized the particular individual as one
known the defendant prior to the commission of whom they knew or as resembling one with whom
the alleged crime. She identified him at the they were acquainted, it is reasonable to expect
trial, but admitted that she had not recognized that they would have given this information
him during the assault, for he had a veil covering promptly to the police . . . On the state of this
his face. It was after he left, she testified that record, there was no plausible explanation for
it came to her mind that he assault, and on the the failure of the two women, or one of them, to
same day, she became afraid to stay alone at recognized the defendant at the time of the
home while waiting for her husband to return, robbery or, in any event, to pass along to the
and asked none other than the defendant to police within a reasonable time information
wait with her — a course of action which was which would have led them to identify the
commented upon by the appellate court which defendant as one of the robbers. We realize . . .
reversed the conviction on grounds which That the issue is one of credibility and that,
included the insufficiency of the evidence of generally speaking, such issued is for the trier
identification. of the facts. Here, however, on the whole
In a New York murder prosecution, the victim's record, we have concluded that the finding of
widow identified the defendant prior to her the jury as to the guilt of the defendant . . . is
husband's killers. Although she knew the contrary to the weight of the evidence; and
defendant prior to her husband's death, she that, in any event, a new trial should be had in
admitted that she had not named him to the the interests of justice.
police on the night of the crime, and admitted These four cases should suffice to illustrate how
also that she had told the coroner that she had the courts react to this danger signal on the
never before seen her husband's murderers. A rather rare occasions when it is in the record
conviction for murder in the first degree was before them. Those occasions are rare, it is
reversed because the trial judge had failed to submitted, because when the point actually arises
charge the jury that they should consider those in a case, it usually produces that reasonable doubt
facts in determining the accuracy of the which causes a jury to acquit. It may also be of
identification. And in a recent New York some significance that when a jury convicts
robbery prosecution, it was brought out that the despite such a glaring weakness in the
two women who had identified the defendant at identification, it is usually in the type of case that
the trial had not immediately named him to the stirs up the greatest emotions — sex crimes and
police, even though they had known him crimes of violence. Common sense, however,
previously, since he was the son of an dictates that when this danger signal is present in
acquaintance of one of them. The conviction was a case, and the failure of the witness or
reversed on appeal, the court stating, with complainant to do what would normally be done, i.e.,
respect to the identifying witnesses, that: to name or designate the perpetrator of the crime
If we give credence to their testimony, it appears immediately, is not satisfactorily explained, no
that they were able to and did observe fully the conviction should occur or should be allowed to
fact and general appearance of one of the three stand in the absence of independent and
alleged robbers who was identified by persuasive evidence of the

Page 55 of 233
defendant's guilt. identified by the witness?
The prosecution did not endeavor to explain A. Inside the office.
Christopher's failure to name the attacker at Q. In what particular place inside your
the time he was questioned immediately after office? A. Crime against person, homicide. 21
the crime. From SPO3 Mendoza's testimony, xxx xxx xxx
Christopher was at that time coherent and Q. So, when the accused was arrested and you
answering clearly questions from the police. We were informed about it, what did you do?
further find objectionable Christopher's A. I investigated again, after I made a
identification of appellant during a "show-up" at confrontation between the son of the victim
the police station. As testified to by SPO3 and the suspect.
Mendoza, "I made confrontation between Q. Son of the victim alone?
them," referring to Christopher and appellant. A. Together with Angelina? 22
SPO3 Mendoza testified on the circumstances xxx xxx xxx
surrounding the "confrontation" between Q. So the suspect was turn-over (sic) over to
Christopher and appellant, thus: you?
Q. Who was able to arrest the suspect? A. Yes, sir.
A. PO Eddie Gonzales sir. Q. When was that?
Q. And what did you do when you informed about A. Day after December 25, 1992.
this? Q. And when the suspect was turned-over to
A. I invited again the eye witness, the son of your office, who were there? A. The night
the victim. shift in charge.
Q. And what did you do when you invited the eye Q. How about the son of the victim, were (sic)
witness? he there?
A. We make confrontation between the A. I just saw him (there) when I arrive (sic).
suspect and him. Q. What happened when they arrived.
Where? A. I took immediately the statement of the son
Inside the room sir. of the victim.
When was that? Q. Did you point them the suspect?
Right after the suspect was arrested. A. No, sir.
When was he arrested? Q. Was there confrontation between the
December 25, 1991 suspect and the son together with Angelina?
xx xxx xxx A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then in the confrontation between the Q. What happened during the confrontation?
suspect and the eye witness, what happened? A. He pin-pointed the suspect.
The eye witness positively identified the Who pin-pointed the suspect?
suspect as the one who stabbed the victim.. The son of the victim.
COURT: How about Angelina?
Who identified? She did not. 23
A. The eye witness Your Honor. xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx Q. And from that time how long did it take?
FISCAL SULLA: When they arrive (sic), how long (did) this
Q. Exactly, where was the suspect when he was Christopher Victoria identify the suspect?

Page 56 of 233
 identification parade is a show-up, the
A. Immediately during my investigation I made a presentation of a single suspect to a witness for
confrontation with the suspect and the victim, purposes of identification. Together with its
and he pinpointed to me that the suspect was aggravated forms, it constitutes the most
really the one. grossly suggestive identification procedure now
or ever used by the police (See Louisell, David
Q. You said that the suspect was inside the W., Kaplan, John, and Waltz, Jon R., Cases and
jail, when you made the investigation in your Materials on Evidence; Wall, Eyewitness
office, how far is your office to the detention Identification in Criminal Cases, 1968 ed., p.
cell? A. About three meters. 1263)
Q. When did the confrontation exactly took In the Tuason case, during a first encounter in
(sic) place? the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
A. I let the son of the victim to go (sic) headquarters, the accused therein was pointed
nearer the detention cell. to by the alleged eyewitnesses after an NBI
COURT: agent first pointed him out to them. The Court
Q. Did you tell something, did you asked (sic) did said that "[the eyewitnesses'] identification
you tell anything to the son before the of [petitioner] from a [subsequent] line-up at
confrontation? the NBI was not spontaneous and independent.
A. Yes, sir. An NBI agent improperly suggested to them
COURT: petitioner's person." 27
What did the son told (sic) you? From Mendoza's testimony we can gather that
A. He told me he can. appellant was presented as the suspect in the
Q. And after he told you he can, what did you crime to Christopher inside Mendoza's office in
do? the Homicide Section of the police station, or
A. I made confrontation between them. later in the detention cell the boy was made to
COURT: approach. While Mendoza did not literally point
And during the confrontation, what did the to appellant as in the Tuason case, equally
son tell you? pervasive in the "confrontation" in the instant
A. He is Roman Meneses. case is what Wigmore calls "the suggestion of
COURT: guilty identity." 28
Did you asked (sic) him where did he saw Even applying the totality of circumstances test
(sic) the person pointed to? set in People v. Teehankee, Jr, 29 formulated
A. Yes, he told me that he saw him in the room and used by courts in resolving the admissibility
they rented at Alinia. 24 and reliability of out-of-court identifications, we
In Tuason v. Court of Appeals, 25 the Court must hold the identification of appellant by
stated that an identification of the accused Christopher to be seriously flawed. The test
during a "show-up" or where the suspect alone lists three factors to consider:
is brought face to face with the witness for . . . (1) the witness' opportunity to view the
identification, 26 is seriously flawed. We stated criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the
thus: witness' degree of attention at that time; (3)
the accuracy of any prior description given
. . . the mode of identification other than an by the witness; (4) the level of certainty

Page 57 of 233
demonstrated by the witness at the the victim, who was his wife Angelina's brother,
identification; (5) the length of time between and envy proceeding from Angelina's giving
the crime and the identification; and, (6) the financial support to the victim may constitute
suggestiveness of the identification process. motive, motive alone, without credible positive
(See Neil v. Biggers, 409 US 188 (1973); identification, cannot be a basis for conviction.
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 US 98 (1977); Del 30
Carmen, Criminal Procedure, Law and Practice, The People points out that appellant had verbally
3rd Edition., p. 346) admitted having committed the crime at the
Indeed, we cannot discount the angle that time of his arrest and later during the conduct
young Christopher was influenced by prior of the investigation. 31 The appellant however
prompting or manipulation by an adult, his aunt during the trial denied having made such verbal
Angelina. Rather than reinforce the admissions of guilt. Granting arguendo that
identification, the circumstances pointed out by appellant indeed made such verbal admissions,
the trial court plants in mind the plausibility the same would not be admissible in evidence
that appellant's wife Angelina could have against him because the constitutional
coached the young impressionable Christopher. preconditions for its admission were not
These circumstances are: complied with The mere assertion by a police
First, was the insistence of [appellant's] wife as office that after an accused was informed of
testified by the accused himself, that he was his constitutional right to remain silent and to
the one who killed the victim, and was pointed to counsel he readily admitted his guilt, does not
by her as the assailant, thus, he was arrested. make the supposed confession admissible against
Another was the resentment of the accused the purported confessant. 32 Here, it was not
against his brother-in-law-victim brought about even shown that appellant's supposed admissions
by the latter's intervention in that serious of guilt were made with benefit of counsel. 33
quarrel between him and his wife. Thirdly, that It is conceded that appellant's defense of alibi
the accused no doubt disliked the financial is weak. 34 The settled rule however is that
support and subsistence being given by his wife conviction should rest on the strength of the
to the victim. prosecution and not on the weakness of the
Quite revealingly, Angelina was the one who defense. 35 The onus is on the prosecution to
went to the police to implicate appellant in the prove the accused guilt beyond reasonable
crime and who directed the police to where he doubt, in view of the constitutional presumption
could be found. She later herded Christopher to of the innocence of the accused. 36 We must
the police station for the boy to give his rule that the prosecution failed to so discharge
statement. She was also with the boy when he its burden.
was made to identify appellant during the WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
"confrontation." We see Angelina's actuations as Decision dated July 26, 1993 of the Regional
suspect, especially when we consider that per Trial Court of Manila, National Capital Judicial
SPO3 Mendoza's testimony, when he questioned Region, Branch 34 in Criminal Case No. 91-
Christopher immediately after the crime, the 101878 convicting appellant ROMAN MENESES
boy could not simply name the attacker. y MARIN is REVERSED and appellant is
And while the above circumstances, particularly, ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the
the supposed resentment of appellant against ground of reasonable doubt. The Court orders

Page 58 of 233
his RELEASE from commitment unless he is license)
held for some other legal cause or ground. ―b) One (1) pc. Revolver Cal. 22 SN:48673 (w/o
Costs de Oficio. license)
―c) Twenty Seven (27) rds live ammos. For cal.
SO ORDERED. .45
Narvasa, C .J ., Romero and Purisima, JJ ., ―d) Five (5) pcs. Magazines for cal. .45
concur. ―e) Eight (8) rds live ammunitions for cal. 22
―f) Five (5) pcs. Magazines short for cal. 5.56
(M16)
FIRST DIVISION ―g) Twenty (20) rds live ammunitions for cal 5.56
[G.R. No. 142295. May 31, 2001] VICENTE ―without first having obtained a proper license
DEL ROSARIO y NICOLAS, petitioner, vs. therefor.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. ―Contrary to law.‖
On June 25, 1996, the trial court arraigned the
DECISION petitioner. He pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued.
PARDO, J.: The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are
Petitioner Vicente del Rosario y Nicolas appeals as follows:
via certiorari from a decision of the Court of ―Sometime in May 1996, the police received a
Appeals affirming with modification the decision report that accused-appellant Vicente del
of the Regional Trial Court, Bulacan, Branch 20, Rosario was in possession of certain firearms
Malolos, and finding him guilty beyond reasonable without the necessary licenses. Acting upon the
doubt of violation of P. D. No. 1866, as amended by report, P/Sr. Insp. Jerito Adique of the PNP
Republic Act No. 8294 (illegal possession of Criminal Investigation Group at Camp Olivas,
firearms), sentencing him to four Pampanga inquired from the PNP Firearms and
years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of Explosive Division whether or not the report
prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years, was true. On May 10, 1996, P/Sr. Insp. Edwin C.
eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision Roque of the PNP Firearms and Explosives
mayor, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Division issued a certification (Exhibit L) stating
P30,000.00. that per records in his office, the appellant is
On June 17, 1996, Assistant Provincial not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any
Prosecutor Eufracio S. Marquez of Bulacan filed kind and caliber. Armed with the said
with the Regional Trial Court, Bulacan, Malolos an certification, P/Sr. Insp. Adique applied for a
Information charging petitioner Vicente del search warrant to enable his team to search the
Rosario y Nicolas with violation of P. D. No. 1866, house of appellant.
as follows: ―On June 13, 1996, a search warrant (Exhibit A)
―That on or about the 15th day of June 1996, in was issued by Judge Gil Fernandez, Sr. of the
the municipality of Norzagaray, Province of Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 217,
Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction authorizing the search of the residence of
of this Honorable Court, the above-named appellant at Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray,
accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully Bulacan. On June 15, 1996, at about 7:00 o‘clock
and feloniously have in his possession under his in the morning, a team led by P/Sr. Insp. Adique
custody and control, the following, to wit: went to Norzagaray to serve the warrant.
―a) One (1) pc. Pistol Cal. 45 SN:70G23792 (w/o

Page 59 of 233
Before proceeding to the residence of the in which the search was carried out, claiming
appellant, the police officers requested that the police officers just barged into his
Barangay Chairman Rogelio de Silva and Barangay house without asking permission. Furthermore,
Councilman Aurelio Panteleon to accompany them he claimed that the barangay officials arrived
in the implementation of the warrant. Upon only after the police already had finished the
arrival at the house of appellant, the police search.
officers introduced themselves to the wife of ―After trial and on July 2, 1998, the trial court
appellant. When the appellant came out, P/Sr. rendered a judgment of conviction, the
Insp. Adique informed him that they had a dispositive portion of which reads:
search warrant and that they were authorized ―WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court
to search his house. After appellant gave his finds the accused VICENTE DEL ROSARIO y
permission, the police officers conducted a NICOLAS guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
search of the house. The search yielded the violation of P. D. No. 1866 as charged under the
following items: (a) a caliber .45 pistol with Information dated June 17, 1996. ―Conformably
Serial No. 703792 with five magazines of caliber with the provisions of said law, as amended by
.45 (Exhibits B and H) found at the master‘s Republic Act No. 8294, and pursuant to the
bedroom; (b) five magazines of 5.56 M-16 rifle provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
and two radios (Exhibits C to C-4) found in the the Court hereby sentences the accused to
room of appellant‘s daughter; and (c) a caliber suffer imprisonment of six (6) months of
.22 revolver with Serial No. 48673 (Exhibit F) arresto mayor, as minimum, to six (6) years of
containing 8 pieces of live ammunition (Exhibit prision correctional, as maximum, and to pay a
found in the kitchen of the house. When fine of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00).‖
asked about his license to possess the On July 20, 1998, petitioner appealed to the
firearms, the appellant failed to produce any. Court of Appeals, assailing the decision for
This prompted the police officers to seize the being contrary to facts and the law.
subject firearms. On July 9, 1999, the Court of Appeals
―SPO2 Marion Montezon, one of the searching promulgated its decision affirming with
officers, prepared three separate inventories modification the decision of the trial court as
of the seized items (Exhibits H, M and N). The set out in the opening paragraph of this decision.
inventories were signed by P/Sr. Insp. Adique, On August 10, 1999, petitioner filed with the
the appellant and the barangay officials who Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration
witnessed the search. Thereafter SPO2 and/or new trial. He contended that the
Montezon prepared a certification of orderly certification issued by the Chief, Firearms and
search (Exhibit I) which was signed by the Explosives Division, Philippine National Police
appellant and the barangay officials attesting to stating that the person named therein had not
the orderly conduct of the search. been issued a firearm license referred to a
―For his defense, appellant contends that he had certain Vicente ―Vic‖ del Rosario of barangay
a license for the caliber .45 pistol recovered in Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan, not to him. He
his bedroom and that the other items seized comes from barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray,
during the search including the caliber .22 Bulacan, and that he has a valid firearm license.
revolver, were merely planted by the police On February 22, 2000, the Court of Appeals
officers. Appellant likewise assails the manner denied the motion for reconsideration for lack
Petitioner submits that the search conducted at
his residence was illegal as the search warrant
of merit.
was issued in violation of the Constitution and
Hence, this appeal.
consequently, the evidence seized was

Page 60 of 233
inadmissible. He also submits that he had a
license for the .45 caliber firearm and Branch, Firearms and Explosives Division, Philippine
ammunition seized in his bedroom. The other National Police stating that Vicente ―Vic‖ del
firearm, a .22 caliber revolver seized in a drawer Rosario of Barangay Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan is
at the kitchen of his house, a magazine for 5.56 not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any
cal. Armalite rifle, and two 2-way radios kind and caliber. As against this, petitioner
found in his daughter‘s bedroom, were either submitted that he was not the person referred to
planted by the police or illegally seized, as they in the said certification because he is Vicente del
were not mentioned in the search warrant. Rosario y Nicolas from Barangay Tigbe,
We find the petition impressed with merit. Norzagaray, Bulacan. The Court takes judicial
We define the issues as follows: notice of the existence of both barangay Tigbe
First: whether petitioner had a license for the and barangay Bigte, in Norzagaray, Bulacan. In
.45 caliber Colt pistol and ammunition seized in fact, the trial court erred grievously in not taking
his bedroom; and judicial notice of the barangays within its
Second: whether the .22 caliber revolver territorial jurisdiction, believing the prosecution‘s
seized in a drawer at the kitchen of his house, submission that there was only barangay Tigbe, and
a magazine for 5.56 mm. cal. Armalite rifle and that barangay Bigte in the certification was a
two 2-way radios found in his daughter‘s typographical error. Petitioner presented to the
bedroom, were planted by the police or were head of the raiding team, Police Senior Inspector
illegally seized. Jerito A. Adique, Chief, Operations Branch, PNP
We shall resolve the issues in seriatim. Criminal Investigation Command, a valid firearm
First: The .45 cal. Colt pistol in question license. The court is duty bound to examine the
was duly licensed. evidence assiduously to determine the guilt or
Normally, we do not review the factual findings innocence of the accused. It is true that the court
of the Court of Appeals and the trial courts. may rely on the certification of the Chief,
However, this case comes within the exceptions. Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP on the
The ―findings of fact by the Court of Appeals will absence of a firearm license. However, such
not be disturbed by the Court unless these certification referred to another individual and
findings are not supported by evidence.‖ In this thus, cannot prevail over a valid firearm license
case, the findings of the lower courts even duly issued to petitioner. In this case, petitioner
directly contradict the evidence. Hence, we presented the printed computerized copy of
review the evidence. The trial court held that License No. RCL 1614021915 issued to him on July
the copy of the license presented was blurred, 13, 1993, expiring in January 1995, by the Chief,
and that in any event, the court could rely on Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP under the
the certification dated May 10, 1996, of P/Sr. signature of Reynaldo V. Velasco, Sr. Supt. (GSC)
Inspector Edwin C. Roque, Chief, Records PNP, Chief, FEO. On the dorsal side of the printed
computerized license, there is stamped the words
―Validity of computerized license is extended until
renewed license is printed‖ dated January 17, 1995,
signed by Police Chief Inspector Franklin S.
Alfabeto, Chief, Licence Branch, FEO. Coupled with
this indefinite

Page 61 of 233
extension, petitioner paid the license fees for cancelled or revoked. It served as temporary
the extension of the license for the next two- authority to possess the firearm until the
year period. renewed license was issued. Meantime, the
Consequently, we find that petitioner was the applicant may keep the gun at home pending
holder of a valid firearm license for the .45 renewal of the firearm license and issuance of a
caliber Colt pistol seized in the bedroom of his printed computerized license. He was not
house on June 15, 1996. As required, petitioner obliged to surrender the weapon. Printed at the
presented the license to the head of the raiding dorsal side of the computerized license is a
team, Police Senior Inspector Jerito A. Adique of notice reading:
the Criminal Investigation Division Group, PNP. As ―IMPORTANT
a senior police officer, Senior Inspector Adique This firearm license is valid for two (2)
could easily determine the genuineness and years. Exhibit this license whenever demanded
authenticity of the computerized printed license by proper authority.
presented. He must know the computerized license Surrender your firearm/s to the nearest
printed form. The stamp is clearly visible. He could PNP Unit upon revocation or termination of this
decipher the words and the signature of the license. Under any of the following instances,
authorized signing official of the Firearms and your license shall be revoked for which reason
Explosives Division, your firearm/s is/are subject to confiscation
PNP. He belonged to the same national police and its/their forfeiture in favor of the
organization. government.
Nevertheless, Senior Insp. Adique rejected the a. Failure to notify the Chief of PNP in writing of
license presented because, according to him, it your change of address, and/or qualification. b.
was expired. However, assuming that the license Failure to renew this license by paying annual
presented was expired during the period license, fees, within six (6) months from your
January 1995 to January 1997, still, possession birth month. Renewal of your license can be
of the firearm in question, a .45 caliber Colt made within your birth month or month
pistol with serial No. 70G23792, during that preceding your birth month. Late renewal shall be
period was not illegal. The firearm was kept at penalized with 50% surcharge for the first month
home, not carried outside residence. On June (from the first day to the last day of this month)
15, 1996, at the time of the seizure of the followed by an additional 25% surcharge for all of
firearm in question, possession of firearm with the succeeding five (5) months compounded
an expired license was not considered monthly.
unlawful, provided that the license had not c. Loss of firearm/s through negligence.
been cancelled or revoked. Republic Act No. d. Carrying of firearm/s outside of residence
8294, providing that possession of a firearm without appropriate permit and/or carrying
with an expired license was unlawful took effect firearm/s in prohibited places.
only on July 7, 1997. It could not be given e. Conviction by competent court for a crime
retroactive effect. involving moral turpitude or for any offense
According to firearm licensing regulations, the where the penalty carries an imprisonment of
renewal of a firearm license was automatically more than six (6) months or fine of at least
applied for upon payment of the license fees for P1,000.00.
the renewal period. The expired license was not f. Dismissal for cause from the service.

Page 62 of 233
 Failure to sign license, or sign ID picture residence valid until January 25, 1996, for the
or affix right thumbmark. firearm in question. The Chief, Philippine
3. Unauthorized loan of firearm/s to another National Police would not issue a permit to carry
person is punishable by permanent firearm outside residence unless petitioner had
disqualification and forfeiture of the firearm a valid and subsisting firearm license. Although
in favor of the government. the permit to carry firearm outside residence
4. If termination is due to death, your next of was valid for only one year, and expired on
kin should surrender your firearm/s to the January 25, 1996, such permit is proof that the
nearest PNP Unit. For those within Metro regular firearm license was renewed and
Manila, surrender should be made with FEO, subsisting within the two-year term up to
Camp Crame. January 1997. ―A Permit to Carry Firearm
5. When firearms become permanently Outside Residence presupposes that the party
unserviceable, they should be deposited with to whom it is issued is duly licensed to possess
the firearm in question.‖ Unquestionably, on
the nearest PNP Unit and ownership should be
January 17, 1997, the Chief, Firearms and
relinquished in writing so that firearms may be
Explosives Division, PNP renewed petitioner‘s
disposed of in accordance with law.
license for the .45 cal. Colt pistol in question.
6. Application for the purchase of ammunition Clearly then, petitioner had a valid firearm
should be made in case of a resident of Metro license during the interregnum between January
Manila direct to the Chief, FEO and for 17, 1995, to the issuance of his renewed license
residents of a Province to secure on January 17, 1997.
recommendation letter to the nearest PNP
Finally, there is no rhyme or reason why the
Provincial Command who will thereafter endorse
Court of Appeals and the trial court did not
same to CHIEF, FEO for issuance of the
accept with alacrity the certification dated
permit. License must be presented before an
June 25, 1996, of P/Sr. Inspector Edwin C.
authority to purchase ammo could be obtained.‖
Roque, Chief, Records Branch, Firearms and
Indeed, as heretofore stated, petitioner duly
Explosives Division, PNP that Vicente N. del
paid the license fees for the automatic
Rosario of Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan
renewal of the firearm license for the next
is a licensed/registered holder of Pistol, Colt
two years upon expiration of the license in
caliber .45 with serial number 70G23792,
January 1995, as evidenced by official receipt
covered by computerized license issued dated
No. 7615186, dated January 17, 1995. The
June 15, 1995, with an expiry date January
license would be renewed, as it was, because
1997. Reinforcing the aforementioned
petitioner still possessed the required
certification, petitioner submitted another
qualifications. Meantime, the validity of the
certification dated August 27, 1999, stating
license was extended until the renewed
that Vicente N. del Rosario of Barangay Tigbe,
computerized license was printed. In fact, a
Norzagaray, Bulacan, was issued firearm
renewed license was issued on January 17, 1997,
license No. RL-C1614021915, for caliber .45
for the succeeding two-year period.
Pistol with Serial Number 70G23792, for the
Aside from the clearly valid and subsisting
years covering the period from July 13, 1993 to
license issued to petitioner, on January 25,
January 1995, and the extension appearing at
1995, the Chief, Philippine National Police
the back thereof for the years 1995 to 1997.
issued to him a permit to carry firearm outside

Page 63 of 233
Had the lower courts given full probative value testimony or certification of a representative of
to these official issuances, petitioner would the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit that the
have been correctly acquitted, thus sparing this accused has no license or permit to possess the
Court of valuable time and effort. subject firearm or explosive.‖ x x x We stress that
―In crimes involving illegal possession of the essence of the crime penalized under P. D.
firearm, the prosecution has the burden of 1866 is primarily the accused‘s lack of license or
proving the elements thereof, viz.: (a) the permit to carry or possess the firearm,
existence of the subject firearm and (b) the ammunition or explosive as possession by itself is
fact that the accused who owned or possessed it not prohibited by law.‖ Illegal possession of
does not have the license or permit to possess firearm is a crime punished by special law, a
the same. The essence of the crime of illegal malum prohibitum, and no malice or intent to
possession is the possession, whether actual or commit a crime need be proved. To support a
constructive, of the subject firearm, without conviction, however, there must be possession
coupled with intent to possess (animus
which there can be no conviction for illegal
possidendi) the firearm.
possession. After possession is established by
the prosecution, it would only be a matter of In upholding the prosecution and giving
course to determine whether the accused has a credence to the testimony of police officer
license to possess the firearm.‖ ―Possession of Jerito A. Adigue, the trial court relied on the
any firearm becomes unlawful only if the presumption of regularity in the performance of
necessary permit or license therefor is not first official duties by the police officers. This is a
obtained. The absence of license and legal flagrant error because his testimony is directly
authority constitutes an essential ingredient of contradictory to the official records of the
the offense of illegal possession of firearm and Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP, which
every ingredient or essential element of an must prevail. Morever, the presumption of
offense must be shown by the prosecution by regularity can not prevail over the Constitutional
proof beyond reasonable doubt. Stated presumption of innocence. Right from the start,
otherwise, the negative fact of lack or absence P/Sr. Insp. Jerito A. Adigue was aware that
of license constitutes an essential ingredient of petitioner possessed a valid license for the
the offense which the prosecution has the duty caliber .45 Colt pistol in question. Despite this
not only to allege but also to prove beyond fact, P/Sr. Insp. Adigue proceeded to detain
reasonable doubt.‖ ―To convict an accused for petitioner and charged him with illegal
illegal possession of firearms and explosives possession of firearms. We quote pertinent
under P. D. 1866, as amended, two (2) essential portions of the testimony of petitioner:
elements must be indubitably established, ―Q: What else did Adigue tell you after
viz.: (a) the existence of the subject firearm or showing to him the license of your cal. .45 pistol
explosive which may be proved by the presentation and the alleged cal. .22 found in a drawer in your
of the subject firearm or explosive or by the kitchen?
testimony of witnesses who saw accused in He told me that since my firearm is
possession of the same, and (b) the negative fact licensed, he will return my firearm, give him
that the accused had no license or permit to own ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) and for me to
or possess the firearm or explosive which fact tell who among the people in our barangay have
may be established by the unlicensed firearm, sir.

Page 64 of 233
 How did he say about the ten thousand meaning of said constitutional provision.‖
pesos? ―Supporting jurisprudence thus outlined the
He said ―palit kalabaw na lang tayo‖ sir. following requisites for a search warrant‘s validity,
And what did you answer him? the absence of even one will cause its downright
I told him my firearm is licensed and I do nullification: (1) it must be issued upon probable
not have money, if I have, I will not give him, sir, cause; (2) the probable cause must be
because he was just trying to squeeze determined by the judge himself and not by the
something from me. applicant or any other person; (3) in the
How about the unlicensed firearms in determination of probable cause, the judge must
your barangay which he asked from you? examine, under oath or affirmation, the
I said I do not know any unlicensed firearm complainant and such witnesses as the latter
in our barangay, sir. may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must
About the .22 cal. pistol, what was particularly describe the place to be searched
your answer to him? and persons or things to be seized.‖ Seizure is
I told him that it was not mine, limited to those items particularly described in a
they planted it, sir. valid search warrant. Searching officers are
What did he say next? without discretion regarding what articles they
He said that it is your word against shall seize. Evidence seized on the occasion of
mine, the Court will believe me because I such an unreasonable search and seizure is
am a police officer, sir. tainted and excluded for being the proverbial
What was your comment to what he said? ―fruit of a poisonous tree.‖ In the language of the
I said my firearm is licensed and we have fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in
Courts of law who do not conform with officials evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
like you and then he laughed and laughed, sir.‖ In this case, the firearm was not found
The trial court was obviously misguided when it
inadvertently and in plain view. It was found as a
held that ―it is a matter of judicial notice that a
result of a meticulous search in the kitchen of
caliber .45 firearm can not be licensed to a
petitioner‘s house. This firearm, to emphasize,
private individual.‖ This ruling has no basis either
was not mentioned in the search warrant. Hence,
in law or in jurisprudence.
the seizure was illegal. The seizure without the
Second issue. The seizure of items not
requisite search warrant was in plain violation of
mentioned in the search warrant was illegal.
the law and the Constitution. True that as an
With respect to the .22 caliber revolver with
exception, the police may seize without warrant
Serial No. 48673, that the police raiding team
illegally possessed firearm or any contraband for
found in a drawer at the kitchen of petitioner‘s
that matter, inadvertently found in plain
house, suffice it to say that the firearm was
view. However, ―[t]he seizure of evidence in
not mentioned in the search warrant applied for
‗plain view‘ applies only where the police officer
and issued for the search of petitioner‘s house.
is not searching for evidence against the
―Section 2, Article III of the Constitution lays down
accused, but inadvertently comes across an
the general rule that a search and seizure must
incriminating object.‖ Specifically, seizure of
be carried out through or on the strength of a evidence in ―plain view‖ is justified when there is:
judicial warrant, absent which such search and
seizure becomes ‗unreasonable‘ within the
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid

Page 65 of 233
warrantless arrest in which the police are legally area or has prior justification for an intrusion;
present in the pursuit of their official duties; said officer inadvertently comes across
the evidence was inadvertently discovered (or sees in plain view) a piece of incriminating
by the police who had the right to be where evidence; and (3) it is immediately apparent to
they are; such officer that the item he sees may be
the evidence must be immediately apparent, evidence of a crime or a contraband or is
and otherwise subject to seizure.‖
―plain view‖ justified mere seizure of With particular reference to the two 2-way
evidence without further search. radios that the raiding policemen also seized in
Hence, the petitioner rightly rejected the firearm the bedroom of petitioner‘s daughter, there was
as planted and not belonging to him. The absolutely no reason for the seizure. The radios
prosecution was not able to prove that the firearm were not contraband per se. The National
was in the effective possession or control of the Telecommunications Commission may license two-
petitioner without a license. In illegal possession of way radios at its discretion. The burden is on the
firearms, the possessor must know of the prosecution to show that the two-way radios
existence of the subject firearm in his possession were not licensed. The National
or control. ―In People v. de Gracia, we clarified the Telecommunication Commission is the sole agency
meaning of possession for the purpose of authorized to seize unlicensed two-way
convicting a person under P. D. No. 1866, thus: x x radios. More importantly, admittedly, the two-
x ‗In the present case, a distinction should be made way radios were not mentioned in the search
between criminal intent and intent to possess. warrant. We condemn the seizure as illegal and a
While mere possession without criminal intent is plain violation of a citizen‘s right. Worse, the
sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession petitioner was not charged with illegal
of a firearm, it must still be shown that there was possession of the two-way radios. Consequently,
animus possidendi or an intent to possess on the the confiscation of the two 2-way radios was
part of the accused.‘ x x x x Hence, the kind of clearly illegal. The possession of such radios is
possession punishable under P. D. No. 1866 is one not even included in the charge of illegal
where the accused possessed a firearm either possession of firearms (violation of P. D. No.
physically or constructively with animus possidendi 1866, as amended) alleged in the Information.
or intention to possess the same.‖
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby REVERSES the
That is the meaning of animus possidendi. In the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. CR
absence of animus possidendi, the possessor of a No. 22255, promulgated on July 09, 1999.
firearm incurs no criminal liability. The Court ACQUITS petitioner Vicente del
The same is true with respect to the 5.56 cal. Rosario y Nicolas of the charge of violation of P.
magazine found in the bedroom of petitioner‘s D. No. 1866, as amended by R. A. No. 8294
daughter. The seizure was invalid and the seized (illegal possession of firearms and ammunition),
items were inadmissible in evidence. As explained in Criminal Case No. 800-M-96, Regional Trial
in People v. Doria, the ―plain view‖ doctrine Court, Bulacan, Branch 20, Malolos.
applies when the following requisites concur: (1) Costs de oficio.
the law enforcement officer is in a position The Chief, Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP
where he has a clear view of a particular shall return to petitioner his caliber .45 Colt

Page 66 of 233
pistol, with Serial Number No. 70G23792, the Prosecutor Eufracio S. Marquez of Bulacan filed
five (5) extra magazines and twenty seven (27) with the Regional Trial Court, Bulacan, Malolos an
rounds of live ammunition, and the two 2-way Information charging petitioner Vicente del
radios confiscated from him. The Chief, Rosario y Nicolas with violation of P. D. No. 1866,
Philippine National Police, or his duly authorized as follows:
representative shall show to this Court proof of ―That on or about the 15th day of June 1996, in
compliance herewith within fifteen (15) days the municipality of Norzagaray, Province of
from notice. The .22 caliber revolver with Serial Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
No. 48673, and eight (8) live ammunition and the of this Honorable Court, the above-named
magazine for 5.56 mm. caliber Armalite rifle are accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
confiscated in favor of the government. SO and feloniously have in his possession under his
ORDERED. custody and control, the following, to wit:
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, and Ynares- ―a) One (1) pc. Pistol Cal. 45 SN:70G23792 (w/o
Santiago, JJ., concur. license)
―b) One (1) pc. Revolver Cal. 22 SN:48673 (w/o
license)
Q: What is discretionary notice? ―c) Twenty Seven (27) rds live ammos. For cal.
Discretionary – a court may take judicial notice of
matters which are: .45
1. Of public knowledge; ―d) Five (5) pcs. Magazines for cal. .45
2. Capable of unquestionable demonstration; or
―e) Eight (8) rds live ammunitions for cal. 22
3. Ought to be known to judges because of their judicial
functions (Sec. 2). ―f) Five (5) pcs. Magazines short for cal. 5.56
(M16)
FIRST DIVISION ―g) Twenty (20) rds live ammunitions for cal 5.56
[G.R. No. 142295. May 31, 2001] VICENTE ―without first having obtained a proper license
DEL ROSARIO y NICOLAS, petitioner, vs. therefor.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. ―Contrary to law.‖
On June 25, 1996, the trial court arraigned the
DECISION petitioner. He pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued.
PARDO, J.: The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are
Petitioner Vicente del Rosario y Nicolas appeals as follows:
via certiorari from a decision of the Court of ―Sometime in May 1996, the police received a
Appeals affirming with modification the decision report that accused-appellant Vicente del
of the Regional Trial Court, Bulacan, Branch 20, Rosario was in possession of certain firearms
Malolos, and finding him guilty beyond reasonable without the necessary licenses. Acting upon the
doubt of violation of P. D. No. 1866, as amended by report, P/Sr. Insp. Jerito Adique of the PNP
Republic Act No. 8294 (illegal possession of Criminal Investigation Group at Camp Olivas,
firearms), sentencing him to four Pampanga inquired from the PNP Firearms and
years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of Explosive Division whether or not the report
prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years, was true. On May 10, 1996, P/Sr. Insp. Edwin C.
eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision Roque of the PNP Firearms and Explosives
mayor, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Division issued a certification (Exhibit L) stating
P30,000.00. that per records in his office, the appellant is
On June 17, 1996, Assistant Provincial

Page 67 of 233
not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any inventories were signed by P/Sr. Insp. Adique,
kind and caliber. Armed with the said the appellant and the barangay officials who
certification, P/Sr. Insp. Adique applied for a witnessed the search. Thereafter SPO2
search warrant to enable his team to search the Montezon prepared a certification of orderly
house of appellant. search (Exhibit I) which was signed by the
―On June 13, 1996, a search warrant (Exhibit A) appellant and the barangay officials attesting
was issued by Judge Gil Fernandez, Sr. of the to the orderly conduct of the search.
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 217, ―For his defense, appellant contends that he
authorizing the search of the residence of had a license for the caliber .45 pistol
appellant at Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, recovered in his bedroom and that the other
Bulacan. On June 15, 1996, at about 7:00 o‘clock items seized during the search including the
in the morning, a team led by P/Sr. Insp. Adique caliber .22 revolver, were merely planted by the
went to Norzagaray to serve the warrant. police officers. Appellant likewise assails the
Before proceeding to the residence of the manner in which the search was carried out,
appellant, the police officers requested claiming that the police officers just barged
Barangay Chairman Rogelio de Silva and Barangay into his house without asking permission.
Councilman Aurelio Panteleon to accompany them Furthermore, he claimed that the barangay
in the implementation of the warrant. Upon officials arrived only after the police already
arrival at the house of appellant, the police had finished the search.
officers introduced themselves to the wife of ―After trial and on July 2, 1998, the trial court
appellant. When the appellant came out, P/Sr. rendered a judgment of conviction, the
Insp. Adique informed him that they had a dispositive portion of which reads:
search warrant and that they were authorized ―WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court
to search his house. After appellant gave his finds the accused VICENTE DEL ROSARIO y
permission, the police officers conducted a NICOLAS guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
search of the house. The search yielded the violation of P. D. No. 1866 as charged under the
following items: (a) a caliber .45 pistol with Information dated June 17, 1996. ―Conformably
Serial No. 703792 with five magazines of caliber with the provisions of said law, as amended by
.45 (Exhibits B and H) found at the master‘s Republic Act No. 8294, and pursuant to the
bedroom; (b) five magazines of 5.56 M-16 rifle provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
and two radios (Exhibits C to C-4) found in the the Court hereby sentences the accused to
room of appellant‘s daughter; and (c) a caliber suffer imprisonment of six (6) months of
.22 revolver with Serial No. 48673 (Exhibit F) arresto mayor, as minimum, to six (6) years of
containing 8 pieces of live ammunition (Exhibit prision correctional, as maximum, and to pay a
found in the kitchen of the house. When fine of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00).‖ On
asked about his license to possess the July 20, 1998, petitioner appealed to the Court
firearms, the appellant failed to produce any. of Appeals, assailing the decision for being
This prompted the police officers to seize the contrary to facts and the law.
subject firearms. On July 9, 1999, the Court of Appeals
―SPO2 Marion Montezon, one of the searching promulgated its decision affirming with
officers, prepared three separate inventories modification the decision of the trial court as
of the seized items (Exhibits H, M and N). The set out in the opening paragraph of this decision.

Page 68 of 233
On August 10, 1999, petitioner filed with the
Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration Normally, we do not review the factual findings of
and/or new trial. He contended that the the Court of Appeals and the trial courts.
certification issued by the Chief, Firearms and However, this case comes within the exceptions.
Explosives Division, Philippine National Police The ―findings of fact by the Court of Appeals will not
stating that the person named therein had not be disturbed by the Court unless these findings are
been issued a firearm license referred to a not supported by evidence.‖ In this case, the findings
certain Vicente ―Vic‖ del Rosario of barangay of the lower courts even directly contradict the
Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan, not to him. He evidence. Hence, we review the evidence. The trial
comes from barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, court held that the copy of the license presented
Bulacan, and that he has a valid firearm license. was blurred, and that in any event, the court could
On February 22, 2000, the Court of Appeals rely on the certification dated May 10, 1996, of
denied the motion for reconsideration for lack P/Sr. Inspector Edwin C. Roque, Chief, Records
of merit. Branch, Firearms and Explosives Division, Philippine
Hence, this appeal. National Police stating that Vicente ―Vic‖ del
Petitioner submits that the search conducted at Rosario of Barangay Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan is
his residence was illegal as the search warrant was not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any
issued in violation of the Constitution and kind and caliber. As against this, petitioner
consequently, the evidence seized was submitted that he was not the person referred to
inadmissible. He also submits that he had a license in the said certification because he is Vicente del
for the .45 caliber firearm and ammunition seized Rosario y Nicolas from Barangay Tigbe,
in his bedroom. The other firearm, a .22 caliber Norzagaray, Bulacan. The Court takes judicial
revolver seized in a drawer at the kitchen of his notice of the existence of both barangay Tigbe
house, a magazine for 5.56 and barangay Bigte, in Norzagaray, Bulacan. In
cal. Armalite rifle, and two 2-way radios fact, the trial court erred grievously in not taking
found in his daughter‘s bedroom, were either judicial notice of the barangays within its
planted by the police or illegally seized, as they territorial jurisdiction, believing the prosecution‘s
were not mentioned in the search warrant. submission that there was only barangay Tigbe, and
We find the petition impressed with that barangay Bigte in the certification was a
merit. We define the issues as follows: typographical error. Petitioner presented to the
First: whether petitioner had a license for the head of the raiding team, Police Senior Inspector
.45 caliber Colt pistol and ammunition seized in Jerito A. Adique, Chief, Operations Branch, PNP
his bedroom; and Criminal Investigation Command, a valid firearm
Second: whether the .22 caliber revolver license. The court is duty bound to examine the
seized in a drawer at the kitchen of his house, evidence assiduously to determine the guilt or
a magazine for 5.56 mm. cal. Armalite rifle and innocence of the accused. It is true that the court
two 2-way radios found in his daughter‘s may rely on the certification of the Chief,
bedroom, were planted by the police or were Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP on the
illegally seized. absence of a firearm license. However, such
We shall resolve the issues in seriatim. certification referred to another individual and
First: The .45 cal. Colt pistol in question thus, cannot prevail over a valid firearm license
was duly licensed. duly issued to

Page 69 of 233
petitioner. In this case, petitioner presented 15, 1996, at the time of the seizure of the
the printed computerized copy of License No. firearm in question, possession of firearm with
RCL 1614021915 issued to him on July 13, 1993, an expired license was not considered
expiring in January 1995, by the Chief, Firearms unlawful, provided that the license had not
and Explosives Division, PNP under the signature been cancelled or revoked. Republic Act No.
of Reynaldo V. Velasco, Sr. Supt. (GSC) PNP, 8294, providing that possession of a firearm
Chief, FEO. On the dorsal side of the printed with an expired license was unlawful took effect
computerized license, there is stamped the only on July 7, 1997. It could not be given
words ―Validity of computerized l icense is retroactive effect.
extended until renewed license is printed‖ dated According to firearm licensing regulations, the
January 17, 1995, signed by Police Chief renewal of a firearm license was automatically
Inspector Franklin S. Alfabeto, Chief, Licence applied for upon payment of the license fees
Branch, FEO. Coupled with this indefinite for the renewal period. The expired license was
extension, petitioner paid the license fees for not cancelled or revoked. It served as
the extension of the license for the next two- temporary authority to possess the firearm
year period. until the renewed license was issued. Meantime,
Consequently, we find that petitioner was the the applicant may keep the gun at home pending
holder of a valid firearm license for the .45 renewal of the firearm license and issuance of a
caliber Colt pistol seized in the bedroom of his printed computerized license. He was not
house on June 15, 1996. As required, petitioner obliged to surrender the weapon. Printed at the
presented the license to the head of the raiding dorsal side of the computerized license is a
team, Police Senior Inspector Jerito A. Adique of notice reading:
the Criminal Investigation Division Group, PNP. As ―IMPORTANT
a senior police officer, Senior Inspector Adique This firearm license is valid for two (2)
could easily determine the genuineness and years. Exhibit this license whenever demanded
authenticity of the computerized printed license by proper authority.
presented. He must know the computerized license Surrender your firearm/s to the nearest
printed form. The stamp is clearly visible. He could PNP Unit upon revocation or termination of this
decipher the words and the signature of the license. Under any of the following instances,
authorized signing official of the Firearms and your license shall be revoked for which reason
Explosives Division, your firearm/s is/are subject to confiscation
PNP. He belonged to the same national police and its/their forfeiture in favor of the
organization. government.
Nevertheless, Senior Insp. Adique rejected the a. Failure to notify the Chief of PNP in writing of
license presented because, according to him, it your change of address, and/or qualification. b.
was expired. However, assuming that the license Failure to renew this license by paying annual
presented was expired during the period license, fees, within six (6) months from your
January 1995 to January 1997, still, possession birth month. Renewal of your license can be
of the firearm in question, a .45 caliber Colt made within your birth month or month
pistol with serial No. 70G23792, during that preceding your birth month. Late renewal shall be
period was not illegal. The firearm was kept at penalized with 50% surcharge for the first
home, not carried outside residence. On June month (from the first day to the

Page 70 of 233
last day of this month) followed by an additional as evidenced by official receipt No.
25% surcharge for all of the succeeding five (5) 7615186, dated January 17, 1995. The
months compounded monthly. license would be renewed, as it was, because
Loss of firearm/s through negligence. petitioner still possessed the required
Carrying of firearm/s outside of residence qualifications. Meantime, the validity of the
without appropriate permit and/or carrying license was extended until the renewed
firearm/s in prohibited places. computerized license was printed. In fact, a
Conviction by competent court for a crime renewed license was issued on January 17, 1997,
involving moral turpitude or for any offense for the succeeding two-year period.
where the penalty carries an imprisonment Aside from the clearly valid and subsisting
of more than six (6) months or fine of at license issued to petitioner, on January 25,
least P1,000.00. 1995, the Chief, Philippine National Police
Dismissal for cause from the service. issued to him a permit to carry firearm outside
Failure to sign license, or sign ID picture residence valid until January 25, 1996, for the
or affix right thumbmark. firearm in question. The Chief, Philippine
3. Unauthorized loan of firearm/s to another National Police would not issue a permit to carry
person is punishable by permanent firearm outside residence unless petitioner had
disqualification and forfeiture of the firearm a valid and subsisting firearm license. Although
in favor of the government. the permit to carry firearm outside residence
4. If termination is due to death, your next of was valid for only one year, and expired on
kin should surrender your firearm/s to the January 25, 1996, such permit is proof that the
nearest PNP Unit. For those within Metro regular firearm license was renewed and
Manila, surrender should be made with FEO, subsisting within the two-year term up to
Camp Crame. January 1997. ―A Permit to Carry Firearm
5. When firearms become permanently Outside Residence presupposes that the party
unserviceable, they should be deposited with to whom it is issued is duly licensed to possess
the nearest PNP Unit and ownership should be the firearm in question.‖ Unquestionably, on
relinquished in writing so that firearms may be January 17, 1997, the Chief, Firearms and
disposed of in accordance with law. Explosives Division, PNP renewed petitioner‘s
6. Application for the purchase of ammunition license for the .45 cal. Colt pistol in question.
should be made in case of a resident of Metro Clearly then, petitioner had a valid firearm
Manila direct to the Chief, FEO and for license during the interregnum between January
residents of a Province to secure 17, 1995, to the issuance of his renewed license
recommendation letter to the nearest PNP on January 17, 1997.
Provincial Command who will thereafter endorse Finally, there is no rhyme or reason why the
same to CHIEF, FEO for issuance of the Court of Appeals and the trial court did not
permit. License must be presented before an accept with alacrity the certification dated
authority to purchase ammo could be obtained.‖ June 25, 1996, of P/Sr. Inspector Edwin C.
Indeed, as heretofore stated, petitioner duly Roque, Chief, Records Branch, Firearms and
paid the license fees for the automatic renewal Explosives Division, PNP that Vicente N. del
of the firearm license for the next two years Rosario of Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan
upon expiration of the license in January 1995, is a licensed/registered holder of Pistol, Colt

Page 71 of 233
caliber .45 with serial number 70G23792, not only to allege but also to prove beyond
covered by computerized license issued dated reasonable doubt.‖ ―To convict an accused for
June 15, 1995, with an expiry date January illegal possession of firearms and explosives
1997. Reinforcing the aforementioned under P. D. 1866, as amended, two (2) essential
certification, petitioner submitted another elements must be indubitably established,
certification dated August 27, 1999, stating viz.: (a) the existence of the subject firearm
that Vicente N. del Rosario of Barangay Tigbe, or explosive which may be proved by the
Norzagaray, Bulacan, was issued firearm license presentation of the subject firearm or explosive
No. RL-C1614021915, for caliber .45 Pistol with or by the testimony of witnesses who saw
Serial Number 70G23792, for the years accused in possession of the same, and (b) the
covering the period from July 13, 1993 to negative fact that the accused had no license or
January 1995, and the extension appearing at permit to own or possess the firearm or
the back thereof for the years 1995 to 1997. explosive which fact may be established by the
Had the lower courts given full probative value testimony or certification of a representative of
to these official issuances, petitioner would the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit that the
have been correctly acquitted, thus sparing this accused has no license or permit to possess the
Court of valuable time and effort. subject firearm or explosive.‖ x x x We stress
―In crimes involving illegal possession of that the essence of the crime penalized under P.
firearm, the prosecution has the burden of D. 1866 is primarily the accused‘s lack of license
proving the elements thereof, viz.: (a) the or permit to carry or possess the firearm,
existence of the subject firearm and (b) the ammunition or explosive as possession by itself is
fact that the accused who owned or possessed it not prohibited by law.‖ Illegal possession of
does not have the license or permit to possess firearm is a crime punished by special law, a
the same. The essence of the crime of illegal malum prohibitum, and no malice or intent to
possession is the possession, whether actual or commit a crime need be proved. To support a
constructive, of the subject firearm, without conviction, however, there must be possession
which there can be no conviction for illegal coupled with intent to possess (animus
possession. After possession is established by possidendi) the firearm.
the prosecution, it would only be a matter of In upholding the prosecution and giving
course to determine whether the accused has a credence to the testimony of police officer
license to possess the firearm.‖ ―Possession of Jerito A. Adigue, the trial court relied on the
any firearm becomes unlawful only if the presumption of regularity in the performance of
necessary permit or license therefor is not first official duties by the police officers. This is a
obtained. The absence of license and legal flagrant error because his testimony is directly
authority constitutes an essential ingredient of contradictory to the official records of the
the offense of illegal possession of firearm and Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP, which
every ingredient or essential element of an must prevail. Morever, the presumption of
offense must be shown by the prosecution by regularity can not prevail over the Constitutional
proof beyond reasonable doubt. Stated presumption of innocence. Right from the start,
otherwise, the negative fact of lack or absence P/Sr. Insp. Jerito A. Adigue was aware that
of license constitutes an essential ingredient of petitioner possessed a valid license for the
the offense which the prosecution has the duty caliber .45 Colt pistol in question. Despite this

Page 72 of 233
fact, P/Sr. Insp. Adigue proceeded to detain Second issue. The seizure of items not
petitioner and charged him with illegal mentioned in the search warrant was illegal.
possession of firearms. We quote pertinent With respect to the .22 caliber revolver with
portions of the testimony of petitioner: Serial No. 48673, that the police raiding team
―Q: What else did Adigue tell you after found in a drawer at the kitchen of petitioner‘s
showing to him the license of your cal. .45 pistol house, suffice it to say that the firearm was not
and the alleged cal. .22 found in a drawer in your mentioned in the search warrant applied for and
kitchen? issued for the search of petitioner‘s house.
He told me that since my firearm is ―Section 2, Article III of the Constitution lays down
licensed, he will return my firearm, give him the general rule that a search and seizure must
ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) and for me to be carried out through or on the strength of a
tell who among the people in our barangay have judicial warrant, absent which such search and
unlicensed firearm, sir. seizure becomes ‗unreasonable‘ within the
meaning of said constitutional provision.‖
How did he say about the ten thousand
―Supporting jurisprudence thus outlined the
pesos? following requisites for a search warrant‘s validity,
He said ―palit kalabaw na lang tayo‖ sir.
the absence of even one will cause its downright
And what did you answer him?
nullification: (1) it must be issued upon probable
I told him my firearm is licensed and I do
cause; (2) the probable cause must be
not have money, if I have, I will not give him, sir,
determined by the judge himself and not by the
because he was just trying to squeeze
applicant or any other person; (3) in the
something from me.
determination of probable cause, the judge must
How about the unlicensed firearms in
examine, under oath or affirmation, the
your barangay which he asked from you?
complainant and such witnesses as the latter
I said I do not know any unlicensed firearm
may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must
in our barangay, sir.
particularly describe the place to be searched
About the .22 cal. pistol, what was your
and persons or things to be seized.‖ Seizure is
answer to him?
limited to those items particularly described in a
I told him that it was not mine, they
valid search warrant. Searching officers are
planted it, sir.
without discretion regarding what articles they
What did he say next?
shall seize. Evidence seized on the occasion of
He said that it is your word against mine,
such an unreasonable search and seizure is
the Court will believe me because I am a
tainted and excluded for being the proverbial
police officer, sir.
―fruit of a poisonous tree.‖ In the language of the
What was your comment to what he said?
fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in
I said my firearm is licensed and we have
evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
Courts of law who do not conform with officials
like you and then he laughed and laughed, sir.‖ In this case, the firearm was not found
The trial court was obviously misguided when it inadvertently and in plain view. It was found as a
held that ―it is a matter of judicial notice that a result of a meticulous search in the kitchen of
caliber .45 firearm can not be licensed to a petitioner‘s house. This firearm, to emphasize,
private individual.‖ This ruling has no basis either in was not mentioned in the search warrant. Hence,
law or in jurisprudence. the seizure was illegal. The seizure without the

Page 73 of 233
requisite search warrant was in plain violation of physically or constructively with animus
the law and the Constitution. True that as an possidendi or intention to possess the same.‖
exception, the police may seize without warrant That is the meaning of animus possidendi. In the
illegally possessed firearm or any contraband absence of animus possidendi, the possessor of a
for that matter, inadvertently found in plain firearm incurs no criminal liability.
view. However, ―[t]he seizure of evidence in The same is true with respect to the 5.56 cal.
‗plain view‘ applies only where the police officer magazine found in the bedroom of petitioner‘s
is not searching for evidence against the daughter. The seizure was invalid and the seized
accused, but inadvertently comes across an items were inadmissible in evidence. As explained
incriminating object.‖ Specifically, seizure of in People v. Doria, the ―plain view‖ doctrine
evidence in ―plain view‖ is justified when there is: applies when the following requisites concur: (1)
the law enforcement officer is in a position
a prior valid intrusion based on the valid where he has a clear view of a particular area or
warrantless arrest in which the police are legally has prior justification for an intrusion;
present in the pursuit of their official duties; said officer inadvertently comes across (or
the evidence was inadvertently discovered by sees in plain view) a piece of incriminating
the police who had the right to be where they evidence; and (3) it is immediately apparent to
are; such officer that the item he sees may be
the evidence must be immediately apparent, evidence of a crime or a contraband or is
and otherwise subject to seizure.‖
―plain view‖ justified mere seizure of With particular reference to the two 2-way
evidence without further search. radios that the raiding policemen also seized in
Hence, the petitioner rightly rejected the firearm the bedroom of petitioner‘s daughter, there was
as planted and not belonging to him. The absolutely no reason for the seizure. The radios
prosecution was not able to prove that the firearm were not contraband per se. The National
was in the effective possession or control of the Telecommunications Commission may license two-
petitioner without a license. In illegal possession of way radios at its discretion. The burden is on the
firearms, the possessor must know of the prosecution to show that the two-way radios
existence of the subject firearm in his possession were not licensed. The National
or control. ―In People v. de Gracia, we clarified the Telecommunication Commission is the sole agency
meaning of possession for the purpose of authorized to seize unlicensed two-way
convicting a person under P. D. No. 1866, thus: x x radios. More importantly, admittedly, the two-
x ‗In the present case, a distinction should be made way radios were not mentioned in the search
between criminal intent and intent to possess. warrant. We condemn the seizure as illegal and a
While mere possession without criminal intent is plain violation of a citizen‘s right. Worse, the
sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession petitioner was not charged with illegal
of a firearm, it must still be shown that there was possession of the two-way radios. Consequently,
animus possidendi or an intent to possess on the the confiscation of the two 2-way radios was
part of the accused.‘ x x x x Hence, the kind of clearly illegal. The possession of such radios is
possession punishable under P. D. No. 1866 is one not even included in the charge of illegal
where the accused possessed a firearm either possession of firearms (violation of P. D. No.
1866, as amended) alleged in the

Page 74 of 233
Information. of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby REVERSES 167, in Criminal Case No. 86163, convicting him
the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. of robbery, thus:
R. CR No. 22255, promulgated on July 09, 1999.
The Court ACQUITS petitioner Vicente del WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
Rosario y Nicolas of the charge of violation of finding the accused S/Sgt. Elmer Vergara
P. D. No. 1866, as amended by R. A. No. 8294 GUILTY beyond peradventure of doubt of the
(illegal possession of firearms and ammunition), crime of Robbery defined and penalized under
in Criminal Case No. 800-M-96, Regional Trial Art. 294, No. (5), in relation to Art. 295, of the
Court, Bulacan, Branch 20, Malolos. Costs de Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to
oficio. an indeterminate penalty of Four (4) years of
The Chief, Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP prision correcional, as minimum, to Eight (8)
shall return to petitioner his caliber .45 Colt years and Twenty-One (21) days of prision
pistol, with Serial Number No. 70G23792, the mayor , as maximum; to indemnify the offended
five (5) extra magazines and twenty seven (27) party in the sum of P106,000.00; to suffer all
rounds of live ammunition, and the two 2-way the accessory penalties appurtenant thereto;
radios confiscated from him. The Chief, and, to pay the Costs.
Philippine National Police, or his duly authorized
representative shall show to this Court proof of SO ORDERED.
compliance herewith within fifteen (15) days
from notice. The .22 caliber revolver with Serial The facts of the case are as follows:
No. 48673, and eight (8) live ammunition and the
magazine for 5.56 mm. caliber Armalite rifle are On March 19, 1991, an information charging
confiscated in favor of the government. SO S/Sgt. Elmer Vergara, PC, C1C Nicasio Custodio y
ORDERED. Abrera, PC and Leonido Losanes y Vasquez of
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, and Ynares- robbery in band was filed by the Rizal Provincial
Santiago, JJ., concur. Prosecutor‘s Office with the RTC of Pasig,
Metro Manila. The information reads:

th
SECOND DIVISION That on or about the 19 day of October, 1990,
in the Municipality of Mandaluyong, Metro
[G.R. No. 128720. January 23, 2002] Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named
S/SGT. ELMER T. VERGARA, petitioner, vs. accused, conspiring and confederating together
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. with John Doe, whose true identity and present
whereabout is still unknown, and mutually helping
DECISION and aiding one another, armed with high powered
handguns, with intent of gain, by means of
QUISUMBING, J.: violence and intimidation employed upon the
person of one Catherine F. Manalo, an employee
Petitioner seeks the reversal of the Court of of J & E Manalo Construction Co., Inc., who was
Appeals‘ decision dated October 31, 1996, in CA- then aboard a private car, did then and there
G.R. No. CR 18318, which affirmed the judgment wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and

Page 75 of 233
divest from Catherine F. Manalo the payroll took the payroll money of the J & E Manalo
money amounting to P89,000.00 belonging to J & Construction Co., Inc., and her gold necklace, his
E Manalo Construction Company, Inc. and a gold participation being that of the person who
necklace with two (2) pendants, 18K valued at pointed the gun at her and got the keys to her
P17,000 belonging to Catherine F. Manalo, to the car; she remembered him to be about 5‘6‖ to 5‘7‖
damage and prejudice of J & E Manalo in height, with dark features, chubby and heavily
Construction Company, Inc. and Catherine F. built.
Manalo in the aforementioned amounts of
P89,000.00 and P17, 000.00 respectively. Petitioner claimed an alibi, while denying any
participation in the offense. The trial court
Contrary to law. summed up his defense as follows:

Although all the suspects were brought into Accused Elmer Vergara lays a serious doubt on his
police custody, petitioner‘s co -accused managed identity as one of the perpetrators of the robbery
to extricate themselves from police control and ‗hold -up‘ in question…Claiming innocence, he
remain at large. Only petitioner was left to face presented evidence showing that he was at some
the charges. On May 21, 1993, he was arraigned. other place during the occurrence of the robbery.
With the assistance of counsel de oficio, he His alleged presence at the Pacita Complex at San
pleaded ―not guilty‖ to the Pedro, Laguna, being a member of the narcotic
charges. Following the pre-trial conference on operatives engaged in a surveillance of a suspected
August 20, 1993, trial on the merits ensued. drug pusher, was corroborated by no less than the
team leader Captain, now Major Christopher Laxa.
The prosecution relied on the positive Major Christopher Laxa was definite in declaring
identification made by private complainant who that S/Sgt. Elmer Vergara was physically present
testified in court. As found by the court a quo: inside the Pizza Hut restaurant at Pacita Complex,
San Pedro Laguna, at about 3:00 o‘clock in the
xxx afternoon of October 19, 1990 and, that he did
not leave the area from the time of their arrival at
On October 27, 1990, during the police line-up around 1:00 o‘clock in the morning until 11:30 o‘clock
at the San Juan Police Station…she positively in the evening.…
identified herein accused Elmer Vergara as the
armed man who pointed the gun at her after he
approached the left side of the car and The trial court chose to believe the prosecution
wearing an army fatigue uniform with black hat and disregarded petitioner‘s alibi. On March 29,
and who got her car keys, thereafter, she 1995, it convicted Vergara not of robbery in
executed another statement implicating band as charged in the information, however, but
accused Elmer Vergara as one of the four of robbery as defined and penalized under
armed men who robbe[d] her. Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. As
explained by the trial court:
On March 16, 1994, during the hearing of the
case, she (Catherine F. Manalo) again pointed to Under Art. 295 of the Revised Penal Code
accused Elmer Vergara to be one of the a robbery shall be deemed to have been
robbery/hold-up gang members (HULIDAP), who committed by a band when more than three

Page 76 of 233
armed malefactors (underline supplied) take part of Catherine Manalo and the denial of accused
in its commission. The prosecution‘s evidence Elmer Vergara, the former deserves more
demonstrates that only three (3) in the group credence, notwithstanding minor inaccuracies as
were armed, although there was another member to the height and weight and styling of the hair
inside the car at the time of the commission. of accused Elmer Vergara.
However, there is no indication that the person
inside the car was armed. Conceding in gratia xxx
argumenti, therefore, that the group of the
accused Elmer Vergara was composed of more Conceding the fact that accused Elmer Vergara
than three (3) malefactors, the evidence was in San Pedro, Laguna, it is not physically
disclosed that only three (3) were armed, and impossible for him to have gone to Pasig, Metro
hence, the crime cannot be considered to have Manila, considering that he had an available
been committed by a band and does not come means of transportation. The distance between
within the purview of Article 296 of the Revised San Pedro, Laguna where the accused claimed he
Penal Code, which requires more than three (3) was at the time the robbery took place, and
armed malefactors to constitute the crime of Pasig, Metro Manila, where the crime was
robbery committed by a band. committed, is less than an hour drive by car and
can easily be reached by one who, like the
In convicting petitioner for robbery, the trial accused Elmer Vergara, had a car available to
court stated: him.

Both the defenses of negative identification and Aggrieved by his conviction, Vergara elevated
alibi are unavailing. Contrary to these the case to the Court of Appeals, docketed as
protestations, complainant Catherine Manalo had CA-G.R. CR No. 18318, on the sole issue of
a vivid recollection of the identity of S/Sgt. whether or not petitioner committed the crime
Elmer Vergara as the person who accosted her charged against him. The appeal was anchored
on the left side of the car or at the driver‘s seat on two grounds: (1) the alleged dubious
and who poked a gun at her neck and was also identification of Vergara by the private
the one who took the key from the ignition. It complainant, and (2) failure of the trial court to
was a clear day, 3:00 o‘clock in the afternoon, appreciate Vergara‘s alibi that he was on an
and the probability of a poor recollection is intelligence mission in San Pedro, Laguna at the
nil. Catherine Manalo was able to see Sgt. Elmer time the alleged robbery, specially in view of the
Vergara while on board the Gallant (sic) Sigma Car corroboration of his alibi by his commanding
when it was trailing her car and also at the time it officer.
was passing her car until her path was blocked and
the three (3) armed malefactors disembarked. Finding no reversible error in the findings and
She had sufficient time to recollect the faces of conclusions of the trial court, the Court of
the persons who approached the car and their Appeals affirmed Vergara‘s conviction. The
respective positions. There is no reason to doubt appellate court said:
her unerring testimony that she was able to
positively remember and then later on identified In the case at bench (sic), the prosecution had
the robbers. Between the positive declaration proven the identity of accused-appellant beyond
reasonable doubt through the testimonies of

Page 77 of 233
prosecution witnesses Villanueva and Manalo. witnesses presented by the prosecution and
Appellant failed to controvert the testimony of the defense. Crucial in this regard is the
prosecution witness Villanueva that accused- identification made by the complaining witness,
appellant was pointed to by witness Manalo out Catherine Manalo, of the petitioner, Sgt. Elmer
of nine (9) persons. Thus, the trial court had no T. Vergara, as one of the malefactors.
reason to consider the identification made by
witness Manalo in the police station as one that Petitioner vehemently insists that the
stemmed from a suggestive identification contradictions in Catherine Manalo‘s testimony are
procedure used by the police. not mere minor inconsistencies. According to
petitioner, while private complainant below
described him as around 5‘6‖-5‘7‖ tall, weighing
The trial court was correct in regarding the about 160-165 lbs., and sporting a military
difference in height as a minor matter. What is haircut; in truth, he is only 5‘3-1/2‖ tall, tips the
vital is that the witness recognized accused in scale at less than 150 lbs., and had long hair at
the line-up and reiterated her identification of the time of the incident. Given these
accused-appellant in open court. In the absence discrepancies, petitioner insists that private
of ill-motive on her part to testify falsely complainant below must have been referring to
against accused-appellant, the trial court is another person and not to him.
correct in giving full faith and credence to the
testimony of witness Manalo. Basically, petitioner‘s contention raises questions
of facts, which traditionally fall within the
Petitioner timely filed a motion for province of the trial court and the Court of
reconsideration, but it was denied by the Appeals. After reviewing the records of this
appellate court in its resolution of March 26, case, we find no reason to disturb the
1997. assessment of the trial court of all the pieces of
evidence submitted before it, particularly as its
Insisting on his innocence, petitioner findings and conclusions had been affirmed by
now submits to this Court the following the appellate court.
sole assignment of error:
In this case, petitioner has been convicted on
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS the basis of the positive identification made by
GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING MORE CREDENCE private complainant below. As the Court of
TO THE TESTIMONY OF COMPLAINANT Appeals stressed, petitioner was categorically
CATHERINE MANALO THAN THE identified by the private complainant not just
TESTIMONIES OF THE ACCUSED AND HIS once, but twice, as one of the armed men who
WITNESS AND CONSEQUENTLY FURTHER robbed her. The first time was during the police
ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY line-up of nine (9) persons on October 27, 1990
OF THE CRIME BEYOND REASONABLE and the second time was during her testimony in
DOUBT. open court. The records show that private
complainant had no motive to falsely testify
The issue of whether or not the guilt of the against petitioner. We agree with the lower
accused had been proven beyond reasonable courts that the discrepancies in the private
doubt hinges, in our view, on the credibility of complainant‘s description are not decisive. Her

Page 78 of 233
description was based on visual estimates, which Judicial notice could be taken of the travel time
cannot be expected to be perfect. What is by car from San Pedro, Laguna to Pasig City,
decisive is that petitioner was positively and Metro Manila, because it is capable of
categorically identified as one of the robbers, unquestionable demonstration, and nowadays is
not just once but twice, by private complainant, already of public knowledge, especially to
Catherine Manalo. Her recollection of his commuters. We find no error in the trial court‘s
description might suffer from imperfection finding that it was not impossible for petitioner
regarding his height, weight and personal to be at the scene of the crime, despite his
appearance. But we note less. Jurisprudence alibi that he was engaged in intelligence work in
recognizes that victims of crime have a San Pablo Laguna that same afternoon of
penchant for seeing the faces and features of October 19, 1990.
their attackers, and remembering them. That
some variance as to petitioner‘s height and For alibi to prosper, it would not be enough for
weight might exist in her recollection, in the accused to prove that he was elsewhere
comparison to his statistical measurement does when the crime was committed. He must further
not destroy her credibility. That the trial court demonstrate that it would have been physically
found this variance inconsequential does not impossible for him to have been at the scene of
render its findings on the credibility of the crime at the time of its commission. It is
witnesses erroneous. Such findings are accorded essential that credible and tangible proof of
great respect and will be sustained by the physical impossibility for the accused to be at
appellate courts unless the trial court the scene of the crime be presented to
overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some establish an acceptable alibi. Petitioner failed to
facts or circumstances of weight and substance meet this test. While petitioner could have been
which could alter the decision or affect the working as intelligence agent in San Pedro,
result of the case. Here, the important thing is Laguna from October 19 –21, 1990, contrary to
that complaining witness Catherine Manalo his claim, it was not physically impossible for him
identified the petitioner as one of the to have been in Pasig City, Metro Manila on the
perpetrators of the robbery twice, without any day of the commission of the crime.
presumptions or suggestion from the police at
the line-up or the court at the trial. Petitioner‘s insistence that he had no vehicle
available to him is not supported by the
Petitioner also argues that the prosecution failed testimony of his own commanding officer who
to contradict his alibi. He submits that the testified in petitioner‘s defense, to wit:
prosecution failed to prove that he had a car
available to him, or that he drove one from San FISCAL: CROSS EXAMINATION:
Pedro, Laguna to Pasig, Metro Manila. Petitioner
further insists that the trial court‘s finding that Mr. Witness, what mode of transportation
the place where the crime was committed is less did you take in going to Laguna in (sic)
than an hour‘s drive by car and can easily be October 19, 1990.
reached by one who, like petitioner, had a car We used cars.
available to him, is erroneous and unsupported by Q: What vehicle?
the evidence on record. Toyota Corona ‘78 model and a Galant, old
model.

Page 79 of 233
 respond or arrest the guy, but I can say that
st
Sgt. Vergara never left the place until the 21
And in what particular vehicle did you of October, he was there in Pacita Complex,
yourself used? ma‘m.
Toyota Corona and another car as a back-up In other cases where you conducted
vehicle. surveillance do you maintain a logbook?
xxx The log book is filled up only, I mean we do
Who arrived ahead, your car or the car of the logging prior and after the operation, that‘s
the accused? the time we placed the preparations or extent
We arrived together because we traveled of our operation, that‘s the time we entered this
not far with each other, we maintained the in the log book and when we returned from the
distance of three to five meters, ma‘m. operation, we also registered about the result of
Q: How many were you? the operation.
Normally, up to nine members of the team, xxx
but in that operation I think, seven or six You do not likewise keep a call or make a roll
members, ma‘m. call or keep attendance record?
xxx It is automatic ma‘m, everytime, during the
Who were the companions of Vergara where operation we see to it that all the persons were
he was riding? in the area at the time we registered ourselves
It was Sgt. San Jose who was driving the in the logbook.
car, together with Sgt. Magno and Sgt. Rubi. In your team, who in particular is assigned
Q: How about you, who were your companions? to keep track of the attendance?
I was with the other car, with a civilian Being the team leader, I am the one in
driver, and I cannot recall anymore whom I was charge to keep the movements of every
with at the time. members (sic) of the team, but when I left on
Nor was his commanding officer‘s corroborative th
19 October proceeding to Makati, I specifically
testimony of much help in sustaining
gave instructions to maintain the operation and see
petitioner‘s alibi, as shown by the following:
to it that they have new informations (sic) or new
FISCAL: development of the case they have to call me by
What is your basis that Vergara was with radio so that I can come back in the area, that was
you at about 3:00 in the afternoon of the instruction to the assistant team leader
October 19, 1990? whenever I left the area.
What do you mean basis? His physical So I understand that you do not go with the
presence in the area is my basis, ma‘m, that he members of the team during the whole period or
was there. duration of the surveillance.
Do you keep an attendance record or Sometimes, ma‘m, there are instances. In
attendance book of the members of the team? that particular instance I left my men at about
We do not normally do it once we left for an th
1130 in the evening of 19 October, I left my
operation, we believe it is not necessary to team and back again in the early morning of 20
account every minute every hour of the October.
operation, so long as we are in the area, target There were far too many glaring lapses in the
area and every body (sic) is posted on our testimony of petitioner‘s corroborative witness
designated position, as soon as the signal is
already given then that‘s the time we will

Page 80 of 233
for petitioner‘s alibi to be given much weight, identification of petitioner as the perpetrator
thus: of the crime, the latter‘s defense of bare denial
And what was that particular mission in San and alibi must necessarily fail, as her positive
Pedro, Laguna on October 19, 1990? testimony overrides his negative testimony. Alibi
We were supposed to conduct a buy-bust is a weak defense that becomes even weaker in
operation with the aid of our informant, an the face of positive identification of the
errand boy of the subject pusher. accused. Further, an alibi cannot prevail over the
Q: Do you know the name of that informant? positive identification of the petitioner by a
I cannot recall. credible witness who has no motive to testify
xxx falsely.
And in what particular place in Laguna was
this suppose(d) surveillance that you will WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
conduct? DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals
I cannot recall the name of the street but I in CA-G.R. No. CR 18318 is hereby AFFIRMED.
know the place, but the street name and the Costs against the petitioner.
exact number I cannot recall.
xxx SO ORDERED.
Q: What place?
I cannot recall. Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena and De
Q: What is the number? Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
I cannot recall.
Q: Who was the subject?
It was a certain alias German, ma‘m.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
xxx
appellee,
COURT:
vs.
Is a certain Nicasio Custodio y Abrera
ANDRES PEÑAFLORIDA, accused-appellant.
a member of your team?
1999 September 02
I think during that time.
1st Division G.R. No. 130550 D E C I S I O N
xxx
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
COURT:
Accused-appellant Andres Pe¤aflorida
On October 19, 1990, will you recall if he
(hereafter ANDRES) appeals from the decision1
was with you?
[Original Record (OR), 132. Per Judge Renato C.
I cannot recall, your honor.
Francisco.] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 19, Malolos, Bulacan, in Criminal Case No.
In the case of alibi, it is elementary that the
2683-M-94, dated 12 May 1997, finding him
requirements of time and place be strictly
guilty of murder and sentencing him to suffer
complied with by the defense, meaning that
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and indemnify
the accused must not only show that he was
the heirs of the victim, SPO3 Eusebio
somewhere else but that it was also physically
Natividad, in the amount of P50,000.
impossible for him to have been at the scene
The information,2 [Id., 2.] filed on 13 October
of the crime at the time it was committed.
1994, charged ANDRES together with two other
persons, whose identities are still unknown, with
In the light of private complainant‘s positive

Page 81 of 233
murder, allegedly committed in this manner: from his terrace, hence, he was able to see
That on or about the 5th day of October, 1994, clearly the faces of Natividad's assailants.5
in the municipality of San Ildefonso, province of [Id.]
Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction RODOLFO also recounted that seven days after
of this Honorable Court, the above-named the shooting incident or on 12 October 1994, he
accused together with two (2) other persons, voluntarily proceeded to the 175th PC
whose true names are still unknown and against Detachment upon the invitation of the police
whom the preliminary investigation has not yet authorities who were conducting the
been completed by the Office of the Provincial investigation on the matter. There, the police
Prosecutor of Bulacan, armed with guns, and with officers presented a man whom RODOLFO
intent to kill one SPO3 Eusebio Natividad, instantly recognized as one of NATIVIDAD's
conspiring, confederating together and mutually assailants, in particular, the one who took
helping one another did then and there wilfully, Natividad's gun and wallet. The police then
unlawfully and feloniously, with treachery, informed RODOLFO that the man's name was
evident premeditation and use of superior ANDRES Pe¤aflorida. Armed with the name to
strength, attack, assault and shoot with guns the match one of the faces he remembered as one
said SPO3 Eusebio Natividad, hitting him on of Natividad's attackers, RODOLFO voluntarily
different parts of his body, thereby inflicting and promptly executed on that same day, a
upon him mortal wounds which directly caused sworn statement narrating the events
death. pertaining to the attack.6 [TSN, 25 January
ANDRES pleaded not guilty upon 1995, 8-9.] In open court, RODOLFO once again
arraignment.3 [OR, 9.]. specifically pointed to ANDRES as one of the
At the trial, the prosecution presented its assailants of Natividad who seized the latter's
eyewitness, Rodolfo de la Cruz (hereafter gun and wallet.7 [Id., 5-6.]
RODOLFO). He testified that at around 4:00 After RODOLFO's testimony, the prosecution
p.m. on 5 October 1994, he was resting on the formally offered in evidence his aforementioned
terrace of his house at Pinaod, San Ildefonso, sworn statement as Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-
Bulacan, when he noticed an oncoming owner- 1."8 [OR, 5. ] It also offered in evidence the
type jeep. On board were the driver SPO3 death certificate of Natividad as Exhibit "B,"9
Eusebio Natividad, RODOLFO's former CAFGU [Id., 142.] which indicated that the cause of his
trainer and an unknown companion passenger. death was massive hemorrhage due to multiple
Suddenly, three men, each armed with a short gunshot wounds. The defense raised no
pistol, blocked and stopped the jeep. One of the objections and admitted the exhibits. The
three armed men shouted: "Natividad katapusan prosecution then rested its case.10 [TSN, 20
mo na ito," (Natividad, this is your end). May 1996, 5-6.]
Afterwhich, the three gunmen simultaneously The defense thereafter presented its witnesses
fired upon Natividad. When the assault ceased, ANDRES and his brother, Roberto Peñaflorida.
one of the gunmen took Natividad's wallet and ANDRES interposed alibi. He claimed that at
gun. The attackers then fled on board a around 4:30 p.m., on 5 October 1994, he was in
vehicle.4 [TSN, 25 January 1995, 1-7.] the house of his brother, Roberto in Marulas,
RODOLFO claimed that the killing took place in Bulacan where he assisted the latter in the
a small market (talipapa) about five armslength repair of the chassis of some automobiles. He

Page 82 of 233
did not leave Marulas that day hence, he could The trial court also appreciated that treachery,
not be physically present in some other place, evident premeditation and abuse of superior
much less in San Ildefonso. He left Marulas only strength attended the killing of Natividad. It
on 11 October 1994 upon his cousin's request to then convicted ANDRES of the crime of murder
harvest palay at Sapang Palay. He was arrested and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
on said date.11 [Id. ] reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs
ANDRES further denied ever knowing both of Natividad in the amount of P50,000. The
Natividad and RODOLFO. Natividad certainly dispositive portion of the decision16 [Id., 19.]
was not his enemy hence, ANDRES could not reads, as follows:
think of any reason why RODOLFO implicated
him in the killing of Natividad.12 [TSN, 28 May Wherefore, based on the evidence on record,
1996, 1-9.] this Court finds the accused, ANDRES
Roberto Pe¤aflorida corroborated the alibi of PEÑAFLORIDA, GUILTY beyond reasonable
ANDRES. He maintained that he was working doubt of the crime of MURDER punishable under
with ANDRES the whole day of 5 October 1994 Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the killing
in the repair of a Motherland bus. Roberto having been attended with aggravating
further declared that ANDRES had been living circumstances of alevosia, evident premeditation
with him since December, 1993. There had been and abuse of superior strength, and hereby
no occasion for ANDRES to leave Marulas sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
except on 11 October 1994 when he was invited perpetua with the accessory penalties provided
by a friend to go to San Ildefonso. A week later, by law and to indemnify the heirs of SPO3
Roberto learned that ANDRES had been Eusebio Natividad the sum of P50,000.00 and to
arrested.13 [TSN, 3 September 1996, 4-6.] The pay the costs.
trial court considered said evidence of the
defense as unworthy of belief. It instead gave ANDRES seasonably appealed from the decision.
full faith and credit to the evidence of the In his Appellant's Brief, ANDRES contends that
prosecution, particularly the testimony of the the trial court erred in convicting him since he
lone prosecution witness RODOLFO. It is was not positively identified by RODOLFO.
convinced that RODOLFO positively identified There was no positive identification because (a)
ANDRES as one of the culprits who, using a RODOLFO could not have remembered the
short firearm, riddled the different parts of physical features of the three (3) gunmen,
Natividad's body with bullets that led to his particularly ANDRES, given the short time that
untimely demise. It assessed the testimony of he (RODOLFO) had seen them and that previous
RODOLFO as "clear, unequivocal, unmistakable to the incident he did not know any one of
and overwhelming leaving no room for doubt as them;17 [Rollo, 41 -42.] (b) RODOLFO did not
to its veracity and conclusiveness."14 [Rollo, 16.] identify ANDRES from a police line-up but was
The trial court then reiterated in its decision, introduced to him (RODOLFO) alone;18 [Id., 43.]
the jurisprudential doctrine that RODOLFO's and (c) RODOLFO belatedly executed the sworn
positive identification prevails over the statement (Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1"), albeit
uncorroborated and self-serving denial and alibi seven days after the shooting incident. With
interposed by the defense.15 [Id., 18-19.] this, ANDRES insinuates that the police
authorities "coached" RODOLFO in the

Page 83 of 233
identification for he executed the sworn the horrible occurrence as he was only about
statement, propitiously on 12 October 1994, a five armslength from the scene of the crime. He
day after ANDRES' arrest. ANDRES had a good view of the assailants' physical and
additionally points out that he was arrested not facial features. True, he had seen their faces
by virtue of a warrant of arrest but upon mere for only a short span of time but that was all
invitation by a certain police officer Palarca RODOLFO needed in order to remember their
who brought him immediately to the 175th PC faces. Even if he did not know any one of the
Detachment.19 [Id., 44.] assailants previous to the incident, such a fact
would not deter RODOLFO from remembering
In its Appellee's Brief, the Office of the them. In fact, RODOLFO was so certain of the
Solicitor General supports the trial court's attackers' faces that he easily and quickly
decision and prays that the assailed decision recognized ANDRES as one of them when he saw
be affirmed in toto. the latter at the 175th PC Detachment. It is
therefore unnecessary for RODOLFO to have
The appeal is without merit. identified ANDRES from the police line-up.
Besides, there is no law requiring a police line-up
Well settled is the rule that the ascertainment of as an essential requisite for proper
the credibility of witnesses is best left to the identification.21 [People v. Buntan, Sr., 221
determination of the trial court. This is so SCRA 421, 430 (1993)] Further, no proof was
because the trial court is in a distinct adduced indicating that RODOLFO was coached
advantageous position to examine the witnesses' by the police officers or improperly motivated in
deportment and manner of testifying. On appeal, identifying ANDRES as one of Natividad's
its evaluation or assessment of the testimonies of slayers.
witnesses is accorded great respect and finality in
the absence of any indication that it overlooked As to the alleged delay in the execution of
certain facts or circumstances of weight and RODOLFO's sworn statement, it does not and
influence which, if considered, would alter the will not impair his credibility as witness. This
results of the case.20 [See People v. Gornes, 230 Court takes judicial notice of the actuality that
SCRA 270, 275 (1994)] witnesses in this country are usually reluctant
to volunteer information about a criminal case or
In this case, no cogent reasons were presented are unwilling to be involved in or dragged into
to disturb the factual findings of the trial criminal investigations.22 [People v. Landicho,
court particularly on the assessment of the 258 SCRA 1, 37 (1996)] Indeed, RODOLFO
credibility of the prosecution eyewitness. The exhibited a natural human reaction. Although
trial court ascertained that RODOLFO there was delay in the execution of his sworn
"categorically, unequivocably and repeatedly statement, what matters is RODOLFO overcame
pointed to" ANDRES as one of the three armed his initial reluctance and fear to be involved by
men who ambushed and gunned down Natividad. voluntarily participating in the police
It declared that RODOLFO positively identified investigation and then openly testifying in court.
ANDRES. We agree.
In sum, RODOLFO's positive identification of
RODOLFO had all the opportunity to observe ANDRES as one of the authors of the crime

Page 84 of 233
prevails over his defense of alibi.23 [See People v. Natividad's assailants unexpectedly appeared
Barlis, 231 SCRA 426, 439 (1994); People v. Pidia, from nowhere to ambush him. The assailants
249 SCRA 687, 703 (1995); People v. Gomez, 251 were able to immediately establish strategic
SCRA 455, 470 (1995); People v. Quijada, 259 positions from which vantage point they
SCRA 191, 214 (1996)] Settled is the rule that simultaneously fired upon the victim, taking him
alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy by surprise. The stratagem ensured Natividad's
to contrive and difficult to prove.24 [See People v. helplessness, defenselessness and immobility.
Kyamko, 222 SCRA 183, 194 (1993); People v. Abo, Thus, it can be said that ANDRES and his two
230 SCRA 612, 625 (1994); People v. de Leon, 248 still unknown companions employed means of
SCRA 609, 623 execution which gave Natividad no opportunity
(1995)] For such a defense to prosper, it is not at all to defend himself and that the manner of
enough for ANDRES to prove that he was execution was deliberately and consciously
somewhere else when the crime occurred, i.e., at adopted. The fact that the attack was preceded
Marulas, Bulacan but he must also demonstrate by a cry or signal of "Natividad katapusan mo na
that it was physically impossible for him to have ito," from ANDRES and his companions did not
been at the scene of the crime at San Ildefonso, make such attack less treacherous. In the same
Bulacan, at the time of its commission.25 [See vein, the frontal attack did not negate or lessen
People v. Buka, 205 SCRA 567, 584 (1992); People the presence of treachery.27 [People v. Tampon,
v. Maqueda, 242 SCRA 565, 592 (1995); People v. id.; People v. De Manuel, 263 SCRA 49, 58-59
Laurente, 255 SCRA 543, 565 (1996); People v. (1996)]
Alshaika, 261 SCRA 637, 646 (1996)] This,
ANDRES failed to establish. Like treachery, evident premeditation should be
established by clear and positive evidence.
We will now discuss the trial court's assessment Sifting through the records, we found a dearth
that all the aggravating circumstances alleged in of evidence establishing the requisites of
the information attended the commission of the evident premeditation, to wit: (1) the time when
crime. We approve the trial court's correct the accused determined to commit the crime; (2)
appreciation of alevosia, but disapprove its an act manifestly indicating that the accused has
determination of evident premeditation and clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient
abuse of superior strength. lapse of time between such determination and
execution to allow him to reflect upon the
For treachery to be considered, two elements consequences of his act.28 [See People v. Barba,
must concur: (1) the employment of means of 203 SCRA 436, 458 (1991); People v. Boniao, 217
execution that gives the person attacked no SCRA 653, 672 (1993); People v. Cordova, 224
opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and SCRA 319, 347 -348 (1993); People v. Castillo,
the means of execution were deliberately or 289 SCRA 213, 228 (1998)] Hence, the finding
consciously adopted.26 [See People v. De la Cruz, thereof by the trial court in the absence of any
207 SCRA 632, 650 (1992); People v. Garcia, 209 evidentiary basis was but speculation. We have
SCRA 164, 178 (1992); People v. Tampon, 258 already ruled that mere presumptions and
SCRA 115, 132 (1996); People v. Tumaob, Jr., 291 inferences, no matter how logical and probable
SCRA 133, 138-139 (1998)] they might be, would not suffice to establish
evident premeditation.29 [See People v.

Page 85 of 233
Villanueva, 265 SCRA 216, 226 (1996)] confinement to another.

For the similar reason that there must exist In Filoteo v. Sandiganbayan,32 [263 SCRA 222,
proof that the attackers deliberately took 264 (1996)] petitioner therein impugned the
advantage of their superior strength, their validity of his arrest on the ground that it was
apparent superiority in number vis-a -vis that of effected not by virtue of a warrant but by mere
the victim, notwithstanding,30 [See People v. invitation. We observed therein that the claim
Castor, 216 SCRA 410, 421 (1992)] the was belatedly made, stressed that petitioner
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior should have questioned the validity of his arrest
strength cannot be appreciated. Again, the before he entered his plea, and ruled that his
records disclosed no such proof. In any event, failure to do so constituted a waiver of his right
even if abuse of superior strength was proved, it against unlawful restraint of liberty. We
would still be absorbed by the qualifying reiterate herein said ruling. Anyway, even if
aggravating circumstance of treachery.31 [1 ANDRES was illegally arrested, it would not
Ramon C. Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 376 affect his culpability since an allegation of a
(1987 ed.), citing authorities.] warrantless arrest could not deprive the State
of its right to convict the guilty when all the
One final point, ANDRES assails the regularity facts on the record pointed to his guilt.33 [See
and validity of his arrest. He claims that his People v. Briones, 202 SCRA 708, 718-719
arrest without a warrant circumscribes the (1991); People v. Silan, 254 SCRA 491, 505
conditions for a valid warrantless arrest which (1996). See also De Asis v. Romeo, 41 SCRA 235,
are set forth in Section 5, Rule 113 of the 239-240 (1991)]
Rules of Court, to wit: WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby
DISMISSED and the challenged 12 May 1997
SEC. 5. Arrest without a warrant when lawful. -- decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19,
A peace officer or a private person may, without Malolos, Bulacan, in Criminal Case No. 2683-M-
a warrant, arrest a person: 94, finding herein accused-appellant Andres
Pe¤aflorida guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
When, in his presence, the person to be the crime of murder and sentencing him to
arrested has committed, is actually committing, suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
or is attempting to commit an offense; indemnify the victim in the sum of P50,000 is
hereby AFFIRMED.
When an offense has in fact been No pronouncement as to costs.
committed, and he has personal knowledge of SO ORDERED
facts indicating that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and

When the person to be arrested is a prisoner

who has escaped from a penal establishment or
Q: What is judicial admission?
place where he is serving final judgment or
It is an admission, verbal or written, made by a party
temporarily confined while his case is pending, in the course of the proceedings in the same case, which
or has escaped while being transferred from one does not require proof (Sec. 4).
What are the elements of judicial admission?

Page 86 of 233
A: rendered by the Regional Trial Court of the 8th
It must be made by a party to the case or his counsel;
It must be made in the course of the proceedings in
Judicial Region (Branch XXX, Basey, Samar)
the same case; and finding appellant Ernesto Hermanes guilty of the
It can be verbal or written admission. There is no crime of rape and imposing upon him the supreme
particular form required.
penalty of death.
Distinguish judicial admission from The conviction of appellant stemmed from an
extrajudicial admission. Information dated September 25, 1996 which
JUDICIAL EXTRAJUDICIAL
ADMISSIONS reads:
ADMISSIONS
nd
Those made out of court That on or about the 2 day of November, 1995
Those made in the course or in a judicial proceeding at about 10:00 o‘clock in the evening, at Brgy.
of the proceeding in the other than the one under
same case consideration Regarded Maligaya, Municipality of Sta. Rita, Province of
as evidence and must be Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
Do not require proof and offered as such, this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
may be contradicted only otherwise the court will
by showing that it was not consider it in deciding by means of violence and intimidation, did, then
made through palpable the case. and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
mistake or that no such succeed in having carnal knowledge without the
admission was made. _____________________
______________________ Requires formal offer for it consent and against the will of the complainant
Judicial admissions need to be considered MARINA HERMANES, inside her house, the
not be offered in evidence accused being her step-father, with threats of
since it is not evidence. It is
superior to evidence and killing her and all members of her family.
shall be considered by the CONTRARY TO LAW.
court as established. Rebuttable (p. 7, Rollo.)
Conclusive upon the
admitter Not admissible if self- At his arraignment, appellant pleaded not
Admissible even if self- serving guilty. Thereupon, trial ensued.
serving Not subject to The relevant facts as presented by the
Subject to cross- cross-examination
examination prosecution are faithfully summarized in the
Q: When are judicial admissions made? brief submitted by the Solicitor General, to wit:
It may be made by the party himself or by his
counsel:
On or about November 2, 1995 at around ten
1. In the pleadings filed by the parties; o‘clock in the evening, private complainant
2. In the course of the trial either by verbal or written Marina Hermanes, who at that time was ten (10)
manifestations or stipulations, including depositions, years old, was in the house shared by appellant
written interrogatories and requests for admissions; or
3. In other stages of the judicial proceedings, as in pre- Ernesto Hermanes, her stepfather, and his wife
trial Milagros (p. 6, TSN, July 22, 1997). Marina‘s
natural mother already died (p. 135, Records).
EN BANC Marina further declared that she has been living
[G.R. No. 139416. March 12, 2002] PEOPLE with her stepfather, the appellant, and his wife
OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Milagros since she was two (2) years old (p. 6,
ERNESTO HERMANES, accused-appellant. TSN, July 22, 1997).
Marina was lying in her bedroom when appellant
DECISION entered and undressed her. Appellant opened
MELO, J.: his trousers, placed himself on top of private
Before us on automatic review is the decision complainant, and successfully inserted his organ

Page 87 of 233
(―sili‘) into her vagina (―pipi‖), Marina felt pain (p. This laceration, was this caused by
8, ibid.). Thereafter, appellant made a push and sexual intercourse?
pull motion for quite some time (p. 9, Yes.
ibid.). Having satisfied himself, appellant stood (tsn, August 14, 1997, p. 10-11.)
up, closed his trousers and left Marina alone to As the prosecution was about to call its last
attend to his carabao (pp. 110-11, ibid.). witness on January 14, 1998, appellant, through
The following day at eight (8) o‘clock in the counsel, manifested his desire to withdraw his
morning, Marina proceeded to the house of previous plea of not guilty and to change the
Soltero Salubre, a Kagawad of their barangay at same to a plea of guilty. The trial court allowed
that time, and told him that her father, him to do so. Thus, appellant was re-arraigned
Ernesto Hermanes, raped her, and has raped and, with the aid of his counsel, he subsequently
her twice before the incident of November 2, pleaded guilty to the crime charged (Record, p.
1995 (pp. 6, 12, TSN, January 14, 1998). 86).
Because of said complaint, Salubre brought The change in plea notwithstanding, the
Marina to the Department of Social Welfare prosecution continued with the presentation of
and Development (DSWD) Office in Sta. Rita, its last witness in order to establish appellant‘s
Samar (p. 9, ibid.). Marina has since been in the guilt and precise degree of culpability (ibid.).
custody of the DSWD Home for Girls (Abused) Thereafter, on July 14, 1998, appellant, through
Children, Lingap Center, Palo, Leyte (p. 5, TSN, new counsel Atty. Mario Nicolasora, filed a
July 22, 1997). manifestation in court denying that he wanted to
(pp. 4-5, Appellee‘s Brief.) change his original plea of not guilty to
On November 4, 1995, or 2 days after the rape, guilty. Consequently, the trial court ordered the
Marina was physically examined by the withdrawal of appellant‘s earlier plea of guilty and
Municipal Health Officer of Sta. Rita, Dra. the reversion of his plea to not guilty (ibid., p.
Rusela Grapa. Marina was found to have hymenal 104).
lacerations at the 3 and 7 o‘clock positions, which, At the subsequent hearing set on August 12,
according to Dra. Grapa could have been caused 1998, the defense was to present appellant as
by the insertion of male organ (tsn, November its witness. Instead of so doing, Atty. Nicolasora
11, 1996, p. 5). Moreover, on direct examination, asked that the presentation of evidence for the
Dra. Grapa testified that these lacerations were defense be deferred and that appellant be
―fresh.‖ allowed to prove intoxication, degree of
When you examined the patient, what instruction and education, and the lack of intent
was then the nature of the lacerations? New to do so grave a wrong as that committed, in
or healing? order to mitigate his liability, all for the purpose
It was a fresh healing laceration. It was of convincing the trial court to recommend to
fresh but starting to heal. the Office of the President the grant of
If these lacerations were fresh but healing, executive clemency (ibid., p. 107).
can you estimate the time of the incident? On August 14, 1998, appellant, through counsel,
Yes. filed a manifestation admitting responsibility
And from your day of examination, for the November 2, 1995 rape, and asked for
when could have the incident happened? forgiveness from complainant and the public in
Between 24 to 48 hours. general. Likewise, appellant manifested that he

Page 88 of 233
would present evidence to prove certain victims who are young and immature deserves
mitigating circumstances in his favor and full credence (People vs. Bernaldez, 294 SCRA
reiterated his request for the trial court to 317 [1998]). The Court‘s attention has not been
recommend executive clemency (ibid., p. 108). called to any dubious reason or improper motive
However, despite having been given ample on the part of Marina that would have impelled
opportunity to prove supposed mitigating her to charge and testify falsely against
circumstances, appellant inexplicably defaulted appellant in regard to so heinous a crime as rape.
thereat, and given the long delay that had Where no compelling and cogent reason is
attended the hearing of the case for the established that would explain why the
defense, the trial court was constrained, on complainant was so driven as to blindly implicate
December 21, 1998, to consider the defense as an accused, the testimony of a young girl of
having waived its right to present evidence. The having been the victim of a sexual assault cannot
case was thus considered submitted for final be discarded (People vs. Abella, 315 SCRA 36
resolution. [1999]).
On March 19, 1999, the trial court rendered its The evidence establishes beyond reasonable
decision convicting appellant. The dispositive doubt the guilt of appellant. The testimony of
part of the decision states: complainant is plain, straightforward, and
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, finding the positive. With clarity and candor, complainant
accused Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the recounted the manner in which she was raped by
heinous crime of raping his own 10-year-old appellant, viz:
stepdaughter Marina Hermanes through the Okey, do you recall where were you on
conclusive evidences presented by the November 2, 1995 at about 10:00 o‘clock in the
prosecution as well as his admission of the evening?
same through his counsel, he is hereby Yes, sir.
sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of Where were you then, if you can recall?
DEATH. However, taking into consideration the I was in the house.
underlying circumstances herein as above And where is this house of yours located that
pointed out, the Court hereby recommends the you are referring to?
granting of Executive Clemency to the said Brgy. Maligaya, Sta. Rita, Samar.
accused. xxx xxx xxx
Upon promulgation of the above, let the record While you were there in your house
herein be forwarded to the Honorable Supreme that evening do you recall of any incident
Court for automatic review. SO ORDERED. that occurred to you?
Yes, sir.
(pp. 23-24, Rollo.) And what is this incident that occurred to
Appellant assails the trial court on the sole you?
issue of the imposition of the penalty of death. That night I was undressed.
The case being one on automatic review, the By whom were you undressed?
Court undertook an examination and scrutiny of Ernesto Hermanes.
the evidentiary record, and on the basis thereof, Where were you then particularly inside the
it now affirms the trial court‘s finding of guilt. house when you were undressed?
The prevailing rule is that the testimony of rape I was in the bedroom.

Page 89 of 233
 How did Ernesto Hermanes undress you? this sexual abuse to you during that evening?
He placed himself on top of me. A: One.
What were you wearing then if you (tsn, July 22, 1997, p. 6-10.)
can recall? Prescinding from the above, and on the basis of
I was wearing a dress. the manifestation filed by Atty. Nicolasora on
After this Ernesto Hermanes undressed you August 14, 1998, the trial court observed that
and placed himself on top of you, what did he do appellant admitted having raped his
to you next? stepdaughter, stating that ―it is only in this case
He sexually abused me. now that the accused herein Ernesto Hermanes
By sexual abuse, what did he actually do has admitted guilt, manifesting his desire to ask
to you? for forgiveness, and had practically and wholly
He placed his sili (organ) inside my submitted himself to the discretion and
compassion of this Court (Decision, p. 10).‖ Said
pipi (vagina).
manifestation, states in part:
Do you know where is your pipi?
That after an exhausting conference with the
Here (Witness pointing between her legs).
accused, the latter informed the undersigned
When Ernesto Hermanes put inside his
that he cannot bear his conscience and he would
organ to your organ, what did you feel?
like to state completely in court the actual
It was very painful.
circumstances of the rape that transpired on
Do you know what do you mean by sili?
November 2, 1995 at about 10:00 o‘clock in the
Yes, sir.
evening at Barangay Maligaya, Sta. Rita, Samar;
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
When his penis was already inside your
That he is now remorseful and he believes
vagina, what did Ernesto Hermanes do to you?
that by completely stating the truth he may be
He did it again.
forgiven by his foster daughter, Marina
What do you mean by saying, he did it again?
Hermanes (rape victim), his spouse and the
I do not know how to call it.
public in general;
As you were feeling the pain, what did you
That the gist of the would be testimony of
do next if any?
the accused would show that during the rape
(No answer)
incident he was heavily intoxicated and he and
For how long did he place his penis inside
his foster daughter, Marina Hermanes, were
your vagina?
alone at their residence;
It was 9:00 o‘clock in the evening.
That he will present the following mitigating
Was the penis of Ernesto Hermanes
circumstances in his favor, as follows: (a)
inside your vagina long?
intoxication; (b) plea of guilty; (c) the degree of
Yes, sir.
instruction and education of the offender; and
Did he make any movement of his penis
(d) that he had no intention to commit so grave
while it was inside your vagina?
a wrong as that committed.
Yes, sir.
That he plead for the mercy and compassion
How?
of the Honorable Court that in the event the
(He was making a push and pull motion
penalty prescribed by law be meted against
as witness indicated).
him, he respectfully pleads to this court that it
How many times did Ernesto Hermanes do

Page 90 of 233
recommends executive clemency for his behalf. bound by an adverse decision rendered as a
A perusal of the manifestation filed by Atty. result of his attorney‘s inaction or negligence,
Nicolasora on behalf of appellant shows that it such as failure to present sufficient evidence.
was signed only by Atty. Nicolasora, not by The reason for this is that the adverse
appellant. While we stated in People vs. Balisoro judgment is a mere consequence of an omission
(307 SCRA 48 [1999]) that an admission made in on a procedural matter in regard to which an
the pleadings cannot be controverted by the attorney has the implied authority to bind his
party making such admission and that the same client. Too, the prosecution has more than
is conclusive as to him, it is also hornbook sufficiently proven appellant‘s guilt beyond
doctrine that the authority of an attorney to reasonable doubt.
bind his client as to any admission of facts made Appellant, however, is correct in his sole
by him is limited to matters of judicial submission that he does not deserve the death
procedure. An admission which operates as a penalty.
waiver, surrender, or destruction of the client‘s The crime of rape is punished under Article 335
cause is beyond the scope of the attorney‘s of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
implied authority (People vs. Maceda, 73 Phil. Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 which
679 [1942]). In this case, Atty. Nicolasora‘s pertinently reads:
admission that appellant was heavily intoxicated The death penalty shall also be imposed if the
at the time of the incident and that he had no crime of rape is committed with any of the
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that following attendant circumstances:
committed practically frittered away x x x
appellant‘s case in favor of the prosecution. The x x x
manifestation cannot thus be held as an x x x
admission by appellant of his guilt. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years
The inadmissibility of Atty. Nicolasora‘s of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant,
manifestation notwithstanding, appellant step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity
nonetheless is still criminally liable for the rape or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
of Marina Hermanes. While appellant is not common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
bound by the manifestation of guilt filed by x x x
Atty. Nicolasora, he is still bound by the decision x x x
of the trial court to consider the case submitted x x x
for decision due to the inordinate delay and Summarizing the recent rulings of the Court
failure of his counsel to present evidence on his under the aforequoted provision (People vs.
behalf. It must be noted that the prosecution Lomibao, 337 SCRA 211 [2000]; People vs.
completed the presentation of its evidence on Acala, 307 SCRA 330 [1999]; People vs.
January 14, 1998, and that the defense was Maglente, 306 SCRA 546 [1999]), the
given numerous opportunities to present concurrence of the minority of the victim and
evidence but, for almost one year, and despite her relationship to the offender constitute
several warnings to that effect, they failed to special qualifying circumstances and both
do so, so much so that the trial court, on factors must be alleged and proved with
December 21, 1998, was constrained to consider certainty, otherwise, the death penalty cannot
the case submitted for decision. A client is be imposed. In the present case, while the
information did state that appellant is

Page 91 of 233
the stepfather of the complainant, it, however, 137762-65, March 27, 2001; People vs.
failed to mention that complainant was under 18 Lomibao, supra).
years of age at the time of the commission of Likewise, appellant is liable to pay the rape
the offense. As such, the charge of rape in the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as moral
information is not in its qualified form so as to damages, which is automatically granted in
fall under the special qualifying circumstances rape cases without need of pleading or proof
stated in Section 11 of Republic Act No. of the basis thereof (People vs. Alba, 305
7659. Verily, the information‘s failure to allege SCRA 811 [1999]).
the minority of the victim cancels out the WHEREFORE, the decision under review is
imposition of the death penalty. hereby affirmed with the modifications that (a)
In addition to the failure of the information to appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable
allege the minority of the complainant, appellant doubt only of the crime of simple rape, for which
also claims that the trial court erred in imposing he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
the death penalty allegedly because the step- reclusion perpetua; (b) that appellant is ordered
father and step-daughter relationship between to pay the victim the amount of Fifty Thousand
appellant and the victim was never conclusively (P50,000. 00) Pesos as civil indemnity and Fifty
established. We deem it unnecessary to discuss Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as moral damages.
this particular argument in view of the previous SO ORDERED.
disquisition that the death penalty cannot be Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug,
imposed for failure of the information to allege Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
the minority of the complainant. There being no Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-
allegation of the minority of the victim in the Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
indictment under which appellant was arraigned,
Q: What is self-serving evidence?
he cannot be convicted of qualified rape as he No. The self-serving rule which prohibits the
was not properly informed that he is being admission of declaration of a witness applies only to
accused of qualified rape. Appellant‘s conviction extrajudicial admissions. If the declaration is made in
open court, such is raw evidence. It is not self-serving. It
of qualified rape violates his constitutional right is admissible because the witness may be cross-
to be properly informed of the nature and cause examined on that matter.
of accusation against him. Having been apprised Are judicial admissions made by the accused
during his arraignment binding upon him?
only of the elements of simple rape, which crime No. A plea of guilty entered by the accused may be
was duly established by the prosecution, later withdrawn at any time before the judgment of
appellant can be convicted only for such crime conviction becomes final. Such plea is not admissible
in evidence against the accused and is not even
and accordingly should be sentenced to considered as an extrajudicial admission.
reclusion perpetua. What are the consequences of judicial
As to the damages, the trial court failed to admissions?
award civil indemnity in favor of private 1. A party who judicially admits a fact cannot later
complainant. Inasmuch as the death penalty is challenge that fact as judicial admissions constitute
not imposable in this case due to the deficiency waiver of proof; production of evidence is dispensed
with;
in the allegations of the information against 2. No evidence is needed to prove a judicial admission
appellant, private complainant is only entitled to and it cannot be contradicted unless it is shown to have
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, in accordance been made through palpable mistake or that no such
admission was made.
with current rulings (People vs. Bares, G.R. Nos. May courts take judicial notice of foreign laws?

Page 92 of 233
A: Where there is finality of a judgment in another case
GR: Foreign laws may not be taken judicial notice of, that was previously pending determination and therefore,
and have to be proved like any other fact. res judicata. (Herrera, Vol. V, pp. 89-90, 1999 ed.)
XPN: When said laws are within the actual knowledge
of the court and such laws are: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
Well and generally known;
Actually ruled upon in other cases before it; and appellee, vs. JAILON KULAIS, CARLOS
None of the parties claim otherwise. FALCASANTOS @ "Commander Falcasantos,"
What are the rules with regard to judicial notice AWALON KAMLON HASSAN @ "Commander
of ordinances?
Kamlon," MAJID SAMSON @ "Commander
1. MTCs are required to take judicial notice of the Bungi," JUMATIYA AMLANI DE
ordinances of the municipality or city wherein they sit. FALCASANTOS, NORMA SAHIDDAN DE
KULAIS, SALVADOR MAMARIL y MENDOZA,
2. RTCs must take judicial notice only:
a. When expressly authorized to do so by statute; or b. HADJIRUL ASIN y ALIH, JAINUDDIN
In case on appeal before them and wherein the inferior HASSAN y AHMAD, IMAM TARUK ALAH y
court took judicial notice of an ordinance involved in the SALIH, JALINA HASSAN DE KAMMING,
same case.
FREDDIE MANUEL @ "Ajid" and several JOHN
Appellate courts may also take judicial notice of and JANE DOES, accused, JAILON KULAIS,
ordinances not only because the lower courts took appellant.
judicial notice thereof but because these are facts
capable of unquestionable demonstration. (Riano, 1998 July 16 1st Division G.R. Nos. 100901-08
Evidence: A Restatement for the Bar, pp. 90-91, DECISION
2009 ed.)
Q: What is the rule on judicial notice of records of
another case previously tried? PANGANIBAN, J:
A:
GR: Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of
The trial court's is erroneous in taking of
the contents of the records of other cases, even when
such cases have been tried or are pending in the same judicial notice of a witness' testimony in
court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may another case, also pending before it, does not
have been heard or are actually pending before the
same judge. (Calamba Steel Center, Inc. v. CIR, G.R.
affect the conviction of the appellant, whose
No. 151857, Apr. 28, 2005) guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt by
XPNS: other clear, convincing and overwhelming
When in the absence of any objection, with the
knowledge of the opposing party, the contents of said
evidence, both testimonial and documentary.
other cases are clearly referred to by title and number in The Court takes this occasion also to refund the
a pending action and adopted or read into the record of bench and the bar that reclusion perpetua is not
the latter;
synonymous with life imprisonment.
When the original record of the other case or any part
of it is actually withdrawn from the archives at the court’s
discretion upon the request, or with the consent, of the The Case
parties, and admitted as part of the record of the pending
case. (Jumamil v. Cafe, G.R. No. 144570, Sept. 21,
2005) On August 22, 1990, five Informations for
When the action is closely interrelated to another kidnapping for ransom (Crim. Cases Nos. 10060,
case pending between the same parties;
Where the interest of the public in ascertaining the
10061, 10062, 10063 and 10064) and three
truth are of paramount importance; Informations for kidnapping (Crim. Case Nos.
In cases seeking to determine what is reasonable 10065, 10066 and 10067), all dated August 14,
exercise of discretion or whether or not the previous
ruling is applicable in a case under consideration; or
1990, were filed 1 before the Regional Trial
Court of Zamboanga City against Carlos

Page 93 of 233
Falcasantos, Jailon Kulais, Jumatiya Amlani, circumstances, except the names of the victims:
Norma Sahiddan de Kulais, Jalina Hassan de
Kamming, 2 Salvador Mamaril, Hadjirul Plasin, "That on or about the 12th day of December,
Jaimuddin Hassan, Imam 3 Taruk Alah, Freddie 1988, in the City of Zamboanga and within the
Manuel alias "Ajid," and several John and Jane jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
Does. The Informations for kidnapping for named accused, being all private individuals,
ransom, which set forth identical allegations conspiring and confederating together, mutually
save for the names of the victims, read as aiding and assisting one another, by means of
follows: threats and intimidation of person, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
"That on or about the 12th day of December, KIDNAP, take and drag away and detain the
1988, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and person of MONICO SAAVEDRA Y LIMEN
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [Criminal Case No. 10065] 7 a male public officer
the above-named accused, being all private of the City Government of Zamboanga, against
individuals, conspiring and confederating his will, there being present an aggravating
together, mutually aiding and assisting one circumstance in that the aforecited offense was
another, with threats to kill the person of committed with the aid of armed men or persons
FELIX ROSARIO [in Criminal Case No. 10060] 4 who insure or afford impunity."
and for the purpose of extorting ransom from
the said Felix Rosario or his families or Of the twelve accused, only nine were
employer, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully apprehended, namely, Jailon Julais, Jumatiya
and feloniously, KIDNAP the person of said Felix Amlani, Nonna Sahiddan de Kulais, Salvador
Rosario, 5 a male public officer of the City Mamaril, Hadjirul Plasin, Jainuddin Hassan, Imam
Government of Zamboanga, who was then aboard Taruk Alah, Jalina Hassan and Freddie Manuel. 8
a Cimarron vehicle with plate No. SBZ-976 which
was being ambushed by the herein accused at On their arraignment on September 13, 1990, all
the highway of Sitio Tigbao Lisomo, Zamboanga the accused pleaded not guilty. Joint trial on the
City, and brought said Felix Rosario 6 to merits ensued. On April 8, 1991, Judge Pelagio S.
different mountainous places of Zamboanga City Mandi rendered the assailed 36 -page Decision,
and Zamboanga del Sur, where he was detained, the dispositive portion of which reads:
held hostage and deprived of his liberty until
February 2, 1989, the day when he was released "WHEREFORE, above premises and discussion
only after payment of the ransom was made to taken into consideration, this Court renders
herein accused, to the damage and prejudice of its judgment, ordering and finding:
said victim; there being present an aggravating
circumstance in that the aforecited offense was FREDDIE MANUEL, alias "AJID" and
committed with the aid of armed men or persons IMAM TARUK ALAH y SALIH not guilty of
who insure or afford impunity." the eight charges of kidnapping for ransom
and for kidnapping, their guilt not having been
The three Informations for kidnapping, also proved beyond reasonable doubt.
under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code,
likewise alleged identical facts and Their immediate release from the City Jail,

Page 94 of 233
Zamboanga City is ordered, unless detained for reclusion temporal as maximum (Crim. Cases Nos.
some other offense besides these 8 cases 10065 and 10067).
(Crim. Cases Nos. 10060-10067).
JAMATIYA AMLANI FALCASANTOS not
JAINUDDIN HASSAN y AHMAD, JAILON guilty in the three charges of kidnapping and she
KULAIS, SALVADOR MAMARIL y MENDOZA is acquitted of these charges. (Crim. Cases Nos.
and HADJIRUL PLASIN y ALIH [g]uilty as 10065, 10066 and 10067).
principals by conspiracy in all these 8 cases for
kidnapping for ransom and for kidnapping But Jumatiya Amlani de Falcasantos is guilty as
(Crim. Cases Nos. 10060-10067). accomplice in the five charges of kidnapping for
ransom.
Their guilt is aggravated in that they
committed the 8 offenses with the aid of WHEREFORE, Jumatiya Amlani de Falcasantos is
armed men who insured impunity. Therefore, sentenced to serve five (5) imprisonments,
the penalties imposed on them shall be at their ranging from TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor
maximum period. as minimum to EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS of
reclusion temporal as maximum (Crim. Cases Nos.
WHEREFORE, for the five charges of kidnapping 10060-10064).
for ransom, and pursuant to Art. 267 of the
Revised Penal Code, five life imprisonments are NORMA SAHIDDAN DE KULAIS, 18 years old,
imposed on Jainuddin Hassan y Ahmad, Jailon and JALIHA HUSSIN (charged as Jalina Hassan
Kulais, Salvador Mamaril y Mendoza and Kadjirul de Kamming), 15 years old, not guilty in the three
Plasin y Alih (Crim. Cases Nos. 10060-10064). charges for kidnapping and are, therefore,
ACQUITTED of these three charges. (Crim. Cases
For kidnapping Mrs. Virginia San Agustin-Gara, Nos. 10065, 10066 & 10067).
a female and public officer and pursuant to Art.
267, Revised Penal Code (par. 4.), another life But Norma Sahiddan de Kulais and Jalina Hussin
imprisonment is imposed on Jainuddin Hassan y are found guilty as accomplices in the five charges
Ahmad, Jailon Kulais, Salvador Mamaril y for kidnapping for ransom. Being minors, they are
Mendoza and Hadjirul Plasin y Alih (Crim. Case entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance
No. 10066) of minority which lowers the penalty imposable on
them by one degree.
For kidnapping Monico Saavedra y Limen, and
Calixto Francisco y Gaspar, and their kidnapping WHEREFORE, Norma Sahiddan de Kulais and
not having lasted more than five days, pursuant Jalina Hussin are sentenced to serve five
to Art. 268, Revised Penal Code, and the imprisonments ranging from SIX (6) YEARS of
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the same four prision correccional as minimum to TEN YEARS
accused - Jainuddin Hassan y Ahmad, Jailon AND ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as maximum
Kulais, Salvador Mamaril y Mendoza and Hadrijul (Crim. Cases Nos. 10060-10064).
Plasin y Alih - are sentenced to serve two (2) jail
terms ranging from ten (10) years of prision Due to the removal of the suspension of
mayor as minimum, to eighteen (18) years of sentences of youthful offenders "convicted of

Page 95 of 233
an offense punishable by death or life" by SO ORDERED." 9
Presidential Decree No. 1179 and Presidential
Decree No. 1210 (of which kidnapping for ransom On May 7, 1991, Jallon Kulais, Jumatiya Amlani
is such an offense) the sentences on Norma de Falcasantos, Norma Sahiddan de Kulais and
Sahiddan de Kulais and Jaliha Hussin de Kamming Jaliha Hussin filed their joint Notice of Appeal.
are NOT suspended but must be served by them. 10 In a letter dated February 6, 1997, the same
appellants, except Jailon Kulais, withdrew their
Januddin Hassan, Jailon Kulais, Salvador Mamaril appeal because of their application for
and Hadjirul Plasin are sentenced further to "amnesty." In our March 19, 1997 Resolution, we
return the following personal effects taken on granted their motion. Hence, only the appeal of
December 12, 1988, the day of the kidnapping, Kulais remains for the consideration of this
or their value in money, their liability being Court. 11
solidary.
The Facts
To Jessica Calunod: The Version of the Prosecution
One (1) Seiko wrist watch P250.00 The solicitor general summarized in this wise,
One Bracelet P2,400.00 the facts as viewed by the People:
One Shoulder Bag P200.00
Cash P200.00 "On December 12, 1988, a group of public
To Armado C. Bacarro: officials from various government agencies,
One (1) wrist watch P800.00 organized themselves as a monitoring team to
One Necklace P300.00 inspect government projects in Zamboanga City.
One Calculator P295.00 The group was composed of Virginia Gara, as
Eyeglasses P500.00 the head of the team; Armando Bacarro,
One Steel Tape P250.00 representing the Commission on Audit; Felix del
To Edilberto S. Perez Rosario, representing the non-government;
One (1) Rayban P1,000.00 Edilberto Perez, representing the City
One Wrist Watch P1,800.00 Assessor's Office; Jessica Calunod and Allan
Cash P300.00 Basa of the City Budget Office and Monico
To Virginia San Agustin-Gara Saavedra, the driver from the City Engineer's
One (1) Wrist Watch P850.00 Office. (p. 3, TSN, October 22, 1990.)

The benefit of Art. 29, Revised Penal Code, On that particular day, the group headed to the
on preventive suspension, shall be extended to Lincomo Elementary School to check on two of
those sentenced. its classrooms. After inspecting the same, they
The cases against Majid Samson, alias proceeded to the Talaga Footbridge. The group
"Commander Bungi" Awalon Kamlon a.k.a. was not able to reach the place because on their
"Commander Kamlon" Carlos Falcasantos and way, they were stopped by nine (9) armed men
several "John Does" and Jane "Does" are who pointed their guns at them (p. 4, TSN, ibid.).
ARCHIVED until their arrest.
The group alighted from their Cimarron jeep
Costs against the accused convicted. where they were divested of their personal

Page 96 of 233
belongings. They were then ordered to walk to Jessica Calunod, Armando Bacarro, Edilberto
the mountain by the leader of the armed men Perez, Virginia San Agustin-Gara, Calixto
who introduced himself as Commander Francisco, and Monico Saavedra.
Falcasantos (p. 5, TSN, ibid.)
The Version of the Defense
While the group was walking in the mountain, The facts of the case, according to the
they encountered government troops which defense, are as follows: 13
caused their group to be divided. Finally, they
were able to regroup themselves. Commander "On May 28, 1990, at about 10:00 o' clock in
Kamlon with his men joined the others. (pp. 7-8, the morning, while weeding their farm in
TSN, ibid.). Sinaburan, Zamboanga del Sur, accused-
appellant Jumatiya Amlani was picked up by
The kidnappers held their captives for fifty- soldiers and brought to a place where one army
four (54) days in the forest. During their battalion was stationed. Thereat, her five (5)
captivity, the victims were able to recognize co-accused, namely Salvador Mamaril, Hadjirul
their captors who were at all times armed Plasin, Jainuddin Hassin, Imam Taruk Alah and
with guns. The wives of the kidnappers Freddie Manuel were already detained. In the
performed the basic chores like cooking. (pp. afternoon of the same day, appellants spouses
9-10. TSN, ibid.) Jailon Kulais and Norma Sahiddan were brought
to the battalion station and likewise detained
Commander Falcasantos also ordered their thereat. On May 30, 1990, the eight (8)
victims to sign the ransom notes which accused were transported to Metrodiscom,
demanded a ransom of P100,000.00 and Zamboanga City. Here on the same date, they
P14,000.00 in exchange for twenty (20) sets were joined by accused-appellant Jaliha Hussin.
of uniform. (p. 15, TSN, ibid.)
At the time Amlani was picked up by the military,
On February 3, 1989, at around 12:00 o'clock she had just escaped from the captivity of Carlos
noontime, the victims were informed that they Falcasantos and company who in 1988 kidnapped
would be released. They started walking until and brought her to the mountains. Against their
around 7:00 o'clock in the evening of that day. will, she stayed with Falcasantos and his two wives
At around 12:00 o'clock midnight, the victims for two months, during which she slept with
were released after Commander Falcasantos and Falcasantos as aide of the wives and was made to
Kamlon received the ransom money. (p. 19, TSN, cook food, wash clothes, fetch water and run
ibid.) The total amount paid was P122,000.00. other errands for everybody. An armed guard was
The same was reached after several negotiations assigned to watch her, so that, for sometime, she
between Mayor Vitaliano Agan of Zamboanga had to bear the ill-treatment of Falcasantos'
City and the representatives of the kidnappers. other wives one of whom was armed. After about
(pp. 2, 6, TSN, Nov. 11, 1990) two months, while she was cooking and Falcasantos
and his two wives were bathing in the river, and
xxx xxx xxx." 12 The prosecution presented while her guard was not looking, she took her
fifteen witnesses, including some of the kidnap chance and made a successful dash for freedom.
victims themselves: (TSN, January 29,

Page 97 of 233
1992, pp. 2-15) Freddie Manuel and Jumatiya Amlani. That night,
the eight of them were brought to Tictapul,
Likewise a kidnap victim herself is accused- Zamboanga City, then to Vitali; and, finally, to
appellant Jaliha Hussin, who was thirteen years the Metrodiscom, Zamboanga City where they
old at the time (she was fifteen years old when stayed for six days and six nights. On the
the trial of the instant cases commenced). She seventh day, the accused were brought to the
was kidnapped by Daing Kamming and brought to City Jail, Zamboanga City. (TSN, January 30,
the mountains where he slept with her. She 1991, pp. 6-11)
stayed with him for less than a month sleeping
on forest ground and otherwise performing The husband of Norma Sahiddan is Jailon Kulais
housekeeping errands for Kamming and his men. who, as heretofore narrated, was arrested with
She made good her escape during an encounter his wife the day the soldiers came to their farm
between the group of Kamming and military on May 28, 1990. He has shared with his wife
troops. She hid in the bushes and came out at the ordeals that followed in the wake of their
Ligui-an where she took a "bachelor" bus in going arrest and in the duration of their confinement
back to her mother's house at Pudos, Guiligan, up to the present. (TSN, January 22, 1991 pp. 2-
Tungawan, Zamboanga del Sur. One day, at 4).
around 2:00 o' clock in the afternoon, while she
was harvesting palay at the neighboring village The Trial Court's Ruling
of Tigbalangao, military men picked her up to The trial court found Appellant Kulais guilty of
Ticbanuang where there was an army battalion five counts of kidnapping for ransom and one
detachment. From Ticbawuang, she was brought count of kidnapping a woman and public officer,
to Vitali, then to Metrodiscom, Zamboanga City, for which offenses it imposed upon him six
where on her arrival, she met all the other terms of "life imprisonment." It also found him
accused for the first time except Freddie guilty of two counts of slight illegal detention
Manuel. (Ibid., pp. 16-21) for the kidnapping of Monico Saavedra and
Calixto Francisco. The trial court ratiocinated as
Another female accused is appellant Norma follows:
Sahiddan, a native of Sinaburan, Tungawan,
Zamboanga del Sur. At about 3:00 o'clock in the "Principally, the issue here is one of credibility -
afternoon of a day in May, while she and her both of the witnesses and their version of what
husband were in their farm, soldiers arrested had happened on December 12, 1988, to
them. The soldiers did not tell them why they February 3, 1989. On this pivotal issue, the
were being arrested, neither were they shown any Court gives credence to prosecution witnesses
papers. The two of them were just made to board and their testimonies. Prosecution evidence is
a six by six truck. There were no other civilians in positive, clear and convincing. No taint of evil or
the truck. The truck brought the spouses to the dishonest motive was imputed or imputable to
army battalion and placed them inside the building prosecution witnesses. To this Court, who saw all
where there were civilians and soldiers. Among the witnesses testify, prosecution witnesses
the civilians present were her six co-accused testified only because they were impelled by a
Hadjirul Plasin, Salvador Mamaril, Jaimuddin sense of justice, of duty and of truth.
Hassan, Ima[m] Taruk Alah,

Page 98 of 233
Contrarily, defense evidence is weak, Salvador Mamaril and Hadjirul Plasin. The Court
uncorroborated and consisted only of alibis. holds these four men guilty as conspirators in
The individual testimonies of the nine accused the 8 cases of kidnapping. Unlike the three
dwelt principally on what happened to each of women-accused, these male accused were
them on May 27, 28 and 29, 1990. None of the armed. They actively participated in keeping
accused explained where he or she was on and their hostages by fighting off the military and
from December 12, 1988, to February 3, 1989, CAFGUS, in transferring their hostages from
when prosecution evidence showed positively place to place, and in guarding the kidnap
seven of the nine accused were keeping the five hostages. Salvador Mamaril and Jailon Kulais
or six hostages named by prosecution evidence. were positively identified as. among the nine
armed men who had kidnapped the eight kidnap
The seven accused positively identified to have victims on December 12, 1988.
been present during the course of the captivity
of the five kidnap-victims-complainants are: (1) The higher degree of participation found by the
Jumatiya Amlani; (2) Jaliha Hussin; (3) Norma Court of the four accused is supported by the
Sahiddan; (4) Jailon Kulais; (5) Hadjirul Plasin; (6) rulings of our Supreme Court quoted below.
Salvador Mamaril and (7) Jainuddin Hassan.
The time-honored jurisprudence is that
The two accused not positively identified are: direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy.
Freddie Manuel alias "Ajid", and Imam Taruk It may be shown by a number of infinite acts,
Alah. These two must, therefore, be declared conditions and circumstances which may vary
acquitted based on reasonable doubt. according to the purposes to be accomplished
and from which may logically be inferred that
The next important issue to be examined is: Are there was a common design, understanding or
these seven accused guilty as conspirators as agreement among the conspirators to commit
charged in the eight Informations; or only as the offense charged. (People vs. Cabrera, 43
accomplices? Prosecution evidence shows that Phil 64; People vs. Carbonel, 48 Phil. 868.)
the kidnapping group to which the seven accused
belonged had formed themselves into an armed The crime must, therefore, in view of the
band for the purpose of kidnapping for ransom. solidarity of the act and intent which existed
This armed band had cut themselves off from between the sixteen accused, be regarded as
established communities, lived in the mountains the act of the band or party created by them,
and forests, moved from place to place in order and they are all equally responsible for the
to hide their hostages. The wives of these murder in question. (U.S. vs. Bundal, et. al. 3 Phil
armed band moved along with their husbands, 89, 98.)
attending to their needs, giving them material
and moral support. These wives also attended to When two or more persons unite to
the needs of the kidnap victims, sleeping with accomplish a criminal object, whether through
them or comforting them. the physical volition of one, or all, proceeding
severally or collectively, each individual whose
xxx xxx xxx evil will actively contribute to the wrongdoing is
II) The guilt of Jainuddin Hassan, Jailon Kulais, in law responsible for the whole, the same as

Page 99 of 233
though performed by himself alone. be dealt with. Only the following issues
pertaining to Appellant Jailon Kulais will be
(People vs. Peralta, et. al. 25 SCRA 759, discussed: (1) judicial notice of other pending
772 (1968).) 14 cases, (2) sufficiency of the prosecution
evidence, and (3) denial as a defense. In
The Assigned Errors addition, the Court prosecution will pass upon
the propriety of the penalty imposed by the trial
The trial court is faulted with the following court.
errors, viz:
I The Court's Ruling
"The trial court erred in taking judicial notice of The appeal is bereft of merit.
a material testimony given in another case by Lt. First Issue: Judicial Notice and Denial of
Melquiades Feliciano, who allegedly was the team Due Process
leader of the government troops which allegedly
captured the accused-appellants in an encounter; Appellant Kulais argues that he was denied due
thereby, depriving the accused-appellants their process when the trial court took judicial notice
right to cross-examine him. II of the testimony given in another case by one Lt.
Melquiades Feliciano, who was the team leader
On the assumption that Lt. Feliciano's testimony of the government troops that captured him and
could be validly taken judicial notice of, the trial his purported cohorts. 16 Because he was
court, nevertheless, erred in not disregarding allegedly deprived of his right to cross-examine
the same for being highly improbable and a material witness in the person of Lieutenant
contradictory. Feliciano, he contends that the latter's
III testimony should not be used against him. 17
The trial court erred in finding that accused-
appellants Jumatiya Amlani, Jaliha Hussin and True, as a general rule, courts should not take
Norma Sahiddan provided Carlos Falcasantos, judicial notice of the evidence presented in
et. al., with material and moral comfort, hence, other proceedings, even if these have been tried
are guilty as accomplices in all the kidnapping or are pending in the same court, or have been
for ransom cases. heard and are actually pending before the same
IV judge. 18 This is especially true in criminal
The trial court erred in denying to accused- cases, where the accused has the constitutional
appellant Jaliha Hussin and Norma Sahiddan the right to confront and cross-examine the
benefits of suspension of sentence given to witnesses against him.
youth offenders considering that they were
minors at the time of the commission of the Having said that, we note, however, that even if
offense." 15 the court a quo did take judicial notice of the
testimony of Lieutenant Feliciano, it did not use
As earlier noted, Jumatiya Amlani, Jaliha Hussin such testimony in deciding the cases against the
and Norma Sahiddan had withdrawn their appeal, appellant. Hence, Appellant Kulais was not denied
and as such, the third and fourth assigned due process. His conviction was based mainly on
errors, which pertain to them only, will no longer the positive identification made by some of the

Page 100 of 233

kidnap victims, namely, Jessica Calunod, the wife of Kamlon, Tira.
Armando Bacarro and Edilberto Perez. These xxx xxx xxx
witnesses were subjected to meticulous cross- Q. Now, you said that you were with these men
examinations conducted by appellant's counsel. for fifty-four days and you really came to know
At best, then, the trial court's mention of them. Will you still be able to recognize these
Lieutenant Feliciano's testimony is a decisional persons if you will see the[m] again?
surplusage which neither affected the A. Yes, ma'am.
outcome of the case nor substantially
prejudiced Appellant Kulais. Q. Now will you look around this Honorable Court
and see if any of those you mentioned are here?
Second Issue: Sufficiency of Prosecution A. Yes, they are here.
Evidence
Q. Some of them are here?
Appellant was positively identified by Calunod, A. Some of them are here.
as shown by the latter's testimony: xxx xxx xxx
Q. Where is Tangkong? What is he wearing?
"CP CAJAYON D MS: White t-shirt with orange collar. (witness
Q. And how long were you in the custody pointing.) He was one of those nine armed men
of these persons? who took us from the highway.
A. We stayed with them for fifty -four days. Q. RTC INTERPRETER:
And during those days did you come to know any
of the persons who were with the group? A. We Witness pointed to a man sitting in court and
came to know almost all of them considering we when asked of his name, he gave his name as
stayed there for fifty-four days. Q. And can JAILON KULAIS.
you please name to us some of them or how you CP CAJAYON D MS:
know them?
A. For example, aside from Commander Q. Aside from being with the armed men who
Falcasantos and Commander Kamlon we came to stopped the vehicle and made you alight,
know first our foster parents, those who were what else was he doing while you were in
assigned to give us some food. their captivity?
Q. You mean to say that the captors assigned A. He was the foster parent of Armando Bacarro
you some men who will take care of you? and the husband of Nana.
Yes.
And to whom were you assigned? COURT:
To lla Abdurasa. Who?
And other than your foster [parents] or Tangkong.
the parents whom you are assigned to, who xxx xxx xxx: 19 Likewise clear and
else did you come to know? straightforward was Bacarro's testimony
Pagal and his wife; Tangkong and his wife pointing to appellant as one of the culprits:
Nana; the two (2) wives of Commander
Falcasantos - Mating and Janira - another
brother in-law of Commander Kamlon, Usman, "FISCAL CAJAYON:

Page 101 of 233

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
Q. And what happened then? Q. And because Tangkong was always with you as
A. Some of the armed men assigned who will be your host even if he did not tell you that he
the host or who will be the one to give food to [was] one of those who stopped you, you would
us. not recognize him?
A. No, I can recognize him because he was the
Q. To whom were you assigned? one who took my shoes. COURT:
A. I was assigned to a certain Tangkong and
his wife Nana. Who?
xxx xxx xxx Tangkong, your Honor.
Q. Now, you said you were assigned to xxx xxx xxx" 20
Tangkong and his wife. Do you remember how Also straightforward was Ernesto Perez'
he looks like? candid narration:
Yes. "FISCAL CAJAYON:
Now, will you please look around this Court xxx xxx xxx
and tell us if that said Tangkong and his wife Q. Who else?
are here? A. The last man.
Yes, ma'am. Q. Did you come to know his name?
A. Only his nickname, Tangkong. (Witness
Could you please point this Tangkong to us? pointed to a man in Court who identified himself
Witness pointed to a person in Court. When as Jailon Kulais.)
asked his name he identified [himself] as Q. And what was Tangkong doing in
Jailon Kulais. the mountain?
A. The same, guarding us. CROSS-
Why did you say his name is EXAMINATION BY ATTY. SAHAK Q. Engr.
Tangkong? Where did you get that name? Perez, you stated that you were ambushed by
Well, that is the name [by which he is] nine armed men on your way from [the] Licomo
usually called in the camp. to [the] Talaga Foot Bridge. What do you mean
xxx xxx xxx ATTY. FABIAN (counsel for by ambushed?
accused Kulais) A. I mean that they blocked our way and
stopped.
Q. When did you first meet Tangkong? Q. They did not fire any shots?
A. That was on December 11, because I A. But they were pointing their guns at us.
remember he was the one who took us. Q. And among the 9 armed men who held you on
your way to the Talaga Footbridge, you stated
Q. When you were questioned by the fiscal a that one of them was Commander Falcasantos?
while ago, you stated that Mr. Mamaril was one Yes.
of those who stopped the bus and took you to Could you also recognize anyone of
the hill and you did not mention Tangkong? the accused in that group?
A. I did not mention but I can remember his Yes.
face. Will you please identify?
That one, Tangkong. (The witness pointed to a

Page 102 of 233

man sitting in court who identified himself Q. Now, you were in their captivity for 54 days
as Jailon Kulais.) and you said there were these meetings for
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. FABIAN possible negotiation with the City Government.
Q. You said Jailon Kulais was among those What do you mean by this? What were you
who guarded the camp? supposed to negotiate?
FISCAL CAJAYON: A. Because they told us that they will be
Your Honor, please, he does not know the releasing us only after the terms. 22
name of Julais, he used the word Tangkong.
ATTY. FABIAN Q. And what were the terms? Did you come
Q. You said Tangkong guarded you. What do to know the terms?
you mean? A. I came to know the terms because I was the
A. He guarded us like prisoners. After one ordered by Commander Falcasantos to
guarding us they have their time two hours write the letter, the ransom letter.
another will be on duty guarding us. Q. At this point of time, you remember how
Q. Where did you meet Tangkong? many letters were you asked to write for your
A. He was one of the armed men who kidnapped ransom?
us. A. I could not remember as to how many, but I
xxx xxx xxx" 21 can identify them.
It is evident from the foregoing testimonies of Q. Why will you able to identify the same?
Calunod, Bacarro and Perez that kidnapping or A. Because I was the one who wrote it.
detention did take place: the five victims were Q. And you are familiar, of course, with your
held, against their will, for fifty-three days penmanship?
from December 12, 1988 to February 2, 1989. It Yes.
is also evident that Appellant Kulais was a Now we have here some letters which were
member of the group of armed men who staged turned over to us by the Honorable City Mayor
the kidnapping, and that he was one of those who Vitaliano Agan. 1,2,3,4,5 - there are five letters
guarded the victims during the entire period of all handwritten.
their captivity. His participation gives credence
to the conclusion of the trial court that he was a COURT:
conspirator. Original?
CP CAJAYON D MS:
Kidnapping for Ransom Original, your Honor.
Q. And we would like you to go over these and
That the kidnapping of the five was committed say, tell us if any of these were the ones you
for the purpose of extorting ransom is also were asked to write.
apparent from the testimony of Calunod, who A. (Witness going over [letters]) This one, 2
was quite emphatic in identifying the accused pages. This one, 2 pages. No more.
and narrating the circumstances surrounding the
writing of the ransom letters. Q. Aside from the fact that you identified your
penmanship in these letters, what else will make
"CP CAJAYON D MS: you remember that these are really the ones
you wrote while there?

Page 103 of 233

A. The signature is there. letter and this is dated January 21, 1988. 24
Now, could you please explain to us why it is
Q. There is a printed name here, dated January 21 1988 and the other one
Jessica Calunod. Enero 31, 1989 or January 31, 1989?
A. And over it is a signature. A. I did not realize that I placed 1989, 1988,
Q. That is your signature? but it was 1989.
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. How about in the other letter, did you sign Q. January 21, 1989?
it also? A. Yes
A. Yes, there is the other signature. xxx xxx xxx
Q. Now, in this letter, were the terms also
Q. There are names " other names here " Eddie mentioned? Please go over this.
Perez, Allan Basa, Armando Bacarro, Felix A. (Going over the letter) Yes, ma'am.
Rosario, Jojie Ortuoste and there are
signatures above the same. Did you come up to Q. Could you please read it aloud to us?
know who signed this one? A. (Witness reading) "Gusto nila and P100,000.00
A. Those whose signatures there were signed ng kapinan nu ug 20 sets nga completong
by the persons. [sic] uniformer (7 colors marine type) wala nay labot
ang sapatos, tunga medium ug tunga large size."
Q. And we have here at the bottom, Commander 25
Kamlon Hassan, and there is the signature above xxx xxx xxx
the same. Did you come to know who signed it? INTERPRETER:
A. [It was] Commander Kamlon Hassan who "They like the P100,000.00 and an addition of
signed that. 20 sets of complete uniform (7 colors, marine-
type not including the shoes), one half medium,
xxx xxx xxx one half large."
Q. Jessica, I am going over this letter . . . Could xxx xxx xxx
you please read to us the portion here which Q. After having written these letters, did you
says the terms? . . . come to know after [they were] signed by your
A. (Witness reading) "Mao ilang gusto nga companions and all of you, do you know if these
andamun na ninyo and kantidad nga P100,000 letters were sent? If you know only.
ug P14,000 baylo sa 20 sets nga uniforms sa
Biyernes (Pebrero 3, 1989)." 23 A. I would like to make it clear. The first letter
xxx xxx xxx was ordered to me by Falcasantos to inform the
INTERPRETER (Translation): City Mayor that initial as P500,000.00, and when
we were already - I was asked again to write, we
"This is what they like you to prepare[:] the were ordered to affix our signature to serve as
amount of P100,000.00 and P14,000.00 in proof that all of us are alive." 26 [sic]
exchange [for] 20 sets of uniform on Friday,
February 3, 1989. Calunod's testimony was substantially
xxx xxx xxx corroborated by both Armando Bacarro 27 and
Q. Now you also earlier identified this other Edilberto Perez. 28 The receipt of the ransom
upon payment of the money were testified to by
Zamboanga City Mayor Vitaliano Agan 29 and
letters, the efforts made to raise and deliver Teddy Mejia. 30
the ransom, and the release of the hostages
Page 104 of 233
The elements of kidnapping for ransom, as Court justified the conviction by holding that
embodied in Article 267 of the Revised Penal the offense consisted not only in placing a
Code, 31 having been sufficiently proven, and person in an enclosure, but also in detaining or
the appellant, a private individual, having been depriving him, in any manner, of his liberty. 35
clearly identified by the kidnap victims, this Likewise, in People vs. Santos, 36 the Court held
Court thus affirms the trial court's finding of that since the appellant was charged and
appellant's guilt on five counts of kidnapping for convicted under Article 267, paragraph 4, it
ransom. was not the duration of the deprivation of
liberty which was important, but the fact that
Kidnapping of Public Officers the victim, a minor, was locked up.

Victims Virginia San Agustin-Gara, Monico Thus, in the present case, the detention of
Saavedra and Calixto Francisco were members Gara, Saavedra and Francisco for only a few
of the government monitoring team abducted by hours is immaterial. The clear fact is that the
appellant's group. The three testified to the victims were public officers 37 - Gara was a
fact of kidnapping; however, they were not able fiscal analyst for the City of Zamboanga,
to identify the appellant. Even so, appellant's Saavedra worked at the City Engineer's Office,
identity as one of the kidnappers was and Francisco was a barangay councilman at the
sufficiently established by Calunod, Bacarro and time the kidnapping occurred. Appellant Kulais
Perez, who were with Gara, Saavedra and should be punished, therefore, under Article
Francisco when the abduction occurred. 267, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, and
not Art. 268, as the trial court held.
That Gara, Saavedra and Francisco were
detained for only three hours 32 does not The present case is different from People vs.
matter. In People vs. Domasian, 33 the victim Astorga, 38 which held that the crime
was similarly held for three hours, and was committed was not kidnapping under Article
released even before his parents received the 267, paragraph 4, but only grave coercion. The
ransom note. The accused therein argued that appellant in that case had tricked his seven-
they could not be held guilty of kidnapping as year-old victim into going with him to a place he
no enclosure was involved, and that only grave alone knew. His plans, however, were foiled when
coercion was committed, if at all. 34 Convicting a group of people became suspicious and rescued
appellants of kidnapping or serious illegal the girl from him. The Court noted that the
detention under Art. 267 (4) of the Revised victim's testimony and the other pieces of
Penal Code, the Court found that the victim, an evidence did not indicate that the appellant
eight -year-old boy, was deprived of his liberty wanted to detain her, or that he actually
when he was restrained from going home. The detained her.

In the present case, the evidence presented by

the prosecution indubitably established that the
victims were detained, albeit for a few hours.
There is proof beyond reasonable doubt that
kidnapping took place, and that appellant was a

Page 105 of 233

member of the armed group which abducted perpetua. Unlike life imprisonment, reclusion
the victims. perpetua carries with it accessory penalties
provided in the Revised Penal Code and has a
Third Issue: Denial and Alibi definite extent or duration. Life imprisonment is
invariably imposed for serious offenses
The appellant's bare denial is a weak defense that penalized by special laws, while reclusion
becomes even weaker in the face of the perpetua is prescribed in accordance with the
prosecution witnesses' positive identification of Revised Penal Code. 41
him. Jurisprudence gives greater weight to the
positive narration of prosecution witnesses than WHEREFORE, the conviction of Appellant Jailon
to the negative testimonies of the defense. 39 Kulais as principal in five counts of kidnapping
Between positive and categorical testimony which for ransom and in three counts of kidnapping is
has a ring of truth to it on the one hand, and a AFFIRMED, but the penalty imposed is hereby
bare denial on the other, the former generally MODIFIED as follows: Appellant is sentenced to
prevails. 40 Jessica Calunod, Armando Bacarro five terms of reclusion perpetua, one for each of
and Edilberto Perez testified in a clear, his five convictions for kidnapping for ransom;
straightforward and frank manner; and their and to three terms of reclusion perpetua, one
testimonies were compatible on material points. each for the kidnapping of Public Officers
Moreover, no ill motive was attributed to the Virginia Gara, Monico Saavedra and Calixto
kidnap victims and none was found this Court. Francisco. Like the other accused who withdrew
their appeals, he is REQUIRED to return the
We agree with the trial court's observation personal effects, or their monetary value, taken
that the appellant did not meet the charges from the kidnap victims. Additionally, he is
against him head on. His testimony dwelt on ORDERED to pay the amount of P122,000
what happened to him on the day he was representing the ransom money paid to the
arrested and on subsequent days thereafter. kidnappers. Costs against appellant.
Appellant did not explain where he was during
the questioned dates (December 12, 1988 to SO ORDERED.
February 3, 1989); neither did he rebut Calunod, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Vitug and Quisumbing, JJ
Bacarro and Perez, when they identified him as ., concur.
one of their kidnappers.
Anna and Badong were accused of killing Cathy. However,
only Anna was arrested since Badong went in to hiding. After
trial, Anna was acquitted of the charge in a decision rendered
Reclusion Perpetua, Not Life Imprisonment The by Judge Santos. Subsequently, Badong was arrested and
trial court erred when it sentenced the brought to trial. After trial, Badong was found guilty of homicide
in a decision rendered by Judge Yantok, the judge who replaced
appellant to six terms of life imprisonment. The Judge Santos after the latter retired. On appeal, Badong argues
that Judge Yantok should have taken judicial notice of the
penalty for kidnapping with ransom, under the acquittal of Anna rendered by Judge Santos. Is Badong correct?
Revised Penal Code, is reclusion perpetua to No. The appreciation of one judge of the testimony of a certain
witness is not binding on another judge who heard the testimony of the
death. Since the crimes happened in 1988, when same witness on the same matter. Each magistrate who hears the
testimony of a witness is called upon to make his own appreciation of
the capital penalty was proscribed by the the evidence. It is, therefore, illogical to argue that because one judge
Constitution, the maximum penalty that could made a conclusion in a certain way with respect to one or more of the
accused; it necessarily dictates that the succeeding judge who heard
have been imposed was reclusion perpetua. Life the same case against the other accused should automatically make
the same conclusion (People v. Langit, G.R. Nos. 134757-58, Aug. 4,
imprisonment is not synonymous with reclusion 2000).

Page 106 of 233

Note: All courts must take judicial notice of the decisions of the the propriety of taking judicial notice of a certain matter if such matter
Supreme Court as they are duty bound to know the rulings of is decisive of a material issue in the case.35 This procedure will
the highest tribunal and to apply them in the adjudication of apprise the parties of the possibility that the judge will or will not take
cases, jurisprudence being a part of our judicial system judicial notice of a fact, or of his resolution either way; it will thus
eliminate the element of surprise and enable the parties to act
POSTSCRIPT ON RULE 129 accordingly.

LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS FOR EVIDENCE 3. Judicial Notice of Proceedings in Another Case

In determining the competency of an offered piece of evidence, the court In the adjudication of a case pending before it, a court is not authorized
must examine the requisites provided by the pertinent rule or law for its to take judicial notice of the contents of another case even if said case
admissibility. These requisites must be established as foundations for the was heard by the same judge. The following are exceptions to this
evidence. For example, for a declaration of an agent to be admissible general rule: (1) when in the absence of any objection, with the
against his principal, as an exception to the res inter alios acta rule,31 the knowledge of the opposing party, the contents of said other case are
declaration must be: (1) within the scope of the agent’s authority; (2) made clearly referred to by title and number in a pending action and adopted
during the existence of the agenc y; and or read into the record of the latter; or (2) when the original record of
the agency is shown by evidence other than by such declaration.32 the other case or any part of it is actually withdrawn from the archives
If the agent’s declaration is on a matter outside the scope of his at the court’s discretion upon the request, or with the consent, of the
agency, or is made after the agency had ceased, the agent’s parties, and admitted as part of the record of the pending case.36
declaration cannot be admitted against his principal; the general rule of Parenthetically, a court will take judicial notice of its own acts and
res inter alios acta will apply instead. records in the same case.37

Similarly, the foundation required by the Rules for the proper When there is an objection, and the judge therefore cannot take
presentation of evidence must be laid, lest the evidence be rejected. judicial notice of a testimony or deposition given in another case, the
For example, when the original of a document is unavailable, before interested party must present the witness to testify anew. However, if
secondary evidence thereof is admitted, the proponent must establish: the witness is already dead or unable to testify (due to a grave cause
the existence or execution of the original document, and (2) the almost amounting to death, as when the witness is old and has lost the
circumstances of the loss or destruction of the original, or that the power of speech38), his testimony or deposition given in a former case
original cannot be produced in court. or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and
subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party
who had the opportunity to cross-examine him.39
A. Judicial Notice

If the testimony or deposition given in another proceeding is that of a

1. Mandatory and Discretionary Judicial Notice
party in a case, the other party may simply offer in evidence the record
of that testimony or the deposition without having to call the declarant-
Not everything alleged in a party’s pleading is required to be proved. party to testify thereon. Certainly, a party will offer the opposing party’s
Certain matters may be so well known to the court that to compel a declaration as evidence only if it is prejudicial to the latter’s interest.
party to prove it would be a waste of time and effort. Such declaration of a party against his interest is an extra-judicial
admission which may be given in evidence against him.40
Under the Rules, it shall be mandatory for the court to take judicial
notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and B. Admissions: Judicial And Extra-Judicial
territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government
and symbols of nationalities, the law of nations, the admiralty and An admission is a party’s acknowledgment of a fact which is against
maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political Constitution his interest.
and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the three departments
of the Philippine government, the laws of nature, the measure of time
and the geographical divisions.33 Courts may take judicial notice of A party may make an admission in any of these ways:
matters which are: (a) of public knowledge, (b) capable of
unquestionable demonstration, or (c) ought to be known to judges
In written pleadings, motions and other
because of their official functions.34
papers, and stipulations filed in the case.

2. Hearing the Parties on Discretionary Judicial Notice In open court, either by his testimony on
the stand or by his statement or that of his
During the trial, when a court is uncertain whether it may, at its counsel.
discretion, take judicial notice of a certain fact or not, it may call the
parties to a hearing to give them a reasonable opportunity to present
information relevant to the propriety or impropriety of taking judicial
notice of that fact. Certainly the so-called "hearing" is not for the
purpose of adducing evidence on that fact. Similarly, even after the trial
and before judgment or on appeal, the court may hear the parties on

Page 107 of 233

 In his statement made outside the original pleading containing such extrajudicial admission.47
proceedings in the same case. Consistently, the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that 'An
amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. However,
admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence
In the first two instances above-mentioned, the admissions made are against the pleader xxx.'48
regarded as judicial admissions. A judicial admission does not require
proof and may be contradicted only by showing that it was made
through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. A Since generally a judicial admission does not require proof and cannot
judicial admission need not be offered in evidence since it is not be contradicted, any attempt made by a party to still prove it may be
evidence. It is superior to evidence and shall be considered by the objected to as immaterial, i.e., not in issue anymore; and any attempt
court as established. to adduce evidence in contradiction of that admission may also be
objected to. In either case, the judge may himself block such attempts
as improper departures from the issues of the case. Unless, of course,
On the other hand, statements made by a party outside the it can be shown that the admission was made through palpable
proceedings in the same case are extrajudicial admissions which may mistake or that no such admission was made at all.
be an act, declaration or omission made by a party as to a relevant fact
and may be given in evidence against him.41 This type of admission is
regarded as evidence and must be offered as such; otherwise, the
court will not consider it in deciding the case. If the extra-judicial RULE 130
statement of a party is not against his interest but is in his favor, it
becomes a self-serving declaration which is inadmissible for being RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY
hearsay since it will be testified to by one who simply heard the OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
statement and has no personal knowledge of it. But it will not be
incompetent evidence, nor self-serving, if testified to by the party
himself at the trial.42 Real evidence, material evidence or physical evidence
is any material object, introduced in a trial, intended
to prove a fact in issue based on its demonstrable
By the rule’s definition, not all admissions made by a party during a physical characteristics. Physical evidence can
judicial proceeding are judicial admissions. To qualify, they must be conceivably include all or part of any object. [1]
made and offered in the proceedings in the same case. If made in one
judicial proceeding, but offered in another, they become extrajudicial Examples
admissions for purposes of the latter case. Thus, the declaration of a Examples include the written contract, the defective part
defendant in a case that the plaintiff therein is his agent is a judicial or defective product, the murder weapon, the gloves used
admission of the agency relationship between them if that fact is by an alleged murderer.
against the defendant’s interest. However, that same admission may Trace evidence, such as fingerprints, glove
only be an extrajudicial admission if considered in another case prints and firearm residue, is also a type of real
between the same parties. evidence. Real evidence is usually reported upon by
anexpert witness with appropriate qualifications to give
With more reason, an admission made in a document drafted for an opinion. This normally means a forensic scientist or
purposes of filing as a pleading in the case but never filed, another one qualified in forensic engineering.
pleading being filed in its stead, is not a judicial admission, for the In a murder trial for example (or a civil trial
unfiled document is not considered a pleading. Whether it would even for assault), the physical evidence might
be an extrajudicial admission would depend upon whether the include biological evidence such as DNA left by the
document was signed by the client or only by his attorney. If signed attacker on the victim's body, the body itself,
only by the attorney, it would not be admissible at all, since an attorney the weapon used, pieces of carpet spattered with blood,
has authority to make statements on behalf of his client only in open or casts of footprints or tire prints found at the
court or in a pleading actually filed.43 scene of the crime.

Provenance
In criminal cases, it should be noted that an admission or stipulation Admission of real evidence requires authentication,
made by the accused during the pre-trial cannot be used in evidence demonstration of relevance, and a showing that the object
against him unless reduced to writing and signed by him and his is in “the same or substantially the same condition” now
counsel.44 But this rule does not apply to admissions made in the as it was on the relevant date. An object of real
course of the trial. Thus, an admission made by an accused or his evidence is authenticated through witness statements or
counsel during the trial may be used against the accused although not by circumstantial evidence called the chain of custody.
signed by either of them.45
Physical and documentary evidence
Admissions in a pleading which had been withdrawn or superseded by Evidence that conveys in a different form the same
an amended pleading, although filed in the same case, are reduced to information that would be conveyed by a piece of physical
the status of extrajudicial admissions and therefore must be proved by evidence is not itself physical evidence. For example, a
the party who relies thereon46 by formally offering in evidence the diagram comparing a defective part to one that was properly
made is documentary evidence—only the actual part, or a
replica of the actual part, would be physical evidence.
Similarly, a film of a murder taking place would not be
physical evidence (unless it was introduced to show that the
victims blood had splattered on the

Page 108 of 233

film), but documentary evidence (as with a written
description of the event from an eyewitness).4
Philippines, the said accused, by means of
force and intimidation, to wit: by then
and there willfully, unlawfully and
RULE 130 feloniously removing her parity, kissing
her lips and vagina and thereafter
Rules of Admissibility rubbing his penis and inserting the same
to the inner portion of the vagina of the
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
undersigned complainant, 3 years of age,
Section 1. Object as evidence. ? Objects as a minor, against her will and without her
1
evidence are those addressed to the senses consent.
of the court. When an object is relevant to the
fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined Arraigned on January 15, 1996, accused-
or viewed by the court. (1a) 2
appellant pleaded not guilty.

Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses From the testimonies of its witnesses, namely
of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in 3
issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the Cyra May, her mother Gloria Francisco
court. Buenafe, Dr. Cristina V. Preyra, and SPO4
Republic of the Philippines Catherine Borda, the prosecution established
SUPREME COURT the following facts:
Manila
On November 20, 1995, as Gloria was about to
EN BANC set the table for dinner at her house in Quezon
City, Cyra May, then only three and a half years
G.R. No. 131516 March 5, 2003 old, told her, "Mama, si kuya Ronnie lagay niya titi
niya at sinaksak sa puwit at sa bibig ko."
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee, "Kuya Ronnie" is accused-appellant Ronnie
vs. Rullepa, the Buenafes' house boy, who was
RONNIE RULLEPA Y GUINTO, sometimes left with Cyra May at home.
accused-appellant.
Gloria asked Cyra May how many times accused-
CARPIO MORALES, J.: appellant did those things to her, to which she
answered many times. Pursuing, Gloria asked
On complaint of Cyra May Francisco Buenafe, Cyra May what else he did to her, and Cyra May
accused-appellant Ronnie Rullepa y Guinto was indicated the room where accused-appellant
charged with Rape before the Regional Trial slept and pointed at his pillow.
Court (RTC) of Quezon City allegedly committed
as follows: As on the night of November 20, 1995 accused-
appellant was out with Gloria's husband Col.
4
That on or about the 17th day of Buenafe, she waited until their arrival at past
November, 1995, in Quezon City, 11:00 p.m. Gloria then sent accused-appellant out
on an errand and informed her husband about
their daughter's plaint. Buenafe thereupon
4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_evidence

Page 109 of 233

talked to Cyra May who repeated what she had GENITAL:
earlier told her mother Gloria.
There is absence of pubic hair. Labia
When accused-appellant returned, Buenafe and majora are full, convex and coaptated
Gloria verified from him whether what Cyra May with congested and abraded labia
had told them was true. Ronnie readily admitted minora presenting in between. On
doing those things but only once, at 4:00 p.m. of separating the same is disclosed an
November 17, 1995 or three days earlier. abraded posterior fourchette and an
Unable to contain her anger, Gloria slapped elastic, fleshy type intact hymen.
accused-appellant several times. External vaginal orifice does not admit
the tip of the examining index finger.
Since it was already midnight, the spouses
waited until the following morning to bring xxx xxx xxx
accused-appellant to Camp Karingal where he
admitted the imputations against him, on CONCLUSION:
account of which he was detained. Gloria's sworn
5 6 Subject is in virgin state physically.
statement was then taken.

Recalling what accused-appellant did to her, There are no external signs of recent
Cyra May declared at the witness stand: application of any form of trauma at the time of
"Sinaksak nya ang titi sa pepe ko, sa puwit ko, at examination. (Emphasis supplied.)
sa bunganga," thus causing her pain and drawing
her to cry. She added that accused-appellant By Dr. Preyra's explanation, the abrasions on
did these to her twice in his bedroom. the labia minora could have been caused by
friction with an object, perhaps an erect
Dr. Ma. Cristina V. Preyra, the Medico-Legal penis. She doubted if riding on a bicycle had
Officer and Chief of the Biological Science caused the injuries.
8

Branch of the Philippine National Police Crime

Laboratory who examined Cyra May, came up The defense's sole witness was accused-
with her report dated November 21, appellant, who was 28 and single at the time he
7
1995, containing the following findings and took the witness stand on June 9, 1997. He
conclusions: denied having anything to do with the abrasions
found in Cyra May's genitalia, and claimed that
FINDINGS: prior to the alleged incident, he used to be
ordered to buy medicine for Cyra May who had
GENERAL AND EXTRA GENITAL: difficulty urinating. He further alleged that
after he refused to answer Gloria's queries if
Fairly developed, fairly nourished and her husband Buenafe, whom he usually
coherent female child subject. accompanied whenever he went out of the
Breasts are undeveloped. Abdomen is house, was womanizing, Gloria would always find
flat and soft. fault in him. He suggested that Gloria was
behind the filing of the complaint. Thus:

Page 110 of 233

 According to them you caused the APPELLANT'S ADMISSION.
abrasions found in her genital?
a That is not true, sir, II
q If that is not true, what is the truth? a As I
have mentioned earlier that before I started THE COURT A QUO ERRED ON (sic)
working with the family I was sent to Crame to RULING THAT THE ACCUSED-
buy medicine for the daughter because she had APPELLANT'S SILENCE DURING
difficulty in urinating. TRIAL AMOUNTED TO AN IMPLIED
q Did you know why the child has difficulty in ADMISSION OF GUILT.
urinating?
a No, I do not know, sir. III
q And how about the present complaint
filed against you, the complaint filed by the THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
mother of the victim? FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE
a I did not do it, sir. ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME
q What is the truth, what can you say about this CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND
present complaint filed against you? REASONABLE DOUBT.
a As I said Mrs. Buenafe got mad at me because
after I explained to her that I was going with IV
her gusband (sic) to the children of the
9 THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN
husband with a former marriage.
IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF
Finding for the prosecution, Branch 96 of the
DEATH UPON THE ACCUSED-
Quezon City RTC rendered judgment, the
11
dispositive portion of which reads: APPELLANT. (Emphasis supplied.)
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
Accused-appellant assails the crediting by
finding accused RONNIE RULLEPA y GUINTO
the trial court, as the following portion of its
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, and he is
decision shows, of his admission to Gloria of
accordingly sentenced to death.
having sexually assaulted Cyra May:
The accused is ordered to pay CYRA MAE
BUENAFE the amount of P40,000.00 as In addition, the mother asserted that
civil indemnity. Rullepa had admitted Cyra Ma[y]'s
10
Costs to be paid by the accused. (Italics in complaint during the confrontation in
the original.) the house. Indeed, according to the
mother, the admission was even
Hence, this automatic review, accused-appellant
expressly qualified by Rullepa's insistence
assigning the following errors to the trial court:
that he had committed the sexual assault
only once, specifying the time thereof as
I
4:00 pm of November 17, 1995. That
qualification proved that the admission
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
was voluntary and true. An uncoerced and
CONSIDERING AS ADMISSIBLE IN
truthful admission like this should be
EVIDENCE THE ACCUSED-
absolutely admissible and

Page 111 of 233

 competent. things to you?
a Opo.
xxx xxx xxx q When was that?
When my mother was asleep, he put — he
Remarkably, the admission was not denied removed my panty and inserted his penis inside
by the accused during trial despite his my vagina, my anus and my mouth, sir.
freedom to deny it if untrue. Hence, the xxx xxx xxx
admission became conclusive upon After your Kuya Ronnie did those things to
12
him. (Emphasis supplied.) you what did you feel?
a "Sabi nya ganito (Witness putting her finger
To accused-appellant, the statements attributed in her lips) Nasaktan po ako at umiyak po ako".
to him are inadmissible since they were made
out of fear, having been elicited only after Cyra qDid you cry because of hurt?
May's parents "bullied and questioned him." He a Yes.
thus submits that it was error for the trial q What part of your body hurt?
court to take his failure to deny the statements "Pepe ko po." When I went to the
during the trial as an admission of guilt. bathroom to urinate, I felt pain in my organ,
13
sir.
Accused-appellant's submission does not Cyra May reiterated her testimony during cross-
persuade. The trial court considered his examination, providing more revolting details of
admission merely as anadditional ground to her ordeal:
convince itself of his culpability. Even if such q So, you said that Kuya Ronnie did
admission, as well as the implication of his something to you what did he do to you on
failure to deny the same, were disregarded, the November 17, 1995?
evidence suffices to establish his guilt beyond a "Sinaksak nga yong titi nya". He inserted his
reasonable doubt. penis to my organ and to my mouth, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
The plain, matter-of-fact manner by which Cyra
When you said that your kuya Ronnie
May described her abuse in the hands of
inserted his penis into your organ, into your
her Kuya Ronnie is an eloquent testament to the mouth, and into your anus, would you describe
truth of her accusations. Thus she testified on what — his penis?
direct examination: a It is a round object, sir.
Court:
Do you recall if Ronnie Rullepa did
Is this titi of your kuya Ronnie a part of his
anything to you?
body?
aYes, sir.
a Opo.
qWhat did he do to you?
Was that in the head of kuya Ronnie?
a "Sinaksak nya ang titi sa pepe ko, sa puwit ko,
aNo, sir.
at sa bunganga"
q Which part of his body that titi located?
qHow many times did he do that to you?
(Witness pointing to her groin area)
aTwice, sir.
Court:
xxx xxx xxx
Continue
q Do you remember when he did these

Page 112 of 233

xxx xxx xxx a He was with Kuya Ronnie, sir.
q Why were you in that room? So, it is not correct that kuya Ronnie did
Gusto nya po matulog ako sa kuwarto niya. something to you because your kuya Ronnie [was]
q When you were in that room, what did always with your Papa?
Kuya Ronnie do to you? Yes, sir.
15

a"Hinubo po niya ang panty ko."

q And after he remove your panty, what did The above-quoted testimony of Cyra May does
Kuya Ronnie do, what did he do to you? not indicate the time when her father Col.
aHe inserted his penis to my organ, sir. Buenafe left their house on November 17, 1995
q Why did kuya Ronnie, was kuya Ronnie with accused-appellant and, thus, does not
already naked or he was already wearing any preclude accused-appellant's commission of rape
clothing? on the same date. In any event, a young child is
aStill had his clothing on, sir. vulnerable to suggestion, hence, her affirmative
q So, where did his penis, saan lumabas ang response to the defense counsel's above-quoted
penis ni Kuya Ronnie? leading questions.
a Dito po, (Witness referring or pointing to her
groin area) As for the variance in the claim regarding when
xxx xxx xxx Gloria was informed of the rape, Gloria having
So, that's the — and at the time, you did testified that she learned of it on November 20,
16
not cry and you did not shout for help? 1995 while Cyra May said that immediately
a Sabi nya po, not to make any noise because my after the incident, she awakened her mother
mother might be roused from sleep. who was in the adjacent room and reported
17
qHow long was kuya Ronnie did that to you? it: This is a minor matter that does not detract
aMatagal po. from Cyra May's categorical, material testimony
q After kuya Ronnie scrub his penis to your that accused-appellant inserted his penis into
vagina, what other things did he do? her vagina.
a After that he inserted his penis to my
mouth, and to my anus, sir. Accused -appellant goes on to contend that
q You did not complain and you did not Cyra May was coached, citing the following
shout? portion of her testimony:
14
a I cried, sir. Accused-appellant draws
"Yong sinabi mong sinira nya ang
attention to the statement of Cyra May that
buhay mo," where did you get that
he was not in the house on November 17
(1995), as reflected in the following phrase?
transcript of her testimony: 18
q Is it not a fact that you said a while ago that a It was the word of my Mama, sir.
when your father leaves the house, he [was]
On the contrary, the foregoing testimony
usually accompanied by your kuya Ronnie?
indicates that Cyra May was really narrating
a Opo.
the truth, that of hearing her mother utter
Why is it that Kuya Ronnie was in the
"sinira niya ang buhay mo."
house when your father left the house at that
time, on November 17?
Accused-appellant's suggestion that Cyra May

Page 113 of 233

merely imagined the things of which he is unless it really happened to her. Needless
accused, perhaps getting the idea from to state, she described the act of the
television programs, is preposterous. It is true accused as bad. Her demeanor as a witness
that "the ordinary child is a `great weaver of — manifested during trial by her
romances,"' and her "imagination may induce unhesitant, spontaneous, and plain
(her) to relate something she has heard or read responses to questions — further enhanced
19
in a story as personal experience." But Cyra her claim to credit and trustworthiness.
21

May's account is hardly the stuff of romance or

(Italics in the original.)
fairy tales. Neither is it normal TV fare, if at all.
In a futile attempt at exculpation, accused-
This Court cannot believe that a victim of Cyra appellant claims that even before the alleged
May's age could concoct a tale of defloration, incident Cyra May was already suffering from
allow the examination of her private parts, and pain in urinating. He surmises that she could
undergo the expense, trouble, inconvenience, not have scratched herself which caused the
20 abrasions. Dr. Preyra, however, was quick to rule
to mention the trauma of public trial."
out this possibility. She stated categorically
Besides, her testimony is corroborated by the that that part of the female organ is very
findings of Dr. Preyra that there were abrasions sensitive and rubbing or scratching it is
22
in her labia minora, which she opined, could have painful. The abrasions could not, therefore,
been caused by friction with an erect penis. have been self-inflicted.

This Court thus accords great weight to the That the Medical -Legal Officer found "no
following assessment of the trial court external signs of recent application of any form
regarding the competency and credibility of of trauma at the time of the examination" does
Cyra May as a witness: not preclude accused-appellant's conviction since
the infliction of force is immaterial in statutory
Her very tender age notwithstanding, 23
rape.
Cyra Ma(y) nonetheless appeared to
possess the necessary intelligence and More. That Cyra May suffered pain in her vagina
perceptiveness sufficient to invest her but not in her anus despite her testimony that
with the competence to testify about accused -appellant inserted his penis in both
her experience. She might have been an orifices does not diminish her credibility. It is
impressionable child — as all others of possible that accused-appellant's penis failed to
her age are — but her narration penetrate her anus as deeply as it did her
of KuyaRonnie's placing his "titi" in her vagina, the former being more resistant to
"pepe" was certainly one which could not extreme forces than the latter.
be considered as a common child's tale.
Her responses during the examination Accused -appellant's imputation of ill motive on
of counsel and of the Court established the part of Gloria is puerile. No mother in her
her consciousness of right mind would subject her child to the
the distinction between good and bad , humiliation, disgrace and trauma attendant to a
which rendered inconceivable for her prosecution for rape if she were not motivated
to describe a "bad" act of the accused solely by the desire to incarcerate the person

Page 114 of 233

 24
responsible for the child's defilement. Courts The victim's age is relevant in rape cases since it
are seldom, if at all, convinced that a mother may constitute an element of the offense.
would stoop so low as to subject her daughter Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
to physical hardship and shame concomitant to a amended by Republic Act No. 7659,
29
provides:
rape prosecution just to assuage her own hurt
feelings.
25 Art. 335. When and how rape is
committed. — Rape is committed by
Alternatively, accused-appellant prays that he having carnal knowledge of a woman under
be held liable for acts of lasciviousness instead any of the following circumstances:
of rape, apparently on the basis of the following
testimony of Cyra May, quoted verbatim, that he xxx xxx xxx.
merely "scrubbed" his penis against her vagina:
When the woman is under
Is it not a fact that kuya twelve years of age . . .
Ronnie just made some scrubbed his
penis into your vagina? xxx xxx xxx.

a Yes, Sir. The crime of rape shall be punished

by reclusion perpetua.
And when — he did not actually
penetrated your vagina? xxx xxx xxx.

a Yes, sir.
26 Furthermore, the victim's age may constitute
a qualifying circumstance, warranting the
Dr. Preyra, however, found abrasions in the imposition of the death sentence. The same
labia minora, which is "directly beneath the Article states:
27
labia majora," proving that there was indeed
penetration of the vagina, not just a mere The death penalty shall also be imposed if
rubbing or "scrubbing" of the penis against its the crime of rape is committed with any of
surface. the following attendant circumstances:

In fine, the crime committed by accused- when the victim is under eighteen (18)
appellant is not merely acts of lasciviousness but years of age and the offender is a
statutory rape. parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity with
The two elements of statutory rape are (1) that the third civil degree, or the common-law
the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman, and spouse of the parent of the victim:
28
(2) that the woman is below twelve years of age.
As shown in the previous discussion, the first xxx xxx xxx.
element, carnal knowledge, had been established
beyond reasonable doubt. The same is true with when the victim is . . . a child below
respect to the second element. seven (7) years old.

Page 115 of 233

 xxx xxx xxx. less than 12 years old;

Because of the seemingly conflicting decisions c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12

regarding the sufficiency of evidence of the years of age and what is sought to be
victim's age in rape cases, this Court, in the proved is that she is less than 18 years
recently decided case of People v. old.
30
Pruna, established a set of guidelines in
appreciating age as an element of the crime In the absence of a certificate of live
or as a qualifying circumstance, to wit: birth, authentic document, or the
testimony of the victim's mother or
The best evidence to prove the age of relatives concerning the victim's age,
the offended party is an original or the complainant's testimony will suffice
certified true copy of the certificate provided that it is expressly and clearly
of live birth of such party. admitted by the accused.

In the absence of a certificate of It is the prosecution that has the

live birth, similar authentic documents burden of proving the age of the
such as baptismal certificate and school offended party. The failure of the
records which show the date of birth of accused to object to the testimonial
the victim would suffice to prove age. evidence regarding age shall not be taken
against him.
If the certificate of live birth or
authentic document is shown to have The trial court should always make a
been lost or destroyed or otherwise categorical finding as to the age of the
unavailable, the testimony, if clear and victim.
credible, of the victim's mother or a
member of the family either by affinity Applying the foregoing guidelines, this Court in
or consanguinity who is qualified to the Pruna case held that the therein accused-
testify on matters respecting pedigree appellant could only be sentenced to suffer the
such as the exact age or date of birth of penalty of reclusion perpetua since:
the offended party pursuant to Section
40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence . . . no birth certificate or any similar
shall be sufficient under the following authentic document, such as a baptismal
circumstances: certificate of LIZETTE, was presented
to prove her age. . . . .
If the victim is alleged to be
below 3 years of age and what is xxx xxx xxx.
sought to be proved is that she is
less than 7 years old; However, the Medico-Legal Report relied
upon by the trial court does not in any
If the victim is alleged to be way prove the age of LIZETTE, for there
below 7 years of age and what is is nothing therein which even mentions
sought to be proved is that she is her age. Only testimonial evidence was

Page 116 of 233

presented to establish LIZETTE's age. her competency to testify is not
Her mother, Jacqueline, testified (that necessarily an admission that she was
the victim was three years old at the below 7 years of age when PRUNA raped
time of the commission of the crime). her on 3 January 1995. Such being the
case, PRUNA cannot be convicted of
xxx xxx xxx qualified rape, and hence the death
penalty cannot be imposed on him.
Likewise, LIZETTE testified on 20
November 1996, or almost two years However, conformably with no. 3 (b) of
after the incident, that she was 5 years the foregoing guidelines, the testimony of
old. However, when the defense counsel LIZETTE's mother that she was 3 years
asked her how old she was on 3 January old at the time of the commission of the
1995, or at the time of the rape, she crime is sufficient for purposes of
replied that she was 5 years old. Upon holding PRUNA liable for statutory rape,
further question as to the date she was or rape of a girl below 12 years of age.
born, she could not answer. Under the second paragraph of Article
335, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, in
For PRUNA to be convicted of rape in its relation to no. 3 of the first paragraph
qualified form and meted the supreme thereof, having carnal knowledge of a
penalty of death, it must be established woman under 12 years of age is punishable
with certainty that LIZETTE was below by reclusion perpetua. Thus, the penalty
7 years old at the time of the commission to be imposed on PRUNA should
of the crime. It must be stressed that be reclusion perpetua, and not death
the severity of the death penalty, penalty. (Italics in the original.)
especially its irreversible and final
31
nature once carried out, makes the Several cases suggest that courts may take
decision-making process in capital "judicial notice" of the appearance of the victim
offenses aptly subject to the most in determining her age. For example, the Court, in
32
exacting rules of procedure and evidence. People v. Tipay, qualified the ruling in People v.
33
Javier, which required the presentation of the
In view of the uncertainty of LIZETTE's birth certificate to prove the rape victim's age,
exact age, corroborative evidence such with the following pronouncement:
as her birth certificate, baptismal
certificate or any other authentic This does not mean, however, that the
document should be introduced in presentation of the certificate of birth
evidence in order that the qualifying is at all times necessary to prove
circumstance of "below seven (7) years minority. The minority of a victim of
old" is appreciated against the appellant. tender age who may be below the age of
The lack of objection on the part of the ten is quite manifest and the court can
defense as to her age did not excuse the take judicial notice thereof. The crucial
prosecution from discharging its burden. years pertain to the ages of fifteen to
That the defense invoked LIZETTE's seventeen where minority may seem to
tender age for purposes of questioning be dubitable due to one's physical

Page 117 of 233

 appearance. In this situation, the rather, he is conducting an examination of the
prosecution has the burden of proving evidence, the evidence being the appearance of
with certainty the fact that the victim the person. Such a process militates against the
was under 18 years of age when the rape very concept of judicial notice, the object of
was committed in order to justify the which is to do away with the presentation of
imposition of the death penalty under the evidence.
above-cited provision. (Emphasis
supplied.) This is not to say that the process is not
sanctioned by the Rules of Court; on the
34
On the other hand, a handful of cases holds contrary, it does. A person's appearance, where
that courts, without the requisite hearing relevant, is admissible as object evidence, the
prescribed by Section 3, Rule 129 of the same being addressed to the senses of the court.
35
Rules of Court, cannot take judicial notice Section 1, Rule 130 provides:
of the victim's age.
SECTION 1. Object as evidence. —
Judicial notice signifies that there are certain Objects as evidence are those
"facta probanda," or propositions in a party's addressed to the senses of the court.
case, as to which he will not be required to When an object is relevant to the fact in
offer evidence; these will be taken for true by issue, it may be exhibited to, examined
the tribunal without the need of or viewed by the court.
36
evidence. Judicial notice, however, is a phrase
sometimes used in a loose way to cover some "To be sure," one author writes, "this practice
other judicial action. Certain rules of Evidence, of inspection by the court of objects, things
usually known under other names, are frequently or persons relevant to the fact in dispute, has
39
referred to in terms of judicial notice.
37 its roots in ancient judicial procedure." The
author proceeds to quote from another
The process by which the trier of facts judges a authority:
person's age from his or her appearance cannot
be categorized as judicial notice. Judicial notice "Nothing is older or commoner in the
is based upon convenience and expediency for it administration of law in all countries than
would certainly be superfluous, inconvenient, and the submission to the senses of the
expensive both to parties and the court to tribunal itself, whether judge or jury, of
require proof, in the ordinary way, of facts objects which furnish evidence. The view
which are already known to of the land by the jury, in real actions, of
38
courts. As Tundag puts it, it "is the cognizance a wound by the judge where mayhem was
of certain facts which judges may properly take alleged, and of the person of one
and act on without proof because they already alleged to be an infant, in order to fix
know them." Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, where his age, the inspection and comparison of
the provisions governing judicial notice are found, seals, the examination of writings, to
is entitled "What Need Not Be Proved." When the determine, whether they are
trier of facts observes the appearance of a (`)blemished,(') the implements with
person to ascertain his or her age, he is not taking which a crime was committed or of a
judicial notice of such fact; person alleged, in a bastardy proceeding,

Page 118 of 233

 to be the child of another, are few his age and a finding that the applicant is not a
illustrations of what may be found minor based upon such appearance is not without
abundantly in our own legal records evidence to support it.
and textbooks for seven centuries
40 This Court has also implicitly recognized the
past." (Emphasis supplied.)
same process in a criminal case. Thus, in
A person's appearance, as evidence of age (for 46
United States v. Agadas, this Court held:
example, of infancy, or of being under the age
of consent to intercourse ), is usually regarded Rosario Sabacahan testified that he was
as relevant; and, if so, the tribunal may properly 17 years of age; that he had never
observe the person brought before purchased a cedula; and that he was going
41
it. Experience teaches that corporal appearances to purchase a cedula the following
are approximately an index of the age of their January. Thereupon the court asked this
bearer, particularly for the marked extremes of defendant these questions: "You are a
old age and youth. In every case such evidence pretty big boy for seventeen." Answer: "I
should be accepted and weighed for what it may be cannot tell exactly because I do not
in each case worth. In particular, the outward remember when I was born, but 17 years
physical appearance of an alleged minor may be is my guess." Court: "If you are going to
considered in judging his age; a contrary rule would take advantage of that excuse, you had
for such an inference be pedantically over- better get some positive evidence to that
42
cautious. Consequently, the jury or the court effect." Answer: "I do not remember, as
trying an issue of fact may be allowed to judge the I already stated on what date and in what
age of persons in court by observation of such year I was born." The court, in
43
persons. The formal offer of the person as determining the question of the age of
evidence is not necessary. The examination and the defendant, Rosario Sabacahan, said:
cross-examination of a party before the jury are
equivalent to exhibiting him before the jury and an "The defendant, Rosario
offer of such person as an exhibit is properly Sabacahan, testified that he
refused.
44 thought that he was about 17
years of age, butjudging by his
This Court itself has sanctioned the appearance he is a youth 18 or 19
determination of an alien's age from his years old. He has shown that he
appearance. In Braca v. Collector of has no positive information on the
Customs,
45
this Court ruled that: subject and no effort was made by
the defense to prove the fact that
The customs authorities may also determine from he is entitled to the mitigating
the personal appearance of the immigrant what his circumstance of article 9,
age is. The person of a Chinese alien seeking paragraph 2, of the Penal code,
admission into the Philippine Islands is evidence in which fact it is held to be
an investigation by the board of special inquiry to incumbent upon the defense to
determine his right to enter; and such body may establish by satisfactory evidence
take into consideration his appearance to in order to enable the court to
determine or assist in determining give an accused person the benefit

Page 119 of 233

 of the mitigating circumstance." age, yet the trial court reached the
conclusion, judging from the personal
In United States vs. Estavillo and Perez appearance of Rosario, that "he is a youth
(10 Off. Gaz., 1984) Estavillo testified, 18 or 19 years old." Applying the rule
when the case was tried in the court enunciated in the case just cited, we must
below, that he then was only 16 years of conclude that there exists a reasonable
age. There was no other testimony in the doubt, at least, with reference to the
record with reference to his age. But the question whether Rosario was, in fact 18
trial judge said: "The accused Estavillo, years of age at the time the robbery was
notwithstanding his testimony giving his committed. This doubt must be resolved
age as 16 years, is, as a matter of fact, in favor of the defendant, and he is,
not less than 20." This court, in passing therefore, sentenced to six months
upon the age of Estavillo, held: of arresto mayor in lieu of six years ten
months and one day of presidio mayor. . . .
"We presume that the trial court .
reached this conclusion with
reference to the age of Estavillo There can be no question, therefore, as to the
from the latter's personal admissibility of a person's appearance in
appearance. There is no proof in determining his or her age. As to the weight to
the record, as we have said, which accord such appearance, especially in rape
even tends to establish the cases, Pruna laid down guideline no. 3, which is
assertion that this appellant again reproduced hereunder:
understated his age. . . . It is true
that the trial court had an If the certificate of live birth or
opportunity to note the personal authentic document is shown to have
appearance of Estavillo for the been lost or destroyed or otherwise
purpose of determining his age, unavailable, the testimony, if clear and
and by so doing reached the credible, of the victim's mother or a
conclusion that he was at least member of the family either by affinity
20, just two years over 18. This or consanguinity who is qualified to
appellant testified that he was testify on matters respecting pedigree
only 16, and this testimony stands such as the exact age or date of birth of
uncontradicted. Taking into the offended party pursuant to Section
consideration the marked 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence
difference in the penalties to be shall be sufficient under the following
imposed upon that age, we must, circumstances:
therefore, conclude (resolving all
doubts in favor of the appellants) If the victim is alleged to be
that the appellants' ages were 16 below 3 years of age and what is
and 14 respectively." sought to be proved is that she is
less than 7 years old;
While it is true that in the instant case
Rosario testified that he was 17 years of If the victim is alleged to be

Page 120 of 233

 below 7 years of age and what is In the present case, the prosecution did not
sought to be proved is that she is offer the victim's certificate of live birth or
less than 12 years old; similar authentic documents in evidence. The
victim and her mother, however, testified that
c. If the victim is alleged to be she was only three years old at the time of the
below 12 years of age and what is rape. Cyra May's testimony goes:
sought to be proved is that she is
less than 18 years old. Your name is Cyra Mae is that correct?
aYes, sir.
Under the above guideline, the testimony of a qAnd you are 3 years old?
48
relative with respect to the age of the victim is aYes, sir.
sufficient to constitute proof beyond That of her mother goes:
reasonable doubt in cases (a), (b) and (c) above. Q How old was your daughter when there
In such cases, the disparity between the things happened?
allegation and the proof of age is so great that A3 and ½ years old.
the court can easily determine from the QWhen was she born?
appearance of the victim the veracity of the AIn Manila, May 10, 1992.
49

testimony. The appearance corroborates the

relative's testimony. Because of the vast disparity between the alleged
age (three years old) and the age sought to be
As the alleged age approaches the age sought to proved (below twelve years), the trial court would
be proved, the person's appearance, as object have had no difficulty ascertaining the victim's
evidence of her age, loses probative value. Doubt age from her appearance. No reasonable doubt,
as to her true age becomes greater and, therefore, exists that the second element of
following Agadas, supra, such doubt must be statutory rape, i.e., that the victim was below
resolved in favor of the accused. twelve years of age at the time of the commission
of the offense, is present.
This is because in the era of modernism
and rapid growth, the victim's mere Whether the victim was below seven years old,
physical appearance is not enough to however, is another matter. Here, reasonable
gauge her exact age. For the extreme doubt exists. A mature three and a half-year old
penalty of death to be upheld, nothing can easily be mistaken for an underdeveloped
but proof beyond reasonable doubt of seven-year old. The appearance of the victim, as
every fact necessary to constitute the object evidence, cannot be accorded much
crime must be substantiated. Verily, the weight and, following Pruna, the testimony of the
minority of the victim should be not only mother is, by itself, insufficient.
alleged but likewise proved with equal
certainty and clearness as the crime As it has not been established with moral
itself. Be it remembered that the proof certainty that Cyra May was below seven years
of the victim's age in the present case old at the time of the commission of the offense,
spells the difference between life and accused-appellant cannot be sentenced to suffer
47 the death penalty. Only the penalty
death.

Page 121 of 233

of reclusion perpetua can be imposed upon him.
Republic of the Philippines
In line with settled jurisprudence, the civil SUPREME COURT
indemnity awarded by the trial court is Manila
increased to P50,000.00. In addition, Cyra May
FIRST DIVISION
is entitled to an award of moral damages in the
50
amount of P50,000.00. G.R. No. 121979 March 2, 1998
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 96,
appellee,
is AFFIRMED withMODIFICATION. Accused-
vs.
appellant Ronnie Rullepa y Guinto is
SAMUEL ULZORON, accused-appellant.
found GUILTY of Statutory Rape, defined and
punished by Article 335 (3) of the Revised Penal
BELLOSILLO, J.:
Code, as amended, and is sentenced to suffer
the penalty ofreclusion perpetua. He is ordered SAMUEL ULZORON was charged with rape with
to pay private complainant, Cyra May Buenafe y the use of a deadly weapon. Complaining witness
Francisco, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil was Emily Gabo. On 8 March 1995 the trial court
indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. adjudged him guilty as charged and sentenced
1
him to reclusion perpetua. No indemnity was
SO ORDERED.
awarded to Emily for the sexual assault.

Davide, Jr., C .J ., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug,

On 31 March 1987, at around 10:00 o'clock in
Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-
the morning, Emily was watering her plants near
Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Callejo,
a well in Brgy. Tumarbong, Roxas, Palawan, when
Sr., and Azcuna, JJ ., concur.
Samuel suddenly appeared. He was armed with a
Ynares-Santiago and Corona, JJ ., are on leave.
2-foot long bolo hanging in its scabbard around
his waist with a long-sleeved work shirt slung
over his shoulder. He asked Emily where her
_ Classification of Object Evidence husband was. She replied that Roberto was
a. That which consists in the exhibition or
production of the object inside or outside the courtroom, already in the kaingin so she advised him to
b. That which consists in the inspection of the object outside the
courtroom (ocular inspection), and
follow her husband there. But Samuel opted to
c. That which consists in the making of an experiment remain and rest on an anthill some two and a half
2
_ Requisites for Admissibility: (2-1/2) meters from the well.
a. The object must be relevant to the fact
in issue; and
b. The object must be authenticated before it is admitted. After Emily finished watering her plants and
Rules:
before she could start washing clothes, Samuel
Instances when Exhibition grabbed her wrists and locked them with one
Maybe Dispensed with
Where the presentation is violative of decency. hand behind her back with the other hand
Where the presentation has no purpose other than to arouse the
passion of the court towards the party against whom it is offered in
drawing his bolo and pointing it at her neck. She
evidence. struggled to free herself from his hold but was
When the object is repulsive or offensive to the sensibilities.
Where, in the discretion of the court, the production of evidence will so intimidated with the bolo that she could not
cause great inconvenience, or where, for other reasons, it is unjust.

Page 122 of 233

shout for help; she lost her strength eventually. Ulzoron as she turned over his belongings to the
After she weakened, he dragged her some forty police authorities as her evidence in support
meters away to the bushes and tall grasses. thereof.
7

He forced her to lie down; then he mounted her.

He laid his bolo beside him, pinned her arms with Ulzoron had his own story to tell. He said that on
one hand, and with the other, loosened the the day of the incident he saw Emily at the well.
buttons of her dress. Emily could only struggle She told him that work in the kaingin would be in
in vain until he ripped off her dress and panties. the afternoon yet so she advised him to come back.
He opened the zipper of his pants and then Since he was returning in the afternoon, he
inserted his penis to her vagina. He copulated decided to leave his bolo and work shirt near the
with her for about fifteen (15) minutes. She did well. However, at around 10:00 o'clock that
everything to disengage herself from the sexual morning, as he was about to retrieve his bolo and
imbroglio but her efforts proved no match to his shirt, he saw the Gabo spouses having sexual
3 intercourse in a hut with a wall only on one side. As
strength.
he was ashamed to be seen by them he proceeded
At this moment, Emily heard her husband's 8
instead to the house of a relative.
voice calling for her. Roberto was now
somewhere within the vicino. He saw Emily's On the strength of the testimony of Emily Gabo,
slippers near the well so he franctically hollered, the trial court convicted the accused. It found her
"Baby!" She answered back. When Roberto's testimony straightforward and credible. It
voice was heard by Samuel, he dashed off and rationalized that she would not have filed her
fled to the thickets.
4 complaint for rape if her accusations were not
true, for to do so would only expose herself to
Roberto followed the direction of Emily's voice public shame or ridicule. No improper motive on
until he saw her emerge from the thick hushes. her part to file the case had been shown. The
She was in a state of shock. He asked her what findings of the examining physician also lent
happened and she told him that she was sexually credence to her claim. On the other hand, the trial
abused by Samuel Ulzoron. Emily pointed court found the defense of the accused too weak,
Roberto to the place where she was dragged anemic, for if Ulzoron really felt embarrassed to
and raped. Together they went there and found be seen by the Gabo spouses, he could have taken
Ulzoron's bolo and work shirt and took them a detour or passed another way to get back his
5 bolo and work shirt. Besides, it was never
home.
established that the Gabos had so much yearning
The following afternoon, Emily went to Dr. for each other that they had to indulge in sexual
Feliciano M. Velasco Jr. for physical examination. congress in a hut that was open to public view and
The doctor noted the discharge mixed with 9
at such an unlikely hour.
semen in her private part. He opined that it
could have been caused by sexual intercourse Appellant concedes, even as he assails his
within twenty-four (24) hours prior to his conviction, that his defense is inherently weak.
examination. He found her cervix to be parous Nevertheless, he faults the trial court for
with superficial erosions. Her hymen was convicting him on the basis of his defense. He
6
obliterated with caruncles. The next day Emily argues that the undisputed facts and
lodged a complaint for rape against Samuel circumstances made it more likely that Emily was

Page 123 of 233

involved in an adulterous relationship with him. defense but as a focal point in disputing the
10
He claims, for instance, that there was appreciation by the trial court of the evidence
absolutely nothing to support the victim's claim for the prosecution. Thus, this course taken by
of struggle, and that while he allegedly dragged the defense may not be totally disregarded.
her forty (40) meters away before assaulting
her sexually, the examining physician could not The term "dragged" should not indeed be taken
conclude that physical force was actually in the meaning understood by appellant as
inflicted since she did not sustain any physical "dragged along on the ground." When asked on
11 cross-examination by the defense counsel to
injuries. Another point raised by the defense
"describe how she and appellant traveled at (
is her testimony that while he was on top of her 15
sic) forty (40) meters distance," she said, "He
his bolo was beside him. The plain import of such
was holding my hands and at the same time he is
testimony, according to the accused, is that the 16
bolo was not a necessary instrument in the (sic) pushing me forward." This testimony
12 adequately explains the absence of injuries in
commission of the crime. He also invites
her body. At any rate, it is not necessary for the
attention to the circumstance that the judge
commission of rape that there be marks of
who wrote the decision did not personally try 17
physical violence on the victim's body. While
the case and therefore lacked the opportunity
to observe the demeanor of the parties and Emily repeatedly mentioned her struggles to be
13 released from his grasp, such efforts need not
their witnesses. 18
always result in physical injuries. Besides,
The arguments of appellant are unpersuasive; they did not refer to the circumstances when
they fail to convince us. Contrary to his claim she was being dragged by the accused, but to
that he was convicted because of his weak the circumstances when he initially grabbed her
19 20
defense, his conviction was actually founded on hands, when he was on top of her, when he
the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution. 21
was undressing her, and when she was
With regard to his claim that he had an exerting efforts to disengage herself from the
adulterous relationship with the victim, the sexual anchorage.
22

Office of the Solicitor General observed that

such claim was a radical departure from the Intimidation may be of the moral kind, e.g., the
defense of denial he raised at the trial. The fear caused by threatening a woman with a
OSG observed further that the "sweetheart 23
knife. There was sufficient intimidation when
defense" was being raised for the first time in appellant pointed his 2-foot long bolo at Emily's
this appeal hence should be disallowed neck while they were near the well until they
14
conformably with established jurisprudence. reached the spot where she was finally abused.
Here, the Court does not necessarily agree. This intimidation continued even after he
Appellant could only be emphasizing the point positioned himself on top of her and placed the
that the facts and circumstances established bolo beside him since he was at liberty to point
could lead to a conclusion of the existence of it anew at her neck or any part of her body.
adulterous relationship between him and Emily Anyway, the significant consideration is that, as
and not of rape. In other words, appellant could aforementioned, the intimidation was continuous
be utilizing the "sweetheart theory" not as to sufficiently engender fear in her mind.
24

necessarily as a
The circumstance that the judge who wrote the

Page 124 of 233

decision had not heard the testimonies of the the crime charged.
prosecution witnesses does not taint or disturb
his decision. After all, he had the records of WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from
the case before him including the transcript of finding accused-appellant SAMUEL ULZORON
stenographic notes. The validity of a decision is guilty of rape and sentencing him to reclusion
not necessarily impaired by the fact that its perpetua is AFFIRMED. In addition, he is
writer only took over from a colleague who had ordered to indemnify his victim Emily Gabo the
earlier presided at the trial unless there is a amount of P50,000.00, and to pay the costs.
clear showing of grave abuse of discretion in the
25
appreciation of the facts, and none exists in SO ORDERED.
the present case. The records amply support
Republic of the Philippines
the factual findings of the trial court and its
SUPREME COURT
assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.
Manila
The circumstances of force and intimidation
attending the instant case were manifested THIRD DIVISION
clearly not only in the victim's testimony but
also in the physical evidence presented during
the trial consisting of her torn dress and
G.R. No. 118816 July 10, 1998
underwear as well as the medico-legal report.
Such pieces of evidence indeed are more
26 SANTIAGO ARGONCILLO, RICHARDO
eloquent than a hundred witnesses. The fact BALBONA and POLICARPIO UMITEN,
of carnal knowledge is not disputed. It was petitioners,
positively established through the offended
party's own testimony and corroborated by that vs.
of her examining physician.
COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF
Moreover, the conduct of the complaining THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
witness immediately following the assault
clearly established the truth of her charge that KAPUNAN, J.:
27
she was raped by accused-appellant.
1
Consequently, we agree with the observation of This is a petition to review the decision of the
the OSG that Emily's actuations following her Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the
misfortune, namely, her revelation to her decision of the Regional Trial Court of Roxas
2
husband of her violation by the accused and City, Branch 15, finding petitioners herein
subjecting her private parts immediately to guilty of "illegal fishing with the use of an
medical examination, as well as the filing of her explosive," the dispositive portion of which
complaint for rape immediately thereafter are reads:
consistent with her straightforward, logical,
truthful and credible testimony thus rebutting WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused,
any insinuation of voluntariness on her part to Policarpio Umiten, Santiago Argoncillo and Richard
the sexual confrontation; rather, they only Balbona, guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the
display a moral certainty of his culpability for crime of illegal fishing with the use of an

Page 125 of 233

explosive punishable under Section 33 in jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
relation to Section 38 of Presidential Decree named accused, conspiring, confederating and
No. 704 dated May 16, 1975 as amended by helping one another, wilfully, unlawfully and
Presidential Decree No. 1058 dated December 1, feloniously catch, take, gather and have in their
1976 and each shall suffer a straight penalty of possession and control different species of fish
twenty (20) years imprisonment. with the use of explosives.
4

However, accused, Johnson Sucgang, Elvis Upon arraignment on September 11, 1990, the
Villar and Efren Alvaro, are acquitted for accused, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded
failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt "not guilty" to the offense charged. Trial
beyond reasonable doubt. ensued thereafter.

The fish sample is forfeited in favor of the The lower court synthesized the evidence
government. presented by the prosecution as follows:
5

Considering the penalty imposed upon the Due to reports of rampant illegal fishing at
accused, Policarpio Umiten, Santiago Argoncillo Barangay Basiao, Ivisan, Capiz, personnel from
and Richard Balbona, the bail bond for their the Department of Agriculture and Natural
provisional liberty is increased to Twenty Resources specifically from the Bureau of
Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos each effective Fisheries as well as the Barangay Captain of said
immediately upon promulgation. They shall not place assisted by the local policemen created a
be released from detention until they put up an team to conduct surveillance within the Ivisan
appropriate bail bond for their provisional Bay. Thus, around 5:30 in the afternoon of May
liberty. 7, 1990, a team riding in two (2) pumpboats from
the Barangay Basiao wharf proceeded along the
The property bond of accused, Johnson waters of Ivisan Bay. Riding in one pumpboat
Sucgang, Elvis Villar and Efren Alvaro, are were Persinefles U. Oabe, the Barangay Captain
deemed cancelled. of said place; Rolando Amoroso, an employee of
the Bureau of Fisheries; Pat. Rafael Tupaz, a
Costs against the convicted accused. member of the local Integrated National Police
and Remegio Unasin, a barangay councilman who
3
SO ORDERED. acted as the pilot. In the other pumpboat were
Joey de la Cruz, a co-employee of Rolando
On August 1, 1990, an Information was filed by
Amoroso; Pat. Reggie Uadan and Enido
the Provincial Fiscal of Capiz charging Johnson
Baldesimo. Now and then, the team had to stop
Sucgang, Policarpio Umiten, Elvis Villar, Santiago
and listen for possible occurrences of illegal
Argoncillo, Richardo Balbona and Efren Alvaro
fishing within their vicinity. Around 6:30 of the
with illegal fishing (with the use of dynamite), as
same evening while standing by with their
follows:
engines off, in a place facing Barangay Culasi,
they heard an explosion. Sensing it was caused
That at or about 6:30 o'clock [sic] in the evening
by dynamite, they proceeded to the area around
of May 7, 1990, in the sea water of Barangay
five hundred meters (500 m.) away from them.
Basiao, Ivisan, Capiz, Philippines, and within the

Page 126 of 233

After ten minutes of navigation, the team examined the fish samples.
arrived at the scene in question which was near
an islet. They surrounded the area. At a Upon their arrival at the fish cage, another
distance of around ten meters, Joey de la Cruz, external examination was conducted by Joey de
an employee of the Bureau of Fisheries and la Cruz and Rolando Amoroso. In both external
Aquatic Resources, saw three persons diving into examinations, the two found out that the fishes
the water. Thereafter, they would surface and were caught with the use of explosives because
throw their catch of fish to the unmotorized blood was oozing from their operculums and
banca around four meters long nearby. In the their eyes were protruding.
seashore of said islet, around three to four
meters away from these three persons floating An on-the-spot investigation was conducted but
in the water, were three other persons standing the accused denied any culpability. They were
in the rocky portions around three meters apart. then released on the strength of their promise
These six persons tried to escape but Rolando to report to the local police the following day.
Amoroso, the co-employee of Joey de la Cruz,
advised them not to do so and introduced The fish samples were then placed in a plastic
themselves as law enforcers. The team found bag filled with ice at the house of Barangay
out that the fishes they caught were deep sea Captain Persinefles U. Oabe that evening. In
fish of four kinds locally known as "vulgan," the morning, Joey de la Cruz and Rolando
"bulawis," "pacol," and "bag-angan." Joey de la Amoroso brought the fish samples to their
Cruz gathered seven fish samples from their office in Roxas City where they conducted an
banca while Rolando Amoroso went down from internal examination. The examination revealed
the pumpboat and proceeded to the islet. that the fish samples were caught with the use
However, upon inspection, he failed to find any of explosives because their air bladders were
explosive (dynamite) either on the seashore or raptured and deeply stained with blood; the
on the banca. No paraphernalia used in dynamite vertebral columns were broken but with
fishing were found. Both Joey de la Cruz and bloodstains; their ribs were broken; and there
Rolando Amoroso recognized the six persons as were blood clots in their abdomens. Joey de la
the herein accused by their faces. Cruz and Rolando Amoroso rendered a written
report of their internal examination to the
Persinefles U. Oabe, barangay captain of Barangay Provincial Agricultural Officer.
Basiao, who was with the team riding in a pumpboat
with Rolando Amoroso identified the three The testimonies of Joey de la Cruz, Rolando
persons retrieving fish from the water as Amoroso, and Persinefles U. Oabe above were
Policarpio Umiten, Santiago Argoncillo and Richard corroborated by Pat. Rafael Tupaz, one of
Balbona while the other three persons standing on the police escorts of the team.
the rocky portions of the islet as Johnson
Sgt. Sergio Ordales, a member of the local
Sucgang, Elvis Umiten and Efren Alvaro.
police of the municipality of Ivisan testified
The team apprehended the six accused and that while on duty in the morning of May 8,
brought them to the fish cage of the barangay 1990, herein six accused arrived at their station.
captain located within the same barangay. He asked why they were there and they
While on their way, Joey de la Cruz externally answered that they were told to report to the

Page 127 of 233

police station. He learned from them that they islet in question, riding in an unmotorized banca
were arrested for illegal fishing with the use of to gather shells locally called "suso" and
explosives. "butlogan" for viand. Both started gathering
shells under the stones in the islet around 5:30
On the other hand, the lower court in the afternoon. While they were preparing to
portrayed the evidence presented by the go home at around 6:30 in the evening, the team
version of the defense, thus: of law enforcers riding in motorized pumpboats
arrived. The barangay captain and the personnel
All the accused denied the imputation of from the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
the prosecution. Resources asked them whether they heard an
explosion. After they denied having heard any,
Policarpio Umiten, Santiago Argoncillo, Richard they were told by the barangay captain to board
O. Balbona were uniform in alleging that around their pumpboats. They obliged, leaving the shells
4:00 in the afternoon of May 7, 1990, they they had gathered. They were then brought to
dropped a fishnet about two hundred (200) the fish cage of the barangay captain.
"armslength" and one (1) meter in width at the
scene where they were apprehended. This Although accused Johnson Sucgang admitted his
method they locally call "patuloy" requires that presence in the islet in question, he offered a
the fishnet be retrieved every hour to collect different explanation. He testified that he went
its catch. The trio went back to the place near to said place to look for "pulutan" requested by
the islet in question around 6:30 in the evening his customer, Wilfredo Arcangeles. Being an
for the purpose of collecting their catch from operator and manager of Virgen Beach Resort
the fishnet. They had not been able to collect all located at Sitio Manangkalan, he obliged. Thus,
their catch from the net when the team of law between 5:00 to 5:30 in the afternoon of May 7,
enforcers, prosecution witnesses herein, 1990, he left his resort riding in a banca. He
arrived. They were asked whether they heard an paddled his way towards the islet where he saw
explosion. After they denied having heard any, two persons at the bank while the other three
Barangay Captain Persinefles U. Oabe, told the were on the water. He went ashore. Later, the
accused to go with them. The team got seven barangay captain and his companions riding in
pieces of fish samples. The accused left around two pumpboats arrived. Like his co-accused, he
one and one-half kilos of fish they had gathered was asked if he heard an explosion. After he
at the time the team of law enforcers arrived. denied hearing any, the barangay captain told
They were then brought to the fish cage owned him to go with them. They were all brought to
by Persinefles U. Oabe at Barangay Basiao. the fish cage of the barangay captain for
questioning.
Above three accused would like the Court to
believe that the seven pieces of fish samples Wilfredo Arcangeles corroborated the claim
taken by the team of fishing law enforcers of Johnson Sucgang. He confirmed that he
were the catch of their fishnet they locally requested the latter to look for "pulutan" since
called "patuloy." he had visitors from Bacolod City prompting
Johnson Sucgang to look for some. He saw the
On the other hand, Elvis Villar testified that he accused leave in a banca and affirmed that he
and Efren Alvaro were together in going to the

Page 128 of 233

 6
had no dynamite with him. of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance
or electricity.
On September 30, 1991, the trial court
10
rendered its decision which, as stated at the In Hizon vs. Court of Appeals , this Court held
beginning, was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. that the law, as contained in the last paragraph
of Section 33, creates a presumption that illegal
Hence, this petition. fishing has been committed when fish caught or
killed with the use of explosives, obnoxious or
Petitioners point out that the fact that neither poisonous substances or by electricity are found
explosives nor related paraphernalia were found in a fishing boat. In this case, it cannot be
in their possession is an indication of their denied that the fishes found in petitioners'
innocence. banca were caught or killed by the use of
explosives.
We do not agree. First, it is quite probable that
11
petitioners dumped these materials into the sea The Report of Bureau of Fisheries employees
while the raiding party was approaching. Joey de la Cruz and Rolando Amoroso states:
Moreover, Section 33, Presidential Decree No.
704, as amended by Presidential Decree No. Republic of the Philippines
1058, provides:
Department of Agriculture
Sec. 33. Illegal fishing; . . . — It shall be
unlawful for any person to catch, take or gather, Roxas City
or cause to be caught, taken or gathered fish or
fishery/aquatic products in Philippine waters 1990-05-08
with the use of explosives, obnoxious or
poisonous substance, or by the use of electricity The Provincial Agricultural Officer
7 8
as defined in paragraphs (l), (m) and
9 Department of Agriculture
(d), respectively, of Sec. 3 hereof . . .
xxx xxx xxx Roxas City

The discovery of dynamite, other explosives and Sir:

chemical compounds containing combustible
I have the honor to submit to this office the
elements, or obnoxious or poisonous substance,
result of the scientific fish examination
or equipment or device for electric fishing in any
conducted on the fish samples taken from the
fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman
possession of Mr. Johnson Umiten Sucgang, 38
shall constitute a presumption that the same
years old, married and resident of Barangay
were used for fishing in violation of this Decree,
Basiao, Ivisan, Capiz and company on May 7,
the discovery in any fishing boat of fish caught
1990, 6:30 PM by combined elements of the
or killed by the use of explosives, obnoxious or
Department of Agriculture, PC/INP Unit of
poisonous substance or by electricity shall
Page 129 of 233
 Ivisan, Capiz and Barangay officials of Basiao,
constitute a presumption that the owner,
Ivisan, Capiz conducting sea borne patrol on
operator or fisherman were fishing with the use

Page 130 of 233

illegal fishing. Conclusion:

Source of fish samples : Sea water of The fish samples manifested signs that said fish
Brgy., Basiao, Ivisan,Capiz were caught or killed by the use of explosives.

Fish samples taken from : Johnson U. Examined by:

Sucgang, 38 years old,married, of Brgy.,
Basiao, Ivisan,Capiz, et. al. (Sgd.)

Date fish samples taken : May 7, 1990 at JOEY I. DE LA CRUZ

6:30 PM
(Sgd.)
Date fish samples examined : May 7, 1990 at
7:00 PM ROLANDO E. AMOROSO

Name offish samples taken Number Fish Examiners

Weight Value
Joey de la Cruz affirmed the above findings in
12
Local Name his testimony before the trial court. Said
testimony was corroborated by Rolando
Bulawis 2 pcs. 300 gms P 8.00 Amoroso, a co-employee of De la Cruz in the
Bureau of Fisheries. The latter further stated
Bulgan 2 pcs. 200 gms 10.00 that the fish were killed specifically by
dynamite:
Pakol 1 pc. 100 gms 2.00
ATTY. LUMAWAG:
Bag-angan 1 pc. 150 gms 3.00
Q Can you identify whether it was through
Bukod 1 pc. 150 gms 3.00 dynamite or any other means of explosive
the fish was caught?
Characteristics noted on the fish examined:
A Yes, sir. Because you know when we saw, when
1. External Manifestation we conducted the external manifestation of
the fish, not only blood oozing from the ears
a. Blood, oozing on the operculum. but also from the eyes that were protruding.

2. Internal Manifestation Q Is it not possible that it be caused

also through fishing by means of
a. Air bladder raptured deeply stained electricity?
with blood;
No.
b. Vertebral column broken with blood stain.
Other kinds of explosives?

Page 131 of 233

A Yes, explosives. to testify as they did. Furthermore, no evidence
was introduced by the defense to impeach their
Q For example, what other aside credibility nor evidence to discredit their
from dynamite? persons. Credibility of the testimonies having
remained unimpeached, it shall be given great
A What explosives aside from dynamite, weight in the determination of the guilt of the
no other. 13 accused. Besides, being public officers to
enforce fishing laws, in the absence of ill-
The trial court correctly gave credence to these motive on their part, to impute to the accused a
testimonies, thus: serious offense of illegal fishing with the use of
explosive, the presumption is that there was
Above three (3) accused would like the Court to
regular performance of public duty on their
believe that the seven (7) pieces of fish 14
part.
samples taken by the team of fishing law
enforcers were the catch of their fish net they The presumption that the crime of illegal fishing
locally called [sic] "patuloy." was committed has, therefore, been clearly
established. Such presumption, however, is
xxx xxx xxx merely prima facie, and may be rebutted by the
15
accused.
With the external and internal examination by
Joey de la Cruz and Rolando Amoroso showing Petitioners attempt to overcome said
that these fishes were caught with the use of presumption by disputing the findings of
explosive, bare denial of above three (3) prosecution witnesses Joey de la Cruz and
accused that they caught them by means of a Rolando Amoroso. They claim that since not all
fishing net they locally call "patoloy" is their catch were examined, there can be no
insufficient to disprove such finding. It is simply conclusive proof that the fish were killed with
a superiority of weight of object evidence over 16
the use of explosives.
testimonies of the accused.
They also question the credibility of these
Joey de la Cruz is an agricultural technologist of witnesses, thus:
their office and a graduate of Bachelor of Science
in Fishery. Joey de la Cruz and Rolando Amoroso . . . . If it is true that prosecution witness Joey
had undergone training course in fishery laws and dela Cruz, allegedly a technical personnel [ sic]
implementing regulations as well as actual of the Bureau of Fisheries and competent to
demonstrations in sea to practice what they had determine if a fish is killed by dynamite blast,
learned in theory. [As] . . . technical personnel of found the 7 fishes to have been killed by a
the Bureau of Fishery and Aquatic Resources, dynamite blast, it was unnatural for the team
their finding after an internal and external 1
not to arrest the petitioners on the spot. . . .
examination of fish samples to prove they were
caught with the use of explosives should be Petitioners' arguments have no merit.
presented to show that these prosecution
witnesses fabricated their story. There is no It is ridiculous to have expected that all the
ulterior motive which implied them fish found in the accused's fishing boat would be

Page 132 of 233

subjected to an examination. It is sufficient shown in the testimony of petitioner Santiago
that, as in the case at bar, a random sample of Argoncillo that he and the other petitioners were
the accused's catch was examined and found to fishing in shallow waters about 1 1/2 meters deep
have been killed with the use of explosives. A (TSN, March 13, 1991, p. 7) and using fishnet 200
patent impracticality would result if the law armslength long and 1 meter wide (TSN, March 13,
required otherwise. 1991, p. 4). This testimony was not rebutted by the
prosecution. In fact, the 3 accused who were
The fact that the patrol team did not acquitted by the trial court were found by the
immediately deliver the accused to the prosecution witnesses standing on the seashore
municipal jail does not diminish the credibility near where the petitioners were fishing (TSN,
of the above witnesses. Persinefles U. Oabe, January 23, 1991,
the barangay captain of Basiao, gave a plausible 5 to 6). That petitioners would engage in
explanation for the accused's release: dynamite fishing in shallow waters and near the
seashore would be unnatural. The allegation
A We released those six persons because if we that the petitioners were fishing with the use
bring them to the municipality of Ivisan we of explosive is therefore not credible.
20

have no available transportation because they

were only riding in a single motor vehicle.
18 We are not persuaded.

The want of available transportation is not The fishes caught by petitioners were not
surprising. The dearth in law enforcement actually "deep sea fishes" in the sense that they
facilities, especially in the provinces, is not lost came from the deep portions of the sea as
on this Court and is a matter of judicial notice. distinguished from shallow waters or waters
near or along the shores. The fishes caught
In fine, we find no reason to disturb the were locally known as "vulgan," "bulawis," "pacol,"
assessment of the trial court regarding the and "bag-angan." They are generally described
credibility of prosecution witnesses Joey de as "isda sa bato" or "bottom feeders." The
la Cruz and Rolando Amoroso. Its findings are following excerpt from the testimony of fish
accorded great respect by appellate tribunals examiner Joey de la Cruz shows that the term
since trial courts have the advantage of "deep sea fishes" arose from the trial court's
examining the witnesses' testimonies and erroneous translation of "isda sa bato" or
19
observing their demeanor first hand. "bottom feeders" which were the terms actually
employed by said witness to describe the
Petitioners also argue that they could not have subject fishes:
been caught fishing with the use of dynamite
in shallow waters because the fishes used as ATTY. LUMAWAG:
evidence were described by the prosecution
witnesses as "deep sea fishes." According to Q What were the species of the fishes that you
petitioners: recovered from that banca?

The seven (7) fishes that the prosecution used A Bottom feeders.
as evidence were described by prosecution
witnesses as "deep sea fishes". But it has been

Page 133 of 233

COURT: the patrol team whether or not they heard an
explosion is not in any way reflective of
"Isda sa bato," in English? petitioners' innocence. We deem such inquiry as
nothing more than a part of the investigative
A Bottom feeders. process. It is quite common, and in most cases,
necessary, for law enforcers to ask questions to
COURT:Deep sea fishes. 21 help them ascertain whether or not there exists
probable cause to arrest persons suspected of
Petitioners next contend that if it is true that committing a crime.
they were engaged in illegal fishing, it would be
"unnatural" for them to use a boat which would Having failed to discharge themselves of the
make it difficult for them to escape from the burden of disproving that they have committed
22
law enforcers riding motorized boats. illegal fishing, the Court is left with no alternative
but to affirm petitioners' conviction.
Petitioners' contention is too ludicrous to
warrant serious consideration. The law punishing 26
The penalty imposed by law for illegal fishing
illegal fishing does not require the use of
if explosive is actually used is imprisonment
motorized banca or boat for the crime to be
ranging from twenty (20) years to life
committed. Concededly, a motorized banca can
imprisonment. The Indeterminate Sentence Law
better serve those engaged in illegal fishing for provides that if, as in this case, the offense is
purposes of eluding law enforcers. However, not punished by a law other than the Revised Penal
everyone can financially afford to fit a motor in Code, the court shall sentence the accused to an
his banca. Indeed, petitioner Argoncillo indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of
admitted that the banca that they were using which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by
23
was leased from a certain Dikoy Odrunia. said law and the minimum shall not be less than
the minimum term prescribed by the
Petitioners likewise aver that they did not flee 27
same. The trial court therefore erred when
when the law enforcers arrived, and even
it sentenced petitioners to "suffer
voluntarily reported to the Ivisan Police a straight penalty of twenty (20) years
Station the following morning. They submit 28
imprisonment." In Spouses Jose and Trinidad
that their alleged non-flight should strengthen 29
24
Bacar vs. Judge Salvador P . de Guzman, Jr.,
their claim of innocence. we held that it was erroneous to impose a
straight penalty of six (6) years imprisonment on
We disagree. There is no established doctrine
the accused for homicide. We explained:
to the effect that, in every instance, non-flight
25
is an indication of innocence. Moreover, even . . . It is basic law that . . . the application of the
if they wanted to, petitioners could not have Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory
possibly eluded the law enforcers who were in
where imprisonment exceeds one (1) year,
two pump boats. Attempts to flee would also
except only in the following cases:
have been useless since petitioners were already
identified by the barrio captain. a. Offenses punished by death or life
imprisonment.
Lastly, the fact that the accused were asked by

Page 134 of 233

b. Those convicted of treason (Art. 114), maximum periods of the indeterminate sentence
conspiracy or proposal to commit treason is to prevent the unnecessary and excessive
(Art. 115). deprivation of liberty and to enhance the
economic usefulness of the accused, since he
c. Those convicted of misprision of treason (Art. may be exempted from serving the entire
116), rebellion (Art. 134), sedition (Art. 139, or sentence, depending upon his behavior and his
espionage (Art. 117). physical, mental, and moral record. The
requirement of imposing an indeterminate
d. Those convicted of piracy (Art. 122). sentence in all criminal offenses whether
punishable by the or by special laws, with
e. Habitual delinquents (Art. 62, par. 5). definite minimum and maximum terms, as the
Court deems proper within the legal range of
Recidivists are entitled to an indeterminate
the penalty specified by the law must,
sentence. (People v. Jaramilla, L-28547, Feb. 22, 30
therefore, be deemed mandatory.
1974). Offender is not disqualified to avail of
the benefits of the law even if the crime is Accordingly, the proper penalty to be imposed
committed while he is on parole. (People v. upon the accused should be
Calreon, CA 78 O.G. 6701, Nov. 19, 1982). an indeterminate penalty which is hereby set at
twenty (20) years as minimum to twenty-five
f. Those who escaped from confinement or (25) years as maximum.
those who evaded sentence.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby
g. Those granted conditional pardon and who DISMISSED, and the decision of the Court of
violated the terms of the same (Art. 159). Appeals is AFFIRMED with the modification
(People v. Corral, 74 Phil. 359). that petitioners are hereby sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of
h. Those whose maximum period of
imprisonment ranging from twenty (20) years as
imprisonment does not exceed one year.
minimum to twenty-five (25) years as maximum.

Where the penalty actually imposed does not

SO ORDERED.
exceed one year, the accused cannot avail
himself of the benefits of the law, the Narvasa, C.J., Romero and Purisima, J., concur.
application of which is based upon the penalty
actually imposed in accordance with law and not
upon that which may be imposed in the
2. Requirements for Admissibility of Tape Recordings, Wire
discretion of the Court. (People v. Hidalgo, [CA] and Dictaphone
G.R. No. 00452-CR, Jan. 22, 1962). a. The tape, wire, or dictaphone was capable of taking
testimony; b. The person operating the device was competent to
operate it; c. The recording is authentic and correct;
i. Those who are already serving final judgment d. The testimony has been duly preserved; e.
The testimony was voluntarily made;
upon the approval of the Indeterminate and
f. The speaker has been correctly identified.
Sentence Law. Requisites for Experiments to be Admissible
Relevancy; and
The present condition of the object must be the same at the
The need for specifying the minimum and time of issue.

Page 135 of 233

Q: What are the purposes of authentication of object evidence? is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the
crime.
A: The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can identify the
Prevent the introduction of an object different from the one testified pictures he has taken. The correctness of the photograph as a faithful
about; and representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by
Ensure that there has been no significant changes in the object’s condition. the testimony of the person who made it or by other competent witnesses
who can testify to its exactness and accuracy, after which the court can admit
Q: What are the requisites for the object evidence to be admissible? it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy.
Here, the photographs are admissible as evidence inasmuch as the
It must correctness thereof was testified to by the companions of the victim (Sison
Be relevant to the fact in issue; v. People, G.R. Nos. 108280-83, Nov. 16, 1995).
Be authenticated before it is admitted;
Not be hearsay; Ron was charged with murder for shooting Carlo. After trial, Ron
Not be privileged; and was found guilty as charged. On appeal, Ron argued that the trial
Meet any additional requirement set by law. court should have acquitted him as his guilt was not proved beyond
reasonable doubt. He argues that the paraffin test conducted on him
Q: What does object evidence include? 2 days after he wasarrested yielded a negative result. Hence, he
could not have shot Carlo. Is Ron correct?
A:
Any article or object which may be known or perceived by the use of the No. While the paraffin test was negative, such fact alone did not ipso
senses; facto prove that Ron is innocent. A negative paraffin result is not conclusive
proof that a person has not fired a gun. It is possible to fire a gun and yet be
Examination of the anatomy of a person or of any substance taken
therefrom; negative for nitrates, as when the culprit is wearing gloves or he washes his
hands afterwards. Here, since Ron submitted himself for paraffin testing only
Conduct of tests, demonstrations or experiments; and
two days after the shooting, it was likely he had already washed his hands
Examination of representative portrayals of the object in question thoroughly, thus removing all traces of nitrates therefrom (People v.
(e.g. maps, diagrams)
Brecinio, G.R. No. 138534, Mar. 17, 2004).
May the courts refuse the introduction of object or real
What are the categories of object evidence for purposes of
evidence and rely on testimonial evidence alone?
authentication?
Yes, but only if:
A:
Its exhibition is contrary to public morals or decency;
Unique objects – those that have readily identifiable marks (e.g. a calibre
To require its being viewed in court or in ocular inspection would result in gun with serial number XXX888)
delays, inconvenience, or unnecessary expenses which are out of
proportion to the evidentiary value of such object; Objects made unique – those that are readily identifiable (e.g. a bolo
knife used to hack a victim which could be identified by a witness in court)
Such object evidence would be confusing or misleading, as when
Non-unique objects – those which have no identifying marks and cannot
the purpose is to prove the former condition of the object and there is be marked (e.g. footprints left at a crime scene)
no preliminary showing that there has been no substantial change in
said condition; or
Q: Distinguish real evidence from demonstrative evidence.
The testimonial or documentary evidence already presented
clearly portrays the
A: Real evidence Demonstrative Evidence
object in question as to render a view thereof unnecessary. (Regalado, Vol. Tangible object that played Tangible evidence that merely
II, p. 716, 2008 ed.)
some actual role in the illustrates a matter of importance in
matter that gave rise to the the litigation
Is exhibition of the object which is repulsive or
litigation
indecent absolutely prohibited?
Intends to prove that the Intends to show that the
No. If a view of the object is necessary in the interest of justice, such object is used in the demonstrative object fairly
object may still be exhibited, but the court may exclude the public from such
underlying event represents or illustrates what it is
view. Such view may not be refused if the indecent or immoral objects
alleged to be illustrated
constitute the very basis of the criminal or civil action (e.g. obscene pictures
or exhibits). (Moran, p. 73)
Q: What is ocular inspection or “view”?
In a criminal case for murder, the prosecution offered as evidence
photographs showing the accused mauling the victim with several An ocular inspection conducted by the judge without the presence
of the latter’s companions. The person who took the photograph was of the parties or due notice is not valid, as an ocular inspection is part
not presented as a witness. Be that as it may, the prosecution of the trial.
presented the companions of the victim who testified that they were Note: It is a discretionary act of the trial court to go to the place
the ones in the photographs. The defense objected to the where the object is located, when the object evidence cannot be
admissibility of the photographs because the person who took the brought in courts.
photographs was not presented as witness. Is the contention of the
defense tenable? CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN RELATION TO SECTION 21 OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
No. Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by the
photographer as to its production and testified as to the circumstances under
What is Chain of Custody Rule in relation to Sec. 21 of
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002?
which they were produced. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a
correct representation or reproduction of the original, and its admissibility

Page 136 of 233

 It is a method of authenticating evidence. It requires that the admission of Yes. The Rules on DNA Evidence does not preclude a DNA testing, without
an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the need of a prior court order, at the behest of any party, including law
matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced (Sec.
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was 4).
picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every
person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was Q: What are the requisites for the issuance of a DNA testing order?
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’
possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which In pending actions, the appropriate court may, at any time issue a DNA
it was delivered to the next link in the chain. testing order either motu proprio or upon application of any person who
These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that has a legal interest in the matter in litigation after due hearing and notice to
there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for the parties and upon showing of the following:
someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. (Lopez v. 1. A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
People, G.R. No. 172953, Apr. 30, 2008) 2. The biological sample:
3. was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested; or
Q: When is there a need to establish a chain of custody? 4. was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may require
confirmation for good reasons;
A: It is necessary when the object evidence is non-unique as it is not readily 5. The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
identifiable, was not made identifiable or cannot be made identifiable, e.g. 6. The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information
drops of blood or oil, drugs in powder form, fiber, grains of sand and similar that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and
objects. (Riano, Evidence: A Restatement for the Bar, p. 149, 2009 ed.) 7. The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as
potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing (Sec. 4).
Q: What is the purpose of establishing a chain of custody?
Q: Is the order granting the DNA testing appealable?
To guaranty the integrity of the physical evidence and to prevent the
introduction of evidence which is not authentic but where the exhibit is No. An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately executory
positively identified the chain of custody of physical evidence is irrelevant. and shall not be appealable. Any petition for certiorari initiated therefrom
(Ibid.) shall not, in any way, stay the implementation thereof, unless a higher court
issues an injunctive order (Sec. 5).
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 06-11-5-SC)
During Alexis’ trial for rape with murder, the prosecution sought
Q: In what cases do the Rules on DNA Evidence apply? to introduce DNA evidence against him, based on forensic
laboratory matching of the materials found at the crime scene and
A: It shall apply whenever DNA evidence is offered, used, or proposed to Alexis’ hair and blood samples. Alexis’ counsel objected, claiming
be offered or used as evidence in all criminal and civil actions as well as that DNA evidence is inadmissible because the materials taken
special proceedings (Sec. 1). from Alexis were in violation of his constitutional right against self-
incrimination as well as his right of privacy and personal integrity.
Q: What is DNA? Should the DNA evidence be admitted or not? Reason.

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the chain of molecules found in every A: The DNA evidence should be admitted. It is not in violation of the
nucleated cell of the body (Sec. 3, Rule on DNA Evidence). It is the constitutional right against self-incrimination or his right of privacy and
fundamental building block of a person’s entire genetic make-up, which is personal integrity. The right against self-incrimination is applicable only
found in all human cells and is the same in every cell of the same person to testimonial evidence. Extracting a blood sample and cutting a strand
(People v. Umanito, G.R. No. 172607, Oct. 26, 2007). from the hair of the accused are purely mechanical acts that do not
involve his discretion nor require his intelligence. (2004 Bar Question)
Q: What is DNA evidence?
Is the result of DNA testing automatically admitted as evidence in
It constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results and other genetic the case in which it was sought for?
information directly generated from DNA testing of biological samples (Sec.
3). No. The grant of a DNA testing application shall not be construed as
an automatic admission into evidence of any component of the DNA
Q: What is DNA testing? evidence that may be obtained as a result thereof (Sec. 5).

It means verified and credible scientific methods which include the If a DNA test was conducted, what are the possible results that it
extraction of DNA from biological samples, the generation of DNA profiles may yield?
and the comparison of the information obtained from the DNA testing of
biological samples for the purpose of determining, with reasonable certainty, A:
whether or not the DNA obtained from two or more distinct biological The samples are similar, and could have originated from the same
samples originates from the same person (direct identification) or if the source (Rule of Inclusion). In such a case, the analyst proceeds to
biological samples originate from related persons (Kinship Analysis) (Sec. 3). determine the statistical significance of the similarity.
Note: The scientific basis of this test comes from the fact that our differences The samples are different hence it must have originated from
as individuals are due to the differences in the composition of our genes. different sources (Rule of Exclusion). This conclusion is absolute and
These genes comprise a chemical substance, the deoxyribonucleic acid or requires no further analysis;
DNA [The Court Systems Journal (1999)]. The test is inconclusive. This might occur due to degradation,
contamination, failure of some aspect of protocol, or some other
Q: May DNA testing be conducted absent a prior court order? reasons. Analysis might be repeated to obtain a more conclusive result
(People v. Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656, May 9, 2002).

Page 137 of 233

 What should the courts consider in evaluating DNA testing The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, that is, whether the
results? theory or technique can be and has been tested;
The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or
A: methods;
The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the
of mismatching DNA evidence; relevant scientific community;
The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure
evidence presented in the case; and the correctness of data generated;
DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be The existence of an appropriate reference population database; and
conclusive proof of non-paternity (Sec. 9). The general degree of confidence attributed to mathematical calculations
used in comparing DNA profiles and the significance and limitation of
Q: To whom is the post-conviction DNA testing available? statistical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles.

Post-conviction DNA testing may be available, without need of prior Republic of the Philippines
court order, to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and
SUPREME COURT
executory judgment.
Manila
What are the requisites for the applicability of the Post-
conviction DNA testing? THIRD DIVISION

A:
Existing biological sample; G.R. No. 185708 September 29, 2010
Such sample is relevant to the case; and
The testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
judgment of conviction (Sec. 6).
Appellee, vs.
What is the remedy of the convict if the post-conviction JUANITO CABIGQUEZ y ALASTRA, Appellant.
DNA testing result is favorable to him?
DECISION
The convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus in the court of origin. In case the court, after due hearing,
finds the petition to be meritorious, it shall reverse or modify the VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict, unless
continued detention is justified for a lawful cause (Sec. 10). On appeal is the Decision 1 dated July 9, 2008 of the Court of
Appeals (CA), Mindanao Station, which affirmed the
What should the courts consider in determining the Decision2 dated October 29, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court
probative value of DNA evidence?
(RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 18 finding appellant Juanito
A: Cabigquez y Alastra (Cabigquez) and Romulo Grondiano y Soco
The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were collected, (Grondiano) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery (Criminal
how they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of the samples; Case No. 2001-816), and also convicting appellant Cabigquez of rape
The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing (Criminal Case No. 2001-815), both crimes committed against
the samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and private complainant AAA,3 a 43-year old widow and mother of ten
compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests; children. Grondiano decided to withdraw his appeal before the
The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable appellate court.4 Hence, this review shall consider only Cabigquez‘s
standards-setting institution and the qualification of the analyst who appeal.
conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant
experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be
properly established; and Below are the facts, as culled from the records of both the
The reliability of the testing result (Sec. 7). trial and appellate courts.

What are the things to be considered in assessing the In the evening of March 26, 2001, AAA and her three minor children –
probative value of DNA evidence? 5
BBB, CCC, and DDD – slept inside AAA‘s small sari-sari store which
A: was annexed through the exterior balcony of her house at Purok 1-A,
How the samples are collected; Tablon in Cagayan de Oro City. AAA‘s head was close to the door, while
How they were handled; a cabinet stood at her right side. She left the 50-watt incandescent
The possibility of the contamination of the samples; 6
bulb on as they slept through the night.
The procedure followed in analyzing the samples;
Whether the proper standards and procedures were followed At around 3:30 a.m., March 27, 2001, AAA was awakened when clothes
in conducting the tests; and
fell on her face. When she looked up, she saw a man whose face was
The qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. (Ibid.)
covered with a handkerchief and wearing a camouflage jacket and
What are the things to be considered in evaluating whether or not cycling shorts. He immediately poked a gun at her. AAA shouted
the DNA testing methodology is reliable? 7
"Ayyy!," rousing her three children from sleep. Despite

Page 138 of 233

the cover on the burglar‘s face, BBB was able to identify him as as follows:
Romulo Grondiano, one of their neighbors, based on the hanging
mole located below his left eye.8 Armed with a stainless handgun,9
That on March 27, 2001, at more or less 3:30 o‘clock in the early
Grondiano ordered AAA and her children to lie face down. 10
morning in a store located at Purok 1-A, Barangay Tablon, Cagayan
Though stricken with fear, BBB noticed that Grondiano had a
companion who stayed at the balcony keeping watch. 11 Grondiano de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
then ransacked the store, taking with him P3,000.00 cash from Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
the cabinet and P7,000.00 worth of grocery items. Before he left, confederating and helping with one another, with intent to gain and
Grondiano pointed the gun at AAA‘s back and warned them not to violence or intimidation of persons, did then and there wil[l]fully,
make any noise.
12 unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry away cash –
Php3,000.00 and assorted [grocery] stocks valued Php7,000.00 all
As soon as Grondiano left the store, the other man entered. BBB in all amounting to Php10,000.00, owned by and belonging to one
identified the man as appellant Juanito Cabigquez as the latter did [AAA], in the following manner: that accused Romulo Grondiano
not conceal his face. Armed with Grondiano‘s gun, Cabigquez intimidated the offended party with a gun pointed to her and her
three children and ordered them to lay on the floor with face
stripped AAA of her short pants and underwear, placed a pillow on
down and then took, robbed and carried away the aforementioned
her lower abdomen and mounted her from behind. He lifted and
valuable personal things while Juanito Cabigquez y Alastra
twisted one of her legs and pinned the other. AAA shouted
acting/serving as lookout at the door of the store, to the damage
"Ayaw!" (No!), but offered no further resistance. Cabigquez
and prejudice of the offended party, in the total sum of
inserted his penis into AAA‘s vagina, and proceeded to ravish her
Php10,000.00, Philippine Currency.
in full view of her children, and even as the latter cried for mercy.
Before he left, Cabigquez threatened to kill AAA and her children
if they would tell anyone about the incident.
13 Contrary to and in violation to Article 294, par. 5, of the
21
Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Afraid for their lives, AAA and her children remained prostrate on
the floor even after the two malefactors had left. Shortly Criminal Case No. 2001-815 (For: Rape)
thereafter, they decided to proceed to the house of AAA‘s older
son, EEE, and asked for help. AAA failed to disclose to her son the The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses, JUANITO
identities of the two men. Meanwhile, BBB, fearing retaliation CABIGQUEZ Y ALASTRA ALIAS "DODOY", of the crime of
from the two men, decided not to divulge the identities of RAPE that he committed as follows:
14
Cabigquez and Grondiano to her mother and brother.
That on March 27, 2001, at more or less 3:30 o‘clock or
That same morning, March 27, 2001, AAA reported the incident to the thereabout, in the early morning, at Purok 1A, Tablon, Cagayan de
Puerto Police Station. No criminal complaint, however, was filed since Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
AAA was still uncertain of the identities of the two men. Court, the above-named accused, armed with a gun, and with the
was physically examined by Dr. Cristilda O. Villapañe and Dr. use thereof, by means of force, and intimidation, did then and
Riman Ricardo, resident physicians at the Northern Mindanao there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledged
15
Medical Center. Dr. Villapañe‘s examination revealed that the (sic) of the offended party [AAA], against her will [and] in the
smear recovered from AAA‘s vagina was positive for presence and full view of her children.
16
spermatozoa, while Dr. Ricardo found a two-centimeter
17
contusion on AAA‘s left hand dorsum. Contrary to and in violation to (sic) Article 266-A (Formerly under
22
Art. 335) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353.
On May 24, 2001, Cabigquez was arrested for possession of illegal
drugs.18 Grondiano was likewise arrested on May 26, 2001 also for Both accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. 23 During the trial,
possession of illegal drugs.19 With the two men incarcerated, and
Cabigquez admitted that on the night of March 26, 2001, he slept
now certain of their safety, BBB finally mustered the courage to
20 in the house of Leonila Omilao, a neighbor of Cabigquez and
reveal the identities of Cabigquez and Grondiano to her mother. 24
AAA. He admitted that he did not have any quarrel with AAA and
found no possible reason why AAA would file the complaints and
On July 18, 2001, two Informations were filed against testify against him.25 Omilao herself testified that Cabigquez was
Cabigquez and Grondiano, viz: in her house on the night of the incident and even saw the latter
sleeping in the kitchen. During Omilao‘s cross-examination,
Criminal Case No. 2001-816 (For: Robbery) however, the trial court noted Silvina Cabigquez, appellant‘s
26
daughter, coaching Omilao in her answers.
The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses JUANITO
CABIGQUEZ y ALASTRA, alias "DODOY", and ROMULO GRONDIANO On October 21, 2002, the trial court, on motion by the defense,
y SOCO, alias "Molok", of the crime they committed, ordered the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Manila to
conduct a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis on the sperm taken
from AAA‘s vagina. On May 21, 2003, NBI Forensic Chemist III

Page 139 of 233

Aida Viloria Magsipoc testified that the sample collected from found BBB‘s testimony candid and not prompted by ill-motive. As to
did not match Cabigquez‘s DNA profile since the specimen BBB‘s failure to promptly implicate Grondiano and Cabigquez for
submitted to them were mere vaginal discharges from AAA.
27 the crimes, the appellate court ruled that this cannot be taken
against her in the light of serious threats made by said accused on
On October 29, 2003, the trial court rendered judgment their family. The alleged contradictions in the testimonies of AAA
convicting Cabigquez and Grondiano of the crimes charged. and BBB were likewise not fatal to the case of the prosecution as
The dispositive portion of said decision reads: they bear no materiality to the commission of the crime. The CA
also noted that the accused were able to consummate their
criminal acts without any physical resistance from the victims who
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds
could not even cry loudly because they were ordered at gunpoint
accused JUANITO CABIGQUEZ GUILTY beyond reasonable
not to make any noise. It rejected the defense of alibi put up by
doubt of the crime of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised
Cabigquez in view of his admission that he stayed at a house within
Penal Code, punishable under Article 266-B of the same Code, and 32
there being one aggravating circumstance [the used (sic) of a the vicinity of AAA‘s store.
deadly weapon (firearm)] without a[ny] mitigating circumstance,
accused JUANITO CABIGQUEZ is hereby sentenced and is SO The CA thus decreed:
ORDERED to suffer the supreme penalty of Death by lethal
injection, including its accessory penalties. He is further directed WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed October 29, 2003
th
and is SO ORDERED to pay the victim the sum of FIFTY Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Misamis Oriental, 10
THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as indemnity, plus another Judicial Region, Branch 18, Cagayan de Oro City, convicting Juanito A.
TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P25,000.00), as moral Cabigquez, the lone appellant before Us, for the crimes of Robbery and
damages. Pursuant to Section 22 of R.A. 7659 and Section 10 of Rape, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that Juanito A.
Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, let the entire record of this case Cabigquez is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
be forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review. perpetua for the crime of Rape.

33
FURTHERMORE, the Court likewise finds accused JUANITO SO ORDERED.
CABIGQUEZ and ROMULO GRONDIANO GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the Crime of Robbery punishable under Before this Court, appellant Cabigquez reiterates the
paragraph 5 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, and [there] following arguments:
being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, and after
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused JUANITO
I.
CABIGQUEZ and ROMULO GRONDIANO are hereby sentenced
and are SO ORDERED to serve the [penalty of] imprisonment of
TWO (2) YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS AND TWENTY (20) DAYS THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING
OF PRISION CORRECCIONAL, as the MINIMUM, to SIX (6) THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED
YEARS, ONE (1) MONTH AND ELEVEN (11) DAYS OF PRISION DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO
MAYOR, as the MAXIMUM, including its accessory penalties, plus PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
further SO ORDERED to pay the stolen items and cash in the sum
of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00). II.

28
SO ORDERED. Cagayan de Oro City, October 29, 2003. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING
WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE AND
The records of the case were elevated to this Court on INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION
automatic review. Pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo, 29 the WITNESSES.
case was referred to the CA.
III.
In his appeal, appellant maintained his defense of alibi and denial. He
questioned the accuracy and credibility of BBB‘s testimony given her
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED-
failure to immediately divulge the identity of the perpetrators after
APPELLANTS COMMITTED ROBBERY, THE COURT
the incident. Appellant also noted that AAA‘s lone interjection, while
A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN ORDERING THEM TO
she was allegedly being raped by him, can hardly be considered as a
30
PAY THE COMPLAINANT P10,000.00 AS ACTUAL
manifest resistance. The defense also argued that the prosecution DAMAGES.
failed to establish conspiracy since
did not actually see that Cabigquez was on the balcony while
31
IV.
the robbery was being committed.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING

By Decision dated July 9, 2008, the CA upheld the RTC in convicting
THAT THERE WAS CONSPIRACY IN THE CASE AT
appellant of both crimes of robbery and rape. The CA

34
BAR. The factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed
by the appellate court, indubitably prove that
We sustain the ruling of the CA. appellant raped AAA even if the specimen

Page 140 of 233

obtained from the vaginal swabs and submitted to the NBI failed
to match appellant‘s DNA profile. Rape is committed by a man who Q Do you want to be imprisoned?
shall have carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat or
intimidation.35 The commission of rape was clearly shown by
testimonial and documentary evidence; the defense submits that A No, sir.
it is the identity of the perpetrator which is not duly established.
Q So, you will tell the truth nothing but the truth?
For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA identification is
indeed a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory A Yes, sir.
evidence.36 In this case, however, the result of the DNA test is
rendered inconclusive to exculpate or inculpate the appellant since Q Do you know accused Romulo Grondiano?
the sample tested by the NBI merely contained vaginal discharges.
In the laboratory test earlier conducted by Dr. Villapañe on the
vaginal swab obtained from AAA‘s genitalia, the presence of A Yes, sir because he is our neighbor.
spermatozoa was confirmed. This notwithstanding, the totality of
evidence satisfactorily established that it was indeed appellant xxxx
who raped AAA.
Q Do you also know accused Juanito Cabigquez who
AAA‘s daughter, BBB, who witnessed the entire incident which is accused for rape and co-accused in robbery?
happened inside their store on the night in question, positively
identified appellant as the one who raped her mother against the A Yes, sir he is also our neighbor.
latter‘s will by threatening her and her children with a handgun he
was then carrying. BBB‘s unflinching and consistent testimony,
Q For how long have you known Juanito Cabigquez
when taken together with Dr. Villapañe‘s findings and AAA‘s own
before March 27, 2001?
declarations in court, provides sufficient basis for the conviction
of appellant for rape.
A Since I came that age of reason I already knew Juanito
Cabigquez.
Quoted herein are the relevant portions of BBB‘s testimony
on direct examination as to her identification of appellant as
her mother‘s rapist, viz: Q Is Juanito Cabigquez also a resident of Purok 1-A at
Tablon?

Q Now, [BBB], you said that you are 13 years old and you
said a while ago you sworn that you will tell the truth, A Yes, sir.
can you remember that?
Q Do you also know the nickname of Juanito Cabigquez?
A Yes, sir.
A Its Dodoy.
Q Okay now, are you going to tell the truth and
nothing but the truth before this Honorable Court? Q If Juanito Cabigquez is inside this courtroom, can
you point to him?
A Yes, sir I will tell the truth.
A Note: Witness pointed to a person who when asked
Q Do you know what will happen to you if you tell a lie of his name identified himself as Juanito Cabigquez.
in court?
Q Okay, on March 27, 2001 at about 3:30 early in
A Yes, sir I will be imprisoned. the morning, do you remember where were you?

A I was inside our store sleeping together with

our mother.

Q Aside from you and your mother, who were

other persons who were with you?

A Together with my two (2) siblings.

xxxx

Page 141 of 233

Q Now, while you were sleeping together with your A Because we had a chair made of bamboo and then
mother and your two (2) younger siblings at that if somebody or a person hit it, it will sound.
time, what happened?
xxxx
xxxx
Q Now, after Romulo Grondiano took all those things
A The three (3) of us were awakened because of that you have enumerated a while ago, where did Romulo
the shout of our mother. Grondiano go?

Q Who is that us? A He pointed a gun at my mother‘s back and then ordered
us not to move.
A I together with my two (2) siblings.
xxxx
Q Your mother also woke up?
Q Alright, after Romulo Grondiano told you, your
A Yes, sir. mother and your two (2) younger siblings not to move,
where did Romulo Grondiano go?

Q Now, after you were awakened by the shout of

your mother, what did you observe, if there was any? A He went to the balcony and then Juanito
Cabigquez replaced him (Romulo) in going up, he
(Juanito) went inside our store.
A I saw my mother knelt down and I came nearer and
then I embraced her because I thought she was
dreaming but I saw Romulo Grondiano with a gun. xxxx

xxxx Q Alright, you testified a while ago that after Romulo

Grondiano went inside your store he passed by the
balcony of your house, then co-accused Juanito Cabigquez
Q Alright, what happened while you saw accused Romulo
came in, where did Juanito Cabigquez come in?
Grondiano already at the door of your store of your
mother holding a gun and your mother was kneeling?
A He entered in our store.

A He ordered us to lay face down.

Q The same store where you, your mother and two (2)
younger siblings were staying at that time?
Q After Romulo Grondiano ordered you to lay face down,
what did you, your mother and your two (2) siblings do?
A Yes, sir.

A I let my mother lay face down.

Q How were you able to recognize that it was
Juanito Cabigquez who came in?
Q How about you?

A Because I saw him.

A I also lay face down.

Q When you saw Juanito Cabigquez, were you still

Q How about your two (2) younger siblings?
lying face down or were you already sitting?

A They also lay face down.

A I was already lying face down.

Q Alright, while the four (4) of you were lying face

Q How were you able to see him?
down, what did you observe?

A Because I looked back at the door because I

A I noticed that he had a companion who is at
thought that Romulo Grondiano already left but then I
our balcony.
saw Juanito Cabigquez came in and replaced Romulo
Grondiano.
Q How were you able to notice that he has a companion?
Q This Juanito Cabigquez who came in after Romulo

Page 142 of 233

Grondiano went out, is he the same Juanito Cabigquez your mother?
the co-accused for robbery and accused in rape case?
A Yes, sir because it was a gartered shortpants.
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, how about the panty of your mother?
Q If he is inside this courtroom, can you point him again?
A It was removed together with the shortpants.
A Note: Witness pointed again to a person who
when asked of his name identified himself as Q Now, after the shortpants and panty of your
Juanito Cabigquez. mother were taken off and the pillow was placed under
her abdomen, what next did you observe?
Q After Juanito Cabigquez came in inside the store,
what did you observe? A Juanito Cabigquez mounted on my mother.

A He removed the shortpants of my mother and then Q And then, what did Juanito do when he mounted
he got the pillow of my mother and placed it under her to your mother?
abdomen.

A He did a push and pull motion.

xxxx

Q How about your two (2) younger siblings, were they

Q Now, what was the position of your mother still awake at that time?
when Juanito Cabigquez took off the shortpants
of your mother?
A Yes, sir, they were crying.

A She was still lying face down.

Q How about you?

Q What was the position of your mother when

A I also cried.
Juanito Cabigquez put the pillow under her abdomen?

Q When you noticed that he (Juanito Cabigquez) entered

A She was still lying face down.
your store, was he carrying a gun?

Q By the way, when Juanito Cabigquez entered the

xxxx
store, was the light still on?

A He was bringing a gun.

A Yes, sir.

xxxx
Q Now, you said that your mother shouted when
Juanito Cabigquez came in. My question is, when did
your mother actually shout? Q Can you demonstrate the length of the gun that
you saw?
A When Juanito Cabigquez was removing the
shortpants of my mother. A The gun which Juanito Cabigquez was bringing was
the same gun Romulo brought.
COURT: (to the witness)
Q How about your mother while Juanito Cabigquez was
already mounted on her and make a push and pull
Q Can you tell the Court what kind of shout your
motion, what did your mother do?
mother did?

A My mother was crying.

A My mother shouted "ay!"

xxxx
PROS. M. NOLASCO: (cont‘g.)

Q You said that you, your mother and your two (2)
Q Now, was Juanito able to take off the shortpants of
younger siblings were crying while Juanito Cabigquez

Page 143 of 233

 mounted on your mother and made a push and pull Grondiano exited through the balcony taking the loot with him.
motion, what happened after that? BBB recounted that her mother was still lying face down when
appellant removed her mother‘s short pants and panty, placed a
A He pointed his gun at the back of my mother and pillow below her abdomen and then proceeded to rape her. It was
then told us not to tell to anybody because they will BBB who had the opportunity to look at this second person who
return and kill us. entered their house because she looked back at the door thinking
that Grondiano (the one who first entered the store) already left,
but then appellant immediately came in after Grondiano. Although
Q Now, after Juanito Cabigquez warned you not to tell
AAA was able to shout at that time, she could not move because
anybody otherwise they will return and kill you, what
she was afraid that her three children, who were already crying,
did Juanito Cabigquez do? 40
will be harmed.

A He went up to the balcony.

As to the alleged inconsistency in the position of her mother when
accused Grondiano entered their store, the same is inexistent
xxxx considering that AAA was relating the exact moment when she
woke up and realized the presence of an intruder because clothes
Q How about Juanito Cabigquez, when he entered fell on her face, while BBB who was awakened by the shout of her
your store of your mother and raped your mother, mother, simply described her mother then already in a kneeling
what was he wearing? position as she woke up first. BBB had thought her mother was
just dreaming but then she saw Grondiano already inside the house
A He was wearing a white t-shirt and maong pants. with a gun.

COURT: (to the witness) Neither would BBB‘s delay in revealing the identities of the
perpetrators to the police taint her identification of appellant as
the one who raped her mother and conspirator of Grondiano in
Q Was it long or short?
robbing their store. Failure to immediately reveal the identity of a
perpetrator of a felony does not affect, much less impair, the
A Long pants. credibility of witnesses, more so if such delay is adequately
explained.41 BBB sufficiently explained her action in not
xxxx 37
(Emphasis supplied.) immediately divulging to her mother and brother nor reporting to
the police whom she saw inside their house that early morning of
Appellant asserts that it is significant that AAA herself did not March 27, 2001. She was afraid that the assailants would make
recognize him and his co-accused despite her familiarity with them as good their threat that they will return and kill their family if they
they were her customers in her store. It was pointed out that the reported the incident to anybody. But when a couple of months
identification of the perpetrators was supplied solely by her daughter later appellant and his co-accused Grondiano were arrested on
BBB, who should not have been given any credence in view of her drug charges, BBB finally felt it was safe to come out in the open
inconsistent declarations such as when she testified that when she
and inform the police of the identities of the two men who robbed
their house, one of whom subsequently raped her mother
woke up, her mother was kneeling contrary to the latter‘s testimony
(appellant).
that when clothes fell on her face, she was awakened and that her
mother shouted but a gun was pointed to her. Moreover, BBB saw the
accused several times after the alleged crimes transpired and yet she Appellant cannot seek acquittal on the basis of the negative result
did not manifest any alarm even when they reported the matter to the of the DNA test on the specimen conducted by the NBI.
police; it was only after the accused were detained that their
identities were revealed. In the light of serious discrepancies in the A positive DNA match is unnecessary when the totality of the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses, appellant maintains that BBB‘s evidence presented before the court points to no other
identification of the perpetrators of robbery and rape was unreliable possible conclusion, i.e., appellant raped the private offended
38
and doubtful. party. A positive DNA match may strengthen the evidence for
the prosecution, but an inconclusive DNA test result may not be
We are not persuaded. sufficient to exculpate the accused, particularly when there is
sufficient evidence proving his guilt. Notably, neither a positive
While it is true that the most natural reaction for victims of crimes is DNA match of the semen nor the presence of spermatozoa is
to strive to remember the faces of their assailants and the manner in essential in finding that rape was committed. The important
39
which the craven acts are committed, in this case, consideration in rape cases is not the emission of semen but the
42
cannot be faulted for failing to recognize appellant as her rapist penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ.
though the latter was their neighbor. It must be recalled, as narrated
by AAA and BBB, they were all still lying face down when appellant Moreover, it is evident that the rape of AAA was committed in
suddenly entered the store right after his co-accused the presence and in full view of her three minor children. Thirteen
mother.43 Such circumstance, as recited in the last portion of the
Information for Criminal Case No. 2001-815 is, by itself, sufficient
(13)-year old BBB, as well as her two minor siblings who were to qualify the rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal
present at the time when the rape was committed, was already old Code,44 as amended. Consequently, the CA was correct in affirming
enough to sense the bestiality being committed against their own the conviction of appellant for qualified rape.

Page 144 of 233

With respect to the charge of robbery, we find no merit in unquestionable demonstration. Judicial cognizance, which is based
appellant‘s argument that the prosecution failed to establish that on considerations of expediency and convenience, displace evidence
he conspired with co-accused Grondiano in stealing goods from since, being equivalent to proof, it fulfills the object which the
private complainant‘s store. He asserts that there was no proof evidence is intended to achieve. Surely, matters like the value of
that he was outside the store when the crime of robbery was the appliances, canned goods and perfume are undeniably within
being committed; private complainant and her daughter merely public knowledge and easily capable of unquestionable
surmised that another person was outside the store because of a demonstration.48 Here, what is involved are common goods for
creaking sound created by a bamboo chair, but they actually did everyday use and ordinary stocks found in small sari-sari stores
45 like private complainant‘s store, i.e., milk, soap, coffee, sugar,
not see that person or if there was indeed that person. 1avvphi1
liquor and cigarettes. The RTC was thus correct in granting the
reasonable amount of P10,000.00 as computed by the private
On this issue, we hold that the CA correctly ruled that conspiracy was
complainant representing the value of stolen merchandise from her
sufficiently proven by circumstantial evidence on record, thus:
store.

We also find that the trial court correctly appreciated conspiracy

Further, the Court deems it proper to adjust the sums awarded as
against Cabigquez with respect [to] the crime of robbery. There is
civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages. Applying prevailing
conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement
jurisprudence, the private complainant is entitled to P75,000.00 as
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as
Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not
49
necessary. Conspiracy may be shown through circumstantial exemplary damages.
evidence, deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense
was perpetrated, or inferred upon the acts of the accused Lastly, the death penalty imposed on appellant was correctly
themselves when such lead to a joint purpose and design, modified to reclusion perpetua, in view of the passage of Republic
concerted action, and community of interest. Act No. 9346, entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of
Death Penalty in the Philippines." 50 Notwithstanding the reduction
of the penalty imposed on appellant, he is not eligible for parole
Neither [AAA] nor [BBB] saw Cabigquez acting as a lookout following Section 3 of the said law, which provides:
outside the store. However, the creaking sound coming from the
balcony and the fact that [BBB] saw Cabigquez go inside the store,
SEC. 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion
as soon as Grondiano left, reasonably verify a discernment that
perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion
someone stood by outside and close to the store‘s entrance during
perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole
the looting, and that such person was Cabigquez. The fact that
under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate
only Grondiano concealed his face reasonably indicates a prior
Sentence Law, as amended.
agreement between the two (2) malefactors for Cabigquez to act
as a lookout in the commission of robbery. After raping [AAA],
Cabigquez also warned of killing [AAA and her children] if they WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the Decision dated
told anyone about the incident, which threat contributed to the July 9, 2008 of the Court of Appeals, Mindanao Station in CA-G.R.
common sentiment of concealing both crimes of robbery and rape. CR-H.C. No. 00409 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that
These circumstances sufficiently establish a joint purpose and the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on appellant in Criminal
design, and a community of interest, between Cabigquez and Case No. 2001-815 for qualified rape is herein clarified as without
46 eligibility for parole, and the appellant is ordered to pay the
Grondiano, in committing the crime of robbery.
private complainant P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,P75,000.00 as
moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
On the matter of actual damages awarded by the trial court,
appellant questions the amount thereof, insisting there was no
basis for the actual cost of the items taken from the store. With costs against the appellant.

We find no reversible error committed by the CA in sustaining such SO ORDERED.

47
award. In People v. Martinez, this Court ruled that the trial court
has the power to take judicial notice of the value of stolen goods MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
because these are matters of public knowledge or capable of Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Page 145 of 233

Section 2. Documentary evidence. ? The evidence must be authenticated;
The document must be authenticated by a competent witness; and
Documents as evidence consist of writing The document must be formally offered in evidence.
or any material containing letters, words,
numbers, figures, symbols or other modes [G.R. No. 143125. June 10, 2003]
of written expression offered as proof of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
their contents. (n) appellee, vs. DIOSDADO CORIAL y
Documentary evidence REQUIEZ, appellant.
Documentary evidence is any evidence introduced at a DECISION
trial in the form of documents. Although this term is
most widely understood to mean writings on paper (such VITUG, J.:
as an invoice, a contract or a will), the term actually
include any media by which information can be preserved. For automatic review is the decision of the Regional Trial
Photographs, tape recordings, films, and printed emails Court of Pasay City, Branch 109,[1] imposing the death penalty on
are all forms of documentary evidence. convicted appellant Diosdado Corial y Requiez for the crime of
qualified rape,[2] said to have been committed, according to the
Documentary versus physical evidence indictment, against his own minor granddaughter Maricar Corial.
A piece of evidence is not documentary evidence if it is
presented for some purpose other than the examination of At his arraignment, appellant pleaded ―not guilty‖ to the charge;
the contents of the document. For example, if a blood- [3]
trial ensued shortly thereafter.
spattered letter is introduced solely to show that the
defendant stabbed the author of the letter from behind The Case for the Prosecution. -
as it was being written, then the evidence is physical
evidence, not documentary evidence. However, a film of Maricar Corial was born to Marietta Corial, appellant‘s daughter,
the murder taking place would be documentary evidence but she did not come to know her father (now said to be deceased).
(just as a written description of the event from an Maricar had two maternal sisters who lived with their mother and
eyewitness). If the content of that same letter is then
introduced to show the motive for the murder, then the her ―stepfather‖ in Balagtas, Bulacan. Maricar lived with her
evidence would be both physical and documentary. grandparents, herein appellant and his wife Carmelita, in Pasay City.

Authentication One afternoon in July 1998, Maricar and appellant were left
Documentary evidence is subject to specific forms of alone in the house. She was wearing a duster when her grandfather
authentication, usually through the testimony of forced himself on her. He first inserted his penis into her private
an eyewitness to the execution of the document, or to part, and then into her mouth and, finally, into her anus. When her
the testimony of a witness able to identify
mother, Marietta, arrived for Christmas in 1998, Maricar revealed
the handwriting of the purported author. Documentary
evidence is also subject to the best evidence rule, which the sexual abuse she had suffered from her grandfather. Maricar
requires that the original document be produced unless went first to the barangay hall where she lodged a complaint
there is a good reason not to do so. against appellant and then to the Philippine General Hospital where
Maricar was physically examined. Still later, they repaired to the
Pasay City Police station where Maricar executed a sworn
Documents as evidence consist of writing or any material statement (salaysay).
containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or other
modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents. According to barangay captain Policarpio Tawat, Marietta and
Maricar went to see him on the morning of 29 December 1998 at
Question:
When a document does considered real or object evidence? the barangay hall to seek assistance about the sexual assault.
Answer: Along with a barangay kagawad, Tawat went to invite appellant to
If the object is to examine the age, signature thereon, or the conditions the barangay hall and then had a medical examination conducted on
of the document itself, the same is considered real evidence which the Maricar. When the medical examination proved positive for rape,
court may view for such purpose.
Tawat turned appellant over to the Pasay City Police station.
May a private document be offered and admitted in evidence both
as documentary evidence and as object evidence? Explain.
The Provisional Medical Certificate,[4] dated 29 December
Yes. A private document is considered as object evidence when it is 1998, showed the following findings of Dr. Mariella Sugue-Castillo;
addressed to the senses of the court or when it is presented in order to viz:
establish certain physical evidence or characteristics that are visible on the
paper and the writings that comprise the document. It is considered as
documentary evidence when it is offered as proof of its contents. ―GENITAL EXAMINATION:
External genitalia: normal
Hymen: crescentic hymen, no discharge seen,
What are the requisites for admissibility of documentary mound at 7 o‘clock position, (+)
evidence?
attenuation of posterior hymen
A:
1. The document must be relevant;

Page 146 of 233

 Anus: normal findings by his daughter Marietta. It instead gave credence to what it so
described as the ―spontaneous and straightforward‖ testimony of
―IMPRESSION Maricar Corial. The trial court adjudged:

Disclosure of sexual abuse.

Genital finding of posterior hymen ―In view of all the foregoing, the Court opines that the prosecution
attenuation is suspicious for prior has proven the guilt of the accused, Diosdado Corial y Requiez for
[5] rape as defined and penalized under Art. 266-A and 266-B of RA
penetration injury‖
8353 as amended, and the Court hereby sentences the accused,
On the afternoon of 29 December 1998, SPO3 Milagros Diosdado Corial y Requiez to death and to indemnify the
Carrasco was at the Women and Children Desk of the Pasay City complainant in the amount of P75,000.00 and moral and exemplary
Police station when Barangay Captain Tawat, Marietta, young damages in the amount of P50,000.00.‖
[6]

Maricar, and Marietta‘s father arrived. After hearing the story, SPO3
Carrasco contacted social worker Erlinda Aguila to assist her in Appellant, in this Court‘s review of his case, would consider
conducting the interview with Maricar. The child claimed that her erroneous his conviction for there was no opportunity for him and
maternal grandfather had sexually abused her. When confronted his granddaughter to be alone in their residence, particularly on
by SPO3 Carrasco, appellant remarked in Tagalog that he was just
Sundays when all the members of the household stayed home, and
having a ―taste‖ of the child (tinitikman niya lang). for Maricar‘s failure to make an outcry during the alleged sexual
assault that could have easily attracted the attention of close kins
The Case for the Defense. -
whose house was only adjacent to theirs.
Testifying for her father, Nelly Corial stated that the 59-
Quite often, this Court has held that rapists are not
year-old appellant had six children, all of them female, by his wife
deterred from committing the odious act of sexual abuse by the
Carmelita. He was a mason and construction worker employed by D.
mere presence nearby of people or even family members. Rape is
M. Consunji while her mother was a dressmaker. Her father was a
committed not exclusively in seclusion; [7] lust, it is said, respects
responsible person with no vices. Her parents first took custody of
neither time nor place. The trial court has valued Maricar‘s testimony
Maricar because the latter‘s father, Francisco Amado and live-in
as being ―spontaneous and straightforward.‖ Indeed, when a victim‘s
partner of Marietta, would often inflict physical harm upon the testimony is straightforward and unflawed by any major inconsistency
child. After Francisco‘s death, Marietta resided in Balagtas, Bulacan, or contradiction, the same must be given full faith and credit. [8]
with yet another live-in partner, Rene Malinao, who both for a Appellant capitalizes on the so-called disparity between the
while took Maricar into their custody. Maricar was soon brought declaration of Maricar in her testimony in court and her sworn
back to her grandparent‘s residence in Pasay City because of the statement. He quotes a portion of her salaysay; viz:
maltreatment she had been getting from Malinao. According to
Nelly, her parents loved Maricar, provided for her needs, and had
―06. T: Natatandaan mo ba kung kailan at
her take up schooling at the Pio del Pilar Elementary School. After
kung saan nangyari ang mga ginawa na
the case against appellant was filed, Marietta confided to Nelly
sinasabi ng lolo mo sa iyo?
her regrets (nagsisisi) for having filed the case. Marietta became
―mentally deranged‖ and would harm herself for no reason at all. She
concluded that Marietta‘s complaint was fabricated (gawa-gawa Opo, simula po ng Grade II ako. Tapos
lamang niya iyun). Menchu, another daughter of appellant, also naulit po nuong July 1998 at nauulit po
testified for him. Her residence in Pasay City was separated from pag araw ng Linggo pag wala ang lola
appellant‘s house only by a wall. She confirmed that Maricar was ko at ang tita ko sa bahay namin. Kasi
brought to San Pedro, Laguna, at the instance of appellant who had nagtratrabaho si Lolo ng Lunes
wanted the child to have a vacation there. hanggang Sabado. Pero pag wala
siyang pasok ay ginagalaw din niya ako.
Appellant denied having raped Maricar. He took the child [9]
Sa bahay namin sa Dolores, Pasay.
away from her parents because they were unable to properly care
for her. After Francisco‘s death, he took custody of Marietta and her
He then labels it as being inconsistent with her testimony on cross-
child but only for four months when Marietta started to live with
examination; viz:
another partner in Bulacan. Marietta was a good daughter and a
good mother but she was mentally ill and hardheaded ( suwail). ―Atty. Casas:
Marietta instigated the case against him because he had refused
to allow her to live in their house in Pasay City. From Monday to Now, it was in July 1998 which is finally the alleged
Saturday, he would leave the house at six o‘clock in the morning and (sic) contained in the information that you
return from work at seven o‘clock in the evening. On Sundays, Nelly claimed you have been sexually molested, is that
correct?
would always be at home.

The Assailed Decision. - ―A: Yes, sir.

The trial court debunked the defense of denial interposed by ―Q: And you told the Court in your direct examination
that it was the first time that the same was
appellant and the assertion that the rape case was only trumped-up

Page 147 of 233

 committed? sexually molested by your grandfather Diosdado
Corial?
[10]
―A: Yes, sir.‖
―A: The incident happened at 164 Dolores Street,
Not only is her assailed statement - that before the July Pasay City.
1998 incident she has also been subjected to sexual assault by
appellant – inconsequential in a material point but it also does not ―Q: Was it inside your house?
necessarily take away her credibility at the witness stand. It is
―A: Yes, sir.
acknowledged that affidavits, usually taken ex parte, are often
[11]
held unreliable for being incomplete and inaccurate. ―Q: You earlier stated that the alleged rape happened
in the afternoon, sometime in July 1998 inside
Maricar‘s failure to shout during the sexual assault is not all that
strange. Not every witness to or victim of a crime can be supposed your house at No. 164 Dolores Street, Pasay City.
to always act in conformity with the usual expectations of My question is, who were actually present inside
everyone;[12] in fact, there is no known and accepted standard your house when the incident happened?
therefor. Moreover, to attribute to her the sophistication of an ―A: My grandmother was there, but she left.
adult woman would be to brush aside the fact that Maricar is just
a young girl. Even then, it would be unreasonable to judge her ―Q: And who was left behind in the afternoon of July
actions on the traumatic experience by any norm of behavior that, 1998 when the incident happened?
[13]
if at all, may be expected from mature persons.
―A: I and my grandfather was (sic) left inside the
The Court is not persuaded by the claim of appellant that house.
Marietta, the victim‘s mother, has fabricated the charge simply because
appellant did not allow her to stay with him. It just is not a ―Q: And what actually were you doing in that afternoon of
convincing tale. It is difficult to believe that Marietta would send July 1998 when you were inside your house?
his own father to jail, even to the gallows, sacrifice the honor and
―A: None, sir.
dignity of their family and subject her own child to untold
humiliation and disgrace if she were motivated by any desire other ―Q: What were you wearing then?
than to bring to justice the person responsible for defiling her
[14] ―A: I was wearing a duster, sir.
child.
Appellant‘s claim that Marietta is deranged lacks unbiased ―Q: And so was there any unusual incident that
evidentiary support. In any event, it hardly has any bearing on the happened in the month of July 1998? When you
credibility of her own daughter. Nor would the failure of the were left by your Lola inside your house and left
prosecution to present Marietta at the witness stand adversely affect with your Lolo?
the outcome of the case. The prosecution is not bound to present any
―A: Yes, there was.
witness other than the victim herself, for as long as the testimony of
the victim is credible, natural, convincing and otherwise consistent with ―Q: Would you kindly tell to this Honorable Court, what
[15]
human nature and the course of things, it may be the basis for a happened to you on that month of July 1998?
conviction. It is the prerogative of the prosecution, not much unlike
―A: I was raped by my grandfather, sir.
that of the defense, to determine which evidence to submit in support
[16]
of its own case. ―Q: Will you further explain to this Honorable Court,
Maricar, on direct examination, testified thusly: how were you raped by your grandfather?

―Q: In the information filed to (sic) this Honorable ―A: He inserted his penis into my private part, sir.
Court, stated that you are complaining for rape ―Q: And what did you feel when your grandfather
perpetrated by your Lolo Diosdado Corial that inserted his penis inside your private part?
happened in July 1998. Do you still recall the date
in July when this incident, the alleged incident ―A: I felt pain, sir.
happened?
―Fiscal Barrera:
―A: It was in July but I do not know or remember the
date, sir. Besides inserting his penis at your private part, what
else did your Lolo do to you?
―Q: But could you still recall if that was in the morning
or lunch time or evening of July 1998? ―A: He was requesting me to suck his penis.

―A: It was in the afternoon of July 1998. ―Q: And did he actually put his penis inside your
mouth?
―Q: And in what place where this incident happened
regarding the complaint (sic) that you were
―A: Yes, sir.

Page 148 of 233

―Q: And what happen(ed) after he inserted his penis ―Atty. Casas:
inside your mouth?
You also mentioned that your Lolo raped you by placing
―A: He requested me to suck it, sir. his penis inside your mouth, is that correct?

―Q: And what else happened aside (from) inserting his ―A: Yes, sir.
penis at your private part, and putting his penis
―Q: Definitely, you did not like that idea or actuation
inside your mouth sometime in the month of July
by your Lolo?
1998?

―A: He inserted his penis inside my anus. ―A: Yes, sir.

―x x x xxx xxx
―Q: What did you feel when he inserted his penis
inside your anus in the month of July 1998? ―Q: By the way, Maricar, do you love your Lolo and
―A: It was painful, sir. Lola?

―A: I love my grandmother.

―Q: What else happened besides inserting his penis
inside your anus or ―Puwet‖? ―Q: How about your grandfather, do you love him?
―A: No more, sir. ―A: I don‘t love him.

―Q: And so after that, what did you do? ―Q: Why do you not love your grandfather?
―A: When my mother arrived last Christmas, I told her [18]
―A: Because, he did something wrong to me.‖
what my grandfather did to me.
The trial court has found appellant guilty of having violated
―Q: You mean that was last Christmas 1998? Sections 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
―A: Yes, sir. by Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997),[19] that read:

―Q: And so what actually did you tell your mother ―Article 266-A. Rape; When And How Committed. – Rape is
Marietta Corial? committed –

―A: I told her that my grandfather put his penis inside

[17]
―1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under
my vagina. any of the following circumstances:
On cross examination, she recounted:
Through force, threat, or intimidation;
―Q: You specifically mentioned the word rape when you
were asked any unusual incident that happened on
June 1998, is that correct? When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
―A: Yes, sir.

―Q: Who told you or how did you learn the word rape? By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
and
―A: Nobody told me, sir.

―Court: When the offended party is under twelve (12)

Pero alam mo ba ang meaning nang rape? years of age or is demented, even though none of
Alam mo ba ang ibig sabihin nang rape? the circumstances mentioned above be present.

―A: Rape means `Pang gagahasa.‘

―2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned
―x x x xxx xxx in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by
inserting his penis into another person‘s mouth or anal orifice, or any
―Q: And because the penis of your Lolo was inserted instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another
inside your vagina, you felt pain? person.

―A: Yes, sir.

―Article 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under paragraph 1 of the
―Q: But you did not shout, is that correct? next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

―A: I was boxing him.

―x x x xxx xxx
―x x x xxx xxx

Page 149 of 233

―The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused; to
is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying repeat, ―provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the
circumstances: accused.‖[27] There is no such declaration and admission on the part
of appellant.
―1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the This Court cannot be overly strict as regards the proof of
offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative age of the victim particularly when, such as under Article 266-B of
by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Rep. Act No. 8353, age is
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.‖ an element of the crime that, if shown, would make it punishable by
death. As so frequently expressed by the Court, the severity of
The death penalty for the crime herein charged may be the death penalty, which by its nature is irreversible when carried
imposed only when the twin qualifying circumstances of relationship out, should behoove courts to apply the most exacting rules of
between the appellant and the victim and the latter‘s age are procedure and evidence. The prosecution is not excused from
indubitably proven; otherwise, the appellant can only be held liable discharging its burden even when the defense lets itself loose
for the crime of simple rape penalized by reclusion perpetua.[20] about it.
The relationship between appellant and the victim has been
adequately established. The prosecution evidence has shown that The trial court ordered appellant to ―indemnify the complainant
appellant is the grandfather of the victim, [21] a fact that appellant in the amount of P75,000.00 and moral and exemplary damages in
himself has likewise maintained.[22] The same cannot, however, be the amount of P50,000.00.‖ The award must be corrected. In
said with respect to the age of the victim. consonance with prevailing jurisprudence, appellant must be made
In People vs. Pruna,[23] the Court, after noting the divergent to pay P50,000.00 civil indemnity, an award that is outrightly due
rulings on proof of age of the victim in rape cases, has set out the victim of rape by the mere fact of its commission, P50,000.00
certain guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the moral damages which is deemed concomitant with and which
crime or as a qualifying circumstance. The primary evidence of age necessarily results from this odious criminal offense, and
of the victim is her birth certificate. Age may also be proven by P25,000.00 exemplary damages which are awarded under Article
such authentic documents as a baptismal certificate and school 2230 of the Civil Code when the crime is committed with one or
records only in the absence of a birth certificate. If the aforesaid more aggravating circumstances[28] such as relationship between
[29]
documents are shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise the offender and the victim.
unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim’s
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court a quo finding
mother or a member of the family either by affinity or appellant Diosdado Corial y Requiez guilty of rape is AFFIRMED
consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting
with MODIFICATION in that he is hereby only adjudged guilty of
pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the
simple, not qualified, rape and sentenced to suffer, instead of the
offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules
death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The award of
on Evidence shall be sufficient but only under the following
damages by the trial court is likewise modified by hereby ordering
circumstances: a) If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of
appellant to indemnify the victim the amounts of P50,000.00 civil
age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years
indemnity, P50,000.00 moral damages and P25,000.00 exemplary
old; b) If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what
damages. Costs de oficio.
is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old; c) If
the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought SO ORDERED.
to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
In the instant case, the prosecution did not offer the victim‘s Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
certificate of live birth or any similar authentic document in evidence. Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ.,concur.
The trial court, in convicting the appellant of the crime of rape and
imposing upon him the death penalty even in the absence of the
necessary documents, relied on the sworn statement of Marietta
Corial, the mother of the victim, attesting to the fact that her
daughter Maricar Corial was born on 26 May 1990. [24] Marietta
1. Best Evidence Rule
Corial, however, did not testify in court. Such sworn statement was
thus inadmissible in evidence under the hearsay rule, [25] and unless
the affiant had been placed on the witness stand, the admission of Section 3. Original document must be
the mere affidavit and the conviction of appellant on the basis produced; exceptions. ? When the subject
thereof would violate the right of the accused to meet witness
[26] of inquiry is the contents of a document,
face to face.
no evidence shall be admissible other than
In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic
document, or the testimony of the victim‘s mother or relatives
the original document itself, except in the
concerning the victim‘s age under the circumstances heretofore following cases:
mentioned, the complainant’s sole testimony can suffice provided

Page 150 of 233

 When the original has been lost Object evidence, also known as real evidence, demonstrative
evidence, autoptic preference and physical evidence, is that evidence
or destroyed, or cannot be produced which is addressed to the senses of the court (Sec. 1). It is not limited
in court, without bad faith on the part to the view of an object. It extends to the visual, auditory, tactile,
gustatory, and olfactory. It is considered as evidence of the highest
of the offeror; order.

When the original is in the What are the purposes of authentication of object evidence?

custody or under the control of the To avoid risk of error in trusting to

party against whom the evidence is somebody’s copy or recollection the words of
a document.
offered, and the latter fails to
produce it after reasonable notice; What are the requisites for the object evidence to be
admissible?
It must
When the original consists of 1. Be relevant to the fact in issue;
2. Be authenticated before it is admitted;
numerous accounts or other 3. Not be hearsay;
documents which cannot be 4. Not be privileged; and
5. Meet any additional requirement set by law.
examined in court without great loss
of time and the fact sought to be What does object evidence include?

established from them is only the 1. Any article or object which may be known or perceived by the use
general result of the whole; and of the senses;
2. Examination of the anatomy of a person or of any substance
taken therefrom;
When the original is a public 3. Conduct of tests, demonstrations or experiments; and
4. Examination of representative portrayals of the object in
record in the custody of a question (e.g. maps, diagrams)
public officer or is recorded in a
What are Considered Original Documents
public office. (2a) a. The original of a document is one the contents of which are the
subject of inquiry.
The best evidence rule is a common law rule b. When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the
same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally
of evidence which can be traced back at least as far as regarded as originals.
the 18th century. In Omychund v Barker (1745) 1 Atk, 21, c. When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one
49; 26 ER 15, 33, Lord Harwicke stated that no evidence being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the
was admissible unless it was "the best that the nature entries are likewise equally regarded as originals.
of the case will allow". The publication ten years later d. An electronic document, if it is a printout or output readable by sight
of Gilbert's enormously influential Law of Evidence,[1] or other means shown to reflect the data accurately. (Rules on
a posthumous work by Sir Jeffrey Gilbert, Lord Chief Electronic Evidence, A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)
Baron of the Exchequer, established the primacy of the
best evidence rule, which Gilbert regarded as central to
In a criminal case for murder, the prosecution offered as
the concept of evidence. The general rule is that
evidence photographs showing the accused mauling the victim
secondary evidence, such as a copy or facsimile, will be
with several of the latter’s companions. The person who took the
not admissible if an original document exists, and is
photograph was not presented as a witness. Be that as it may, the
not unavailable due to destruction or other prosecution presented the companions of the victim who testified
circumstances indicating unavailability. that they were the ones in the photographs. The defense objected
The best evidence rule is also thought to be the to the admissibility of the photographs because the person who
basis for the rule precluding the admissibility took the photographs was not presented as witness. Is the
of hearsay evidence, although the two rules are now contention of the defense tenable?
quite distinct. No. Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified
by the photographer as to its production and testified as to the
The best evidence rule applies when a party wants to circumstances under which they were produced. The value of this
admit as evidence the contents of a document at trial, kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or
but that the original document is not available. In this reproduction of the original, and its admissibility is determined by its
case, the party must provide an acceptable excuse for its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime.
absence. If the document itself is not available, and the The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can
court finds the excuse provided acceptable, then the identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness of the
party is allowed to use secondary evidence to prove the photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can
contents of the document and have it as admissible be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who
evidence. The best evidence rule only applies when a made it or by other competent witnesses who can testify to its
party seeks to prove the contents of the document sought exactness and accuracy, after which the court can admit it subject
to be admitted as evidence. to impeachment as to its accuracy.
Here, the photographs are admissible as evidence inasmuch as
Q: Define object evidence. the correctness thereof was testified to by the companions of the
victim (Sison v. People, G.R. Nos. 108280-83, Nov. 16, 1995).

Page 151 of 233

 Ron was charged with murder for shooting Carlo. After trial, Ron
consideration of P20.00.
was found guilty as charged. On appeal, Ron argued that the trial
court should have acquitted him as his guilt was not proved beyond Upon arraignment, Tandoy entered a plea of not
reasonable doubt. He argues that the paraffin test conducted on him
2 days after he was arrested yielded a negative result. Hence, he
guilty. After trial, Judge Buenaventura J.
could not have shot Carlo. Is Ron correct? Guerrero rendered a decision the dispositive
No. While the paraffin test was negative, such fact alone did not
ipso facto prove that Ron is innocent. A negative paraffin result is not portion of which declared:
conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun. It is possible to fire
a gun and yet be negative for nitrates, as when the culprit is wearing WHEREFORE, the Court finds Mario
gloves or he washes his hands afterwards. Here, since Ron submitted
himself for paraffin testing only two days after the shooting, it was Tandoy y Lim guilty beyond reasonable
likely he had already washed his hands thoroughly, thus removing all
traces of nitrates therefrom (People v. Brecinio, G.R. No. 138534, Mar.
doubt of violation of Sec. 4, Art. II, Rep.
17, 2004). Act No. 6425, as amended, and is hereby
MONEY AS EVIDENCE sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay
a fine of P20,000.00 and cost.: nad
FIRST DIVISION
The marijuana confiscated in this case is
[G.R. No. 80505 : December 4, 1990.]
declared confiscated and forfeited and
192 SCRA 28 ordered turned over to the Dangerous
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Drugs Board for proper disposal.
Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIO TANDOY y SO ORDERED.
LIM,Defendant-Appellant.
The accused -appellant raises the following
assignment of errors in this appeal:
DECISION The Court a quo erred in finding
CRUZ, J.: accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime charged despite lack of
The decision of the Regional Trial Court of
evidence to prove that he sold marijuana
Makati, Branch 133 dated October 13, 1987,
to the poseur-buyer.
convicting Mario Tandoy of the crime of
violation of Art. II, Sec. 4 of Rep. Act No. 6425 The Court a quo erred in admitting in
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is evidence against the accused Exh. "E-2-
before us on appeal. A" which is merely a xerox copy of the
P10.00 bill allegedly used as buy-bust
The information against the accused-appellant
money.
read as follows:
The evidence of the prosecution may be
That on or about the 27th day of May 1986, in
summarized as follows:
the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this On May 27, 1986, at about 3:30 p.m. Lt. Salido,
Honorable Court, the above-named accused Jr. of the Makati Police Station dispatched Pfc.
without being authorized by law, did then and Herino de la Cruz, and Detectives Pablo R.
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell Singayan, Nicanor Candolesas, Luisito de la Cruz,
eight (8) pieces of dried marijuana flowering Estanislao Dalumpines, Antonio Manalastas and
tops, two (2) pieces of dried marijuana flowering Virgilio Padua to conduct a buy-bust operation at
tops and crushed dried marijuana flowering tops, Solchuaga St., Barangay Singkamas, Makati.
which are prohibited drug, for and in The target area was a store along the said

Page 152 of 233

street, and Singayan was to pose as the buyer. did not point to their fellow pushers, they would
He stood alone near the store waiting for any rot in jail. The accused-appellant denied he had
pusher to approach. The other members of the sold marijuana to Singayan and insisted the bills
team strategically positioned themselves. Soon, taken from him were the bet money he had
three men approached Singayan. One of them grabbed at the "cara y cruz" game. 3
was the accused -appellant, who said without
The trial court, which had the opportunity to
preamble: "Pare, gusto mo bang umiskor?"
observe the demeanor of the witnesses and to
Singayan said yes. The exchange was made then
listen to their respective testimonies, gave more
and there — two rolls/pieces of marijuana for
credence to the statements of the arresting
one P10.00 and two P5.00 bills marked ANU
officers. Applying the presumption that they
(meaning Anti-Narcotics Unit).
had performed their duties in a regular manner,
The team then moved in and arrested Tandoy. it rejected Tandoy's uncorroborated allegation
Manalastas and Candolesas made a body search that he had been manhandled and framed.
of the accused -appellant and took from him the Tandoy had not submitted sufficient evidence of
marked money, as well as eight more rolls/foils his charges, let alone his admission that he had
of marijuana and crushed leaves.: nad no quarrel with the peace officers whom he had
The arresting officers brought Tandoy to the met only on the day of his arrest.
Office of the Anti-Narcotics Unit, Makati Police In People v. Patog, 4 this Court held:
Station, for investigation by Detective Marvin
When there is no evidence and nothing to
Pajilan. The accused-appellant chose to remain
indicate the principal witness for the
silent after having been informed of his
prosecution was actuated by improper motives,
constitutional rights.
the presumption is that he was not so actuated
These events were narrated under oath by De la and his testimony is entitled to full faith and
Cruz, Singayan and Pajilan. 1 Microscopic, credit.
chemical and chromotographic examination was
Tandoy submits that "one will not sell this
performed on the confiscated marijuana by
prohibited drug to another who is a total
Raquel P. Angeles, forensic chemist of the
stranger until the seller is certain of the
National Bureau of Investigation, who later
identity of the buyer."
testified that the findings were positive. The
marijuana was offered as an exhibit. 2 The conjecture must be rejected.: nad

As might be expected, the accused -appellant In People v. Paco, 5 this Court observed:
had a different story. His testimony was that Drug-pushing when done on a small level as in
from 1:30 to 4:00 p.m. of the day in question, he this case belongs to that class of crimes that
was playing "cara y cruz" with 15 other persons may be committed at anytime and at any place.
along Solchuaga St. when somebody suddenly After the offer to buy is accepted and the
said that policemen were making arrests. The exchange is made, the illegal transaction is
players grabbed the bet money and scampered. completed in a few minutes. The fact that the
However, he and a certain Danny (another "cara parties are in a public place and in the presence
y cruz" player) were caught and taken to the of other people may not always discourage them
Narcotics Command headquarters in Makati. from pursuing their illegal trade as these
There they were mauled and warned that if they factors may even serve to camouflage the same.

Page 153 of 233

Hence, the Court has sustained the conviction of Since the aforesaid marked money was
drug pushers caught selling illegal drugs in a presented by the prosecution solely for the
billiard hall (People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 66875, purpose of establishing its existence and not its
June 19, 1986, 142 SCRA 329; People v. contents, other substitutionary evidence, like a
Sarmiento, G.R. No. 72141, January 12, 1987, 147 xerox copy thereof, is therefore admissible
SCRA 252), in front of a store (People vs. Khan, without the need of accounting for the original.
supra) along a street at 1:45 p.m. (People v. Moreover, the presentation at the trial of the
Toledo, G.R. No. 67609, November 22, 1985, 140 "buy-bust money" was not indispensable to the
SCRA 259), and in front of a house (People v. conviction of the accused-appellant because the
Policarpio, G.R. No. 69844, February 23, 1988). sale of the marijuana had been adequately
As the Court has also held, "What matters is not proved by the testimony of the police officers.
an existing familiarity between the buyer and So long as the marijuana actually sold by the
the seller but their agreement and the acts accused -appellant had been submitted as an
constituting the sale and delivery of the exhibit, the failure to produce the marked
marijuana leaves." 6 money itself would not constitute a fatal
omission.
Under the second assigned error, the accused-
appellant invokes the best evidence rule and We are convinced from the evidence on record
questions the admission by the trial court of the that the prosecution has overcome the
xerox copy only of the marked P10.00 bill. constitutional presumption of innocence in favor
of the accused-appellant with proof beyond
The Solicitor General, in his Comment, correctly
reasonable doubt of his guilt. He must therefore
refuted that contention thus:
suffer the penalty prescribed by law for those
This assigned error centers on the trial court's who would visit the scourge of drug addiction
admission of the P10.00 bill marked money (Exh. upon our people.
E-2-A) which, according to the appellant, is
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and
excluded under the best evidence rule for being
the challenged decision AFFIRMED in toto, with
a mere xerox copy. Apparently, appellant
costs against the accused-appellant.: nad
erroneously thinks that said marked money is an
ordinary document falling under Sec. 2, Rule 130 SO ORDERED
of the Revised Rules of Court which excludes
Narvasa (Chairman), Gancayco, Griño-Aquino
the introduction of secondary evidence except in and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
the five (5) instances mentioned therein.:-cralaw
The best evidence rule applies only when the
UNAUTHENTICATED COPIES
contents of the document are the subject of
Republic of the Philippines
inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether or
SUPREME COURT
not such document was actually executed, or
Manila
exists, or in the circumstances relevant to or
surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule
SECOND DIVISION
does not apply and testimonial evidence is
admissible. (Cf. Moran, op. cit., pp. 76-77; 4
G.R. No. L-85785 April 24, 1989
Martin, op. cit., p. 78.)

Page 154 of 233

BENITO SY y ONG, consent of said Panama Sawmill, Inc., and
petitioner, vs. thereafter, said accused misappropriated and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PHILIPPINES converted to his own personal use and benefit
and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. the balance of P3,287.50, and despite
repeated demands upon him, said accused
Law Firm of Raymundo A. Armovit for petitioner. refused and failed to account for said sum of
P3,287.50 to the damage and prejudice of said
The Solicitor General for respondent. Panama Sawmill Inc., in the aforestated amount
of P3,287.50. (p. 3, Original Record)
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
After trial on the merits, the Metropolitan
Convicted of Estafa under Article 315, Paragraph Trial Court of Caloocan City convicted petitioner
1(b) of the Revised Penal Code by three (3)
in a Decision, dated 17 December 1986, the
Courts, namely, the Metropolitan Trial Court,
1 dispositive portion of which reads:
Caloocan City, Branch 52; the Regional Trial
2
Court of the same City, Branch 129 ; and WHEREFORE, by proof beyond reasonable doubt,
respondent Court of Appeals, petitioner now the accused BENITO SY is found GUILTY of
seeks to break the chain of convictions. violating Art. 315, Par. 3 of the Revised Penal
Code, he is sentenced to a straight penalty of
The indictment against petitioner-accused, filed FOUR (4) MONTHS imprisonment, to reimburse or
on 18 August 1986, reads: give restitution in the amount of
THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY
That on or about and during the month of SEVEN (3,287.50) PESOS AND 50/100
January 1986 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and CENTAVOS and to pay costs. (p. 37, Original
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, Record.)
the above- named accused received from the
Panama Sawmill Inc., represented in this case by On appeal before it, the Regional Trial Court of
TE PENG MEN, PBC Check No. 291616 dated Caloocan City, affirmed the judgment of
January 15, 1986 for P6,000.00 which check was conviction on 3 June 1987, but increased the
subsequently encashed by said accused for the penalty, as follows:
purpose of and under the express obligation on
his part to use the said amount in securing a IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court
Marine Insurance coverage for P3,000,000.00 on finds the accused Benito Sy y Ong guilty beyond
a shipment of logs owned by Panama Sawmill, Inc. reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa, thru
but said accused with abuse of trust and misappropriation, as defined under par. 1(b) and
confidence reposed upon him far from complying penalized under the 3rd par. of Art 315 of the
with his obligation and with intent to deceive and Revised Penal Code and there being no attendant
defraud said corporation, did then and there mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, he is
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously receive a hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
Marine Insurance coverage for only penalty of THREE (3) MONTHS OF ARRESTO
Pl,000,000.00 to cover said shipment of logs, MAYOR TO ONE (1) YEAR AND ONE (1) DAY
paying therefor only the amount of P2,712.50 as OF PRISION CORRECCIONAL; to suffer the
insurance premium without the knowledge and accessory penalties provided for by law; and to

Page 155 of 233

pay complainant Panama Sawmill Co., by way of "Panama" filed a claim for loss against
reparation, the amount of P3,287.50. Costs "Oriental" only to be informed by the latter
against appellant. (p. 304, Original Record) that its marine insurance coverage was only for
P1M and that petitioner had paid a premium of
On 30 June 1988 respondent Court of only P2,712.50 (Exhibit "D")
Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court
3
Decision notwithstanding two (2) Contending that petitioner had
Manifestations in lieu of Comment submitted by misappropriated the difference of P3,287.50
the Office of the Solicitor General, dated 3 for his personal use and benefit to its prejudice,
March 1988 and 3 October 1988, respectively, "Panama" charged petitioner with Estafa.
recommending acquittal of petitioner-accused.
For his part, petitioner maintains that the
Before us now, petitioner re-asserts his following details constitute the truth:
innocence. The Solicitor General has also
reiterated his recommendation for acquittal. Petitioner had never, at any one time, dealt
with prosecution witness, Te Peng Men. It was
According to Te Peng Men Manager of Panama only through one Tau Tian that petitioner had
Sawmill, Inc. (henceforth, simply "Panama") and any contact with "Panama".
sole witness of the prosecution, the
developments in this case unfolded as follows: "Oriental" had issued a Marine Insurance
Policy in the amount of P3M in favor of
Sometime in January 1986 "Panama" engaged "Panama" through petitioner's efforts.
petitioner, an insurance agent, to obtain marine
insurance in the amount of P3M to cover its log However, Tau Tian requested petitioner to
shipment from Palawan to Manila. return the Policy since the rate was quite high
and "Panama" wanted to pay only P6,000.00.
As instructed,on l4 January l986 petitioner Thereafter, Tau Tian returned the original of
secured Marine Insurance Policy No. OAC-M- the Policy to petitioner but retained the
86/002 from Oriental Assurance Corporation duplicate copy. Tau Tian instructed petitioner to
("Oriental", for short), with a face value of obtain a reduction of the premium from
P3M (Exhibit "A"). Only the duplicate original P8,137.50 to P6,000.00.
of the Policy was left with "Panama".
Since petitioner was not able to secure a
On 15 January 1986, "Panama" gave petitioner reduction in the premium, he obtained instead a
Philippine Bank of Communication Check No. P1M policy from "Oriental" paying for that
291616 in the amount of P6,000.00 payable to purpose a premium of P2,712.50. In addition, he
"Oriental" for the policy coverage of P3M. obtained a P2M policy from the First Integrated
Insurance Co., Inc. paying a premium therefor of
On 28 January 1986 some of the logs valued P3,255.00. The two policies totalled P3M and the
at P1.2M were lost when the barge premiums paid reached P5,967.50, or almost
transporting the shipment encountered rough P6,000.00.
seas in the vicinity of Dumaran Island, Palawan.
The real reason why "Panama" was not able to

Page 156 of 233

recover on the aforementioned policies was guaranteed by a bond or by denying having
because the policy of "Oriental" was for total received such money, goods, or other property.
loss only and not for partial loss. In fact,
even the Tan Gatue Adjustment Company For the crime of Estafa through
sustained the rejection of "Panama's" claim misappropriation to exist the following
for that reason. elements must be present:

Defense witness, Kent Cotoco, the Underwriting That money, goods or other personal
Manager of "Oriental" corroborated petitioner's property is received by the offender in trust,
testimony that the P3M Policy first issued by or on commission, or for administration, or
"Oriental" (Exhibit "1") was cancelled and under any other obligation involving the duty to
replaced by a P1M Policy (Exhibit "3"). He make delivery of, or to return, the same;
explained that before the P3M Policy was
cancelled, petitioner had surrendered the That there be misappropriation or conversion
original to "Oriental"; that the original and the of such money or property by the offender, or
replacement Policies bear the same serial denial on his part of such receipt;
number 86/002 because it is company policy for
the replacement Policy to carry the same That such misappropriation or conversion
number as the original Policy; and that he was or denial is to the prejudice of another; and
aware that the First Integrated Insurance Co.,
That there is a demand made by the offended
Inc., had issued a P2M Policy for "Panama"
party to the offender. (II Criminal Law, Luis B.
(t.s.n., November 21, 1986, pp. 78-80) because
Reyes, 12th Edition, p. 717)
the latter company charges a lower premium
rate than "Oriental" (ibid., pp. 80-82).
Have the foregoing elements been met in
respect of petitioner-accused? Petitioner,
Is the accused guilty of Estafa committed
supported by the Solicitor General, avers that
through misappropriation under paragraph
they have not because no conversion or
l(b), Article 325 of the Revised Penal Code?
misappropriation has been committed and that
Said provision reads:
there was no demand for the return of the
P6,000.00 given to petitioner. In other words,
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who
elements 2, 3, and 4 of the crime are lacking.
shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned herein-below shall be punished by:
The totality of the evidence yields the following
incontrovertible data in chronological order:
xxxxxxxxx

Jan. 14, 1986 - Issuance of Oriental Marine

By appropriating or converting, to the
prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other
Insurance Policy No. OAC-M-86/002 for P 3M,
with a total premium of P8,137.50. "against total
personal property received by the offender in
trust or on commission, or for administration, or
loss only." (carbon copy, Exhibit "A", original,
Exhibit "1").
under any other obligation involving the duty to
make delivery of or to return the same, even
Jan. 15, 1986 - PBC Check No. 291616 payable to
though such obligation be totally or partially

Page 157 of 233

Oriental Assurance Corporation for P6,000.00 (Exhibit "5")
(Exhibit "C"), endorsed at the back by
petitioner (Exhibit "C-1") and stamped "cleared' June 10, 1986 - Endorsement No. NPA/M-
on the same day, January 15, 1986. 0002/86 First Integrated, reinstating Marine
Cargo Policy No. 00266 provided no loss "has
Jan. 15, 1986 - Issuance of First Integrated occurred prior to the date of issuance of this
Marine Insurance Policy No. 00266 for P2M endorsement" (Exhibit "7").
with a premium of P3,000.00 plus P225.00
documentary stamps with a coverage "Total Loss Aug. 18, 1986 - Information for Estafa filed
by Total Loss of the Vessel Only" (Exhibit "2"). before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Caloocan
City.
Jan. 20, 1986 - Issuance of "Oriental" Marine
Insurance OAC-M-861002 for P1M, with a Upon the established facts, there can be no
total premium of P2,712.50 "against total loss dispute that petitioner received a check in the
only." (Exhibit "3"). amount of P6,000.00 from "Panama" for the
particular purpose of securing a marine
Jan. 21, 1986 - Official receiptof insurance coverage of P3M. That marked the
"Oriental"for P2,712.50 representing premium creation of a fiduciary relation between them,
for Policy No. M-861002 in the amount of P1M the existence of which, either in the form of a
(Exhibits "D" and 4"). trust or under any other obligation involving the
duty to make delivery of the same, is an
Jan. 28, 1986 - Partial loss of the log shipment. essential element of the crime of Estafa by
misappropriation or conversion. The first
Feb. 28, 1986 - Report of the Tan-Gatue element of the crime of Estafa, therefore, is
Adjustment Co., Inc., that the loss was not satisfied.
compensable under the terms and conditions
"Total Loss Only" stipulated in the As to the second element of "misappropriation
"Oriental" Policy (Exhibit "6"). or conversion" of the money or property
received, petitioner contends that the same is in
May 2, 1986 - Endorsement No. M-0001 of attendant because petitioner had, in fact,
First Integrated declaring that its Marine procured the P3M insurance coverage from two
Cargo Policy No. 00266, issued on January 15, companies, spending therefor all of the
1986, is "CANCELLED effective as of its entrusted amount of P6,000.00 for premiums.
inception date, for non-payment of premium"
(Exhibit "E"; "E-1"). We find ourselves in disagreement.

May , 1986 - Investigation of case by City Fiscal To "convert" ("distraer") connotes the act of
of Caloocan city. using or disposing of another's property as if it
were one's own. And to "misappropriate"
June 10, 1986 - First Integrated Official ("appropiar") means to own, to take something
Receipt for P3,255.00 in payment of premium for one's own benefit (II Criminal Law, Luis B.
for Marine Cargo Policy No. 00266 issued Reyes, 12th Edition, p. 729). That there was
conversion or misappropriation by petitioner is

Page 158 of 233

immediately shown by the fact that, as admitted Petitioner's explanation that he paid for the
by him on cross-examination, he had deposited premium twice - the first time on 21 January
the "Panama" check of P6,000.00 payable to 1986 except that he was not issued a receipt
"Oriental" in his own personal account (t.s.n., because he paid for it in cash (t.s.n., November
November 21, 1986, p. 30) even though he was 21, 1986, pp. 36-37), and the second time on 10
not authorized to do so by "Oriental" being June 1986 "because the first time my sub-agent
merely an ordinary, not a special agent, as did not pay it directly to the company on the
testified to by the underwriting agent of first time so I paid it again," (ibid., p. 38) - is
"Oriental" (ibid., pp. 70 -74). Petitioner assumed prevarication, pure and simple.
the right to dispose of it as if it were his, thus
committing conversion with unfaithfulness and a Petitioner paid the premium for the First
clear breach of trust. A check while not Integrated Policy only on 10 June 1986 or five
regarded as legal tender is normally, under months after its issuance and five (5) months
commercial usage, a substitute for cash. The after the partial loss of the shipment, and while
credit represented by it in stated monetary the case was already pending investigation at the
value is properly capable of appropriation City Fiscal's Office. The company reinstated the
(Galvez vs. Court of Appeals, L- 22760, Policy, also on 10 June 1986, but on the condition
November 29, 1971, 42 SCRA 278). that "no loss had occurred prior to the date of
issuance of this endorsement." It was a useless
More, petitioner only gave a duplicate original reinstatement, therefore, and the stark fact
copy of the "Oriental" policy to "Panama", remains that at the time of loss there was no
which accepted it as the right policy. If, as coverage from First Integrated because of non-
petitioner alleges, "Panama" had asked him to payment of premium. Evidently petitioner paid
secure a reduction in premium, it would have the premium at that late date in a futile attempt
been a simple matter for him to have informed to revive the Policy and as a last-ditch effort to
"Panama" of the second Policy for P1M he had show that the entire P6,000.00 amount received
secured from "Oriental" as well as the P2M from "Panama" was used by petitioner for the
Policy from First Integrated. But, no. All these purpose intended - namely, the payment of
were fraudulently concealed from "Panama" and premium for marine insurance coverage of P3M.
were brought out only during the preliminary Indications are that no payment of premium to
investigation of the case before the City First Integrated would have been made either,
Fiscal's Office. but for this criminal charge. The evidence is
clear that he had utilized the balance of the
Petitioner's obtainment of the First Integrated P6,000.00 (after deducting the premium of
Policy, with a coverage of P2M, was only on P2,712.50 paid to "Oriental") for his own
paper. He had failed to pay the premium benefit, and with abuse of confidence, which is
therefor of P3,255.00 at the time of issuance the very essence of misappropriation. And he
so that the Policy never became valid and would have gotten away scot-free if no loss of
binding (Sec. 77, Insurance Code of 1978). the shipment had occurred.
Eloquent proof of that is the Endorsement of 2
May 1986 of First Integrated cancelling its said The third element of Estafa is likewise present.
Policy for non-payment of premium "effective as The misappropriation or conversion resulted in
of its inception date," or on 15 January 1986. prejudice to "Panama" which had believed all

Page 159 of 233

along that its shipment was insured for P3M. What are the categories of object evidence for purposes
of authentication?
There was disturbance in its property rights,
1. Unique objects – those that have readily identifiable marks (e.g. a
and, although temporary, is sufficient to calibre 40 gun with serial number XXX888)
2. Objects made unique – those that are readily identifiable (e.g. a bolo
constitute injury within the meaning of Article knife used to hack a victim which could be identified by a witness in
315(1-b) of the Revised Penal Code (Lu Hayco court)
3. Non-unique objects – those which have no identifying marks
vs. Court of Appeals, L-49607-13 & 55775-86, and cannot be marked (e.g. footprints left at a crime scene)
August 26, 1985, 138 SCRA 227). Q: What is ocular inspection or “view”?
An ocular inspection conducted by the judge without the presence
of the parties or due notice is not valid, as an ocular inspection is
As to the fourth essential element, that of part of the trial.
demand made by the offended party to the Note: It is a discretionary act of the trial court to go to the place
offender, which petitioner claims is wanting in where the object is located, when the object evidence cannot be
brought in courts.
this case, suffice it to state that demand is
not necessary when there is evidence of What is Chain of Custody Rule in relation to Sec. 21 of
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002?
misappropriation as in this case. It is a method of authenticating evidence. It requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support
a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to
It so happens only that failure to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence,
account, upon demand, for funds in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would
describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what
or property held in trust, is happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which
circumstantial evidence of it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next
link in the chain.
misappropriation. The same may, These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to
ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and
however, be established by other no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the
proof, such as that introduced in same. (Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 172953, Apr. 30, 2008)

the case at bar. (Tubb vs. People, Q: When is there a need to establish a chain of custody?
It is necessary when the object evidence is non-unique as it is not
et al., 101 Phil. 114 [1957]) readily identifiable, was not made identifiable or cannot be made
identifiable, e.g. drops of blood or oil, drugs in powder form, fiber,
grains of sand and similar objects. (Riano, Evidence: A Restatement
All the essential elements of Estafa through for the Bar, p. 149, 2009 ed.)
misappropriation or conversion being present, we Q: What is the purpose of establishing a chain of custody?
do not see our way clear to breaking the chain of To guaranty the integrity of the physical evidence and to prevent the
introduction of evidence which is not authentic but where the exhibit is
convictions by the other Courts before us. The positively identified the chain of custody of physical evidence is
irrelevant. (Ibid.)
guilt of petitioner-accused has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt. RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE (A.M. NO. 06-11-5-SC)

WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
hereby AFFIRMED. With costs against
petitioner-accused, Benito Sy y Ong. What is Parol Evidence?

It is any evidence aliunde (extrinsic evidence) which is intended or

SO ORDERED. tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement
embodied in a document (Regalado, Vol. II, p. 730, 2008 ed.). It may
Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, refer to testimonial, real or documentary evidence

JJ., concur. What is the rationale of the parol evidence rule?

To give stability to written statements;

To remove the temptation and possibility of perjury; and
To prevent possible fraud.

Page 160 of 233

 XPN: There is prima facie evidence of incompetency in the following:
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE The fact that a person has been recently found of unsound mind
Who are qualified to be witnesses? by a court of competent jurisdiction; or
All persons who: That one is an inmate of an asylum for the insane.
1. can perceive and perceiving;
2. can make known their perception to others (Sec. 20, Rule 130); DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES
3. must take either an oath or an affirmation (Sec. 1, Rule 132;
Riano, Evidence: A Restatement for the Bar, p. 245, 2009 ed.); and Q: Who are disqualified to be witnesses under the rules?
4. must not possess the disqualifications imposed by law or the rules
(Riano, Evidence: A Restatement for the Bar, p. 246, 2009 ed.) Those who are:
NOTE: The ability to make known the perception of the witness to the Disqualified by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity;
court involves two factors: (a) the ability to remember what has Disqualified by reason of marriage;
been perceived; and (b) the ability to communicate the remembered Disqualified by reason of death or insanity of adverse party; and
perception. Consider a witness who has taken the oath and who has
Disqualified on the ground of privileged communication:
personal knowledge of the event which he is going to testify (Riano,
Evidence: A Restatement for the Bar, p. 248, 2009 ed)..
a. Marital privilege;
Attorney-client privilege;
Q: What are the qualifications of a witness? Doctor-patient privilege;
Minister-penitent privilege; or
A: A prospective witness must show that he has the following Public officer as regards communications made in official
abilities: confidence.
To Observe – the testimonial quality of perception;
To Remember – the testimonial quality of memory; Note: The qualifications and disqualifications of witnesses are
To Relate – the testimonial quality of narration; and determined as of the time they are produced for examination in court
or at the taking of the depositions.
To Recognize a duty to tell the truth – the testimonial quality of
sincerity.
DISQUALIFIED BY REASON OF MENTAL
INCAPACITY OR IMMATURITY
What cannot be considered as grounds for
disqualification? The proposed witness must be incapable of making known his
perception to others; and
A: GR:
Religious or political belief;
The incapacity must exist as of the time of his production for
Interest in the outcome of the case; or examination (Riano, Evidence: A Restatement for the Bar, p.
Conviction of a crime (Sec. 20). 254, 2009 ed.).

XPN: Unless otherwise provided by law like the following:

Who are disqualified by reason of mental incapacity or
Those convicted of falsification of document, perjury or false immaturity?
testimony is prohibited from being witnesses to a will (Art.
821, NCC).
A:
Those convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude cannot be
Mental incapacity – those whose mental condition, at the time of
discharged to become a State witness (Sec. 17, Rule 119; Sec. 10,
R.A. 6981). their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of
intelligently making known their perception to others; he can still be
Those who fall under the disqualification provided under Secs. 21- a witness during his lucid interval. The disqualification is only
24, Rule 130.
absolute if the insane person is publicly known to be insane and
does not have lucid intervals.

COMPETENCY VS CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS Mental immaturity – children whose mental maturity is such as to
render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they
A: Competency of a Witness Credibility of a Witness are examined and of relating them truthfully. (Sec. 21)
Has reference to the basic qualifications Refers to the believability of
of a witness as his capacity to perceive the witness and has nothing When must the incompetence of the witness by reason
and his capacity to communicate his to do with the law or the of mental incapacity or immaturity exist?
perception to others. (Riano, 2009, rules. (Ibid).
p.250)
A: Mental Incapacity Mental Immaturity
Q: What is the rule on competency of witness?

GR: A person who takes the witness stand is presumed to possess

the qualifications of a witness. (Presumption of competency)

Page 161 of 233

The incompetence of the witness The incompetence of the
must exist not at the time of his witness must occur at the The prohibition extends not only to testimony adverse to the
perception of the facts but at the time the witness spouse but also to a testimony in favor of the spouse. (Sec. 22, Rule
time he is produced for perceives the event 130; Riano, Evidence: A Restatement for the Bar, p. 265, 2009 ed.)
examination, and consists in his including his incapability Note: It does not apply in the case of estranged spouses, where the
inability to intelligently make to relate his perceptions marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no more
known what he has perceived. truthfully. (Ibid.) harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be
(Riano, Evidence: A Restatement disturbed (Alvarez vs Ramirez, October 14, 2005)
for the Bar, p. 255, 2009 ed.)

Does mental unsoundness of the witness at the time

Section 4. Original of document.
the fact to be testified occurred affect his competency?
The original of the document is one
No, it only affects his credibility. Nevertheless, as long as the the contents of which are the subject
witness can convey ideas by words or signs and can give sufficiently
intelligent answers to questions propounded, she is a competent
of inquiry.
witness even if she is feeble-minded (People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. L-
39087, Apr. 27, 1984) or is mental retardate (People v. Gerones, When a document is in two or more
G.R. No. 91116, Jan. 24, 1991) or is a schizophrenic (People v. Baid,
copies executed at or about the same
G.R. No. 129667, July 31, 2000).
time, with identical contents, all such
Cyrus, a deaf-mute, was presented as a witness in a copies are equally regarded as originals.
criminal case. The accused objected to the presentation of
the testimony of Cyrus on the ground that, being a deaf-
mute, he was not a competent witness. Is the contention of
When an entry is repeated in the
the accused correct? regular course of business, one being
copied from another at or near the time
No. A deaf-mute is not incompetent as a witness. Deaf-mutes are of the transaction, all the entries are
competent witnesses where they can:
1. understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath;
likewise equally regarded as originals.
2. comprehend facts they are going to testify on; and (3a)
3. communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter (People
v. Tuangco, G.R. No. 130331, Nov. 22, 2001). THREE (3) CONCEPTS OF “ORIGINAL” UNDER THE BEST EVIDENCE
RULE (Sec. 4)
DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF One the contents of which is the subject of inquiry;
MARRIAGE/SPOUSAL IMMUNITY When a document is in two or more copies executed at or
about same time with identical contents, all such copies are equally
The rule forbidding one spouse to testify for or against the other is regarded as originals;
based on principles which are deemed important to preserve the When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business,
marriage relation as one of full confidence and affection, and that one being copied from another at or near the time of the
this is regarded as more important to the public welfare than that transaction.
the exigencies of the lawsuits should authorize domestic peace to
be disregarded for the sake of ferreting out facts within the Q: What is the rule on duplicate original?
knowledge of strangers. It states that when a document is in two or more copies
executed at or about the same time with identical contents, all
What are the requisites in order for the spousal such copies are equally regarded as originals (Sec. 4b, Rule
immunity to apply? 130). It may be introduced in evidence without accounting for
the non-production of the other copies.
A:
That the spouse for or against whom the testimony is offered is a Republic of the Philippines
party to the case;
SUPREME COURT
That the spouses are validly married;
The testimony is one that is offered during the existence of the Manila
marriage (Riano, Evidence: A Restatement for the Bar, p. 266,
2009 ed.); and
THIRD DIVISION
The case is not one of the exceptions provided in the rule.
(Herrera, Vol. V, p. 302, 1999 ed.)
G.R. No. 109172 August 19, 1994 TRANS-
Q: What kind of testimony is covered by the prohibition? PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES,

Page 162 of 233

INC., petitioner, denominated as restructured interest; (3)
vs. Promissory Note No. TL-9079-82 for the
The COURT OF APPEALS and ASSOCIATED amount of P42,234.00 denominated similarly as
BANK, respondents. restructured interest (Rollo. pp. 113-115).

In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioner The mortgaged parcels of land were substituted
Trans-Pacific Industrial Supplies, Inc. seeks the by another mortgage covering two other parcels
reversal of the decision of respondent court, the of land and a chattel mortgage on petitioner's
decretal portion of which reads: stock inventory. The released parcels of land
were then sold and the proceeds amounting to
WHEREFORE, the decision of June 11, 1991 is P1,386,614.20, according to petitioner, were
SET ASIDE and NULLIFIED; the complaint is turned over to the bank and applied to Trans-
dismissed, and on the counterclaim, Pacific's restructured loan. Subsequently,
Transpacific is ordered to pay Associated respondent bank returned the duplicate original
attorney's fees of P15,000.00. copies of the three promissory notes to Trans-
Pacific with the word "PAID" stamped thereon.
Costs against Transpacific.
Despite the return of the notes, or on
SO ORDERED. (Rollo, p. 47) December 12, 1985, Associated Bank demanded
from Trans-Pacific payment of the amount of
Sometime in 1979, petitioner applied for and P492,100.00 representing accrued interest on
was granted several financial accommodations PN No. TL-9077-82. According to the bank, the
amounting to P1,300,000.00 by respondent promissory notes were erroneously released.
Associated Bank. The loans were evidenced and
secured by four (4) promissory notes, a real Initially, Trans-Pacific expressed its willingness
estate mortgage covering three parcels of land to pay the amount demanded by respondent
and a chattel mortgage over petitioner's stock bank. Later, it had a change of heart and
and inventories. instead initiated an action before the Regional
Trial Court of Makati, Br. 146, for specific
Unable to settle its obligation in full, performance and damages. There it prayed that
petitioner requested for, and was granted by the mortgage over the two parcels of land be
respondent bank, a restructuring of the released and its stock inventory be lifted and
remaining indebtedness which then amounted that its obligation to the bank be declared as
to P1,057,500.00, as all the previous payments having been fully paid.
made were applied to penalties and interests.
After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment
To secure the re-structured loan of in favor of Trans-Pacific, to wit:
P1,213,400.00, three new promissory notes
were executed by Trans-Pacific as follows: (1) WHEREFORE, premises considered and upon a
Promissory Note No. TL-9077-82 for the clear preponderance of evidence in support of
amount of P1,050,000.00 denominated as the stated causes of action, the Court finds for
working capital; (2) Promissory Note No. TL- the plaintiffs and against defendant, and
9078-82 for the amount of P121,166.00

Page 163 of 233

 declares plaintiff's obligations to defendant RESPONDENT APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN
to have been already fully paid; HOLDING THAT WITH THE DELIVERY OF
THE DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING THE
orders defendant to execute and deliver to PRINCIPAL OBLIGATION, THE ANCILLARY
plaintiffs a release on the i September 11, OBLIGATION OF PAYING INTEREST WAS
1981 mortgage over TCT (50858) NOT RENOUNCED CONTRARY TO THE
S-10086 and TCT (50859) S-109087, PROVISIONS OF ART. 1273 OF THE CIVIL
and ii December 20, 1983 chattel CODE AND THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE
mortgage, within fifteen (15) days from the ON RECORD.
finality hereof;
III
orders defendant to pay plaintiffs Romeo
Javier and Romana Bataclan-Javier the sum of RESPONDENT APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN
P50,000.00 as and for moral damages; and NOT HOLDING THAT PETITIONER HAS
FULLY PAID ITS OBLIGATION
orders defendant to pay plaintiffs the sum CONFORMABLY WITH ARTICLE 1234 OF
of P30,000.00 as attorney's fees, plus expenses THE CIVIL CODE.
of the suit.
IV
Defendant's counterclaims are dismissed
for lack of merit. RESPONDENT APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN
AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES IN FAVOR
With costs against defendant. OF ASSOCIATED BANK (Rollo, p. 15).

SO ORDERED. (Rollo, p. 101) The first three assigned errors will be treated
jointly since their resolution border on the
Respondent bank elevated the case to the common issue, i.e., whether or not petitioner
appellate court which, as aforesaid, reversed the has indeed paid in full its obligation to
decision of the trial court. In this appeal, respondent bank.
petitioner raises four errors allegedly
committed by the respondent court, namely: Applying the legal presumption provided by Art.
1271 of the Civil Code, the trial court ruled that
RESPONDENT APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN petitioner has fully discharged its obligation by
HOLDING THAT THE ACCRUED INTEREST virtue of its possession of the documents
IN THE AMOUNT OF 492,100.00 HAS NOT (stamped "PAID") evidencing its indebtedness.
BEEN PAID WHEN ARTICLE 1176 OF THE Respondent court disagreed and held, among
CIVIL CODE PROVIDES THAT SUCH CLAIM others, that the documents found in possession of
FOR INTEREST UPON RECEIPT OF PAYMENT Trans-Pacific are mere duplicates and cannot be
OF THE PRINCIPAL MUST BE RESERVED the basis of petitioner's claim that its obligation
OTHERWISE IT IS DEEMED PAID. has been fully paid. Accordingly, since the
promissory notes submitted by petitioner were
II duplicates and not the originals, the delivery
thereof by respondent bank to the

Page 164 of 233

petitioner does not merit the application of introduced in evidence as such without
Article 1271 (1st par.) of the Civil Code which accounting for the nonproduction of the others.
reads:
A duplicate copy of the original may be
Art. 1271. The delivery of a admitted in evidence when the original is in the
private document evidencing a possession of the party against whom the
credit, made voluntarily by the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
creditor to the debtor, implies the produce it after reasonable notice (Sec. 2[b],
renunciation of the action which Rule 130), as in the case of respondent bank.
the former had against the latter.
This notwithstanding, we find no reversible
Respondent court is of the view that the above error committed by the respondent court in
provision must be construed to mean the original disposing of the appealed decision. As gleaned
copy of the document evidencing the credit and from the decision of the court a quo, judgment
not its duplicate, thus: was rendered in favor of petitioner on the
basis of presumptions, to wit:
. . . [W]hen the law speaks of the delivery of the
private document evidencing a credit, it must be The surrender and return to plaintiffs of the
construed as referring to the original. In this promissory notes evidencing the consolidated
case, appellees (Trans-Pacific) presented, not obligation as restructured, produces a legal
the originals but the duplicates of the three presumption that Associated had thereby
promissory notes." (Rollo, p. 42) renounced its actionable claim against plaintiffs
(Art. 1271, NCC). The presumption is fortified
The above pronouncement of respondent court by a showing that said promissory notes all bear
is manifestly groundless. It is undisputed that the stamp "PAID", and has not been otherwise
the documents presented were duplicate overcome. Upon a clear perception that
originals and are therefore admissible as Associated's record keeping has been less than
evidence. Further, it must be noted that exemplary . . ., a proffer of bank copies of the
respondent bank itself did not bother to promissory notes without the "PAID" stamps
challenge the authenticity of the duplicate thereon does not impress the Court as
copies submitted by petitioner. In People vs. sufficient to overcome presumed remission of
Tan, (105 Phil. 1242 [1959]), we said: the obligation vis-a -vis the return of said
promissory notes. Indeed, applicable law is
When carbon sheets are inserted between two supportive of a finding that in interest bearing
or more sheets of writing paper so that the obligations-as is the case here, payment of
writing of a contract upon the outside sheet, principal (sic) shall not be deemed to have been
including the signature of the party to be made until the interests have been covered (Art.
charged thereby, produces a facsimile upon the 1253, NCC). Conversely, competent showing that
sheets beneath, such signature being thus the principal has been paid, militates against
reproduced by the same stroke of pen which postured entitlement to unpaid interests.
made the surface or exposed impression, all of
the sheets so written on are regarded as In fine. the Court is satisfied that plaintiffs
duplicate originals and either of them may be must be found to have settled their obligations

Page 165 of 233

in full. required than what normally would be called for
to prove payment. The rationale for allowing the
As corollary, a finding is accordingly compelled presumption of renunciation in the delivery of a
that plaintiffs (sic) accessory obligations under private instrument is that, unlike that of a
the real estate mortgage over two (2) substituted public instrument, there could be just one copy
lots as well as the chattel mortgage, have been of the evidence of credit. Where several
extinguished by the renunciation of the principal originals are made out of a private document,
debt (Art. 1273, NCC), following the time-honored the intendment of the law would thus be to
axiom that the accessory follows the principal. refer to the delivery only of the original
There is, therefore, compelling warrant (sic) to original rather than to the
find in favor of plaintiffs insofar as specific original duplicate of which the debtor would
performance for the release of the mortgages on normally retain a copy. It would thus be absurd
the substituted lots and chattel is concerned. if Article 1271 were to be applied differently.
(Rollo, p. 100)
While it has been consistently held that findings
premised by: of facts are not reviewable by this Court, this
rule does not find application where both the
Records show that Associated's Salvador M. trial and the appellate courts differ thereon
Mesina is on record as having testified that all (Asia Brewery, Inc. v. CA, 224 SCRA 437
three (3) December 8, 1990 promissory notes [1993]).
for the consolidated principal obligation,
interest and penalties had been fully paid Petitioner maintains that the findings of the
(TSN, July 18, 1990, p. 18). It is, moreover, trial court should be sustained because of its
admitted that said promissory notes were advantage in observing the demeanor of the
accordingly returned to Romeo Javier. (Ibid.) witnesses while testifying (citing Crisostomo v.
Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 833) more so where
The above disquisition finds no factual support, it is supported by the records (Roman Catholic
however, per review of the records. The Bishop of Malolos v. Court of Appeals, 192 SCRA
presumption created by the Art. 1271 of the 169).
Civil Code is not conclusive but merely prima
facie. If there be no evidence to the contrary, This case, however, does not concern itself with
the presumption stands. Conversely, the the demeanor of witnesses. As for the records,
presumption loses its legal efficacy in the face there is actually none submitted by petitioner to
of proof or evidence to the contrary. In the prove that the contested amount, i.e., the
case before us, we find sufficient justification interest, has been paid in full. In civil cases, the
to overthrow the presumption of payment party that alleges a fact has the burden of
generated by the delivery of the documents proving it (Imperial Victory Shipping Agency v.
evidencing petitioners indebtedness. NLRC 200 SCRA 178 [1991]). Petitioner could
have easily adduced the receipts corresponding
It may not be amiss to add that Article 1271 to the amounts paid inclusive of the interest to
of the Civil Code raises a presumption, not of prove that it has fully discharged its obligation
payment, but of the renunciation of the credit but it did not.
where more convincing evidence would be

Page 166 of 233

There is likewise nothing on the records relied 18, 1990, p. 22)
upon by the trial court to support its claim, by
empirical evidence, that the amount That petitioner has not fully liquidated its
corresponding to the interest has indeed been financial obligation to the Associated Bank finds
paid. The trial court totally relied on a more than ample confirmation and self-
disputable presumption that the obligation of defeating posture in its letter dated December
petitioner as regards interest has been fully 16, 1985, addressed to respondent bank, viz.:
liquidated by the respondent's act of delivering
the instrument evidencing the principal . . . that because of the prevailing unhealthy
obligation. Rebuttable as they are, the court a economic conditions, the business is unable to
quo chose to ignore an earlier testimony of Mr. generate sufficient resources for debt
Mesina anent the outstanding balance servicing.
pertaining to interest, as follows:
Fundamentally on account of this, we propose
Court: that you permit us to fully liquidate the
remaining obligations to you of P492,100
Q Notwithstanding, let us go now specifically to through a payment in kind (dacion en pago)
promissory note No. 9077-82 in the amount of arrangement by way of the equipments (sic) and
consolidated principal of P1,050,000.00. Does spare parts under chattel mortgage to you to
the Court get it correctly that this the extent of their latest appraised values."
consolidated balance has been fully paid? (Rollo, pp. 153-154; Emphasis supplied)

A Yes, the principal, yes, sir. Followed by its August 20, 1986 letter
which reads:
Q Fully settled?
We have had a series of communications with your
A Fully settled, but the interest of that bank regarding our proposal for the eventual
promissory note has not been paid, Your Honor. settlement of our remaining obligations
...
Q In other words, you are saying, fully settled
but not truly fully settled? As you may be able to glean from these letters
and from your credit files, we have always been
A The interest was not paid. conscious of our obligation to you which had not
been faithfully serviced on account of
Q Not fully settled? unfortunate business reverses. Notwithstanding
these however, total payments thus far remitted
A The interest was not paid, but the principal to you already exceede (sic) the original
obligation was removed from our books, Your principal amount of our obligation. But because
Honor. of interest and other charges, we find ourselves
still obligated to you by P492,100.00. . . .
Q And you returned the promissory note?
. . . We continue to find ourselves in a very fluid
A We returned the promissory note. (TSN, July (sic) situation in as much as the overall outlook

Page 167 of 233

of the industry has not substantially improved. compelled to file the suit for damages in the
Principally for this reason, we had proposed to honest belief that it has fully discharged its
settle our remaining obligations to you by way obligations in favor of respondent bank and
of dacion en pago of the equipments (sic) and therefore not unfounded.
spare parts mortgaged to you to (the) extent
of their applicable loan values. (Rollo, p. 155; We believe otherwise. As petitioner would
Emphasis supplied) rather vehemently deny, undisputed is the fact
of its admission regarding the unpaid balance of
Petitioner claims that the above offer of P492,100.00 representing interests. It cannot
settlement or compromise is not an admission also be denied that petitioner opted to sue for
that anything is due and is inadmissible specific performance and damages after
against the party making the offer (Sec. 24, consultation with a lawyer (Rollo, p. 99) who
Rule 130, Rules of Court). Unfortunately, this advised that not even the claim for interests
is not an iron-clad rule. could be recovered; hence, petitioner's attempt
to seek refuge under Art. 1271 (CC). As
To determine the admissibility or non- previously discussed, the presumption
admissibility of an offer to compromise, the generated by Art. 1271 is not conclusive and was
circumstances of the case and the intent of the successfully rebutted by private respondent.
party making the offer should be considered. Under the circumstances, i.e., outright and
Thus, if a party denies the existence of a debt honest letters of admission vis-a-vis counsel -
but offers to pay the same for the purpose of induced recalcitrance, there could hardly be
buying peace and avoiding litigation, the offer of honest belief. In this regard, we quote with
settlement is inadmissible. If in the course approval respondent court's observation:
thereof, the party making the offer admits the
existence of an indebtedness combined with a The countervailing evidence against the claim of
proposal to settle the claim amicably, then, the full payment emanated from Transpacific itself.
admission is admissible to prove such It cannot profess ignorance of the existence of
indebtedness (Moran, Comments on the Rules of the two letters, Exhs. 3 & 4, or of the import of
Court, Vol. 5, p. 233 [1980 ed.); Francisco, Rules what they contain. Notwithstanding the letters,
of Court, Vol. VII, p. 325 [1973 ed.] citing Transpacific opted to file suit and insist(ed)
McNiel v. Holbrook, 12 Pac. (US) 84, 9 L.ed. that its liabilities had already been paid. There
1009). Indeed, an offer of settlement is an was thus an
effective admission of a borrower's loan balance ill-advised attempt on the part of Transpacific
(L.M. Handicraft Manufacturing Corp. v. Court to capitalize on the delivery of the duplicates of
of Appeals, 186 SCRA 640 [1990]). Exactly, this the promissory notes, in complete disregard of
is what petitioner did in the case before us for what its own records show. In the
review. circumstances, Art. 2208 (4) and (11) justify the
award of attorney's fees. The sum of
Finally, respondent court is faulted in awarding P15,000.00 is fair and equitable. (Rollo, pp. 46-
attorney's fees in favor of Associated Bank. 47)
True, attorney's fees may be awarded in a case
of clearly unfounded civil action (Art. 2208 [4], WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack
CC). However, petitioner claims that it was

Page 168 of 233

of merit. Costs against petitioner. Q: When may secondary evidence be admitted?
A: It may be admitted only by laying the basis for its production and
such requires compliance with the following:
SO ORDERED. 1. The offeror must prove the due execution and existence of the
original document;
2. The offeror must show the cause of its unavailability; and
3. The offeror must show that the unavailability was not due to his
2. Secondary Evidence
bad faith.

Section 5. When original document is unavailable. Accordingly, the correct order of proof is as follows: existence,
? When the original document has been lost or execution, loss, and contents. This order may be changed if
destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the necessary at the sound discretion of the court. (Citibank N.A.
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and Mastercard v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 150905, Sept. 23, 2003)
Note: Intentional destruction of the originals by a party who acted in
the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on
good faith does not preclude the introduction of secondary evidence of
his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a
the contents thereof.
recital of its contents in some authentic document,
or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. . Q: What is the order of presentation of secondary evidence?
(4a) A:
1. Copy of the original;
A recital of the contents of the document in some authentic
Section 6. When original document is in adverse document; or
party's custody or control. ? If the document is in By the testimony of witnesses (Sec. 5, Rule 130)
the custody or under the control of adverse party,
he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If Q: What is Definite Evidentiary Rule?
after such notice and after satisfactory proof of Where the law specifically provides for the class and
quantum of secondary evidence to establish the contents of a
its existence, he fails to produce the document,
document, or bars secondary evidence of a lost document, such
secondary evidence may be presented as in the requirement is controlling. E.g. Evidence of a lost notarial will
case of its loss. (5a) should consist of a testimony of at least two credible witnesses
who can clearly and distinctly establish its contents (Sec. 6,
Section 7. Evidence admissible when original Rule 76).
document is a public record. ? When the original of
How may the due execution of the document be proved?
document is in the custody of public officer or is It may be proved through the testimony of:
recorded in a public office, its contents may be 1. The person who executed it;
proved by a certified copy issued by the public 2. The person before whom its execution was acknowledged;
officer in custody thereof. (2a) 3. Any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered;
4. Any person who thereafter saw and recognized the signature;
Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound 5. One to whom the parties thereto had previously confessed the
execution thereof; or
to offer it. ? A party who calls for the production of
6. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of
a document and inspects the same is not obliged to the maker. (Sec. 20, Rule 132)
offer it as evidence. (6a)
Q: How may the loss or destruction be proved?
Q: What is secondary evidence?
Secondary evidence is that which shows that better or primary It may be proved by:
evidence exists as to the proof of the fact in question. It is the class Any person who knew of such fact;
of evidence that is relevant to the fact in issue, it being first shown Anyone who, in the judgment of the court, had made sufficient
that the primary evidence of the fact is not obtainable. It performs examination in the places where the document or papers of similar
the same functions as that of primary evidence. (Francisco, p. 68, character are usually kept by the person in whose custody the
1992 ed.) document was and has been unable to find it; or
Note: All originals must be first accounted for before one can resort to Any person who has made any other investigation which is
secondary evidence. It must appear that all of them have been lost or sufficient to satisfy the court that the document is indeed lost.
destroyed or cannot be produced in court. The non-production of the
original document, unless it falls under any of the exceptions in Sec. 3, Q: How may the contents be proved?
Rule 130, gives rise to the presumption of suppression of evidence.
They may be proved by the testimony of:
1. Any person who signed the document;

Page 169 of 233

 Any person who read it; Note: The promissory note is an actionable document and the
Any person who heard when the document was being read; original or a copy thereof should have been attached to the
Any person who was present when the contents of the document complaint. (Sec. 7, Rule 8) In such a case, the genuineness and
were talked over by the parties to such an extent as to give him due execution of the note, if not denied under oath, would be
reasonably full information of the contents; or deemed admitted. (Sec. 8, Rule 9)
Any person to whom the parties have stated or confessed the
When Linda died, her common law husband, Lito and
contents thereof.
their alleged daughter Nes executed an extrajudicial partition
of Linda’s estate. Thereafter, the siblings of Linda filed an
What facts must be shown by the party offering action for partition of Linda’s estate and annulment of titles
secondary evidence if the original is in the custody of the
and damages with the RTC. The RTC dismissed the
adverse party?
complaint and rendered that Nes was the illegitimate
daughter of the decedent and Lito based solely on her birth
1. Original is in the possession or under the control of the opponent; certificate, which on closer examination, reveals that Nes was
2. Demand or notice is made to him by the proponent signifying that listed as “adopted” by both Linda and Lito. Is the trial court
the document is needed; correct?
3. Failure or refusal of opponent to produce document in court; and No. The mere registration of a child in his or her birth
4. Satisfactory proof of existence of document (Sec. 6). certificate as the child of the supposed parents is not a valid
adoption, does not confer upon the child the status of an
Note: The party who called for a document is not obliged to offer it into adopted child and the legal rights of such child, and even
evidence (Sec. 8). amounts to simulation of the child's birth or falsification of his
or her birth certificate, which is a public document.
Paula filed a complaint against Lynette for the recovery of a Furthermore, a record of birth is merely a prima facie evidence
sum of money based on a promissory note executed by Lynette. of the facts contained therein. It is not conclusive evidence of
Paula alleged in her complaint that although the promissory note the truthfulness of the statements made there by the interested
says that it is payable within 120 days, the truth is that the note is parties. Nes should have adduced evidence of her adoption, in
payable immediately after 90 days but that if Paula is willing, she view of the contents of her birth certificate. The records
may, upon request of Lynette give the latter up to 120 days to pay however are bereft of any such evidence (Rivera v. Heirs of
the note. Villanueva, G.R. No. 141501, July 21, 2006).
During the hearing, Paula testified that the truth is that the
agreement between her and Lynette is for the latter to pay Q: What is Electronic Evidence?
immediately after 90 days time. Also, since the original note was According to Black's Law Dictionary, evidence is "any
with Lynette and the latter would not surrender to Paula the species of proof, or probative matter, legally presented at the
original note which Lynette kept in a place about one day's trip trial of an issue, by the act of the parties and through the
from where she received the notice to produce the note and in medium of witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, concrete
spite of such notice to produce the same within 6 hours from objects, etc. for the purpose of inducing belief in the minds of
receipt of such notice, Lynette failed to do so. Paula presented a the court or jury as to their contention." Electronic information
copy of the note which was executed at the same time as the (like paper) generally is admissible into evidence in a legal
original and with identical contents. proceeding..
1. Over the objection of Lynette, will Paula be allowed to testify as to What is Electronic Data Message?
the true agreement or contents of the promissory note? Why? Electronic data message refers to information generated,
2. Over the objection of Lynette, can Paula present a copy of the sent, received or stored by electronic, optical or similar means.
promissory note and have it admitted as valid evidence in her What are the factors to be considered in assessing
favor? Why? evidentiary weight of an electronic document?

1. Yes. As an exception to the parol evidence rule, a party may 1. The reliability of the manner or method in which it was generated,
present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the stored or communicated, including but not limited to input and
written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading the failure of output procedures, controls, tests and checks for accuracy and
the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of reliability of the electronic data message or document, in the light of
the parties thereto. Here, Paula has alleged in her complaint that the all the circumstances as well as any relevant agreement;
promissory note does not express the true intent and agreement of 2. The reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified;
the parties. 3. The integrity of the information and communication system
in which it its recorded or stored, including but not limited to
Yes. The copy in possession of Paula is a duplicate original the hardware and computer programs or software used as well
because it was executed at the same time as the original and with as programming errors;
identical contents. Moreover, the failure of Lynette to produce the 4. The familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry
original of the note is excusable because she was not given with the communication and information system;
reasonable notice, a requirement under the Rules before secondary
evidence may be presented.

Page 170 of 233

 The nature and quality of the information which went into the What is the effect of authentication of digital signatures?
communication and information system upon which the electronic Upon authentication, it shall be presumed that:
data message document was based; or 1. The information contained in a certificate is correct;
Other factors which the court may consider as affecting accuracy 2. The digital signature was created during the operational period
or integrity of the electronic document or electronic data message. of a certificate;
(Sec. 1, Rule 7) 3. No cause exists to render a certificate invalid or revocable;
4. The message associated with a digital signature has not been
How is an electronic document authenticated? altered from the time it was signed; and
5. A certificate had been issued by the certification authority
1. By evidence that it had been digitally signed by the indicated therein (Sec. 4, Rule 6).
person purported to have signed the same;
2. By evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices When is the Hearsay Rule not applicable to electronic
as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for documents?
authentication of electronic documents were applied to the A memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts,
document; or events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made by electronic,
3. By other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the optical or other similar means at or near the time of or from
satisfaction of the judge (Sec. 2, Rule 5). transmission or supply of information by a person with knowledge
thereof, and kept in the regular course or conduct of a business
Q: What is Electronic Signature? activity, and such was the regular practice to make the
It refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or memorandum, report, record, or data compilation by electronic,
sound in electronic form, representing the identity of a person optical or similar means, all of which are shown by the testimony of
and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data the custodian or other qualified witnesses, is excepted from the rule
message or electronic document or any methodology or on hearsay evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 8).
procedure employed or adopted by a person and executed or Note: The presumption provided for in Section 1 of this Rule may
adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating, be overcome by evidence of the untrustworthiness of the source of
signing or approving an electronic data message or electronic information or the method or circumstances of the preparation,
document. For purposes of these Rules, an electronic transmission or storage thereof (Sec. 2, Rule 8).
signature includes digital signatures [Sec. 1 (j), Rule 2]. May parties present audio, photographic or video
How is an electronic signature authenticated? evidence? Discuss.
Yes. Audio, photographic and video evidence of events,
1. By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a acts or transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be
digital signature and verify the same; shown, presented or displayed to the court and shall be
2. By any other means provided by law; or identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made
3. By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the the recording or by some other person competent to testify on
genuineness of the electronic signature (Sec. 2, Rule 6). the accuracy thereof (Sec. 1, Rule 11).
What is ephemeral electronic communication?
What is the effect of authentication of an electronic It refers to telephone conversations, text messages, chat
signature? room sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other
Upon authentication, it shall be presumed that: electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is
1. The electronic signature is that of the person to whom not recorded or retained. [Sec. 1(k)]
it correlates; Are text messages admissible as evidence?
2. The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the Yes. Text messages have been classified as ephemeral
intention of authenticating or approving the electronic document to electronic communication under Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the
which it is related or to indicate such person’s consent to the Rules on Electronic Evidence, and shall be proven by the
transaction embodied therein; and testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has
personal knowledge thereof (Vidallon-Magtolis v. Cielito
3. The methods or processes utilized to affix or verify the electronic
signature operated without error or fault (Sec. 3, Rule 6). Salud, A.M. No. CA-05-20-P, Sept. 9, 2005).
How shall ephemeral electronic communication be
Q: What is a Digital Signature? proven?
It shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a
It refers to an electronic signature consisting of a
party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof. In the
transformation of an electronic document or an electronic data
absence or unavailability of such witnesses, other competent
message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a
evidence be admitted. A recording of the telephone
person having the initial untransformed electronic document and
conversation or ephemeral electronic communication shall be
the signer’s public key can accurately determine:
covered by the immediately preceding section. If the foregoing
1. whether the transformation was created using the private key communications are recorded or embodied in an electronic
that corresponds to the signer’s public key; and
document, then the provisions of Rule 5 regarding
2. whether the initial electronic document had been altered after Authentication of Electronic Documents shall apply. (Sec. 2,
the transformation was made [Sec. 1(e), Rule 2] Rule 11)

Page 171 of 233

 3. Parol Evidence Rule that, at or before the signing, of the document, other or different
terms were orally agreed upon by the parties.
3. Requisites for Applicability
Section 9. Evidence of written agreements. a. When there is a valid contract;
b. When the terms of agreement are reduced to writing;
When the terms of an agreement have c. The agreement is between the parties and their successors in interest;
been reduced to writing, it is considered as and
d. There is a dispute as to the terms of the agreement.
containing all the terms agreed upon and 4. Exceptions to Parole Evidence Rule:
there can be, between the parties and their A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms
successors in interest, no evidence of such of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:
a. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
terms other than the contents of the written agreement;
agreement.
_ Note: It must be intrinsic ambiguity, i.e., when the writing admits
two or more meanings or when it is understood in more than one
However, a party may present evidence to way. Extrinsic ambiguity on the other hand, is one where the
document on its face is so unintelligible and the words used so
modify, explain or add to the terms of defective that it totally fails to express a meaning, in such case parol
written agreement if he puts in issue in evidence is forbidden.
his pleading: b. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;
c. The validity of the written agreement; _ Example: where the
An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or consent of one of the parties was procured by mistake, fraud,
intimidation, violence, or undue influence.
imperfection in the written d. The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
agreement; successors in interest after the execution of the written
agreement. _ The term "agreement" includes wills.
Requisites to Admit Parol Evidence by Reason of
The failure of the written Mistake a. That the mistake should be of fact,
agreement to express the true intent b. That the mistake should be mutual or common to both parties to
the instrument, and
and agreement of the parties thereto; c. That the mistake should be alleged and proved by clear
and convincing
evidence.
The validity of the written Theory of Integration of Jural Acts (Previous Acts): Previous acts
agreement; or and contemporaneous transaction of the parties are deemed integrated
and merged in the written agreement which they have executed.
When the parties reduced their agreement to writing, it is presumed
The existence of other terms that they have made the writing the only repository and memorial of
the truth, and whatever it is not found in the writing must be
agreed to by the parties or their understood to have been waived or abandoned.
successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement. _ Collateral Oral Agreement – A contract made prior to or
contemporaneous with another agreement and if oral and NOT
inconsistent with written agreement is admissible within the
The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a) exception to parol evidence rule

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE BEST EVIDENCE RULE

Purpose: To give stability to written agreement and remove
the temptation and possibility of perjury, which would be Presupposes that the original The original document is not
afforded if parol evidence was admissible. document is available in court available or there is a dispute as to
whether said writing is original
Basis: The rule is based on the presumption that the parties have made Prohibits the varying of the Prohibits the introduction of
the written instrument the only repository and memorial of the truth terms of a written agreement secondary evidence in lieu of the
and whatever is not found must have been waived and abandoned by original document regardless of
the parties. whether or not it varies the
contents of the original
Rules: Applies only to documents Applies to all kinds of writings
The written agreement is considered as containing all the terms which are contractual in nature
agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors except wills
in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the
Can be invoked only when the Can be invoked by any party to an
written agreement.
controversy is between the parties action whether he has participated
This rule forbids any addition or contradiction of the terms of
to the written agreement, their or not in the writing involved
a written instrument by testimony purporting to show
privies, or any party affected
thereby like a cestui que trust

Page 172 of 233

 4. Interpretation Of Documents characters in which an instrument is written are
difficult to be deciphered, or the language is
Section 10. Interpretation of a writing according not understood by the court, the evidence of
to its legal meaning. ? The language of a writing persons skilled in deciphering the characters,
is to be interpreted according to the legal or who understand the language, is admissible
meaning it bears in the place of its execution, to declare the characters or the meaning of the
unless the parties intended otherwise. (8) language. (14)

Section 11. Instrument construed so as to Section 17. Of Two constructions, which

give effect to all provisions. ? In the preferred. ? When the terms of an agreement
construction of an instrument, where there are have been intended in a different sense by the
several provisions or particulars, such a different parties to it, that sense is to prevail
construction is, if possible, to be adopted as against either party in which he supposed the
will give effect to all. (9) other understood it, and when different
constructions of a provision are otherwise
Section 12. Interpretation according to equally proper, that is to be taken which is the
intention; general and particular provisions. ? most favorable to the party in whose favor the
In the construction of an instrument, the provision was made. (15)
intention of the parties is to be pursued; and
when a general and a particular provision are Section 18. Construction in favor of natural
inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the right. ? When an instrument is equally
former. So a particular intent will control a susceptible of two interpretations, one in
general one that is inconsistent with it. (10) favor of natural right and the other against it,
the former is to be adopted. (16)
Section 13. Interpretation according to
circumstances. ? For the proper construction Section 19. Interpretation according to usage. ?
of an instrument, the circumstances under An instrument may be construed according to
which it was made, including the situation of usage, in order to determine its true character.
the subject thereof and of the parties to it, may (17)
be shown, so that the judge may be placed in
the position of those who language he is to C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
interpret. (11)
1. Qualification of Witnesses
Section 14. Peculiar signification of terms. ?
The terms of a writing are presumed to have Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. ?
been used in their primary and general Except as provided in the next succeeding
acceptation, but evidence is admissible to section, all persons who can perceive, and
show that they have a local, technical, or perceiving, can make their known perception to
otherwise peculiar signification, and were so others, may be witnesses.
used and understood in the particular instance,
in which case the agreement must be Religious or political belief, interest in the
construed accordingly. (12) outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime
unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be
Section 15. Written words control printed. ? ground for disqualification. (18a)
When an instrument consists partly of written
words and partly of a printed form, and the two Witness – one who, being present, personally sees or perceives a
are inconsistent, the former controls the latter. thing, a beholder, spectator or eyewitness; one who testifies to what he
has seen or heard, or otherwise observed.
(13) Prosecution witness - It is a person who is not an accused and who
is called to testify relating to a criminal case.
Section 16. Experts and interpreters to be
used in explaining certain writings. ? When the

Page 173 of 233

 State witness – It is one of two or more persons jointly charged with
the commission of a crime but who is discharged with his consent so Republic of the Philippines
he that he can be a witness for the state.
SUPREME COURT
Rules:
Manila
All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known
their perception to others may be witnesses. Religious or political
belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime SECOND DIVISION
shall be a ground for disqualification unless otherwise provided
by law.
Exception: When a person is disqualified: G.R. No. 100199 January 18, 1993
By reason of his mental condition or mental maturity; PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
By reason of public policy;
appellee, vs.
By reason of confidential communication; or
When disqualified by law or these Rules. PRUDENCIO DOMINGUEZ and RODOLFO
When deaf mutes are competent witnesses MACALISANG, accused-appellants.
where they can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an
oath;
can comprehend facts they are going to testify on; and Prudencio Dominguez and Rodolfo Macalisang, along with Roger C.
can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter. Dominguez, were charged with the murders of Regional Trial Court
While an accused may voluntarily take the witness stand to testify Judge Purita A. Boligor and of her brother Luther Avanceña.
on his behalf in a criminal case filed against him and be crossexamined Prudencio and Rodolfo were found guilty and sentenced to suffer
thereby, he cannot be compelled to be a witness for the prosecution.
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of
_ Basis: The Constitution provides that no person shall be compelled
Judge Purita A. Boligor in the amount of P30,000.00 and the heirs
to be a witness against himself. The constitutional proscription is
based on two grounds: of Luther Avanceña of another P30,000.00, jointly and severally.
1) Public policy – It would place the witness against the strongest At the same time, the trial court dismissed the charges against
temptation to commit perjury. Roger C. Dominguez for lack of sufficient evidence.
2) Humanity – It would be to extort a confession of truth by
force and degree of which the law abhors.
_ Exceptions: He can be compelled to do certain mechanical or In their brief, accused-appellants assigned the following as
physical acts as the right extends only against the use of physical errors allegedly committed by the trial court:
or moral compulsion to extort communications from the accused.
Types of immunity from suit granted First error — the trial court gravely erred in giving credence
to a witness:
to the prosecution's evidence, particularly the testimony of
a. Transactional immunity – A witness can no longer be prosecuted
for any offense whatsoever arising out of the act or transaction. Oscar Cagod, and basing its judgment of conviction thereon.
Use-and-derivative-use immunity – A witness is only assured that
his or her particular testimony and evidence derived from it will not Second error — the trial court gravely erred in refusing to give
be used against him or her in a subsequent prosecution.
credence to the evidence of the accused-appellants.
An adverse party in a civil case may compelled to be a witness,
by subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, provided, the other party
has served interrogatories or made request for admissions. Third error — the trial court gravely erred in not acquitting
Other Statutes Granting Immunity from suit the accused-appellants and declaring them innocent of the
RA No. 6770 – The ombudsman has the authority to grant charge against
immunity from criminal prosecution to any person whose 1
testimony is necessary to determine the truth. them.
RA No. 6646 – Grants an acceptor or coconspirator immunity
from prosecution, if he voluntarily testifies in the prosecution The facts as found by the trial court may be summarized in the
of vote-buying or voteselling, which is an election offense. following manner. Sometime after 8:00 o'clock in the evening of 6
Qualities or Abilities a Witness Must Possess
February 1986, that is, on the eve of the "snap" presidential
to observe
to remember election held on 7 February 1986, appellant Prudencio Dominguez
to relate then Mayor of the Municipality of Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental
to recognize a duty to tell the truth _ The objection to the and his brother Roger C. Dominguez went to visit their second
competency of a witness must be made before he has given any cousin, Judge Purita A. Boligor. Judge Boligor, according to the
testimony or as soon as it becomes apparent. defense, was promoting the candidacy of Mrs. Corazon C. Aquino,
Acts Considered as Waiver the opposition candidate in the presidential race. Mayor Dominguez
Where the party fails to raise the objection when the witness
was affiliated with the "Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan" ("KBL") and was
testifies, and
at that time working for the re-election of former President
Where the party who might have made the objection calls the
witness in support of his own case. Marcos. Mayor Dominguez and Roger arrived at Judge Boligor's
Question: house in Sinacaban in an Integrated National Police ("INP") jeep
Is a mental retardate disqualified to testify? driven by Felix Amis, a police officer detailed as security man of
Answer: Mayor Dominguez. Rodolfo Macalisang, brother-in-law of Mayor
A mental retardate is not by itself disqualified to testify as long as Dominguez, emerged on the leftside of the jeep, spoke briefly
he has ability to make his perception known to others.
with the Mayor, then stepped aside and stayed under the shadow
of a citrus (calamansi) tree. The Mayor and his brother Roger

Page 174 of 233

proceeded towards Judge Boligor's house and entered that like his own mother, that circumstance would only add to the
house. There they met with Judge Boligor and her brother Luther weight of his testimony, since he would then be most interested in
Avanceña who was then the UNIDO Chairman in Sinacaban, seeing the real killers brought to justice rather than in falsely
3
Misamis Occidental. About ten (10) minutes later, Rodolfo implicating innocent persons. In People v. Uy, et al., the Court
Macalisang entered Judge Boligor's house with an M-16 armalite explained:
automatic rifle and bursts of gunfire were heard. Shortly
thereafter, Mayor Dominguez and Roger ran out of the house, got . . . mere relationship to the victim need not automatically tarnish
into the jeep which had been waiting for them and sped away. the testimony of the witness. When there is no showing of
Macalisang then came out of the house and disappeared into the
improper motive on the part of the witnesses for testifying
darkness. Judge Boligor and Luther were found inside the house,
against the accused, the fact that they are related to the victim
with multiple bullet wounds in vital parts of their bodies which
does not render their clear and positive testimony less worthy of
caused their instantaneous death.
full faith and credit. On the contrary, their natural interest in
securing the conviction of the guilty would prevent them from
The prosecution's case rested mainly on the testimony of Oscar implicating persons other than the culprits, for otherwise, the
Cagod who witnessed the above sequence of events from a latter would thereby gain immunity.
4
(Emphasis supplied).
store across the street. The defense, for its part, attacked the
credibility and the testimony of Oscar Cagod on the following In its second argument, the defense assails witness Cagod's
grounds: credibility since he waited four (4) months after the slaying
before executing his sworn statement. The sworn statement was
First, Cagod was not a disinterested witness, having lived in the allegedly made by Cagod after he had been arrested by Philippine
house of Judge Boligor for eighteen (18) to nineteen (19) years Constabulary-Criminal Investigation Service ("PC-CIS") operatives
and having treated the Judge like his own mother; and placed under detention. The defense complains that prior
thereto, Cagod had not informed anyone about what he saw on the
Second, Cagod waited for four (4) months after the slaying of night of the slaying. It is settled, however, that delay on the part
Judge Boligor and Luther Avanceña before he executed his of witnesses in informing the authorities of what they know about
sworn statement; the occurrence of a crime will not, by itself, affect their
5
credibility, where such delay is satisfactorily explained. We
consider that the delay of four (4) months before prosecution
Third, Cagod, according to the defense, executed his sworn
witness Cagod executed his sworn statement should not affect the
statement only after the police authorities had arrested him and
credibility of his testimony. Cagod had understandable reasons for
promised him immunity from prosecution. His testimony
hesitating to report to the authorities what he had seen. The
therefore came from a polluted source and should be received
accused in the instant case were clearly powerful and influential
only with utmost caution.
persons in Sinacaban. Prudencio Dominguez, as already noted, was
Mayor of Sinacaban and Roger Dominguez was his brother. As
Fourth, Cagod had been convicted, when he was twelve (12) Mayor, appellant Dominguez had armed men as personal
years old, of murder, a crime involving moral turpitude and bodyguards and otherwise at his command. Appellant Rodolfo V.
accordingly his testimony deserved no credence. Macalisang was a PC Sergeant and Civilian Home Defense Force
("CHDF") Supervisor. An alleged co-conspirator, Isidro Macalisang,
Last, the defense assailed the testimony of Cagod as was a Lieutenant of the Armed Forces of the Philippines ("AFP"),
being incredible in itself. while Josue Vente also an alleged co-conspirator, was a Police
Sergeant and Police Station Commander of Sinacaban. Cagod had
been warned by Alfeo Lucing, a CHDF member and a follower of
We consider the above objections seriatim. We must note initially,
Mayor Dominguez, and by appellant Macalisang himself, not to talk
however, that Oscar Cagod, the prosecution star witness, was slain 6
not long after he had testified on direct examination and on cross- about the shooting, upon pain of dire consequences. In People v.
7
examination. So far as the record here is concerned, the killer or Bustarde, et al, the Court stated that the
killers of witness Oscar Cagod remain unknown. Another
prosecution witness, Diosdado Avanceña brother of the two (2) failure of the witness to go to the police immediately after the
deceased victims, mysteriously disappeared after his direct killing because she feared for her life, is a factor which is
examination. He could not be recalled to testify on cross- entirely human and quite understandable, and should not detract
examination and his testimony was stricken from the records by from her testimonial credit.
8

the trial judge upon motion of the defense.

9
In People v. Marmita, Jr., the Court likewise sustained the
We find the first contention of appellants to be without merit. In a credibility of the witness after the latter's delay in identifying the
long line of cases, the Court has consistently held that the relationship accused was explained to have been due to fear of reprisal from the
of a witness to a party to a case does not, by itself, impair the accused who was known to be a powerful and influential person. In
2 10
credibility of the witness. In the instant case, assuming that Cagod People v. Baring, witness explained that her silence immediately
had indeed treated the deceased victim Judge Boligor after the slaying of her father was due to the fact

Page 175 of 233

that previous killings in the barrio had not been given proper theory. Cagod's first affidavit lacked certain details which Cagod
attention by the police authorities, and this Court ruled that her later supplied in a supplemental affidavit after more clarificatory
silence was understandable and did not affect her credibility. The 14
questions had been asked of him. In People v. Salvilla, the Court
natural reluctance of most people to get involved in a criminal held that the failure of a prosecution witness to mention the
case, and to volunteer information about a criminal case, is a taking, an essential element of the crime of robbery, in her sworn
11
mutter of judicial notice. We, therefore, agree with the trial statement did not militate against her credibility, considering that
judge when she rejected this argument of the defense, saying: "an affidavit is almost always incomplete and inaccurate and does
not disclose the complete facts for want of inquiries and
Cagod's credibility also comes under fire for the reason that it suggestions."
took him four months before he executed a statement revealing
what he had witnessed on February 6, 1986. As the defense would In its fourth contention, the defense stresses that Oscar Cagod
have it, be should have gone straight-away to Boligor's son or to had been convicted of murder when he was twelve (12) years old
any member of the Boligor household with his story. The defense and insists that, therefore, Cagod's testimony "deserves no
15
points out that instead of doing so, Cagod went away to the ABC credence and must be considered with extreme caution.
Hall to sleep until morning. This Court, however, notes that it was Initially, we note that Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court
not so, for Cagod related that he rushed away to inform a cousin provides as follows:
of Boligor, Mrs. Candelaria Gamotin, and that before he reached
her house, Alfeo Lucing, one of the Mayor's men, followed him Sec. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as provided
warning him not to tell other stories except that Boligor was dead. in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and
perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be
That defense makes much of Cagod's conduct after the shooting witnesses.
of Boligor. Why did he remain silent when everyone wanted to know
who the malefactors were? Why indeed? The defense forgets that . . . [C]onviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law,
the malefactors were not just any Tom, Dick and Harry — they shall not be a ground for disqualification . (Emphasis supplied).
were, perhaps, the most powerful and influential men in the
Municipality of Sinacaban. Alfeo Lucing, who had shadowed Cagod, 16
In Cordial v. People, this Court echoed the above cited provision
had already given stern warning. Cagod's fears later took concrete
of law stating that
shape when Macalisang (whose name, oddly enough, translates as
"terrifying") threatened him at gun point with dire consequences if
he as much as breathe a word of the incident. Was Cagod's even convicted criminals are not excluded from testifying in
conduct after the shooting natural, conforming to normal court so long as, having organs of sense, they "can perceive and
17
behavior? This Court believes that his conduct was as normal as perceiving can make known their perceptions to others.
that of Mrs. Gamotin who, upon learning of Boligor's death, is not
shown to have roused up family, relatives and neighbors to succor The fact of prior criminal conviction alone does not suffice to
the Boligors — the record only shows that "they cried." Cagod's discredit a witness; the testimony of such a witness must be
conduct was as normal as that of Dionisio Burlat, Engracia assayed and scrutinized in exactly the same way the testimony of
Avanceña and Diosdado Avanceña who fled the Boligor house and other witnesses must be examined for its relevance and
remained holed up in a neighbor's house till the following morning. credibility. None of the cases cited by the appellants militates
Cagod's conduct was as normal as that of neighbors who refused against this proposition.
18
12
to succor the Boligor household.
Oscar Cagod did not dispute his prior conviction for murder when
As to the third contention of the defense that Cagod's testimony came he was only twelve (12) years old. Because of his minority, instead
from a "polluted source" because the sworn statement had been given of being imprisoned, he was placed under the custody of Judge
after his arrest and after he had been promised immunity from Boligor and her late husband, who was then Chief of Police of
prosecution, the Court notes that there was no showing that the Sinacaban. Cagod lived with the for eighteen (18) or nineteen (19)
prosecuting authorities would have included him in the criminal years until Judge Boligor was slain. During that period of time,
information. In other words, the record is bereft of any indication that Cagod had no record of any bad or socially destructive behavior.
Cagod was a participant or co-conspirator in the carrying out of the He had in fact been of much help around the Boligors' house and
crimes. Neither was there any showing that Cagod had been promised had in fact worked for appellant Mayor Dominguez himself as a
19
or granted immunity from prosecution in consideration of his executing motorcar driver. His testimony was not in favor of an accused
20
the affidavit in question. Even if he had been promised or granted "comrade," and Oscar Cagod, moreover, was obviously not a
immunity, that in itself is no indication of lack of truth or credibility in hardened criminal.
21
Taking account of these circumstances, the
his testimony, considering that a person already charged in court may
Court considers that Oscar Cagod's credibility was not put in
be discharged from the information and utilized as a state witness doubt by reason alone of conviction of a crime when he was
13
under certain conditions. The defense also assails a supplemental twelve (12) years old.
affidavit executed by witness Cagod on 31 July 1986 as baseless and
untrue and designed merely to reinforce the prosecution's In their final contention concerning the credibility of Oscar Cagod

Page 176 of 233

as a witness, the defense insists that the testimony of Cagod "16" and "16-A") concerning twenty-seven (27) empty cartridges
was incredible in itself. retrieved from the scene of the crime. These twenty-seven (27)
empty cartridges or shells were, according to this ballistics report,
Cagod had testified that he was in the store across the street from examined and compared with twenty-four (24) test cartridges
submitted by the accused appellant and said to have been fired
Judge Boligor's house on the night of the killing, because he had been
from eight (8) M-16 armalite rifles in the armory of the Sinacaban
about to get sample ballots of candidate Corazon C. Aquino from Judge
Police Force, including an M-16 rifle with Serial No. 162705 which
Boligor; but when he arrived at the latter's house, Judge Boligor told
allegedly was taken by appellant Macalisang from Wilfredo Daluz, a
him to stay across the street considering that Mayor Dominguez was
police officer and prosecution witness. In those reports, PC T/Sgt.
coming to her house. And so Cagod was there across the street from
Rodolfo C. Burgos, a ballistic technician who had conducted the
the Boligors' home and had an unobstructed view of the events as they
examination, concluded that the twenty-seven (27) empty shells
unfolded outside the Boligor house which events culminated in gunfire
retrieved from the scene of the crime had not been fired from any
inside the house and the Mayor and Roger speeding away from the
of the weapons from which the twenty-four (24) test cartridges
Boligor house on the jeep which had waited for them and appellant 24
had been fired. According to the letter of PC Capt. Bonfilio
Macalisang coming out of Judge Boligor's house and fading away into
Dacoco, Commanding Officer of the 466th Philippine Constabulary
the darkness while she and her brother Luther lay dead in her house.
Company, Ozamis City, dated 21 February 1986, which Sgt. Burgos
read into the record during the trial, the twenty-one (21) test
shells had been fired from eight (8) long firearms of the Sinacaban
In addition, Oscar Cagod had testified that on the afternoon of 25
Police Force. The trial court, however, did not give much weight
that same day, while he was at the market place in Sinacaban,
to this ballistic report saying:
Roger Dominguez (the Mayor's brother), Josue Vente (the Police
Station Commander of Sinacaban), Lt. Isidro Macalisang of AFP
and the Mayor were on the terrace of the Mayor's house fronting . . . Cagod's testimony that he had seen Macalisang enter and exit
the Sinacaban Public Market. Josue Vente summoned him (Cagod), from the house of the Boligor's moments before and after the
and so he went up the stairs to the terrace. As he stepped on the shooting remains unshaken by Burgos's testimony, especially
26
terrace, he heard Mayor Dominguez saying angrily: "I gave money when taken with the defense story.
to Purita [A. Boligor] and Luther (Avanceña) so they will not work
during election, they are hard-headed, better that these persons We agree with the trial court's appraisal that the testimony of
are taken care of." Cagod further testified that Josue Vente Ballistic Technician Burgos did not have the effect of overturning
ordered him to buy a pack of cigarettes and that when he the testimony of Oscar Cagod. We note that the defense had not
returned to the terrace with the cigarettes, he heard Mayor shown that appellant Macalisang had no access to any M-16 rifle
Dominguez say: "This is our agreement." Later, Mayor Dominguez other than the eight (8) rifles of the Sinacaban Police Force from
ordered his men to go to Barangay Sinonok to continue their which the twenty-one (21) test bullets were said to have been
election campaign efforts and they left in four (4) motorcycles. fired. The negative allegation that Macalisang did not use any of
Cagod stated that he heard the Mayor telling Roger over an hand- the eight (8) M-16 rifles, particularly the rifle with Serial No.
held radio to follow Judge Purita Boligor and to apprise him (the 162705, does not logically lead to the conclusion that Macalisang
22 could not have used any other weapon nor does it prove that he
Mayor) of her whereabouts periodically.
was not the assailant. All that the testimony of Sgt. Burgos tended
to show was that the murder weapon was not among the eight (8)
The defense expended a great deal of effort assailing the above
rifles of the Sinacaban Police Force from which the test shells
testimony of Oscar Cagod concerning the goings-on on the terrace
were said to have been fired.
of the Mayor's house, the basic contention being that if the
accused-appellants were indeed to plan a conspiracy, they would
not have been so "stupid" as to batch it in broad day light within In addition to denying and assailing the testimony of the now deceased
public view and within hearing distance of strangers, when they witness Oscar Cagod, the appellants' raised the defense of alibi. In a
could have very well gone inside the Mayor's house. It does not long line of cases, this Court has held that for the defense of alibi to
seem necessary for the Court to consider in detail the arguments prosper, it is not enough to show that the accused was somewhere else
of the defense in this connection. For the trial court did not when the crime was committed, but that the accused must further
interpret the above testimony of Oscar Cagod as showing demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at
27
conspiracy being hatched by the appellants and their associates the scene of the crime at the time of the commission thereof. In the
while on the Mayor's terrace. For the trial court ruled that: instant case, the Mayor's argument was that when the shooting
occurred, he was already outside the house of Judge Boligor. Clearly,
. . . The Mayor at that precise time [need] not have been plotting a therefore, it was not impossible for him to have been at the scene of
dastardly deed. He could have been merely expressing his disgust or the crime. In fact, he was only a few steps away, according to his own
anger with Boligor and Luther . . . nevertheless, . . . this Court is testimony, when Judge Boligor and her brother were felled by
convinced that he (Cagod) was telling the facts as he had actually automatic fire. Appellant Rodolfo Macalisang, the latter's Chief
23 Security Officer, and as already noted, Police Supervisor of the CHDF
heard and seen them. He had no motive to testify falsely.
of Sinacaban, said that he had slept the whole night of 6 February
1986 (the eve of the "snap" presidential election) and that he knew
The evidence of the defense included ballistics reports (Exhibits
nothing of

Page 177 of 233

 28
the murder until the next morning. This alibi was obviously a We agree, further, that the aggravating circumstance of
very weak one, considering that Macalisang's house was not only in dwelling was present, but believe that the circumstance of abuse
the same municipality but was indeed only "about 120 meters" away of superior strength is properly deemed absorbed by the
from Judge Boligor's house.
29 qualifying circumstance of treachery. This modification,
however, has no effect upon the penalty properly imposable upon
The applicable doctrine is that the defense of "alibi is worthless accused-appellants.
in the face of positive identification by the prosecution
witnesses."
30
In People v. Plandez,
31
the Court stressed that: WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the decision of the trial court
dated 10 May 1991 is hereby AFFIRMED, except that the element
. . . [A]libi — the much abused sanctuary of felons and which is of abuse of superior strength is properly disregarded, and except
considered as an argument with a bad reputation, cannot prevail that the indemnity imposable is hereby, in accord with current
over positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It is, to jurisprudence, RAISED to P50,000.00 for the killing of Judge
say the least, the weakest defense and must be taken with caution Purita A.. Boligor and another P50,000.00 for the slaying of Luther
being easily fabricated. (Emphasis supplied). Avanceña. Costs against appellants.

In the instant case, Cagod did not, of course, see appellant SO ORDERED.
Macalisang actually shooting Judge Boligor and her brother inside
her house. But Cagod did see Macalisang enter the Boligor house Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Regalado, Nocon and Campos, Jr.,
with a firearm, hear automatic gunfire and later saw him leave the JJ., concur.
same house with a firearm and melt away in the night. We hold
that in the circumstances of this case, the testimony of
prosecution witness Cagod was sufficient to produce moral
certainty of guilt on the part of both appellants. Clearly, here as in
most criminal cases, the issues before this Court relate to the Interest in the case
credibility of the witnesses, particularly of Oscar Cagod and of PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ENTILA
accused-appellants. It is true that the trial judge who wrote the G.R. No. 135368. February 9, 2000
decision, Judge Ma. Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca, was not presiding over
the trial court when Oscar Cagod rendered his testimony on direct
Before us is an appeal from the Decision [1] dated March 11, 1998 of
and on cross-examination. At the same time, it was before Judge Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila finding
Penaco-Sitaca that the prosecution presented additional witnesses appellant Alfredo Entila alias "Bogie" guilty beyond reasonable
and before whom the defense presented all its evidence, both doubt of the crime of kidnapping and sentencing him to suffer the
testimonial and documentary and rested its case. Thus, Judge penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Penaco-Sitaca had observed the deportment of the defense
witnesses and their manner of testifying during the trial. The
The Information reads as follows:
doctrine is firmly settled that the trial court's conclusion on issues
of credibility is accorded with highest respect by appellate courts.
32
We have examined carefully the record of this case before the "The undersigned accuses ALFREDO ENTILA Y PINEDA of the
crime of Kidnapping, committed as follows:
trial court and the briefs of both the appellants and the People and
we
have found nothing to justify overturning the conclusions "That on or about and during the period comprised between
reached by Judge Penaco-Sitaca. December 15, 1995 and February 21, 1996, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, being then a private individual, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and illegally kidnap
In its decision, the trial court found the presence of treachery
or detain or in any manner deprive ten years (sic) old THERESA
as well as the generic aggravating circumstances of dwelling and
ADATO of her liberty and deliberately failed to return or restore
abuse of superior strength. The trial court said:
her to her guardian.

. . . [The mayor] had the motive. He called the shots. He occupied a

[2]
position of ascendancy over his brother-in-law and personal security "Contrary to law."
officer, Macalisang, who, on his own, would have no motive nor criminal
design against the victims. . . . Macalisang's armed entry into the Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded "not guilty"; and trial on the
house, immediately followed by the burst of gunfire, merits ensued.
. . . constituted a sudden, unexpected, treacherous attack of the
victims who could not have had the slightest opportunity to defend Prosecution witness Araceli Mendiola testified that the victim,
themselves. Just as treacherous was the Mayor's entry into the Theresa Adato, was entrusted to her custody since 1995 by a
house under cover of civility and mirthful conversation. friend;[3] and that in 1995, her ten (10) year old ward was enrolled
in the Justo Lucban Elementary School in Paco, Manila. On
December 19, 1995, Adato failed to come home, from her
It is very difficult to disagree with this finding of the trial court.

Page 178 of 233

afternoon classes, at the usual time of six o‘clock in the evening. [12]
no one would be able to hear her.
Worried by Adato‘s failure to come home on time, Mendiola went
to the school to look for her. When Mendiola arrived at the According to Adato, she was locked inside a room in Chit‘s
school at 6:30 in the evening, it was already closed. Outside the house for more or less one (1) week. During that time, she did
school, she met one of Adato‘s classmates who informed her that [13]
not see appellant, and it was Chit who gave her food.
he saw Adato forcibly being taken by a man. Mendiola immediately
reported the incident to the barangay authorities. But when the
Adato only saw appellant again when the latter fetched her and
barangay authorities were unable to find Adato, Mendiola sought
[4]
brought her to the bus terminal where they were to board a bus
the help of one SPO2 Conrado Quilala. for Tuguegarao. While waiting for their bus, Adato did not ask help
from any of the other passengers in the bus terminal since
SPO2 Conrado Quilala testified for the prosecution and stated [14]
appellant had threatened her life before leaving Chit‘s house.
that Mendiola approached him regarding the case of Adato on
January 29, 1996. At that time, he was an intelligence operative
When they reached Tuguegarao, they initially stayed in the house
of the Task Force Spider at Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig.
of Bobby Cabanero who was introduced to Adato as appellant‘s
He invited Mendiola to file a formal complaint at the police
cousin. Appellant and Adato occupied one room in Cabanero‘s house.
precinct in Bicutan, and Mendiola readily complied. Quilala then
Upon the appellant‘s instructions, Adato did not leave the room
advised Mendiola to gather more information pertaining to the
except to eat and to relieve herself.[15] Maniksâ
whereabouts of her ward and the appellant.[5] Maniâ kx

After a while, appellant and Adato transferred residence to a

Later, Mendiola received a call from one Bobby Cabanero who was
rented house in Barrio Bag-ay.[16] While they lived together,
a housemate of appellant in Tuguegarao, Cagayan informing her
that appellant was there with Adato.[6] Mendiola relayed this appellant repeatedly had sexual intercourse with Adato against her
information to Quilala on February 19, 1996. will. The appellant first abused Adato sexually on January 15, 1996
and this continued until the policemen rescued her and brought her
[17]
home to Mendiola.
Thereafter, a team, composed of Quilala, Captain Cabigas and
SPO2 Camacho, was organized to rescue Adato. The team then
For his part, appellant interposed the defense of denial and
proceeded to Cagayan on February 21, 1996. Upon reaching
claimed that Adato voluntarily went with him to Tuguegarao to
Cagayan, they proceeded to Barangay Bag-ay where appellant was
escape the unhappy life she led under the care of her
renting a house. They were, however, informed that appellant
guardian, Mendiola.
had already left for work at Barangay Abay and that Adato was
[7]
with him.
Appellant testified that he was an overseas contract worker in
Saudi Arabia from 1984 to March 15, 1995 when he returned to
In Barangay Abay, the team found appellant in a shop where he was
the Philippines after hearing of his wife‘s critical condition. After
painting a car. They approached him and informed him that
Mendiola had filed a complaint against him. When asked about his wife‘s demise on July 10, 1995, appellant decided not to go
Adato, the appellant replied that she was just within the vicinity back to Saudi Arabia anymore. He stayed with his children in their
playing "sungka". True enough, they found Adato playing some fifty house in Paco, Manila. According to the accused-appellant, he
meters away from the shop. The team arrested appellant on rented out the second floor of the said house to his cousin,
[18]
[8] Mendiola, who was living there with her family and ward, Adato.
the spot and brought him and Adato back to Manila.

In the early morning of December 15, 1995, appellant informed his

Adato narrated that on December 15, 1995, at around eleven
children that he was going to Tuguegarao as his friend, Bobby
o‘clock in the morning, she was at the Jose Lucban Elementary
Cabanero, had offered him a job there. His children agreed, and he
School. She saw appellant near the entrance of the market which is
proceeded to his mother‘s house in Santiago Street, Paco, Manila,
two (2) meters away from the school gate. Appellant was familiar
to ask for her blessing. Outside his mother‘s house, he saw his
to her as they lived in the same house with Adato and her guardian,
cousin, Arvie Entila, driving a sidecar. He then asked Arvie Entila
Mendiola, occupying the second floor, and the appellant and his
to bring him to Quirino Highway where he planned to wait for a
children staying in the ground floor. Thus, when appellant
ride going to the bus terminal. Arvie Entila acceded to his request
summoned her, she readily approached the former. Thereupon, the
and brought him to the highway. While appellant was waiting for a
appellant pulled Adato inside the sidecar that he was
[9] ride, Adato approached him. According to appellant, Adato wanted
driving. Then she was told by the appellant, to keep quiet and he
to go with him, and when he told her to go back to her foster
threatened to box her should she say anything. [10] Appellant
brought Adato to a house in Mataas na Lupa near Paco which, Adato mother, she replied that Mendiola and her husband had no business
later came to know, was owned by appellant‘s friend, Chit.
[11]
On the meddling in her life as they were not her real parents. Adato also
way to Mataas na Lupa, Adato could not alight from the sidecar complained that she always quarreled with Pollard, Mendiola‘s real
because appellant held her whenever the traffic stopped. Appellant son, who often taunted her: "salot ka, umalis ka dito" (you are a
also discouraged Adato from shouting for help by telling her that curse, go away). Taking pity on Adato, appellant agreed to let her

Page 179 of 233

 [19] Adato had already gone home, and Mendiola replied in the
tag along.
affirmative. On his way out of Santiago Street, he met Adato
[29]
Appellant and Adato took the bus from Manila to Tuguegarao that who was apparently on her way home.
same morning. Upon reaching Tuguegarao, they proceeded to the
house of Bobby Cabanero in Barrio Calita. According to appellant, The following day, at around 5:30 in the morning, Entila was
they talked about the car repair job that Cabanero had promised outside his grandmother‘s house in Santiago Street. While waiting
him,[20] and that he and Adato stayed at the residence of Cabanero for his grandmother, he saw his uncle, the appellant. The latter
for about two (2) weeks during which time, Adato slept in the approached him and told him that he was going to Olongapo to work
room of Cabanero‘s mother, while he stayed in the room of there. Appellant then asked Entila to inform his grandmother, that
[21]
Cabanero‘s brothers. is, appellant‘s mother, about his plan to leave town.
[30]

Thereafter, appellant proceeded to a repair shop in Barangay Bag- Appellant then requested Entila to take him to Quirino Highway
ay where the car repair job was waiting for him. While working at where he planned to hail a cab. Entila acceded and drove appellant
the repair shop owned by a certain Vito, appellant stayed at a to Quirino Highway. While appellant was waiting for a cab, Entila
house being rented by the niece of Vito while Adato stayed in a saw Adato come out from behind some plants at the side of
[22]
neighbor‘s house. Lanuza Street. He overheard Adato asking appellant to allow her
to go with him because she was being given away by Mendiola. At
One and a half weeks later, SPO2 Quilala arrived at Barangay Bag- first, appellant refused, saying that Mendiola might get angry.
ay with his companions. Quilala informed appellant that Mendiola However, when Adato cried, appellant eventually succumbed to her
had filed a complaint against him for the kidnapping of Adato. pleas and took her with him.[31] Oldmisâ o
Appellant was stunned by the seriousness of Mendiola‘s charges,
and although he denied the same to Quilala, he readily acceded to After weighing the evidence presented by both parties, the trial
the latter‘s request that he go back to Manila with court found appellant‘s denial unworthy of merit in the face of
them.[23] Manikanä Adato‘s positive declaration that appellant forcibly brought her
first to a friend‘s house and then to Tugugarao, and deprived her
Before going back to Manila, however, appellant was brought to of liberty for more than two (2) months. The trial court thus
the Tuguegarao Municipal Hall where he was investigated by declared that appellant‘s guilt of the crime of kidnapping has
Colonel Peñalosa. Thereafter, appellant, together with Quilala‘s been established beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, appellant
[32]
team and Adato, boarded an Island Liner bus bound for Manila. was meted out the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
When they reached Manila, they proceeded to Camp Ricardo Papa
[24]
in Bicutan, Taguig. Hence, this appeal where the appellant contends that:

Appellant was detained in Camp Ricardo Papa for two (2) days "The Court A Quo Erred:
without an investigation being conducted by the police officers.
Thereafter, he was transferred to the Manila City Jail. Appellant
"1) In convicting appellant of the crime of Kidnapping; and
claims that while at the Manila City Jail, police officers forced
him to affix his signature to a document, the contents of which
were not explained to him. The fiscal investigated appellant only In the appreciation of the Evidence presented by
[33]
after he had already been detained for two (2) days.
[25] the parties."

Arvie Entila corroborated the testimony of appellant that We find for the accused-appellant.
Adato voluntarily went with the former.
At the outset, this Court observes that a material point of
According to Entila, while he was driving his sidecar along Quirino inconsistency has unfortunately been totally disregarded by the
Highway on December 14, 1995 at around eleven o‘clock in the trial court and even by the prosecution and defense. The actual
date of the alleged commission of the crime has been subject
morning, he saw Adato with a classmate. Entila who knew Adato
of varying testimonies.
as the ward of his aunt, Mendiola, asked her why she was there,
[26]
but he received no reply from the latter.
During the direct and cross-examination of Mendiola, she
Later that day, Entila heard that Mendiola was looking for Adato
[27] consistently referred to December 19, 1995[34] as the day when
so he went to the house of Mendiola to inform her that he had Adato failed to come home from school. Thus, if Mendiola‘s
seen Adato along Quirino Highway. However, Mendiola did not testimony is to be given any weight, then the accused-appellant
[28] kidnapped the victim on December 19, 1995, and held her captive
react to Entila‘s information.
until February 21, 1996. However, Adato herself testified that
the appellant kidnapped her on December 15, 1995. In denying
At around 8:30 in the evening of same day, Entila saw Mendiola
Adato‘s charges, appellant declared that Adato voluntarily went
walking along Santiago Street in Paco, Manila. He asked her if
with him on December 15, 1995, and this was corroborated by

Page 180 of 233

defense witness Arvie Entila. how big is that television set? NcmmisÓ
a 21-inch TV set, sir.
Mendiola‘s sworn statements before the police authorities are What did you do when your uncle answered you that he will
likewise not helpful and merely add to the confusion. On January be going to Olongapo?
29, 1996, she executed a sworn statement before SPO2 aI did not say anything.
Simplicio Robles of the Philippine National Police at Camp Ricardo qAfter that what happened, if any?
Papa, Taguig, Metro Manila where she said that her ward, Adato, aHe asked for my grandmother.
failed to come home on December 15, 1995.[35] In a subsequent qWhat was your answer, if any, Mr. witness?
statement given to SPO1 Celso Zapata also of the PNP at Camp aI told him that she was upstairs.
Ricardo Papa, Mendiola reported that Adato had been missing q What did your uncle do when you informed him that your
since December 19, 1995.[36] Earlier, however, Mendiola had grandmother was upstairs?
executed an affidavit of complaint against appellant wherein she aHe told me to inform my grandmother about his leaving.
stated that Adato failed to return home on December 15, qDid you do that, Mr. witness, as requested?
[37]
1995. aYes, sir.
qAfter that what happened?
What baffles this Court even more is that the trial court completely aAlfredo requested me to bring him to Quirino Highway.
ignored this discrepancy, and the prosecution exerted no effort qDid you bring him to Quirino Highway as per request?
whatsoever to explain these inconsistencies. Ncmâ aYes, sir.
q While at Quirino Highway what happened, if any, Mr.
This is not to say, however, that we are acquitting appellant solely witness?
on the basis of Mendiola‘s inconsistent statements with respect to aHe called a taxi.
the date Adato failed to return home. But we acquit appellant qAfter that what happened, what else happened, if any?
because a judicious review of the records of this case reveals aSuddenly Teresa went out.
that the defense had presented evidence, which if given due qFrom where?
credence by the trial court, would have been sufficient to acquit aAt the side of the plants.
him on the ground of reasonable doubt. We refer to the qIn what particular place, Mr. witness?
corroborative testimony of defense witness Arvie Entila. aSide of Lanuza street, sir.
q What did Teresa do after you saw yer (sic) came (sic) out
from Lanuza at the side of Lanuza street? Scncä m
Consistent with the appellant‘s allegation that Adato
aShe wanted to go with Alfredo, my uncle.
voluntarily accompanied him to Tuguegarao is the following
qHow did she ask Alfredo Entila that she would go with him?
testimony of defense witness Arvie Entila:
ashe told my uncle that she was being given away by Chi.
q What was the answer of Alfredo Entila of (sic) the
"q On December 15, 1995 at about five thirty in the morning information given to him?
can you tell us where were you, Mr. witness? aAlfredo told Teresa that Chi might get angry.
a I was at home, sir. q What did Teresa do after being informed that this Entila
q What were you doing at that time? does not want Teresa to go with him?
a I was about to bring my grandmother to the market. aShe forced Alfredo.
By the way, Mr. witness, what is the exact address of your qWhat did Alfredo do, if any?
house? aTeresa was crying.
a1265 Santiago street. q Did Alfredo eventually agree?
q While saiting (sic) for your grandmother what happened, if pros. icay Leading, Your Honor.
any, Mr. witness, at that time? defense counse
aI fixed my sidecar. I will reform.
q While you were fixing your sidecar what happened, if any, Mr. court Reform.
witness? defense counsel
aI saw my uncle. q What did Alfredo Entila do when Teresa Adato cried and
qWhat is the name of your uncle, Mr. witness? informed him that she wanted to go with him?
aAlfredo Entila, sir. aAlfredo brought Teresa with him.
qWhat was he doing at that time when you saw him? qDo you know where?
aHe was carrying a TV set approaching me. a Olongapo.
q What did you do, Mr. witness, when you saw your uncle Teresa Adato or Teresa testified here that she was forcibly
carrying a TV set. taken by Alfredo Entila on December 15, 1995 at about eleven o clock
aI asked him where he would go. in the morning, what can you say about it, Mr. witness?
qWhat was the answer of your uncle? aThat is not true, sir. SdaaÓ miso
a He said that he would go to Olongapo because he would work q Why do you say that Teresa Adato was not telling the truth
there. when she said that she was forcibly taken by Alfredo Entila on
qYou said that he was carrying a television set, will you tell us that particular date?

Page 181 of 233

 [38] There sir.
a I was the one who brought my uncle."
interpreter
The prosecution would have us believe that defense witness Arvie Witness pointing to a person who when asked her
Entila‘s testimony was motivated by nothing more than the natural name answered …
desire to help the appellant who is his uncle. It is true that in most complainant Teresa
instances, corroboration by relatives of an accused is accorded Adato.
scant consideration in view of the truism that blood is thicker than defense counselScsä daad
water.[39] However, a witness‘ testimony cannot be stripped of full q What was Teresa doing when you saw her at Quirino Highway on
faith and credit simply on account of his relationship to the December 14, 1995 at about eleven o‗clock in the morning?
parties.[40] Although relationship can put the testimony of a witness aShe was with her classmate sitting.
in doubt, it cannot affect credibility itself.[41] The Judge should q What did you do, Mr. witness, when you saw this Teresa
have subjected the testimony of defense witness Arvie Entila to Adato?
the ordinary process of evaluation and accordingly assigned to it
[42]
aI asked her why she was there.
the proper intrinsic weight. qWhat was her answer, Mr. witness?
aShe did not answer.
Furthermore, the basis for disregarding Arvie Entila‘s testimony q At about four o‘clock in the afternoon of the same date, Mr.
in this case, simply does not exist. It should be remembered that witness, can you tell us where were you?
defense witness Arvie Entila is related to the families of both the aI was also still in the market.
appellant and Mendiola, guardian of Adato. While appellant is his
qWhat were you doing there, Mr. witness?
uncle, Mendiola is also his aunt, being the first cousin of his
aStill waiting for passenger.
father.[43] There is no indication whatsoever that defense witness
qWere you able to get a passenger at that time?
Arvie Entila favored one relative over another nor is then any
aYes, sir.
proof that he harbored any improper motive to testify against
qWhat happened when you were able to get that passenger?
Mendiola or her ward.[44] On the contrary, there exists evidence
that defense witness Arvie Entila was just as concerned over the aI brought them at (sic) Santiago street.
welfare of his aunt‘s ward, Theresa Adato. Thus, having heard qWhere is this Santiago street?
that Mendiola was looking for Adato, Entila did not waste any time aPaco, Manila, sir,
in informing Mendiola that he had seen Adato in Quirino Highway. q Were you able to bring that passenger of yours at (sic)
Later that day, Entila again asked about Adato. Hence: Santiago street?
a Yes, sir.
pros. icay
"q Mr. witness, On December 14, 1995 at about eleven o (sic)
Leading, Your
clock in the morning can you tell us where were you?
Honor. defense counsel
a I was in the market, sir.
Already answered, Your Honor.
Where is this market located, Mr. witness? Sdaad
q What happened when you arrived together with your
aIn Paco, Manila, sir.
passenger at Santiago street?
qWhat were you doing at that particular place and time?
aI went to my aunt.
aI was driving my sidecar looking for passenger (sic), sir.
qAnd where? SupÓ rema
q While thereat, Mr. witness, can you tell us what happened, if
a1238 Santiago street.
any?
q On your way to the house of your aunt what happened, if any, Mr.
aI have no passenger, sir.
witness?
qSo what did you do then, Mr. witness?
aI heard that Chi was looking for Teresa.
aSo I went around, sir.
qWho is this Chi?
q Where?
aShe is the one taking care of Teresa.
a Quirino Highway, sir.
qIs this Chi here in court now?
Where is this Quirino Highway located, Mr. witness?
aNo, sir.
aCorner of Lanuza.
qWhat did you hear, Mr. witness, from Chi?
qIs this located within Manila?
aThat she was looking for Teresa.
aYes, sir.
q Do you know the reason why this Chi was looking for Teresa?
q While at Pres. Quirino Highway looking for passenger (sic)
pros. icay
while you were driving your pedicab what happened, if any?
Incompetent.
aI saw Teresa, sir.
court
qWho is this Teresa, Mr. witness?
Witness may answer.
a Chit was the one who was taking care of Teresa, a ward of
witness
Chit.
a She did not come here.
q If this Teresa is here in court can you point her to us, Mr.
defense counsel
witness?
q What did you tell her when you heard that this Chi was
aYes, sir.
looking for Teresa?
qWillyou (sic) please stand up and point her to us?
aI told her that I saw Teresa along Quirino Highway.

Page 182 of 233

 What was the reaction of this Chi, if any, when you tell (sic)
her that you saw Teresa at the Highway? Curiously, Adato did not exhibit any sign of hostility towards
aNo reaction, sir. her alleged tormentor. On the contrary, she prevented the
q Mr. witness, at about eight thirty p.m. on the same date can you police officers from handcuffing appellant during the trip from
tell us where were you? Tuguegarao to Manila.
aI was in the house of my aunt, sir.
qWhile at the house of your aunt what happened, Mr. witness?
SPO2 Quilala testified thus:
aI went out. Jurisä
qTo where?
aI went out of Santiago street. "q Is it not true also that this Adato requested you not to
q On your way out of Santiago strert (sic) will you tell us what handcuff Entila?
happened, if any, Mr. witness? a Yes, sir.
aI saw Chi. q Why? Jurisä sc
qwhat was Chi doing at that time, Mr. witness? a I donot (sic) know, sir.
aShe was walking. You said you reached Bicutan, at what date was that you
qWhat else happened, if any, Mr. witness? arrived Bicutan, what date was that?
aI asked Chi if Teresa has arrived. aIt was on the 22nd at about four thirty in the mornigg (sic).
qWhat was the answer of Chi? q As a veteran law enforcer, Mr. witness, the action of Entila and
aAnd she answered yes. this Adato when you found them in Tuguegarao is consistent with
qWhat did you do after that, Mr. witness, if any? a woman or a child which (sic) has not been detained or
aI was on my way out of Santiago street when I saw Teresa. kidnapped, is that right?
[47]
qWhat was Teresa doing then, Mr. witness? Yes, sir."
aShe is on her way home.
qWhat did you do when you saw Teresa at that time? Adato‘s compassion towards appellant is more consistent with a
aI told Teresa that you are really here. debt of gratitude felt for one who had helped her escape a
qwhat was the answer of Teresa, if any, Mr. witness? miserable life than anger and vengefulness at one who had
[45]
aShe did not answer." taken her away from home and repeatedly abused her.
Even the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, SPO2 Quilala and
SPO2 Camacho, show that Adato‘s actuations were inconsistent In convicting the appellant, the trial court relied on the oft-cited
with those expected of one who has been kidnapped. rule that denial, like alibi, is a weak defense since it is easily
SPO2 Camacho testified as follows: fabricated or concocted. There are nonetheless settled
"Q you said that when you arrived in Cagayan you were able to pronouncements of this Court to the effect that where an accused
contact Magno Quilang, is that correct? sets up alibi, or denial for that matter, as his line of defense, the
a no, the informant first. courts should not at once look at the same with wary eyes for
But eventually you were able to contact Magno Quilang? taken in the light of all the evidence on record, it may be
ayes, sir. Scä juris sufficient to reverse the outcome of the case as found by the trial
qand in fact, you said you were able to talk to him? court and thereby rightly set the accused free.[48] Furthermore,
ayes, sir. the defense of alibi or denial may assume significance or strength
qdid you ask him when did they start renting the place? when it is amply corroborated by a credible witness, as in the
ano, sir. [49]
instant case.
q and you said you proceeded to Barangay Bagay and you were
able to see Entila? The trial court also pointed out that the defense had failed to
ayes, maam. establish any nefarious or sinister motive on the part of the victim
qand he even told you that the girl is just nearby playing? to impute the commission of a crime to the appellant. It should be
ayes, maam. noted, however, that although Adato herself had no motive to
q can you describe the place where the girl was all gedly (sic) falsely incriminate appellant, her guardian, Mendiola, had an axe to
playing sungka? grind against appellant.
athe house is very near the repair shop.
qis this a close place?
That appellant and Mendiola were feuding over the ownership of
aopen place.
the house they were occupying in Paco, Manila is evident from
qso, the child is free to go out?
their respective statements in open court.
a YES.
Q She wasnot (sic) detained atthat (sic) time?
did the child told (sic) you that she was kidnapped, raped or Thus, appellant testified, thus:
sexually abused at the time you saw her playing?
ano, maam. I did not ask. "q do you know one Araceli Mendiola, Mr. witness?
qBut the child did not inform you of such fact? Yes, sir, my first cousin, sir.
no, maam."
[46] qCan you tell us …

Page 183 of 233

a Araceli Pineda MendiolaMisjÓ uris a No, sir.
where was she residing at that time, Mr. witness, in 1995? And the accused is also residing at that place at 1238
aJust on the second floor of my house which I rented out. Santiago St., Paco, Manila is that right?
q You mean to say that you are the owner of the house which aYes, sir.
Araceli Mendiola was occupying at the time? q And he is residing in that place because he is the owner of the
aYes, sir. house is that right?
q When you returned to the Philippines and after the death of aNo, sir.
your wife do you have any occasion to talk with Araceli Mendiola q Will you please tell us why is it that he is residing in that
regarding the lease of your property? address?
aNo, sir, she just occupied the place. a He lives downstairs while I live on the second floor of the
q My question, Mr. witness, is that did you have any occasion to house, sir."
[51]

talk with Araceli Mendiola after the death of your wife

regarding the lease of your property? It is therefore not altogether impossible, as alleged by
aYes, sir. the defense, that Adato was merely cajoled by Mendiola
qWhat did you talk about, Mr. witness? into concocting the charges against appellant.
aabout the rent of the house.
qWhat did you tell her regarding the lease of your property?
Defense witness Arvie Entila‘s testimony, coupled with the
a She said that if she has only available money that was the
aforementioned circumstances, has engendered in the mind of this
only time that she will pay me.
Court a nagging doubt as to the guilt of the appellant. This
q On December 14, 1995 Araceli Mendiola testified here before
uneasiness has been spawned by the failure of the prosecution to
that she is the owner of the house from (sic) which she was
convince this Court of appellant‘s guilt to that degree of moral
residing at the time and it was located on the second storey (sic)
certitude that is indispensable for the conviction of an accused.
of the place where you are residing, what can you say about that,
Hence, we have held in a long line of cases that if the inculpatory
Mr. witness?
facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations,
aI am the owners (sic), sir.
one consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
q Do you mean to say that this Araceli Mendiola was not telling the
consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test
truth when she said or testified that she is the owner of the
[52]
place, Mr. witness? of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.
pros. icay
Leading, Your WHEREFORE, the Decision of Branch 26 of the Regional Trial
Honor. defense counsel Court of Manila in Criminal Case No. 96-147974 is REVERSED and
Point of clarification, your Honor. SET ASIDE. The accused-appellant, Alfredo Entila Y Pineda alias
court "Bogie" is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground that his guilt was not
Witness may answer. Jjä proven beyond reasonable doubt. francis
lex witness
a That is not true, sir. SO ORDERED.
defense counsel
q what did you do when this Araceli Mendiola claims (sic)
ownership over the house, over the portion of the house which you Testimony of relative of accused against him
said that you only rented to her, Mr. witness, if any? HIRD DIVISION
aI did not agree to that situation, sir.
q When you did not agree to that situation, Mr. witness, what did [G.R. No. 131357. April 12, 2000]
Araceli Mendiola do, if any?
aShe got mad at me. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
q How? ERNESTO GARCHITORENA, accused-appellant.
She said that she introduced some improvements on the
property.
DECISION
court
qDo you know what was that improvement?
q What? PANGANIBAN, J.:
a The three G.I. sheets that she replaced, sir." [50]
On the other hand, Mendiola denied accused-appellant‘s In resolving the sole issue raised by appellant, the Court relies on
ownership of the said house: the time-tested doctrine that the trial court‘s assessment of the
"q Madam witness, you are residing at 1238 Santiago St., Paco, credibility of witnesses should be upheld, if it is not tainted with
Manila? arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight
a Yes, sir. and influence which, if considered, would materially affect the
And you are renting this place from theaccused (sic), is that result of the case.
right?

Page 184 of 233

 The Case pretending that her grandmother needed her. If Jennifer would
refuse to go with appellant, Clarita would scold her. When she was
Filed before this Court is an appeal by Ernesto Garchitorena, who ten (10) years old, Jennifer noticed that appellant treated her
seeks reversal of the September 30, 1997 Decision [1] of the differently, such as placing her on his lap, kissing her on the neck
Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila (Branch 171) in or on the cheeks and touching her private parts. Jennifer calls
Criminal Case No. 5510-V-96. The Decision found him guilty of rape appellant Daddy because her grandmother told her to address
and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. appellant as such. According to Jennifer, appellant started raping
her when she reached the age of ten (10), but she could no longer
[2] remember how many times appellant raped her. The rapes were
In an Information dated May 6, 1996, Assistant City Prosecutor
Eriberto A. Aricheta charged appellant with rape by means of force committed not only in her grandmother‘s house but also in her
and intimidation. The Information reads as follows: parents‘ house. She did not tell anyone about the rapes committed
by appellant against her because he threatened to kill her, her
grandmother and sister should she (Jennifer) do so.
"That on or about February 18, 1996 in Valenzuela, Metro Manila
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, by means of force and intimidation employed "On February 18, 1996, a Sunday, Jennifer was at the chapel until
upon the person of one JENNIFER ACOSTA y ALEJO, did then 11:00 a.m. Thereafter she went home [to] her parents‘ house and
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual had lunch with her parents and sister. Around 1:00 p.m., she went
intercourse with the said JENNIFER ACOSTA y ALEJO, against to her grandmother‘s house. When she arrived at her
her will and without her consent." grandmother‘s house, appellant and her grandmother were eating
lunch at the kitchen. Since Jennifer had eaten her lunch, she took
a little food at her grandmother‘s house. The kitchen was at the
Upon his arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial
back of the store owned by her grandmother and outside the
proceeded in due course. Thereafter, the court a quo rendered
house. After eating, Jennifer went to the sala of the house and lay
the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
down on the sofa while appellant left and her grandmother went to
the store. The sala was about twenty (20) to twenty-five (25)
"WHEREFORE, finding accused Ernesto Garchitorena y Medina meters away from the store. The sofa where Jennifer had [lain]
[g]uilty beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby sentenced to down [on] was beside a window. When one opens the door of the
suffer the penalty of [r]eclusion [p]erpetua and to pay the costs.
house, one would immediately see the sofa. When Jennifer was
lying on the sofa, her head was towards the door, so she could not
"Accused is likewise sentenced to indemnify the offended see the door. She had slept for less than an hour when she was
[3] awakened by a kiss planted by appellant on her right cheek.
party the sum of P50,000.00."
Jennifer was then wearing a T-shirt and a garterized short pants
The Facts while appellant was wearing a T-shirt and pants. She could no
longer remember whether appellant wore long or short pants. When
Jennifer opened her eyes, she saw appellant on her right side and
Version of the Prosecution
she uttered ‗Daddy‘. She attempted to stand up, but appellant‘s
right hand held her left hand and appellant kissed her on the lips.
In its Brief,[4] the Office of the Solicitor General[5] presents the
Jennifer could not do anything but cry. She could not shout
following narration of the facts:
because she was afraid of him. Then, with his right hand, appellant
touched her breasts. Thereupon, appellant raised her T-shirt and
"Jennifer Acosta was nineteen (19) years old at the time she her bra with his right hand and alternately kissed and touched her
testified in court in 1996. Appellant is her step grandfather, being exposed breasts. While appellant was doing all these to her, she
the live-in partner of her paternal grandmother Rosalina Acosta. constantly pleaded with him to stop, but her plea was useless.
Rosalina is separated from her husband. Rosalina and appellant Thereafter, appellant pulled down her garterized short pants and
took Jennifer to their custody when the latter was only two (2)
panty. When her panty was removed, appellant touched her vagina
years old and until Jennifer was about ten (10) or eleven (11) years
with his right hand and inserted a finger into her vagina. At this
old. During that period, however, Jennifer would reside alternately
point, Jennifer closed her eyes and when she opened them she saw
in her grandmother and appellant‘s house at No. 1078 Sta. Monica
appellant removing his brief. Appellant then placed himself on top
Subdivision, Ugong, Valenzuela, Metro Manila and her parents‘
of her and masturbated with his right hand. As appellant was on
house at # 2007 La Mesa St., Ugong, Valenzuela. Rosalina and
top of her, he kissed her. Jennifer was repelled by that (‗nadidiri
appellant‘s house is about two hundred (200) steps away, or about
ako sa kanya‘). Then appellant inserted his penis into her vagina.
five (5) minutes walk [from] Jennifer‘s parents‘ house.
Suddenly, Jennifer‘s grandmother called out to appellant. Appellant
stood up, hurriedly fixed himself up and told Jennifer not to leave
"Jennifer was ten (10) or eleven (11) years old when she resided because he would come back. But as soon as appellant left,
permanently at her parents[‗] x x x house. But Jennifer would still go Jennifer fixed herself up and went home.
to her grandmother‘s house when she would call for her. Sometimes
appellant would fetch Jennifer from her parents‘ house
"When Jennifer arrived at her parent‘s house, she tried to act
normally. But her mother asked why she was frowning and she told

Page 185 of 233

her mother that she had a headache. Her mother became Solitary Issue:
suspicious. Then on March 30, 1996, her mother asked her if
she had a problem. Jennifer did not answer until her mother Credibility of the Witness
slapped her. Then Jennifer told her mother‗Nanay, hirap na
hirap na ako‘ and told her mother that appellant was molesting
Appellant contends that the trial court misapplied the doctrine
her. Her mother said, ‗napakawalanghiya niya‘.
that a girl of tender age would not disclose that she was raped if
it were not true, arguing that complainant herein was already 19
"Dr. Noel Minay, a [m]edico-[l]egal [o]fficer of the National Bureau years old at the time of the rape. He also contends that her
of Investigation, Manila conducted a physical examination on actions of going back to his house and even eating with him after
Jennifer on April 2, 1996. Dr. Minay testified that there was no the supposed rape showed that it did not take place. Lastly, he
physical injury on the body of Jennifer, but he found an old healed argues that her Appellant contends that the trial court misapplied
hymenal laceration at [the] 6 o‘clock position. His examination the doctrine that a girl of tender age would not disclose that she
[6]
revealed that Jennifer was no longer physically [a] virgin." was raped if it were not true, arguing that complainant herein was
already 19 years old. He further contends that her testimony
Version of the Defense should not be believed because it contained many inconsistencies.

In his Brief,[7] appellant did not present his version of the facts, The contentions of appellant are incorrect. He was convicted on
but merely stated that Witnesses Rogelio and Rosalinda Acosta the basis of the victim‘s testimony which the trial court deemed to
both testified that complainant had gone to his residence several be a true and honest narration of the events that occurred on that
times after the date when the alleged rape took place, and that fateful day. During direct examination, Jennifer clearly testified
there was thus no indication that the relationship between him as to how she had been raped by her grandfather, herein appellant.
and complainant was strained or abnormal. We quote hereunder the pertinent portion of her testimony:

Ruling of the Trial Court "FISCAL RAZON: (To the witness)

Q.......Now, when he arrived, what happened?
After examining the evidence presented by both the prosecution A.......He kissed me.
and the defense, as well as the demeanor of the witnesses of Q.......Where were you kissed?
both sides, the trial court concluded that the prosecution‘s A.......[On] my cheeks.
account was more credible. Q.......And after you were kissed, what happened?
A.......I was awakened. When I was about to stand up, he held my
The trial court accorded full faith to the victim‘s narration of the hands.
incident which occurred on February 18, 1996. It observed that a Q.......And after holding your hands, what happened?
girl of tender age would not willingly falsify a rape charge. Her lack A.......Then he again kissed me.
of sufficient discretion and judgment, as well as the threats to her Q.......Where were you kissed the second time?
life and the lives of her sister and her grandmother, prevented her A.......[On] my lips.
from resisting appellant‘s advances, thus enabling him to Q.......And after you were kissed on the lips, what did the accused
perpetrate the crime. The trial court also noted the findings of do?
A.......He touched my breast.
the medicolegal officer, which lent support to the fact that rape
Q.......By the way, how were you attired at that time?
had been committed against the victim.
A.......I was wearing shorts and T-shirt.
Q.......What about your bra, were you then wearing bra?
[8]
Hence, this appeal. A.......Yes, sir.
Q.......Now you stated that the accused touched your breast, what
Assignment of Errors happened after that?
A.......While he was kissing me, he was holding my breast.
In his Brief, appellant interposes this lone assignment of error: Q.......[Which hand] of the accused was touching your breast?
A.......Right hand.
Q.......What about his left hand, what was his left hand doing?
"The trial court erred in convicting the accused on the basis of
A.......His left hand was holding my hands.
the incredible and conflicting statements of the complainant and
[9]
Q.......After your breast [was] touched, what happened?
despite the positive testimony in favor of the accused." A.......When he stopped touching my breast, he pulled up my T-shirt.
Q.......And after your T-shirt was pulled up, what happened?
The Court’s Ruling A.......Then he pulled up my bra.
Q.......And after he pulled your bra, what did he do next?
The appeal is devoid of merit. A.......He kissed my breast.
Q.......And after kissing your breast, what did he do?
A.......After cooling down, he pulled down my shorts.

Page 186 of 233

Q.......And after pulling down your shorts, what did he do? [12]
experience."
A.......He removed my panty.
Q.......And after he removed your panty, what did he do? Appellant insists that Jennifer fabricated the rape charge,
A.......He touched my vagina. because she had felt that her grandparents were too strict with
Q.......And after touching your vagina, what did he do next? her and her suitors. This allegation does not hold water, because
A.......He inserted his finger. no proof was ever offered to substantiate it. Moreover, one does
Q.......And after he inserted his finger into your vagina, what did he not fabricate so serious a charge as rape simply because one‘s
do next, if any? grandparents are strict, especially in this case wherein complainant
A.......He contin[u]ously inserted his finger. was not even living with them but only visited them from time to
Q.......And how was he attired at that time? time. In any event, her testimony is corroborated by the findings
A.......He was wearing [pants]. of the NBI medicolegal officer,[13] who found an old healed
Q.......And what was your position while this thing was being done to laceration in her sexual organ after conducting a genital inspection.
your person?
A.......I was lying down, face up. In insisting that the trial court erred in finding that Jennifer did
Q.......And after he repeatedly inserted his finger into your vagina, not resist, appellant is not correct either. In rape cases, the
what did he do next? force applied need not be irresistible. [14] It merely has to be
A.......Then he released me and unbuttoned his pants. enough to successfully carry out the assailant‘s carnal desire. In
Q.......And after he unbuttoned his pants, what did he do? the present case, appellant did apply sufficient force and
A.......He put [out] his private part. intimidation to consummate his lustful desire.
Q.......And after that, what did he do?
A.......He kissed me and went back to me, and placed himself on top During her testimony, Jennifer stated that appellant held her
of me. hands while kissing her. Also, she explained that she did not shout
x x x......x x x......x x x or ask for help because she was afraid, and that he threatened to
Q.......When he placed himself on top of you, what did he do to you? kill her grandmother and her sister. She testified as follows:
A.......While he was kissing me, he was holding his penis and he was
masturbating.
"Q.......Why did you not shout and ask for help from anybody?
Q.......After he had masturbated, what did he do, if any?
A.......I was afraid of him.
A.......He inserted his penis into my vagina.
Q.......Why were you afraid?
Q.......Now, a while ago, you stated that he unbuttoned his pants,
A.......Because when he was doing that thing to me, when he was
and brought out his penis[;] how far was he from you?
raping me, he told me that he [would] kill my grandmother and
A.......He was just beside me.
my sister.
Q.......When he inserted his penis into your vagina, what was your
Q.......And after the penis was inserted into your vagina. what
feeling?
[10] happened?
A.......It was painful." A.......When his penis was already inside my vagina, my grandmother
shouted, calling him.
True, the statement of the complainant that she was ravished in Q.......You stated a while ago that your grandmother was inside?
the sala conflicted with that of Rogelio Acosta who, testifying for A.......Inside the store.
the defense, claimed that he was watching television in the same Q.......How come that she was able to call on your grandfather[?]
place at that time. After hearing the testimonies of both parties, A.......Because the store was just outside x x x the house.
however, the trial court attached greater weight and credence to Q.......How far was it [from] the house of your grandmother?
the testimony of the victim, Jennifer Acosta. This Court finds no [15]
A.......More or less ten (10) meters away."
compelling reason to reverse or alter its holding. It is a time-
tested doctrine that a trial court‘s assessment of the credibility
Lastly, appellant‘s argument that complainant would not have
of a witness is entitled to great weight and is even conclusive and
returned to his house if the rape had really occurred can also be
binding, if it is not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of
[11]
easily dispensed with. She was reported to have been to appellant‘s
some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. house after February 18, 1996, but prior to March 30, 1996.
However, she told her mother about the rape only on the latter
Furthermore, the trial court found no motive for complainant to date because she had at first been reluctant to talk about it out of
testify falsely against appellant who was a close relative. In either fear or humiliation. Thus, prior to March 30, 1996,
People v. Tidula, this Court stated that a witness‘ testimony complainant had to pretend that everything was normal. Not going
against a blood relative is given great weight, if it is not found to to appellant‘s house which she was known to have frequented could
have been motivated by any ill will. The Court held: have caused suspicion that something was amiss.

"A witness‘ testimony is accorded great weight, particularly when It can be seen from her testimony, however, that she did not go to
his or her accusation is directed against a close relative. For one that house on the mentioned dates without anyone accompanying
to prosecute a blood relative -- especially when, as in this case, no
ill or evil motive is shown -- goes beyond logic and normal human

Page 187 of 233

her. She testified thus: Ildefonso Virtucio Jr. approached the store muttering, " Ako nasay
andar karon kay duna koy tawo nga nalagutan nga nagpa-raid nako
sa shabu."[1] The accused then took out his gun and fired
"Q.......[On w]hat other dates [did] you [see] Jennifer Acosta at
downwards.
the house of your mother?
Then without any provocation the accused aimed his gun at the
A.......On March 22, 1997 x x x my brother arrived from abroad[;]
head of Alejandro Briones; the gun did not fire. Alejandro stood up
the next day March 23, 1996 Jennifer Acosta went to our house.
and parried off the firearm. He asked Virtucio, "Unsa man, Ga?" In
Q.......And who were the companion[s] of Jennifer Acosta when she
answer, Virtucio fired his gun and this time Alejandro was hit on
arrived at the house of your mother on March 23, if any?
his stomach. Virtucio fired another shot hitting Alejandro on his
A.......She was accompanied by her father and her mother.
right forearm. Wounded and bleeding from his wounds, Alejandro
Q.......Who else?
tried to run but Virtucio finished him off with a fatal shot on the
A.......And he[r] sister.
head which sent the victim falling to the ground.
Q.......After March 23 was there any occasion [on which] Jennifer
Acost[a] went to the house of your mother?
A.......From March 23 to March 29, 1996 they came to our [house] Betty Briones, wife of Alejandro, was in their store. She was just
to play domino. one and a half (1 1/2) meters away from her husband when shot.
Q.......And who was her companion at the time she returned on She saw the startling occurrence as did their 12-year old son
March 24 to March 29? "Aly Boy" who was playing outside the store.
[16]
A.......Her younger sister."
With the help of their neighbors Alejandro was taken to the Cebu
City Medical Center where he died two (2) days later. Proximate
The trial court correctly awarded the amount of P50,000 by way
cause of his death, according to his examining physician, was
of civil indemnity, which was mandatory upon the finding of the
"cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to pulmonary embolism with
fact of rape.[17] This Court likewise awards an additional sum
ofP50,000 by way of moral damages. The fact that complainant has
possible myocardial infraction and fulminating sepsis secondary to
multiple gunshot wounds.[2] For his hospitalization and medical
suffered trauma which constitutes the basis for moral damages is
attendance, the Brioneses incurred expenses in the amount
too obvious to still require the victim‘s recital thereof at the
[18] of P57,000.00.
trial.

Accused Virtucio interposed alibi for his defense. He alleged that

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED and the Decision of
as early as eleven o'clock in the morning of 31 March 1996 he was
the Regional Trial Court AFFIRMED, with the modification that
already on his way to Tabuelan, Cebu, together with his business
appellant is ordered to pay the victim the amount of P50,000 as
partner, Pablo Cuer, to await the arrival of seashells from
moral damages, in addition to the trial court‘s grant of P50,000 as
Escalante, Negros Occidental. They arrived in Tabuelan at around
indemnity ex delicto. Costs against appellant.
four-thirty in the afternoon. He stayed in the house of Cuer until 2
April 1996 since the seashells did not arrive on the expected date.
SO ORDERED. During his stay in Tabuelan he shared the same room with Cuer
leaving the latter's wife to sleep in another room.

Testimony of relative of victim

SECOND DIVISION On 2 April 1996 police authorities from the Tabuelan Police
Station went to the Cuer residence and invited the accused to
their headquarters where he was subsequently detained. He came
[G.R. No. 130667. February 22, 2000]
to know that he was implicated in the killing of Alejandro Briones
only on 3 April 1996. He could not think of any reason why Betty
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- and "Aly Boy" Briones would implicate him in the crime. In fact, the
appellee, vs. ILDEFONSO VIRTUCIO JR. Brioneses were his neighbors for three (3) years and they had
alias "Gaga," accused-appellant. maintained good relationship throughout those years. He admitted
though that one (1) month before the killing, the house of his
DECISION common-law wife's parents was raided for shabu; however, he
never blamed anyone for the incident.
An Information was filed on 8 April 1996 charging Ildefonso
Virtucio, Jr. with murder for the death of Alejandro Briones. Pablo Cuer corroborated the testimony of Virtucio. He said that once in
To this day however the accused professes innocence. Tabuelan, Cebu, the accused never left their house as they even shared
the same room, while his wife slept in another room. On 1 April 1996
The conviction of the accused was based on the following evidence they woke up at four-thirty in the morning and proceeded to the wharf
of the prosecution: At around ten o'clock in the evening of 31 to wait for the seashells from Escalante, Negros Occidental. Since the
March 1996 Alejandro Briones was standing outside his store in seashells failed to arrive as scheduled Virtucio had to stay with the
Mambaling, Cebu City. He was watching his neighbors play Cuers for another night. In the afternoon of the following day, 2 April
"chikicha," a card game. Suddenly appearing from nowhere accused 1996, Policeman Alfredo Arellano invited Virtucio to the police station
where he was

Page 188 of 233

subsequently detained. According to Cuer, he did not bother to widow and son of the deceased, without more, is not reason enough
give Virtucio some food while detained because he (Cuer) to disregard and label their testimonies as biased and unworthy of
returned to the wharf to get the seashells. credence. Plainly, relationship did not affect their
credibility.[4] This Court is well aware that not too infrequently
crimes are committed with just the relatives of the victim as
Fe Tesoro, mother of the common-law wife of the accused, [5]
testified that she asked the accused to go in her stead to witnesses.
Tabuelan in the company of Pablo on 31 March 1996. So, Virtucio
and Cuer left Cebu City at about ten o'clock in the morning. The On the same note, the testimony of "Aly Boy" should not be
Tesoros likewise went to Tabuelan that same evening using their discarded simply because he was a mere child when he testified. A
old Tamaraw vehicle. They arrived at the house of the Cuers at child is only disqualified if it can be shown that his mental maturity
around eleven o'clock in the evening. Fe Tesoro allegedly told the renders him incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which he
accused to go home as soon as the seashells were available, is being examined and of relating them truthfully. [6] Once it is
afterwhich the Tesoros returned to Cebu City arriving there at established that he understands or discerns the nature and
midnight. Fe denied knowing that her neighbor Alejandro Briones character of an oath, full faith and credit should be given to his
was shot at the time she left for Tabuelan, Cebu. She insisted testimony. The narration of "Aly Boy" was vivid and full of details,
that she only knew about the shooting of Alejandro the following stemming only from a recollection of what actually took place and
day. As to the fact that Virtucio was a suspect, she testified that not from a concocted story impressed upon him by his mother, as
insinuated by accused-appellant.
she learned about it only on 2 April 1996 when the police
authorities fetched him from Tabuelan, Cebu.
The prosecution witnesses positively identified accused-appellant
as the author of the crime. Faced with this positive identification,
On 21 October 1996 the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City found
he could only offer the defense of denial and alibi. Denials, as
Virtucio guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty
negative and self-serving evidence, do not deserve as much weight
of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of Alejandro
in law as a positive and affirmative testimony.[7] Alibi as a defense
Briones the amount of P50,000.00. The court a quo disregarded
has an inverse relation to positive identification. It is regarded as
the alibi of the accused in view of his positive identification by
the weakest and most unreliable of all defenses especially in the
the prosecution witnesses as the author of the crime. Besides, he
light of clear and positive identification of the accused by the
miserably failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him
prosecution witnesses against whom no motive to falsely testify
to have been at the crime scene at the time it was committed.
against the accused can be imputed. Alibi can only prosper by
indubitably proving that the accused was somewhere else when the
The trial court found that evident premeditation and treachery crime was committed, and that he could not have been physically
qualified the killing to murder. The court below ratiocinated that present at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time
evident premeditation was present considering that the accused of its commission; physical impossibility, in other words, of being
had harbored a grudge against the victim, the latter being [8]
in two (2) places at the same time.
suspected of instigating the raid in the house of his common-law
wife's mother. The court a quo concluded, in addition, that the Accused-appellant‘s defense that he was in Tabuelan, Cebu, when
killing was treacherous as it was done in a sudden and Briones was killed does not persuade. The sequence of events is much
unexpected manner, leaving the victim in no position to
too doubtful to be believed. His nonchalance upon being invited by
effectively defend himself.
the police strikes us as unusual. His subsequent detention minus any
vehement objection also baffles this Court. Paradoxically, he claims
Accused-appellant is now before us impugning the testimonies innocence yet he has shown no signs of it. His contention that his
of the victim's widow and son for allegedly being "biased and business partner Pablo Cuer fetched him contradicted Cuer's and
polluted." He suggests that their testimonies be considered Tesoro's testimony that he was asked to accompany Cuer. Plainly, his
fabricated as they were too harmonious with nary a hint of alibi is riddled with inconsistencies.
inconsistency in their narration of facts.
The trial court, however, erred in appreciating the qualifying
In resolving the issue of credibility of witnesses, we must yield to circumstance of evident premeditation. The court below concluded that
the oft-repeated rule that the trial court‘s evaluation of the accused-appellant must have planned the killing considering that he
testimony of a witness is accorded the highest respect because of harbored a grudge against the deceased for quite some time. This basis
its direct opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and falls short of the requirement that the element of evident
to determine if they are telling the truth or not. [3] Lacking any premeditation must, like the crime itself, be proved beyond reasonable
ground in questioning the discretion of the trial court, we consider doubt. There is evident premeditation when the following are
its ruling on the credibility of the witnesses as settled.
satisfactorily proved: (a) the time when the appellant decided to
commit the crime; (b) an overt act showing that the appellant clung to
The witnesses' relationship to the victim does not automatically his determination to commit the crime; and, (c) the lapse of sufficient
affect the veracity of their testimonies. No legal provision period of time between the decision and the execution of the crime, to
disqualifies relatives of the victim of a crime from testifying if allow the appellant to reflect upon the
they are competent. That the prosecution‘s eyewitnesses were the

Page 189 of 233

 [9]
consequences of the act. Other than the fact that accused-appellant Those whose mental condition, at
had the motive to kill the victim, the prosecution in the instant case the time of their production for
miserably failed to establish that he plotted the killing of Briones and
that he had sufficient time to ponder over his plan. Notably, the proof
examination, is such that they are
of motive is no longer necessary in view of the positive identification of incapable of intelligently making
accused-appellant as the assailant. known their perception to others;

On the other hand, the court a quo properly appreciated the Children whose mental maturity
qualifying circumstance of treachery. The essence of treachery is
the sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest is such as to render them incapable
provocation on the part of the person attacked. There is of perceiving the facts respecting
treachery when the attack on the victim was made without giving which they are examined and of
the latter warning of any kind and thus rendering him unable to
relating them truthfully. (19a)
defend himself from an assailant's unexpected attack. While a
victim may have been warned of a possible danger to his person, in
treachery, what is decisive is that the attack was executed in such Section 22. Disqualification by reason of
a manner as to make it impossible for the victim to retaliate. [10] In marriage. ? During their marriage, neither
the case before us, the deceased was totally unaware of the
impending attack to his person. He was just standing outside their
the husband nor the wife may testify for or
store watching some neighbors play cards. Accused-appellant against the other without the consent of
suddenly sprang from nowhere and without any provocation from the affected spouse, except in a civil case
the victim, shot him at close range. The deceased was unarmed and by one against the other, or in a criminal
defenseless when he was killed in cold blood.
case for a crime committed by one against
the other or the latter's direct descendants
The trial court failed to award actual damages to the heirs of
the victim despite the testimony of the widow that they or ascendants. (20a)
incurred P57,000.00 for hospital and burial expenses. However,
upon examination of the records, we find that only P9,000.00 of the Section 23. Disqualification by reason of
total P57,000.00 was sufficiently and competently proved.
death or insanity of adverse party. ? Parties
Hence, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to an award
of P9,000.00 as actual damages. On the other hand, the trial or assignor of parties to a case, or persons
court properly awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity without need in whose behalf a case is prosecuted,
of further proof other than the death of the victim. against an executor or administrator or
other representative of a deceased person,
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu or against a person of unsound mind, upon
City finding accused-appellant ILDEFONSO VIRTUCIO JR. alias
"Gaga" guilty of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
a claim or demand against the estate of
of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of Alejandro such deceased person or against such
Briones the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is person of unsound mind, cannot testify as
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is to any matter of fact occurring before the
additionally ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased P9,000.00
as actual damages. Costs against accused-appellant.
death of such deceased person or before
such person became of unsound mind.
SO ORDERED. (20a)
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES (MIM DIP)
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of
Mental incapacity or immaturity. privileged communication. ? The following
Marriage (Marital Disqualification Rule)
Death or Insanity. (Dead Man’s Statute and claim v. persons cannot testify as to matters
insane) learned in confidence in the following
Privilege (MAP PP)
cases:

Section 21. Disqualification by reason The husband or the wife, during or after
of mental incapacity or immaturity. ? the marriage, cannot be examined without
The following persons cannot be the consent of the other as to any
witnesses: communication received in confidence by

Page 190 of 233

one from the other during the marriage Mentally incapacity – Those whose mental condition, at the time of
their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of
except in a civil case by one against the intelligently making known their perception to others (Sec. 21);
other, or in a criminal case for a crime Mentally immaturity – Children whose mental maturity is such as to
render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are
committed by one against the other or the examined and of relating them truthfully (Sec. 21);
latter's direct descendants or ascendants; Marital disqualification – During their marriage, neither the husband nor
the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the
affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a
criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's
An attorney cannot, without the consent direct descendants or ascendants (Sec. 22).
of his client, be examined as to any Parental and filial privilege -- No person may be compelled to testify
against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct
communication made by the client to him, descendants (Sec. 25).
or his advice given thereon in the course of,
(2) Relative disqualification:
or with a view to, professional employment, Dead Man‘s Statute – Parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons
nor can an attorney's secretary, in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or
other representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound
stenographer, or clerk be examined, mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or
without the consent of the client and his against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter of fact
occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person
employer, concerning any fact the became of unsound mind (Sec. 23).
knowledge of which has been acquired in Disqualification by reason of privileged communication (Sec. 24):
such capacity; The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined
without the consent of the other as to any communication received in
confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by
one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one
A person authorized to practice medicine, against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants;
surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any
communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the
without the consent of the patient, be course of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney's
examined as to any advice or treatment secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the
client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been
given by him or any information which he acquired in such capacity;
may have acquired in attending such patient A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot
in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any
in a professional capacity, which information advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have
was necessary to enable him to act in acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity, which
information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity, and
capacity, and which would blacken the which would blacken the reputation of the patient;
reputation of the patient; A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making
the confession, be examined as to any confession made to or any advice
given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline
A minister or priest cannot, without the enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs;
A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or
consent of the person making the afterwards, as to communications made to him in official confidence, when
confession, be examined as to any the court finds that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
(c) Newsman‘s privilege -- Without prejudice to his liability under the civil
confession made to or any advice given by and criminal laws, the publisher, editor, columnist or duly accredited reporter
him in his professional character in the of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be
compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in
course of discipline enjoined by the church said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or
to which the minister or priest belongs; reporter unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such
revelation is demanded by the security of the State (RA 1477);
(d) Bank deposits -- All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking
A public officer cannot be examined institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the
Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its
during his term of office or afterwards, as instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential
to communications made to him in official nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person,
government official, bureau or office, except upon written permission of the
confidence, when the court finds that the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in
public interest would suffer by the cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the
money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation (RA 1405).
disclosure. (21a) (e) Sanctity of the ballot – voters may not be compelled to disclose for
whom they voted.
Disqualifications of Witnesses (f) Trade secrets.
(1) Absolute disqualification: (g) Information contained in tax returns (RA 2070, as amended by RA 2212).
Those who cannot perceive (Sec. 20);
Those who can perceive but cannot make their perception known (Sec. Disqualification by reason of mental capacity or
20); immaturity (1) The following persons cannot be
witnesses:

Page 191 of 233

 Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for
examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known Marital Disqualification (sec. 22) Marital Privilege (Sec. 24)
their perception to others; Can be invoked only if one of the Can be claimed whether or not the
Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable spouses is a party to the action; spouse is a party to the action;
of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of Applies only if the marriage is
relating them truthfully (Sec. 21). existing Can be claimed even after the
(2) Regardless of the nature or cause of mental disability, the test of at the time the testimony is offered; marriage has been dissolved;
competency to testify is as to whether the individual has sufficient Ceases upon the death or either Continues even after the termination
understanding to appreciate the nature and obligation of an oath and spouse; of the marriage;
sufficient capacity to observe and describe correctly the facts in regard to Constitutes a total prohibition against Applies only to confidential
which he is called to testify. any testimony for or against the communications between the
(3) Basic requirements of a child‘s competency as a witness: spouse of the witness; spouses.
Capacity of observation; The prohibition is a testimony for or The prohibition is the examination of
Capacity of recollection; against the other. a spouse as to matters related in
Capacity of communication. confidence to the other spouse.

In ascertaining whether a child is of sufficient intelligence according to Mental Incapacity

the foregoing requirements, it is settled rule that the trial court is called Republic of the Philippines
upon to make such determination (People vs. Mendoza, 68 SCAD 552, SUPREME COURT
02/22/96). b. Disqualification by reason of marriage (spousal immunity) Manila
During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or
against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil
THIRD DIVISION
case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by
one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants (Se. 22).
The spouses must be legally married to each other to invoke the benefit of G.R. No. 145225 April 2, 2004
the rule; it does not cover an illicit relationship (People vs. Francisco, 78 Phil.
694). When the marriage is dissolved on the grounds provided for by law like
annulment or declaration of nullity, the rule can no longer be invoked. A PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
spouse can already testify against the other despite an objection being vs.
interposed by the affected spouse. If the testimony for or against the other SALVADOR GOLIMLIM @ "BADONG", appellants.
spouse is offered during the existence of the marriage, it does not matter if the
facts subject of the testimony occurred before the marriage. It only matters
DECISION
that the affected spouse objects to the offer of testimony.
The testimony covered by the marital disqualification rule not only consists of
utterances but also the production of documents (State vs. Bramlet, 114 SC 389). 1
On appeal is the Decision of June 9, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of
Sorsogon, Sorsogon, Branch 65 in Criminal Case No. 241, finding
Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party appellant Salvador Golimlim alias "Badong" guilty beyond reasonable
(Survivorship or Dead Man‘s Statute) doubt of rape, imposing on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and
This rule applies only to a civil case or a special proceeding. The holding him civilly liable in the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity, and
following are the elements for the application of the rule: P50,000.00 as moral damages.
(a) The plaintiff is the person who has a claim against the estate of the
decedent or person of unsound mind;
(b) The defendant in the case is the executor or administrator or a The Information dated April 16, 1997 filed against appellant reads as
representative of the deceased or the person of unsound mind; follows:
(c) The suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against the estate of said
deceased or person of unsound mind;
(d) The witness is the plaintiff, or an assignor of that party, or a person in That sometime in the month of August, 1996, at Barangay Bical,
whose behalf the case is prosecuted; and Municipality of Bulan, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines and
(e) The subject of the testimony is as to any matter of fact occurring before within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named
the death (ante litem motam) of such deceased person or before such person accused, armed with a bladed weapon, by means of violence and
became of unsound mind (Sec. 23). intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, have carnal knowledge of one Evelyn Canchela against
Disqualification by Reason of Privileged Communications between Husband her will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.
and Wife
The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined 2
without the consent of the other as to any communication received in Contrary to law.
confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by
one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one 3
Upon arraignment on December 15, 1997, appellant, duly assisted by
against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants (Sec. 24). counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
The application of the rule requires the presence of the following elements:

There must be a valid marriage between the husband and the wife; The facts established by the prosecution are as follows:
There is a communication made in confidence by one to the other; and
The confidential communication must have been made during the
Private complainant Evelyn G. Canchela (Evelyn), is a mental
marriage. Marital Disqualification (Sec. 22)
retardate. When her mother, Amparo Hachero, left for
Singapore on May 2, 1996 to work as a domestic helper, she
entrusted Evelyn to the care and custody of her (Amparo‘s) sister
Jovita Guban and her husband Salvador Golimlim, herein appellant,
4
at Barangay Bical, Bulan, Sorsogon.

Sometime in August 1996, Jovita left the conjugal residence to meet a

Page 192 of 233

 5
certain Rosing, leaving Evelyn with appellant. Taking advantage of the decision reads:
6
situation, appellant instructed private complainant to sleep, and soon
7
after she had laid down, he kissed her and took off her clothes. As he WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Salvador Golimlim
8
poked at her an object which to Evelyn felt like a knife, he proceeded to having been found guilty of the crime of RAPE (Art. 335 R.P.C. as
9
insert his penis into her vagina. His lust satisfied, appellant fell asleep. amended by RA 7659) beyond reasonable doubt is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, and
When Jovita arrived, Evelyn told her about what appellant did to her. to indemnify the offended party Evelyn Canchela in the amount
Jovita, however, did not believe her and in fact she scolded her.
10 of P50,000.00 as indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral
damage[s], and to pay the costs.

Sometime in December of the same year, Lorna Hachero, Evelyn‘s half-

sister, received a letter from their mother Amparo instructing her to fetch 20
SO ORDERED.
Evelyn from Sorsogon and allow her to stay in Novaliches, Quezon City
where she (Lorna) resided. Dutifully, Lorna immediately repaired to
Hence, the present appeal, appellant assigning to the trial court
appellant‘s home in Bical, and brought Evelyn with her to Manila.
the following errors:

A week after she brought Evelyn to stay with her, Lorna suspected that her
I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING
sister was pregnant as she noticed her growing belly. She thereupon brought
WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE CONTRADICTORY AND
her to a doctor at the Pascual General Hospital at Baeza, Novaliches, Quezon
IMPLAUSIBLE TESTIMONY OF EVELYN CANCHELA, A
City for check-up and ultrasound examination.
MENTAL RETARDATE, [AND]

Lorna‘s suspicions were confirmed as the examinations revealed that Evelyn

11 THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
was indeed pregnant. She thus asked her sister how she became THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE
pregnant, to which Evelyn replied that appellant had sexual intercourse CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND
12
with her while holding a knife. 21
REASONABLE DOUBT.

In February of 1997, the sisters left for Bulan, Sorsogon for the purpose
Appellant argues that Evelyn‘s testimony is not categorical and is replete
of filing a criminal complaint against appellant. The police in Bulan, however,
with contradictions, thus engendering grave doubts as to his criminal
advised them to first have Evelyn examined. Obliging, the two repaired on
culpability.
February 24, 1997 to the Municipal Health Office of Bulan, Sorsogon where
13
Evelyn was examined by Dr. Estrella Payoyo. The Medico-legal Report
revealed the following findings, quoted verbatim: In giving credence to Evelyn‘s testimony and finding against appellant, the
trial court made the following observations, quoted verbatim:

FINDINGS: LMP [last menstrual period]: Aug. 96 ?

Despite her weak and dull mental state the victim was
consistent in her claim that her Papay Badong (accused Salvador
Abd [abdomen]: 7 months AOG [age of gestation] Golimlim) had carnal knowledge of her and was the author of her
pregnancy, and nobody else (See: For comparison her Sworn
FHT [fetal heart tone]: 148/min Statement on p. 3/Record; her narration in the Psychiatric
Report on pp. 47 & 48/Record; the TSNs of her testimony in
open court);
Presentation: Cephalic

14
She remains consistent that her Papay Badong raped her
Hymen: old laceration at 3, 5, 7, & 11 o‘clock position only once;

On the same day, the sisters went back to the Investigation Section of
That the contradictory statements she made in open court
the Bulan Municipal Police Station before which they executed their sworn
relative to the details of how she was raped, although would
15
statements. seem derogatory to her credibility and reliability as a witness
under normal conditions, were amply explained by the
On February 27, 1997, Evelyn, assisted by Lorna, filed a criminal psychiatrist who examined her and supported by her findings
16
complaint for rape against appellant before the Municipal Trial Court of (See: Exhibits F to F-2);
Bulan, Sorsogon, docketed as Criminal Case No. 6272.
Despite her claim that several persons laid on top of her (which is
In the meantime or on May 7, 1997, Evelyn gave birth to a girl, still subject to question considering that the victim could not

Joana Canchela, at Guruyan, Juban, Sorsogon.

17 elaborate on its meaning), the lucid fact remains that she never
pointed to anybody else as the author of her pregnancy, but her Papay
Badong. Which only shows that the trauma that was created in her
Appellant, on being confronted with the accusation, simply said that it is not
18 mind by the incident has remained printed in her memory despite her
true "[b]ecause her mind is not normal," she having "mentioned many other
19
weak mental state. Furthermore, granting for the sake of argument
names of men who ha[d] sexual intercourse with her." that other men also laid on top of her, this does not deviate from the
fact that her Papay Badong (the accused) had sexual intercourse with
Finding for the prosecution, the trial court, by the present appealed 22
her.
Decision, convicted appellant as charged. The dispositive portion of the

Page 193 of 233

The trial judge‘s assessment of the credibility of witnesses‘ testimonies is, discrepancies, given of course her feeblemindedness.
as has repeatedly been held by this Court, accorded great respect on appeal
in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on its part, it having had the By the account of Dr. Chona Cuyos-Belmonte, Medical Specialist II at the
advantage of actually examining both real and testimonial evidence including Psychiatric Department of the Bicol Medical Center, who examined Evelyn,
23
the demeanor of the witnesses. although Evelyn was suffering from moderate mental retardation with an
30
IQ of 46, she is capable of perceiving and relating events which happened
In the present case, no cogent reason can be appreciated to warrant a to her. Thus the doctor testified:
departure from the findings of the trial court with respect to the
assessment of Evelyn‘s testimony.
So do you try to impress that although she answers in
general terms it does not necessarily mean that she might be
That Evelyn is a mental retardate does not disqualify her as a witness inventing answers – only that she could not go to the specific
nor render her testimony bereft of truth. details because of dullness?

Sections 20 and 21 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court provide: I don‘t think she was inventing her answer because I
conducted mental status examination for three (3) times and I
tried to see the consistency in the narration but very poor (sic)
SEC. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications . – Except as provided
in giving details.
in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive,
and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may
be witnesses. xx

SEC. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or Q: May we know what she related to you?
immaturity. – The following persons cannot be witnesses:

She related to me that she was raped by her uncle ‗Tatay

Those whose mental condition, at the time of their Badong‘. What she mentioned was that, and I quote: ‗hinila ang
production for examination, is such that they are incapable of panty ko, pinasok ang pisot at bayag niya sa pipi ko‘. She would
intelligently making known their perception to others; laugh inappropriately after telling me that particular incident. I
also tried to ask her regarding the dates, the time of the
incident, but she could not really…. I tried to elicit those
Children whose mental maturity is such as to render
important things, but the patient had a hard time remembering
them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which
those dates.
they are examined and of relating them truthfully.

24 But considering that you have evaluated her mentally, gave her I.Q.
In People v. Trelles, where the trial court relied heavily on the therein test, in your honest opinion, do you believe that this narration by the
mentally retarded private complainant‘s testimony irregardless of her patient to you about the rape is reliable?
"monosyllabic responses and vacillations between lucidity and ambiguity," this
Yes, sir.
Court held:
Why do you consider that reliable?

A mental retardate or a feebleminded person is not, per se,

disqualified from being a witness, her mental condition not being Being a (sic) moderately retarded, I have noticed the
a vitiation of her credibility. It is now universally accepted that spontaneity of her answers during the time of the testing. She
intellectual weakness, no matter what form it assumes, is not a was not even hesitating when she told me she was raped once at
valid objection to the competency of a witness so long as the home by her Tatay Badong; and she was laughing when she told me
latter can still give a fairly intelligent and reasonable narrative about how it was done on (sic) her. So, although she may be
25 inappropriate but (sic) she was spontaneous, she was consistent.
of the matter testified to.

It can not then be gainsaid that a mental retardate can be a witness, Now, I would like to relate to you an incident that happened
26 in this Court for you to give us your expert opinion. I tried to
depending on his or her ability to relate what he or she knows. If his
27 present the victim in this case to testify. While she testified
or her testimony is coherent, the same is admissible in court.
that she was raped by her uncle Badong, when asked about the
details, thereof, she would not make (sic) the detail. She only
To be sure, modern rules on evidence have downgraded mental incapacity as answered ‗wala‘ (no). I ask this question because somehow this
a ground to disqualify a witness. As observed by McCormick, the remedy of seems related to your previous evaluation that while she gave an
excluding such a witness who may be the only person available who knows answer, she gave no detail. Now, I was thinking because I am a
the facts, seems inept and primitive. Our rules follow the modern trend of man and I was the one asking and the Judge is a man also. And
28
evidence. while the mother would say that she would relate to her and she
related to you, can you explain to us why when she was presented
29
Thus, in a long line of cases, this Court has upheld the conviction of the in court that occurrence, that event happened?
accused based mainly on statements given in court by the victim who was
a mental retardate. There are a lot of possible answers to that question; one, is the
court‘s atmosphere itself. This may have brought a little anxiety on
From a meticulous scrutiny of the records of this case, there is no reason the part of the patient and this inhibits her from relating some of the
to doubt Evelyn‘s credibility. To be sure, her testimony is not without details relative to the incident-in-question. When I conducted my
interview with the patient, there were only

Page 194 of 233

 two (2) of us in the room. I normally do not ask this question xxx
during the first session with the patient because these are He laid on top of me.
emotionally leading questions, and I do not expect the patient to What was your position when he laid on top of you?
be very trusting. So, I usually ask this type of questions during I was lying down.
the later part of my examination to make her relax during my Then after he went on top of you, what did he do there?
evaluation. So in this way, she will be more cooperative with me. He made (sic) sexual intercourse with me.
I don‘t think that this kind of atmosphere within the courtroom When you said he had a (sic) sexual intercourse with you, what did he
with some people around, this could have inhibited the patient do exactly?
from answering questions. He kissed me.
Where?
On the cheeks (witness motioning indicating her cheeks).
What if the victim is being coached or led by someone
What else did he do? Please describe before this Honorable Court the sexual
else, will she be able to answer the questions?
intercourse which you are referring to which the accused did to you.
‗Initoy‘ and he slept after
Yes, she may be able to answer the questions, but you would that. (to Court)
notice the inconsistency of the answers because what we Nevertheless, may we request that the local term for sexual intercourse,
normally do is that we present the questions in different ways, the word ‗Initoy‘ which was used by the witness be put on the record, and
and we expect the same answer. This is how we try to evaluate we request judicial notice of the fact that ‗initoy‘ is the local term for
the patient. If the person, especially a retarded, is being sexual intercourse.
coached by somebody, the answers will no longer be consistent. xxx
What did you feel when your Papay Badong had sexual intercourse
with you?
You also mentioned a while ago that the answers given by
I felt a knife; it was like a knife.
the patient, taken all in all, were consistent?
Where did you feel that knife?
I forgot.
31
A: Yes, sir. (Underscoring supplied) Why did you allow your Papay Badong to have sexual intercourse with you?
I will not consent to it.
As noted in the above-quoted testimony of Dr. Belmonte, Evelyn could give xxx
spontaneous and consistent answers to the same but differently framed Did you like what he did to you?
questions under conditions which do not inhibit her from answering. It I do not want it.
could have been in this light that Evelyn was able to relate in court, upon But why did it happen?
examination by a female government prosecutor and the exclusion of the I was forced
32 to. x x x
public from the proceedings, on Dr. Belmonte‘s suggestion, how, as quoted
below, she was raped and that it was appellant who did it: Did you feel anything when he inserted into your vagina when your
Papay Badong laid on top of you?
His sexual organ/penis.
Lorna Hachero testified before this Court that you gave birth How did you know that it was the penis of your Papay Badong that
to a baby girl named Johanna, is this true?
was entered into your vagina?
It was put on top of me.
(The witness nods, yes.) Did it enter your vagina?
Yes, Your Honor.
xxx
Who is the father of Johanna?
Madam Witness, is it true that your Papay Badong inserted his penis into
A: Papay Badong
your vagina or sexual organ during that time that he was on top of you?
Who is this Papay Badong that you are referring to?
The husband of Mamay Bita. A: (The witness nods, yes.)
33
(Underscoring supplied)
Is he here in court?
He is here. Appellant‘s bare denial is not only an inherently weak defense. It is not supported
Please look around and point him to us. by clear and convincing evidence. It cannot thus prevail over the positive
(The witness pointing to the lone man sitting in the first row of the 34
declaration of Evelyn who convincingly identified him as her rapist.
gallery wearing a regular prison orange t-shirt who gave his name as
Salvador Golimlim when asked.)
In convicting appellant under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
Why were you able to say that it is Papay Badong who is the father of
amended by Republic Act 7659 (the law in force when the crime was
your child Johanna?
committed in 1996), the trial court did not specify under which mode the
Because then I was left at Mamay Bita‘s house, although I am not
crime was committed. Under the said article, rape is committed thus:
there now.
And that house where you were left is also the house of your
Papay Badong? ART. 335. When and how rape is committed . – Rape is committed
Yes ma‘am. by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
What did Salvador Golimlim or your Papay Badong do to you that‘s circumstances.
why you were able to say that he is the father of your child?
I was undressed by him.
By using force or intimidation;
xxx
What did you do after you were undressed?
I was scolded by the wife, Mamay Bita. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
I am referring to that very moment when you were undressed. unconscious; and
Immediately after your Papay Badong undressed you, what did you do?

Page 195 of 233

 When the woman is under twelve years of age or is
demented. Gizelle was estranged from her husband Mico for more than a
year. Gizelle was temporarily living with her sister in Pasig City.
For unknown reasons, the house of Ivy’s sister was
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua . burned, killing the latter. Gizelle survived.
Gizelle saw her Mico in the vicinity during the incident. Later, Mico
Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of was charged with arson. During the trial, the prosecutor called
Gizelle to the witness stand and offered her testimony to prove that
a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty
her husband committed arson. Can Gizelle testify over the objection
shall be reclusion perpetua or death.
of her husband on the ground of marital privilege?

It is settled that sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate Yes. The marital disqualification rule is aimed at protecting the harmony
constitutes statutory rape which does not require proof that the accused and confidences of marital relations. Hence, where the marital and domestic
used force or intimidation in having carnal knowledge of the victim for relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor
35
conviction. The fact of Evelyn‘s mental retardation was not, however, peace and tranquillity which may be disturbed, the marital disqualification no
alleged in the Information and, therefore, cannot be the basis for longer applies.
conviction. Such notwithstanding, that force and intimidation attended the The act of Mico in setting fire to the house of his sister-in-law, knowing that
commission of the crime, the mode of commission alleged in the Information, his wife was there, is an act totally alien to the harmony and confidences of
was adequately proven. It bears stating herein that the mental faculties of marital relation which the disqualification primarily seeks to protect. The
a retardate being different from those of a normal person, the degree of criminal act complained of had the effect of directly and vitally impairing
force needed to overwhelm him or her is less. Hence, a quantum of force the conjugal relation. (Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439, Oct. 14, 2005).
which may not suffice when the victim is a normal person, may be more than
36
enough when employed against an imbecile.
Attorney-Client Privilege Rule
Still under the above-quoted provision of Art. 335 of the Rev ised Penal _ Requisites:
Code, when the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon, There must be a relation of attorney and client,
the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. In the case at bar, Communication by client toattorney, or advice given thereon
however, although there is adequate evidence showing that appellant indeed by the latter to the former; and
used force and intimidation, that is not the case with respect to the use of
Communication or advice must have been made to the attorney
in the course of or with a view to professional employment.
a deadly weapon.
_ Professional communications are not privileged when such
communications are for an unlawful purpose, having for their
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of purpose the commission of a crime.
Sorsogon, Sorsogon, Branch 65 in Criminal Case No. 241 finding appellant, _ The privilege belongs to the client and only he can invoke it. It
Salvador Golimlim alias "Badong," GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of rape, extends to the attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk concerning
which this Court finds to have been committed under paragraph 1, Article any fact acquired in such capacity; or any other agent of transmitting
335 of the Revised Penal Code, and holding him civilly liable therefor, is the communication, originating from the client’s agent and made to
hereby AFFIRMED.
the attorney or from the attorney’s agent to the attorney.

Costs against appellant.

Physician-Patient Privilege Rule
SO ORDERED.
_ Requisites:
Vitug, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Corona, JJ., concur.
The action in which the advice or treatment given or any
information is to be used is a civil case;
The relation of physician and patient existed between the person
DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MARRIAGE claiming the privilege or his legal representative and the physician;
The advice or treatment given by him or any information
The testimony covered by the marital disqualification rule not only was acquired by the physician while
consists of utterances but also the production of documents. professionally attending the patient;
The information was necessary for the performance of
The spouses must be legally married to each other to invoke the benefit of his professional duty; and
the rule; it does not cover an illicit relationship. • The disclosure of the information would tend to blacken the reputation
of the patient.
When the marriage is dissolved on the grounds provided for by law like
annulment or declaration of nullity, the rule can no longer be invoked. A
_ Persons Disqualified in the Rule
spouse can already testify against the other despite an objection being Any person authorized to practice medicine, surgery, or obstetrics
interposed by the affected spouse. If the testimony for or against the other Dentists
spouse is offered during the existence of the marriage, it does not matter if the Pharmacists
facts subject of the testimony occurred before the marriage. It only matters Nurses
that the affected spouse objects to the offer of testimony. _ Waiver of Privilege under Rule
A party, in an action where the court ordered for the examination of
Q: What is purpose of this disqualification? his mental or physical condition, by requesting and obtaining a report
The rule forbidding one spouse to testify for or against the other is of the said examination or by taking the deposition of the examiner,
based on principles which are deemed important to preserve the waives any privilege he may have in that action or any other
marriage relation as one of full confidence and affection, and that this involving the same controversy, regarding the testimony of every
is regarded as more important to the public welfare than that the other person who has examined or may thereafter examine him in
exigencies of the lawsuits should authorize domestic peace to be respect of the same mental or physical examination.
disregarded for the sake of ferreting out facts within the knowledge Priest-Penitent Privilege Rule
of strangers. _ Requisites:

Page 196 of 233

 The minister or priest must be so according to the sect
or denomination to which he belongs; Section 26. Admission of a party. ?
the communication is made to him in his professional
capacity or character; and
The act, declaration or omission of a
it is made in the course of discipline enjoined by the rules party as to a relevant fact may be
or practices of his sect or denomination.
_ The confession herein must be made to acquire divine absolution or given in evidence against him. (22)
sacramental in character.
_ Matters not Allowed to Testify on: Section 27. Offer of compromise not
The confession given to him
Advice he gave to the person who confessed, provided that the
admissible. ? In civil cases, an offer
confession was made to the priest or minister in his professional of compromise is not an admission of
capacity and that the confession was given in accordance with
the rights of the church or organization to which the priest or any liability, and is not admissible in
minister belong.
evidence against the offeror.
Privileged Communication to Public Officer
_ Requisites: In criminal cases, except those
The communication must have been made to a public officer;
The communication was made in official confidence; and involving quasi-offenses (criminal
Public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the
communication. _ Exceptions:
negligence) or those allowed by law
When useful to vindicate the innocence of an accused person, to be compromised, an offer of
or
To lessen the risk of false testimony, or compromised by the accused may be
When essential to the proper disposition of the case, or
When the benefit to be gained is greater than any injury received in evidence as an implied
which could inure. admission of guilt.
Other Privilege Matters
Bank deposits, except: upon written permission of the depositor, in A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an
cases of impeachment, upon order of competent court in cases of
bribery, dereliction of duty of public officials, in cases where the unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to
money deposited is the subject matter of litigation
and, in cases of unexplained wealth.
lesser offense, is not admissible in
Sources of information by newspaperman evidence against the accused who
Informers
Trade secrets made the plea or offer.
TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
An offer to pay or the payment of
medical, hospital or other expenses
Sec. 25: Parental and filial privilege. occasioned by an injury is not
Definitions: admissible in evidence as proof of
Admission – is a voluntary acknowledgement of some fact or
circumstance which tends to establish the ultimate fact in issue in a civil or criminal liability for the
civil case or of the guilt of an accused.
injury. (24a)
Form of Admission
Judicial, in which case it is conclusive.
Section 28. Admission by third party.
Extrajudicial, in which case it is rebuttable. The rights of a party cannot be
Evidentiary Admission – When the term admission is used without
any qualifying adjective, the customary meaning is an evidentiary prejudiced by an act, declaration,
admission, that is, words in oral or written form or conduct of a party
or a representative offered in evidence against a party. or omission of another, except as
Judicial Admission – refers to an admission, verbal or written, made
by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, which
hereinafter provided. (25a)
does not require proof. The admissions may be contradicted only by Section 29. Admission by co-partner
showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such
admission was made. or agent. ? The act or declaration of a
Rules:
General Rule: No person may be compelled to testify against his partner or agent of the party within
parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct
descendants. _ Exception: When
the scope of his authority and during
a. A crime committed by one parent against another parent; and the existence of the partnership or
b. A crime committed by an ascendant against a descendant. (Art. 215,
Family Code) agency, may be given in evidence
c. He waived such privilege and voluntarily testify against any of them.
against such party after the
Admissions and Confessions partnership or agency is shown by

Page 197 of 233

 When they form part of the res gestae, including
evidence other than such act or spontaneous statements, and verbal acts.
declaration. The same rule applies to When they are in the form of complaint and exclamations of
pain and suffering.
the act or declaration of a joint When they are part of a confession offered by the prosecution.
Where the credibility of a party has been assailed on the ground that
owner, joint debtor, or other person his testimony is a recent fabrication.
Where they are offered by the opponent.
jointly interested with the party. (26a) When they are offered without objection.
Section 30. Admission by _ Note: Diaries are as a rule inadmissible because they are selfserving
in nature, they have the nature of books of account; but it has been
conspirator. ? The act or declaration held that an entry in a diary being in the nature of a declaration,
if it was against interest when made, it is admissible.
of a conspirator relating to the
conspiracy and during its existence, Sec. 27: Offer of compromise notadmissible.
Reason:
may be given in evidence against the Lack of relevancy of the offer, that is, it may be construed as a desire
for peace rather than an admission of weakness of position or increase
co-conspirator after the conspiracy of relevancy; and policy considerations to promote the settling of
disputes, which would be discouraged.
is shown by evidence other than Definition:
such act of declaration. (27) Compromise – an agreement made between two or more parties as
a settlement of matters in dispute.
Section 31. Admission by privies. ? Privies – denotes the idea of succession not only by right of heirship
and testamentary legacy, but also that of succession by singular title,
Where one derives title to property derived from acts inter vivos, as by assignment, subrogation or
purchase – in fact any act whereby the successor is substituted in the
from another, the act, declaration, or place of the predecessor in interest. (Alpuerto vs. Perez, 38 Phil. 785)
Rules:
omission of the latter, while holding Compromise in Civil Cases: In civil cases, if a party denies the existence
the title, in relation to the property, is of a debt but offers to pay the same for the purpose of buying peace and
avoiding litigation, the offer of settlement is inadmissible. If in the course
evidence against the former. (28) thereof, the party making the offer admits the existence of an indebtedness
combined with a proposal to settle the claim amicably, then, the admission
Section 32. Admission by silence. ? is admissible to prove such indebtedness. (Trans-Pacific Industrial, Inc. vs
An act or declaration made in the CA, 235 SCRA 494).
Cases Where Compromise Not Valid:
presence and within the hearing or a. Civil status of persons;
b. Validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
observation of a party who does or c. Any ground for legal separation;
d. Future support;
says nothing when the act or e. Jurisdiction of the
declaration is such as naturally to courts; f. Future legitime;
g. Habeas corpus;
call for action or comment if not and h. Election
The Res Inter Alios Acta Rule
true, and when proper and possible The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration,
or omission of another.
for him to do so, may be given in _ It is based from the maxim “res inter alios acta alteri nocere non
evidence against him. (23a) debet” (things done between strangers ought not to injure those who
are not parties to it)
Section 33. Confession. ? The _ It is well-settled that a party is not bound by any agreement of which
he has no knowledge and to which he has not given his consent and
declaration of an accused that his rights cannot be prejudiced by the declaration, act or omission
of another, except by virtue of a particular relation between them.
acknowledging his guilt of the Exceptions to the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule; Admissions made:
offense charged, or of any offense a. By a co-partner or agent (Sec. 29)
b. By a conspirator (Sec.
necessarily included therein, may be 30) c. By privies (Sec. 31)
d. By Silence (Sec. 32)
given in evidence against him. (29a) _ Sections 29, 30 and 31 are collectively classified as
vicarious admissions.
Requisites of Admission by Co- Partner:
Sec. 26: Admission of a party. a. The partnership be previously proven by evidence other than the
Rules: admission itself.
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact b. The acts or declarations refer to a matter within the scope of
may be given in evidence against him. his authority.
Self-serving declarations, which are unsworn statements made by c. The acts or declarations were made during the existence of the
the declarant out of court and which are favorable to his partnership.
interest are not _ Note: Declarations or admissions made by a partner after the
admissible. _ Exceptions: dissolution of the partnership are not admissible against the other

Page 198 of 233

partners in the absence of prior authority or subsequent ratification, title to property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of
even if such admissions or declarations relate to matters pending the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is
at the time of dissolution. evidence against the former.
Principle of Conditional Admissibility: Inasmuch as it must often a. Exceptions:
happen that the admission of only one partner can be proved at a time, Where the declarations are made in the presence of the transferee
declarations may be received where the existence of a partnership is and he acquiesces in the statements, or asserts no rights where he
alleged without proof of the partnership at that time. Here, as in other ought to speak.
cases, the order of the testimony is within the discretion of the judge. Where there has been a prima facie case of fraud established, as
Requisites of Admission by Agent: where the thing granted has a corpus, and the possession of the
a. The agency be previously proved by evidence other than thing after the sale or transfer, remains with the seller or transferor.
the admission itself. Where the evidence establishes a continuing conspiracy to defraud,
b. The admission refers to a matter within the scope of his authority. which conspiracy exists between the vendor and the vendee.
c. The admission was made during the existence of the agency.
_ Note: The admissions of a guardian which mean the sacrifice and Admission by Silence.
giving away of the ward’s property are never held to be binding. a. Basis: The maxim Qui tacet consentire videtur (he who is silent
(Ibanez vs. Rodriguez, 47 Phil. 554) appears to consent) is received on the theory that the failure to deny
Requisites of Admission by Joint Owner, Joint Debtor, or other what is asserted in the presence of a party is an implied admission
Person Jointly Interested with the Party: of the truth of the statement.
a. There exists a joint interest between the joint owner, joint debtor or b. Requisites:
other person jointly interested with the party and such party, which Hearing and understanding of the statement by the party,
joint interest must first be made to appear by evidence other than the Opportunity and necessity of denying the statements,
act or declaration itself. Statement must refer to a matter affecting his right or interest,
b. The act or declaration was made while the interest was Facts were within his knowledge,and
subsisting. c. The act relates to the subject matter of Facts admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence
the joint interest for otherwise it would be immaterial and irrelevant. would be material to the issue.
Requisites of Admission by coconspirator: c. Exception: The rule is not applicable in a criminal case. No inference
a. The conspiracy be first proved be evidence other than the of guilt may be drawn against the accused upon his failure to make a
admission itself. statement of any sort. The neglect or refusal of the accused to be a
b. The admission relates to the common object. witness shall not in any manner prejudice or be used against him. An
c. It has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying accused has the right to remain silent. (People vs. Arciaga, 98 SCRA
out the conspiracy.
_ Note: This rule applies only to extrajudicial acts or declaration of a
conspirator, but not to testimony to the facts given on the stand at Sec. 33: Confession.
the trial where the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine Definition:
the declarant. (People vs. Vizcarra, 115 SCRA 747) Confession – the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt
The Principle of Implied Conspiracy: Conspiracy may be justified in express words of the truth of the offense charged, or of some
by circumstantial evidence, that is, their community of purpose and essential parts thereof.
their unity of design in the contemporaneous or simultaneous Custodial Interrogation – the questioning initiated by law
performance of the act of assaulting the deceased. Although the intent enforcement officers after a person ahs been taken custody or
may be classified as instantaneous, it sprung from the turn of events, otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant
thereby uniting the criminal design of the slayer immediately before the way. Rules:
commission of the offense. (Subayco vs. Sandiganbayan, GRN Requisites of Confession to be Admissible a.
117267, Aug. 22, 1996). Must be express and categorical,
Principle of Adoption: Where one joins a conspiracy after its b. Given voluntarily and intelligently where the accused realizes the
formation and actively participates in it, he adopts the previous acts legal significance of his act,
and declarations of his fellow conspirators, so that such acts and c. With assistance of competent and independent counsel,
declarations, although done or made before he joined the d. In writing and in the language known to and understood by the
conspiracy are admissible against him. confessant, and
Interlocking confessions: Where several extrajudicial confessions e. Signed, or if the confessant does not know how to read and
had been made by several persons charged with the same offense and write, thumb marked by him.
without the possibility of collusion among them, the fact that the _ A confession obtained from a person who has not been informed
statements are in all respects identical is confirmatory of the of his right to silence and counsel is inadmissible.
confessions of the codefendants and are admissible against other Confession of an accused against his coaccused is
persons implicated therein. This is an exception to the hearsay and res inadmissible. _ Exceptions:
inter alios acta rule. a. When several accused are tried together.
Extrajudicial confession is binding only against the b. When one of the defendant is discharged from the information and
confessant, except: testifies as a witness for the prosecution, if corroborated by
a. If the co-accused impliedly acquiesced in or adopted said indisputable proof.
confession by not questioning its truthfulness; c. If a defendant, after having been apprised of the confession of
b. In cases of interlocking confession corroborated by other evidence; his codefendant, ratifies or confirms said confession.
c. Where the accused admitted the facts stated by the confessant d. Where several extrajudicial confession had been made by several
after being apprised of such confession; persons charged with an offense and there could have been no
d. If they are charged as co-conspirators of the crime which was collusion with reference to said several confessions.
confessed by one of the accused and said confession is used only as a e. A statement made by one defendant after his arrest, in the presence
corroborating evidence; of his co-defendant, confessing his guilt and implicating his
e. Where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to codefendant who failed to contradict or deny it.
show the probability of participation by the coconspirators; f. When the confession is of a conspirator and made after
f. Where the confessant testified for hisco-defendant; conspiracy and in furtherance of its object.
g. Where the co-conspirator’s extrajudicial confession is g. The confession of one conspirator made after the termination of a
corroborated by other evidence. conspiracy against his co-conspirator if made in his presence and
Admission by Privies: Where one derives assented to by him, or admitted its truth or failed to contradict

Page 199 of 233

or deny it. Thousand Pesos (P370,000) from one Ligaya V. Santos for which she
Spontaneous or Spur-of-the-Moment Statements: In one case, issued five (5) checks as guarantee for the loan, to wit:
before the police officer interrogated the accused, the latter
had already admitted the crime when, after coming out of the toilet,
the scene of the crime, revealed to the guard they encountered that Drawee Bank Check No. Date Amount
they committed an act of revenge. That spontaneous statement
elicited without any interrogation, was part of the res gestae and, at UCPB SRD022496 April 7, 1993 P120,000.00
the same time, was a voluntary confession of guilt. Not only did the
UCPB SRD022513 April 15, 1993 P60,000.00
accused, by means of said statement, waive their right to remain silent
and to counsel, but by their extrajudicial confession, plea of guilty, UCPB PTU031796 June 6, 1993 P60,000.00
testimony in court and by not appealing the judgment of conviction. UCPB PTU031797 June 14, 1993 P60,000.00
(People vs. Tampus, 96 SCRA 624; People vs. Dy, 158 SCRA 111). UCPB PTU031798 June 21, 1993 P70,000.00
Presumption of voluntariness: A confession is deemed to be
voluntary and the confessant has the burden of proving that it was
given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat or promise of Santos deposited these checks in her account with the Philippine
reward or leniency. National Bank (PNB). Upon presentment by PNB of said checks
Weight of confession: The confession constitutes an evidence of a to the drawee United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), they were
higher order since it is supported by strong presumption that no person dishonored, for the reason: "closed account".
of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime.
PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS
EVIDENCE Sec. 34: Similar acts as Thereafter, Santos made several verbal and written demands for
evidence. Rules: Gutierrez to pay the amounts covered by the checks, but the
Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not latter allegedly refused to make good her obligation to pay.
admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing Hence, Santos filed five (5) criminal complaints for the Violation
at another time. It is well-settled that evidence is not admissible which
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and one complaint for Estafa against
shows, or tends to show, that the accused in a criminal case has
committed a crime wholly independent from the offense for which he is Gutierrez. After preliminary investigation, the corresponding
on trial. A man may be a notorious criminal, and may have committed informations were filed in court and the cases were raffled to
many crimes and still be innocent of the crime charged on trial. (People respondent Judge's sala.
vs. Galo, 143 SCRA 193).
_ Exception: Previous acts may be received in evidence to prove a
On November 15, 1993, while the said informations were pending in
specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit,
custom or usage, and the like. court, Santos executed the following letter in her own handwriting:
_ As a general rule, the evidence of other offenses committed by
defendant is inadmissible. As one exception, however, it is "Nov. 15, 1993
permissible to ascertain defendant’s knowledge and intent and to fix
his negligence. If the defendant has on more occasion performed
similar acts, accident in good faith is possibly excluded, negligence is TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
intensified, and fraudulent intent may even be established. There is no
better evidence of negligence than the frequency of accidents. (U.S. This is to certify that I am dropping my charges against
vs. Pineda, 37 Phil. 456) Annabelle Rama and that she already change (sic) the bouncing
Sec. 35 Unaccepted offer
checks with a (sic) - new ones.
Rule: An offer in writing to pay a particular sum of money or to deliver a
written instrument or specific property is, if rejected without valid
cause, equivalent to the actual production and tender of the money, I hope for your kind understanding on this case.
instrument or property.
(Sgd.) Ligaya V. Santos
[1998V411] ANNABELLE R. GUTIERREZ, complainant, vs. HON.
RODOLFO G. PALATTAO, respondent.1998 July 08En Lions Road Arroceros"
BancA.M. No. RTJ-95-1326D E C I S I O N
On the same day, Gutierrez also executed the following
Complainant Annabelle R. Gutierrez was convicted by respondent Judge
document in her own handwriting:
Rodolfo G. Pallatao of Branch 33, Regional Trial Court of Manila, for
Violation of the Bouncing Checks Law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22) and for
"I Annabelle Rama Gutierrez certify that I received all my old
Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. Aggrieved by
checks from Mrs. Ligaya Santos in exchange to (sic) the new ones
what she perceived as a wrongful conviction, she filed this
I gave her.
administrative case against respondent for Serious Misconduct, Graft
and Corruption, Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Decision, Falsification
In agreement, Mrs. Santos agreed to dropped (sic) her
of Public Document, and Gross Ignorance of the Law. She averred that,
case against me.
since the checks that were the bases of the informations against her
were not presented in evidence by the prosecution, her conviction was
(Sgd.) Annabelle Gutierrez
erroneous and the respondent should be held administratively liable
41 Derby, White Plains, Q. C."
therefor.

The foregoing documents were executed by Santos and Gutierrez

The material facts, based on the pleadings, are as follows:
after the latter replaced the five (5) checks subject of the
informations. The replacement checks were subsequently honored
Complainant borrowed the sum of Three Hundred Seventy

Page 200 of 233

except Check No. SRD-043939 dated May 10, 1994, in the Complaint anchored on the following grounds:
amount of P50,000.00, drawn against the UCPB. This check was
allegedly dishonored by the UCPB upon presentment by PNB, That respondent judge has no jurisdiction over the criminal
Santos' depository bank, for the reason: "stop payment". cases for Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 because the imposable penalty
therefor, which is imprisonment of not more than one (1) year or
The evidence for the prosecution was summarized by respondent a fine not exceeding P200,000.00 or both, is within the exclusive
Judge in his Decision as follows: original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) as
provided for by Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7691, otherwise
"To prove these cases against the accused, the Fiscal called to the known as the Law on the Expanded Jurisdiction of the MTC.
witness stand Ligaya V. Santos, the herein complainant who
identified herself as a widow, businesswoman and who resides at That the venue and time of the commission of the offenses
Lion's Rd., Arroceros St., Ermita, Manila. In the course of her charged were not established in violation of the petitioner's
testimony, the following exhibits were marked in evidence: Exhibit right to due process.
A : letter dated November 15, 1993, Exhibit A-1 : Signature of
Ligaya V. Santos, Exhibit B : Check No. SRD-043979 for That the original checks in question were never offered in
P50,000.00, Exhibit B-1 : Notice of dishonor Exhibit C : letter of evidence, hence, the decision is not supported by evidence of
demand and Exhibit C-1 : signature of complainant. . . ." 1 corpus delicti.

On the basis of the above evidence proffered by the That the penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor to
prosecution, respondent Judge convicted the accused in the twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal was arbitrarily and
aforestated five criminal cases for Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and in unjustly imposed.
one for Estafa. She was sentenced as follows:
That the decision was antedated and promulgated in a rush in
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered violation of procedural rules.
convicting the accused for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. In Criminal
Case No. 93-128841, accused Annabelle R. Gutierrez is hereby That the cancellation of petitioner's bail is whimsical and
sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one (1) year and to pay a fine arbitrary, constitutive of grave abuse of discretion.
of P120,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency. In Criminal Case No. 93-128842, accused is hereby To refute these grounds for the complaint, respondent Judge
sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one (1) year and to pay a fine submitted specific arguments in his Supplemental Comment dated
of P60,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of July 7, 1995, which could be summarized as follows: 2
insolvency. For Criminal Case No. 93-128843, accused is hereby
sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one (1) year and to pay a fine The alleged lack of jurisdiction is based on Section 2 of RA
of P60,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of 7961 which was approved on March 25, 1994. This law, however, is
insolvency. For Criminal Case No. 128844, accused is hereby inapplicable to complainant's case because it did not provide for
sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one (1) year and to pay a fine any retroactive effect as to cover pending criminal cases. The
of P60,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of retroactivity therein applies only to civil cases which did not reach
insolvency. And for Criminal Case No. 93-128845, she is hereby the pre-trial stage (Section 7, R.A. No. 7691).
sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one (1) year and to pay a fine
of P70,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of The cases against complainant were filed on November 5, 1993,
insolvency. No pronouncement as to civil liability as the same was five (5) months before the approval of the law on March 25, 1994.
already paid. Since the last check covered by Check No. The law became effective 15 days after its complete publication in
SRD043939 in the amount of P50,000.00 was dishonored by the the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general
drawee bank, accused is hereby ordered to indemnify the circulation (Section 8, R.A. No. 7691).
offended party the said amount of P50,000.00.
Concerning the alleged defect of the Informations in not
For violation of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, accused is specifying the exact place and time of the commission of the
found guilty for the crime of Estafa defined and punished under crime, a perusal of the Informations filed by the City Prosecutor
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and in the absence of mitigating shows that the situs (Manila) and date (first week of March, 1993)
and aggravating circumstances and applying the indeterminate of the commission of the offenses charged were sufficiently
sentence law, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve alleged. The specific place in Manila and the precise time need not
(12) years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty be stated, because they are not essential elements of the offense
years of reclusion temporal as maximum. No pronouncement as charged. If the stand of the complainant is that the charges in
to civil liability as the same was already paid. The bailbond posted the Informations did not constitute offenses, her remedy would
by herein accused for her provisional liberty is hereby ordered have been the timely filing of a motion to quash before the trial
cancelled." and not to raise the issue collaterally after the decision had been
rendered. After the decision, the complainant's remedy is to
Dissatisfied and aggrieved, she filed before us, this Administrative appeal, which she availed of by filing a notice of appeal.

Page 201 of 233

 the actual date of promulgation, the respondent Judge, who found
Regarding the prosecution's to offer in evidence the original no justifiable basis to change his disposition of the case, simply
checks issued by Gutierrez, respondent Judge commented that crossed out the previous date, December 2, 1994, on the last page
the same is of no moment because while the original checks were and superimposed the current date - May 25, 1995.
not presented anymore, there is an admission that accused
Gutierrez got back the bouncing checks from Ligaya Santos. This Contrary therefore to the complainant's charge, the promulgation
document was presented as an exhibit by the prosecution and was of the Decision, in respondent's view was not precipitate. As a
not denied by the accused. matter of fact, in obedience to the Court of Appeals, the
promulgation was deferred several times.
Anent the charge that the penalty of twelve (12) years of
Reclusion Temporal was arbitrarily and unjustly imposed, the According to respondent there was no basis to change his mind, as
respondent argued that the penalty is based on the amount the accused did not present witnesses in her defense despite
subject of the fraud which is P370,000.00. Under Art. 315 (1st ample opportunities granted her. After her counsel's
par.), the penalty for estafa is prision correccional in its maximum manifestation in court that if Fiscal Velasco were around, he would
period to prision mayor in its minimum period if the amount is over be presented to testify to the effect that it was before him that
P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00. If there is an excess, the Affidavit of Desistance of Ligaya Santos was sworn to, and to
for every P10,000.00 excess, there is an additional penalty of one which the public prosecutor offered no objection and even
year. If computed totally, the excess would amount to 34.8 years. admitted the tenor of the offer, there was nothing more to be
But under the same Article, the maximum shall only be 20 years. done. This was the only "evidence" offered by the accused. The
In imposing the penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor as public prosecutor moved for the submission of the case, which was
minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum, granted. Hence, according to the respondent, there was no reason
respondent Judge merely exercised his discretion as the penalty to re-write the whole decision where there was no reason for the
was within the range fixed by law. respondent Judge to change his disposition. He added, this was not
antedating. There would be antedating, if the decision were made
On the charge that respondent's decision was antedated and on May 25, 1995 but backdated December 2, 1994. Neither was it
promulgated in a rush, respondent stated that this charge is pre-judgment, he said. Rather, it was a judgment promulgated
unfair, unjust and baseless because it was made to appear belatedly because of the Court of Appeals' restraining order,
wrongly that the respondent Judge falsified his own decision and which order eventually "self-destructed" after the lapse of twenty
promulgated it without notice at all. (20) days. The accused was fully aware of the developments in the
cases, particularly the deferred promulgation of the decision for
According to respondent, the records will show that as early as several months, said the respondent.
October 25, 1994, he already set the promulgation of the decision
at 8:30 A.M. on November 24, 1994. During the interim, the Lastly, respondent averred that the cancellation of
complainant filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of complainant's bail bond was not whimsical nor arbitrary. After
Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 35373) questioning the Order denying her the promulgation of the Decision convicting the accused for a
"Demurrer to Evidence", resulting in the cancellation of the penalty higher than six (6) years, under Circular No. 12-94, the
promulgation set on November 24, 1994 which was reset to accused must be ordered committed in jail. The respondent could
December 6, 1994. On said date, the decision was not promulgated not question the wisdom of the Circular, he was under obligation
because of a Restraining Order issued by the Court of Appeals. to implement it.
Consequently, the promulgation was reset to February 21, 1995,
which was "intransferable" in character. But since, the respondent Considering carefully the complainant's charges and the
was still waiting for developments in the Court of Appeals, the respondent Judge's Comments thereon, We find that except for
promulgation was reset for the fourth time to March 23, 1995, one issue, the aforementioned charges have been sufficiently and
and then for the 5th time to April 18, 1995. Prior to April 18, satisfactorily refuted by respondent. However, with respect to
1995, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision on the certiorari the prosecution's failure to present in evidence the original checks
case, dismissing the same but allowing Gutierrez to present her subject of the informations filed against the accused Gutierrez,
evidence. We are not in accord with respondent Judge's conclusion that that
same is inconsequential for her conviction.
Pursuant to the decision of the Court of Appeals, the cases were set
for reception of accused's evidence on three (3) dates: May 16, 23 and For, it is not disputed that the five (5) checks subject of the five
25, 1995. On May 16, 1995, complainant asked for postponement. On informations for Violation of B.P., Blg. 22 and the information for
May 23, 1995, she asked for another postponement. On May 25, 1995, Estafa, are UCPB checks with Nos. SRD022496, SRD022513,
when the accused still failed to present evidence, so as not to PTU031796, PTU031797, and PTU031798. It is also not disputed that
frustrate the wheels of justice and make a mockery of the solemn all these five (5) checks were not presented and formally offered in
judicial system, the respondent was left without any recourse but to evidence. Rather, the evidence of the prosecution consisted of the
exercise the coercive power of the court by promulgating the decision replacement check drawn against UCPB, namely, Check No. SRD043939,
which was supposed to have been promulgated way back December 6, the return deposit slip issued by the PNB indicating that this
1994. To conform with replacement check was dishonored by the UCPB

Page 202 of 233

for the reason, "stop payment", and the testimony of the PNB the charges of gross ignorance of the law and of knowingly rendering
representative, one Hernando Balmores, Jr. to the effect that an unjust decision. Rather, it is at most an error in judgment, for
this replacement check was indeed returned by the UCPB for the which, as a general rule, he cannot be held administratively liable. In
reason aforestated. This was very explicit from the Order of this regard, we reiterate the prevailing rule in our jurisdiction as
respondent Judge 3 denying petitioner's motion for established by current jurisprudence:
reconsideration from the denial of her Demurrer to Evidence to
wit: "We have heretofore ruled that a judge may not be held
administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision
". . . On the matter of the failure of the prosecution to mark in he renders. To unjustifiably hold otherwise, assuming that he has
evidence the checks as alleged in the information, the prosecuting erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his
fiscal alleged that what was marked is a document executed by position doubly unbearable, for no one called upon to try the facts
the accused to the effect that said checks were in her possession or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be
and that the same were replaced with other checks. Now, as to infallible in his judgment. The error must be gross or patent,
the matter of the representative of the bank not coming from the malicious, deliberate or in evident bad faith. It is only in this
drawee bank, the Court considers this testimony of the witness as latter instance, when the judge acts fraudulently or with gross
only a part of the evidence for the prosecution." ignorance, that administrative sanctions are called for as an
imperative duty of this Court.
Undoubtedly, respondent Judge based the judgment of conviction,
not on the checks themselves, as these were not proffered in "As a matter of public policy then, the acts of a judge in his official
evidence, but on petitioner's written statement, dated November capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts
15, 1995, which respondent judge considered as admission on the are erroneous. Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or
part of the petitioner that, she had indeed, issued the bouncing improper considerations are sufficient defenses in which a judge
checks subject of the informations but that she had replaced charged with ignorance of the law can find refuge. . .
them with new checks. ." 7

Evidently, respondent Judge misconstrued and misapplied the Moreover, it must be stressed that in the case of De la Cruz vs.
rule with regard to admissions in criminal cases. Concepcion 8 this Court declared that:

The issue of whether or not an admission in criminal cases is "Mere errors in the appreciation of evidence, unless so gross and
adequate to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of patent as to produce an inference of ignorance or bad faith, or of
the crime charged has been settled in the case of People vs. knowing rendition of an unjust decision, are irrelevant and
Solayao 4 where this Court made the following pronouncements: immaterial in an administrative proceeding against him. No one,
called upon to try facts or interpret the law in the process of
". . . By its very nature, an "admission is the mere acknowledgment administering justice, can be infallible in his judgment. All that is
of a fact or of circumstances from which guilt may be inferred, expected of him is that he follow the rules prescribed to ensure
tending to incriminate the speaker, but not sufficient of itself to a fair and impartial hearing, assess the different factors that
establish his guilt." In other words it is a "statement by defendant emerge therefrom and bear on the issues presented, and on the
of fact or facts pertinent to issues pending, in connection with basis of the conclusions he finds established, with only his
proof of other facts or circumstances, to prove guilt, but which is, conscience and knowledge of the law to guide him, adjudicate the
of itself, insufficient to authorize conviction." From the above case accordingly." 9
principles, this Court can infer that an admission in criminal cases
is insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission In this case, the record is bereft of any evidence to conclusively
of the crime charged. 5 show that the respondent Judge's actuations were tainted with
malice and bad faith, hence the administrative charges against
By itself, herein complainant's letter dated November 15, 1995, him must fail.
which respondent Judge construed as an admission that she
indeed issued the checks subject of the Informations filed WHEREFORE, the instant complaint for Serious Misconduct,
against her and that she was replacing them with new ones, does Graft and Corruption, Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Decision,
not prove beyond reasonable doubt her culpability under B.P. 22 Falsification of Public Document, and Gross Ignorance of the Law
and Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. To establish her against respondent Judge Rodolfo G. Palattao is hereby
guilt, it is indispensable that the checks she issued for which she DISMISSED for lack of merit.
was subsequently charged, be offered in evidence because the
gravamen of the offense charged is the act of knowingly issuing a SO ORDERED.
check with insufficient funds. 6 Clearly, it was error to convict
complainant on the basis of her letter alone. Exceptions to res inter alios acta rule
Nevertheless, despite this incorrect interpretation of a rule on
[1996V767] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
evidence, we do not find the same as sufficiently constitutive of
appellee, vs.

Page 203 of 233

SABAS RAQUEL, VALERIANO RAQUEL and AMADO the shooting incident. (pp. 12-14, ibid.)
PONCE, accused.
SABAS RAQUEL and VALERIANO RAQUEL, accused- Appellants were later on apprehended on different occasions.
appellants.1996 December 022nd DivisionG.R. No. (pp. 5-6, TSN, April 2, 1991) 4
119005REGALADO, J.:
Upon the other hand, appellants relied on alibi as their defense, on
the bases of facts which are presented in their brief in this wise:
The court a quo found herein accused-appellants Sabas Raquel
and Valeriano Raquel, as well as accused Amado Ponce, guilty of Accused Valeriano Raquel testified that on July 2, 1986, with the
the crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced them to suffer permission of his parents he left Paatan, Kabacan, Cotabato and
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay the heirs of Agapito went to Tunggol Pagalungan, Maguindanao. He stayed in the house
Gambalan, Jr. the sum of P50,000.00 as indemnity for his death, of his sister-in-law, the wife of his deceased brother. Together
and the amount of P1,500.00 representing the value of the stolen with Boy Madriaga and Corazon Corpuz, he harvested palay on July
revolver. 1 The Raquel brothers now plead for their absolution in 3 and 4. On July 5, while he was still asle(ep), police authorities
this appellate review. accompanied by his father arrested him and brought him to the
municipal jail of Kabacan, Cotabato. He already heard the name of
In an information dated August 27, 1986, the aforementioned accused Amado Ponce, to be an owner of a parcel of land in Paatan.
accused were indicted for robbery with homicide before the
Regional Trial Court of Kabacan, Cotabato, Branch 16, 2 allegedly On cross-examination, he admitted that their house and that
committed on July 4, 1986 in Barangay Osias of the Municipality of Gambalan are located in the same Barangay. Before July 4,
of Kabacan. he entertained no grudge against victim Agapito Gambalan.
(TSN, April 2, 1991, pp. 2-20).
Upon arraignment thereafter, all the accused pleaded not guilty.
While trial was in progress, however, and before he could give Antonio Raquel, 64 years old, testified that on July 2, 1986 he was
his testimony, accused Amado Ponce escaped from jail. 3 at home when his son Valeriano Raquel told him that he was going
to Tungol, Pagalungan, Maguindanao to harvest palay. On (the)
The factual antecedents of the case for the People, as borne out same date, his other son, Sabas Raquel, also asked his permission
by the evidence of record and with page references to the to leave since the latter, a soldier, was going to his place of
transcripts of the court hearings, are summarized by the assignment at Pagadian. On July 5, 1986, several policemen came
Solicitor General in the appellee's brief: over to his house, looking for his two (2) sons. He gave them
pictures of his sons and even accompanied them to Tungol where
At midnight of July 4, 1986, tragedy visited the peaceful lives of they arrested his son Valeriano. (TSN, April 3, 1991, pp. 3-26).
spouses Juliet and Agapito Gambalan, Jr. Thinking of a neighbor
in need, Agapito attended to the person knocking at the backdoor T/Sgt. Natalio Zafra, of the 102 Brigade, Aurora, Zamboanga,
of their kitchen. Much to his surprise, heavily armed men testified that on July 4, 1986, he was assigned in the 2nd Infantry
emerged at the door, declared a hold-up and fired their guns at Battalion, First Infantry Division, Maria Cristina, Iligan City.
him. (pp. 4-6, TSN, January 25, 1988) Sabas Raquel was under his division then, and was on duty on July
4, 1986. (TSN, Nov. 6, 1992, pp. 2-20). 5
Juliet went out of their room after hearing gunshots and saw her
husband's lifeless (sic) while a man took her husband's gun and On August 10, 1993, the trial court, as stated at the outset,
left hurriedly. (p. 7, ibid.) rendered judgment finding all of the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentenced them
She shouted for help at their window and saw a man fall beside accordingly. 6
their water pump while two (2) other men ran away. (p. 9, ibid.)
Not satisfied therewith, herein appellants filed a notice of appeal
George Jovillano responded to Juliet's plea for help. He reported wherein they manifested that they were appealing the decision to
the incident to the police. The police came and found one of the the Court of Appeals. 7 The lower court ordered the transmittal of
perpetrators of the crime wounded and lying at about 8 meters the records of the case to the Court of Appeals. 8 In view of the
from the victim's house. He was identified as Amado Ponce. (pp. 5- penalty imposed, the Court of Appeals properly forwarded the
7, TSN, October 21, 1987; pp. 8-9, TSN, March 21, 1988) same to us. 9

Amado Ponce was first treated at a clinic before he was brought Before us, the defense submits a lone assignment of error, i.e.,
to the police station. (p. 27, ibid.) that the trial court erred in convicting accused Sabas Raquel
and Valeriano Raquel of the crime charged, despite absence of
Amado Ponce revealed to P/Sgt. Andal S. Pangato that appellants evidence positively implicating them as the perpetrators of the
Sabas and Valeriano Raquel were the perpetrators of the crime crime.
and that they may be found in their residence. However, the police
failed to find them there since appellants fled immediately after We find such submission to be meritorious. A careful review and

Page 204 of 233

objective appraisal of the evidence convinces us that the right?
prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the A: Yes, sir.
real identities of the perpetrators of, much less the
participation of herein appellants in, the crime charged. Now, you saw these persons running on the road, is that not
right?
The lone eyewitness, Juliet Gambalan, was not able to identify A: I saw them running sir going around.
the assailants of her husband. In her testimony on direct
examination in court she declared as follows: Q: These two (2) persons were running going around?
They were running towards the
You said you shouted right after the incident and pip (sic)
at the window, did you see any when you pip (sic) at the window? road. ATTY. DIVINO: Going to the road.
A; Yes, sir.
And you cannot identify these two (2) persons running
Q: What did you see if you were able to see anything? towards the road?
I saw a person who fel(l) down beside the water pump and A: No, sir. 12
I saw again two (2) persons who were running away, sir.
Even the corroborating witness, George Jovillano, in his testimony
Were you able to identify this persons who fel(l) down made no mention of who shot Agapito Gambalan. In fact, in his sworn
near the jetmatic pump and two (2) persons running away? statement executed in the Investigation Section of the Kabacan Police
Station on July 5, 1986, he declared that:
Xxx xxx xxx
19Q: By the way, when you saw three persons passing about 5
Now, you said somebody fel(l) down near the jetmatic meters away from where you were then drinking, what have
pump, who is this person? you noticed about them, if you ever noticed any?
I do not know sir. I have known that he was Amado Ponce I noticed that one of the men ha(d) long firearm which was
when the Police arrived. 10 partly covered by a maong jacket. The other one wore a hat locally
known as "kipis" meaning a hat made of cloth with leaves
On cross-examination she further testified: protruding above the forehead and seemed to be holding
something which I failed to recognize. The other one wore a
Q: For the first time when you shouted for help, where were you? shortpant with a somewhat white T-shirt with markings and there
I was at the Veranda sir and I started shouting while going was a white T-shirt covering his head and a part of his face as he
to our room. was head-down during that time.

In fact you have no way (of) identifying that one person 20Q: Did you recognized any of these men?
who was mask(ed) and got the gun of your husband because he No. Because they walked fast. 13
was mask(ed), is that not right?
A: Yes, sir. A thorough review of the records of this case readily revealed
that the identification of herein appellants as the culprits was
In fact, you saw only this one person got inside to your based chiefly on the extrajudicial statement of accused Amado
house and got this gun? Ponce pointing to them as his co-perpetrators of the crime. As
A: Yes, sir. earlier stated, the said accused escaped from jail before he could
testify in court and he has been at large since then.
And this Amado Ponce cannot be the person who have got
this gun inside? The extrajudicial statements of an accused implicating a co-
accused may not be utilized against the latter, unless these are
FISCAL DIZON: Already answered. repeated in open court. If the accused never had the opportunity
to cross-examine his co-accused on the latter's extrajudicial
She was not able to identify, your Honor. statements, it is elementary that the same are hearsay as against
said accused. 14 That is exactly the situation, and the
You only saw this Amado Ponce when (h)e was presented to disadvantaged plight of appellants, in the case at bar.
you by the police, is that right?
A: Yes, sir. 11 Extreme caution should be exercised by the courts in dealing with
the confession of an accused which implicates his co-accused. A
xxx xxx distinction, obviously, should be made between extrajudicial and
xxx judicial confessions. The former deprives the other accused of
the opportunity to cross-examine the confessant, while in the
You testified in direct testimony you pip (sic) in jalousie after latter his confession is thrown wide open for cross-examination
you shouted for help and you saw two (2) person(s) running, is that and rebuttal. 15

Page 205 of 233

 considered in the adjudication of the case. While the right to
The res inter alios rule ordains that the rights of a party cannot counsel may be waived, such waiver must be made with the
be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. An assistance of counsel. 21 These rights, both constitutional
extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is and statutory in source and foundation, were never observed.
not admissible against his co-accused. The reason for the rule is
that, on a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man's A conviction in a criminal case must rest on nothing less than a
own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. moral certainty of guilt. 22 Without the positive identification of
So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be appellants, the evidence of the prosecution is not sufficient to
rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should overcome the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Bill of
be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a Rights to them. 23 While admittedly the alibi of appellants may
party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither be assailable, the evidence of the prosecution is probatively low in
ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him. 16 substance and evidentiarily barred in part. The prosecution cannot
use the weakness of the defense to enhance its case; it must rely
Although the above-stated rule admits of certain on the strength of its own evidence. In fact, alibi need not be
jurisprudential exceptions, 17 those exceptions do not however inquired into where the prosecution's evidence is weak. 24
apply to the present case.
It would not even have been necessary to stress that every
Firstly, except for that extrajudicial statement of accused Amado reasonable doubt in criminal cases must be resolved in favor of
Ponce, there exists no evidence whatsoever linking appellants to the the accused. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt
crime. In fact, the testimony of police Sgt. Andal S. Pangato that calls for moral certainty of guilt. In the instant case, the test of
appellant Sabas Raquel was wounded and went to the clinic of Dr. moral certainty was neither met nor were the standards therefor
Anulao for treatment using the name Dante Clemente, 18 was negated fulfilled.
by Dr. Anulao himself who testified that he treated no person by the
name of Danny Clemente. 19 WHEREFORE, on reasonable doubt, the appealed judgment is
REVERSED and accused-appellants Sabas Raquel and Valeriano
Secondly, this extrajudicial statement, ironically relied upon as Raquel are hereby ACQUITTED of the offense charged, with
prosecution evidence, was made in violation of the constitutional rights costs de oficio.
of accused Amado Ponce. This was unwittingly admitted in the
testimony of the same Sgt. Andal S. Pangato who was the chief of the SO ORDERED.
intelligence and investigation section of their police station:

INTERLOCKING CONFESSIONS
During the investigation did you inform him (of) his
constitutional right while on the process of investigation?
No sir, because my purpose was only to get the [1998V97] [1/2] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
information from him . . . And after that I checked the appellee, vs. ROBERTO "RAMBO" LISING, RODOLFO MANALILI,
information that he gave. FELIMON GARCIA, ENRICO DIZON, and ROBIN MANGA,
accused-appellants.1998 January 301st DivisionG.R. Nos. 106210-
11DECISION
Of course, you know very well that the accused should be
assisted by counsel?
What I know is if when a person is under investigation you The parents of Cochise and Beebom must have lifted their
have in mind to investigate as to against (sic) him, and you have to sorrowful faces heavenward and blurted out an anguished cry:
inform his constitutional right but if the purpose is to interrogate "Oh God! Why must it be they, so young, so loving, so beautiful
him to acquire information which will lead to the identity of the and so promising, to be brutally snatched from our embrace and
other accused we do not need to inform him. never to be seen again?"

Don't you know that under the case of PP vs. Galit; the Cochise, whose full name was Ernesto Bernabe II, was 26 years old
accused should be (re)presented by counsel that is the ruling on the fateful day of April 26, 1990 and Ana Lourdes Castaños, or
of the Supreme Court? Beebom to her family and friends, was 22. Cochise had just
I do not know if it is actually the same as this case. graduated from the University of the Philippines with a degree of
Bachelor of Laws and was reviewing for the bar examinations,
while Beebom was a graduating student at the College of Mass
Q: But it is a fact that you did not even inform him (of) his right?
Communications from the same university. Both excelled in
A: No sir.
academic and extra-curricular activities.
Q: At the time when you asked him he has no counsel.
The senseless and gruesome killing of the young man and woman,
A: No counsel, Sir. 20
both full of promise, horrifies us. But what makes this crime more
despicable in our eyes is the involvement of people sworn to uphold
Extrajudicial statements made during custodial investigation
the law.
without the assistance of counsel are inadmissible and cannot be
For the crimes for which they were charged and sentenced,

Page 206 of 233

appellants now come to this Court asking us to give their case The young couple's failure to go home that night and the next
a second look, insisting on their innocence. day alarmed their parents, so a search was then initiated by close
friends and relatives — inquiring from hospitals, restaurants,
Sometime in March, 1990, Rodolfo Manalili, a businessman asked friends' houses and possible places where the couple would go.
Felimon Garcia, his townmate, if he knew somebody who could
allegedly effect the arrest of one Robert Herrera, the suspect One group chanced upon Dayrit's Ham and Burger House where
in the killing of his brother, Delfin Manalili. they were told that a couple who fitted their descriptions
were taken by three (3) men believed to be from the military
Felimon Garcia said he knew one and arranged a meeting with him. in the evening of April 25, 1990.

On April 21, 1990, Felimon Garcia called up Manalili and informed The abduction of Cochise and Beebom hit the front pages. Appeals
him that he already contacted a policeman to help him and said by the parents to locate them reached the authorities where all
that the policeman wanted to talk to him. So an appointment was possible angles of their disappearance were explored but there
set at 12:00 p.m. of April 22, 1990 at Dau Exit, North were no significant leads. After about two (2) months of futile
Expressway, Mabalacat, Pampanga. search for their whereabouts, a break came on June 21, 1990
when two (2) security guards working in a Shellane Warehouse in
On said date Manalili, together with his son Richard, arrived at San Fernando, Pampanga went to see Ms. Rosie Bernabe at her
the Dau Exit at about 12:30 p.m. of April 22, 1990. Felimon Garcia Pasay City Hall office and had information concerning her son,
was already there waiting for Manalili. Cochise. Mrs. Bernabe referred the two guards to the CAPCOM
who interviewed them.
They proceeded to the Golden Palace Chinese Restaurant where
they would meet Roberto Lising. They, however, had to change The two guards told the CAPCOM that their friends Raul
venue because Roberto Lising's live-in partner, Ligaya Fausto and Morales and Jun Medrano, both employees of Roberto Lising,
other companions were in the restaurant. So they went instead to informed them that Lising killed a mestisuhin man and a woman in
a nearby carinderia and instructed Felimon Garcia to follow them their warehouse.
there.
On June 23, 1990, Raul Morales was picked up and told his story.
Shortly, Felimon Garcia arrived and introduced Roberto Lising, In a sworn statement executed on even date, he stated that he
Enrico Dizon and another man armed with a service pistol to was a pahinante residing in the warehouse where LPG cylinders
Manalili. During the meeting, Manalili offered to pay them are stored, located near Valle Verde Drive-In Lodge in San
P50,000.00 for the job. Initially, Manalili gave them P2,000.00 Fernando, Pampanga, owned by Ligaya Fausto, common-law wife of
and instructed them to go and see Vic Nabua, * his employee who Roberto Lising alias "Rambo." In the main, he said:
will point to them the person to be arrested.
T: Sa ikaliliwanag ng pagsisiyasat na ito, maaari bang
On April 23-24, Lising's group went to Quezon City and met with isalaysay mo ang sinasabi mong hindi pangkaraniwang pangyayari?
Vic Lisboa. They conducted a surveillance on the Castaños
residence in the hope of seeing Herrera. Failing to do so, the Nangyari yan alas 2:00 ng madaling araw ng 26 April 1990
group was asked to come back the next day. natutulog ako, nang mayron kumatok sa pinto ng bodega at nagising
ako. Tinawag ko si Aida Morales para buksan ang gate tapos sabi ni
On April 25, the same group arrived at the vicinity of the Aida "Ikaw na lang ang magbukas" pagkatapos kinuha ko yung susi sa
Castaños residence at around 5:00 p.m. to resume their kanya para buksan yong gate. Noong binubuksan ko yong gate sabi
surveillance. Two hours later, Lisboa alerted the group after sa akin ni Roberto Lising "Bakit ang tagal mo" tapos pakabukas ko
allegedly spotting Herrera entering the Castaños residence. ng gate pumasok yong dalawang kotse, una yong itim pagkatapos
yong green na kotse na Lancer, tapos unang bumaba sa kotse na itim
Later, the group saw a man and a woman who happened to be si Rambo, pangalawa si Felimon bumaba sa kotse na Lancer may dala
Cochise and Beebom leave the Castaños residence in a green na pala. Pagkatapos lumabas ng gate si Felimon may dala na pala. Si
box type Lancer car. The group followed the Lancer car with Rambo naman binuksan yong dalawang pinto ng kotseng itim bumaba
Lising, Dizon and Manga riding in a black car and Lisboa and yong babae at saka yong lalaki hinila palabas ni Rambo. Pagkatapos
Garcia in a motorcycle. tinalian niya ng alambre bukod pa sa pagtali ng alambre pati pa yong
mukha tinalian ng damit. Pagkatapos pagtali ni Rambo, biglang
The Lancer car went to Dayrit's Ham and Burger House on Timog dumating si Felimon dala pa yong pala pagkatapos sininyasan si
Circle, Quezon City where the couple intended to have dinner. Rambo na ilabas na iyong lalaki. Dinala ulit ni Rambo ang pala noong
Alighting from the car, they were accosted by Dizon and Manga palabas na sila noong lalaki. Pagkatapos ayaw nga lumabas ng lalaki,
who were both carrying firearms. Amidst protestations, Dizon itinulak ni Rambo papunta sa labas, sabi naman ng babae maawa
poked his gun at Cochise, handcuffed him, and shoved him into naman po kayo sa amin dahil wala kaming kasalanan" pagkatapos
the car. Beebom protested loudly at the arrest and was also tinutukan ni Rambo yong babae at sabi "Putang ina mo, wag kang
shoved into the back of the car. maingay, papatayin rin kita". Noong dinala na ni Rambo, umiiyak na
lang yong babae. Mga kalahating oras bago bumalik si Rambo sa

Page 207 of 233

bodega na hindi na kasama yong lalaki. Nakahubad siya at
pinapawisan, bukod pa yan, naghugas pa ng kamay siya. Pagkatapos On January 16, 1991, Enrico Dizon was turned over by his
nag-usap-usap silang tatlo, si Rambo, si Felimon at yong kasama ni superiors to the NBI. He named a certain CIC Robin Manga as one
Rambo. Pagkatapos nagsabi si Rambo sa akin na buksan na ang gate of their companions and owner of the car they used when Cochise
at aalis na sila. Binuksan ko ang gate at nagsakayan sila sa kotse, si and Beebom were kidnapped. Thus, Manga was also picked up.
Rambo sa itim at saka yong babae, sa Lancer naman ang nakasakay
yong kasama niya at si Felimon, at pagkatapos lumabas na sila, tuloy Meanwhile, Rodolfo Manalili, who was in Australia at that time
tuloy na umalis. 1 was fetched by then NBI Director Alfredo Lim and Atty. Diego
Gutierrez after proper representations were made with the
On June 25, 1990, the body of Cochise was exhumed. An autopsy Australian police.
was conducted where the finding was: Cause of Death: "Multiple
Stab Wounds." On January 17, 1991 Felimon Garcia, with the assistance of
his counsel, Atty. Redemberto Villanueva, executed a
The next day, Beebom's body, which was in an advanced statement revealing that:
decomposing stage was exhumed from a shallow grave, two
(2) kilometers from where Cochise's body was found. . . . he met RODOLFO MANALILI sometime in April 1987 in his
office at No. 71 Mapang-akit Street corner V. Luna, Quezon City
After evading arrest the previous days, Roberto Lising was finally while soliciting contribution for the Barangay fiesta of San Isidro,
apprehended on June 30, 1990. In a Sworn Statement executed Minalin. The relationship continued until he was requested by
on the same day at Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, he implicated MANALILI to look for persons who could help in arresting
Felimon Garcia and Rodolfo Manalili. According to him, this is what ROBERTO HERRERA, the suspect in the killing of his brother
happened: DELFIN MANALILI. He contacted ROBERTO LISING alias
RAMBO, a policemen assigned with Pampanga PC Intelligence Unit,
. . . at about 11:00 o'clock in the evening of April 25, 1990, he thru LIGAYA FAUSTO, his relative and live-in partner of LISING
received a telephone call from FELIMON GARCIA informing that to help in the arrest of HERRERA, and on April 21, 1990, while in
he and his companions were at Valle Verde Lodge at San Fernando, the residence of LISING, he placed a long-distance call to
Pampanga and that they have a problem. He immediately went to MANALILI to inform him that LISING is willing to help. They
that place and saw FELIMON GARCIA who introduced to him talked over the phone and agreed to meet the following day in
RUDY MANALILI who was then accompanied by six (6) other men; Dau. He met MANALILI at the Dau-Mabalacat exit and
that he saw a yellow Mercedes Benz, a black Torana and a green accompanied the latter to LISING, ENRICO DIZON AND
Lancer; that on board the Lancer were a man and a woman who ANOTHER MAN ARMED WITH SERVICE PISTOL (.45 CALIBER)
were blindfolded and were introduced to him by RUDY MANALILI AND Armalite. MANALILI, during the meeting, said that VIC
as ROBERTO HERRERA and JOY MANALILI; that they proceeded NABUA, his employee, will act as pointer of the persons to be
to one of the rooms of the motel where MANALILI told him that arrested and LISING agreed and asked from MANALILI
the two persons should die because they killed his brother P50,000.00 for the job to which MANALILI agreed. Initially
DELFIN MANALILI; that afterwards RUDY MANALILI paid the MANALILI gave P2,000.00 to LISING as expenses.
chit and they proceeded to the warehouse at Villa Victoria, San
Fernando, Pampanga, owned by LIGAYA FAUSTO where he bound He together with LISING, ENRICO DIZON and the driver of a
COCHISE and led him to the back of the warehouse; that Tamaraw went to Quezon City on April 23 and 24, 1990, but VIC
MANALILI stabbed COCHISE and he acted only as a look-out; NABUA failed to spot HERRERA. On April 25, 1990, LISING and
that FELIMON GARCIA and another person brought the DIZON returned on board a black car, Colt Galant (sic) driven by
blindfolded woman to Brgy. San Agustin where she was killed; that ROBIN MANGA and NABUA finally told them that HERRERA was
before he, FELIMON GARCIA and RUDY MANALILI parted ways, at a house near the Camelot. After a few minutes of surveillance
MANALILI told him to take care of the Lancer, change its color NABUA approached them and told them to follow the car driven by
and later he will get it and after that he was given P40,000.00 in a man with a woman companion. Said car proceeded to Timog Circle
check which he encashed at the UCPB Diliman Branch, Quezon City and parked in front of Dayrit Hamburger House, followed by the
on April 26, 1990; that he gave P15,000.00 to FELIMON GARCIA Colt Galant which they likewise followed on board a motor and
and kept the rest; that he had the Lancer repainted and used it. 2 handcuffed the man and the woman. Then LISING instructed him
to contact MANALILI and to follow them to Pampanga. He,
Thereafter, the manhunt for Felimon Garcia and Rodolfo MANALILI and VIC NABUA proceeded to Pampanga PC where
Manalili began. One by one, the men responsible for the killing of they were instructed by the military on duty to proceed to Valle
Cochise and Beebom fell into the hands of the authorities. Verde Lodge, San Fernando, Pampanga. There they saw LISING
and ERNESTO COCHISE BERNABE and BEEBOM CASTAÑOS.
On January 4, 1991, Garcia surrendered and was brought to the MANALILI identified them and instructed him and LISING to
NBI. He named Pat. Enrico Dizon as the companion of Lising release COCHISE and BEEBOM and assured that whatever
when Cochise and Beebom were kidnapped and brought to Valle MANALILI promised to LISING WILL BE PAID. Lising AGREED.
Verde Lodge. He refused to make a statement or give further However, after MANALILI left, LISING told him to bring
information until Rodolfo Manalili was arrested. COCHISE and BEEBOM to a warehouse owned by LIGAYA

Page 208 of 233

FAUSTO where COCHISE was killed by LISING. Thereafter He claimed that the police officers he saw in Valle Verde Hotel
BEEBOM was forced by ENRICO DIZON and ROBIN MANGA were Pampanga policemen and not Quezon City policemen. 4
top board the Galant car which left the warehouse towards
Barangay San Agustin. Consequently, two (2) Amended Informations were filed in court
against Roberto "Rambo" Lising, Rodolfo Manalili, Felimon
He and LISING were left in the warehouse and proceeded to the Garcia, Enrico Dizon, Robin Manga, and Ligaya Fausto.
house of LIGAYA FAUSTO at MALIGAYA Village in San Fernando. At
about 9:00 a.m. he and LISING went to the warehouse of MANALILI Criminal Case No. Q-90-15239
at Xavierville Subdivision, Quezon City and there a check for
P40,000.00 was given to LISING who encashed it with Fareast Bank For Carnapping (Violation of Republic Act No. 6539) 5
and went to Pampanga. He alighted at Sto. Domingo, Minalin, Pampanga
after LISING gave him P500.00. 3 That on or about the 25th day of April 1990, in Quezon City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
Rodolfo Manalili, on the other hand, with the assistance of Atty. said accused, P/Pfc. Roberto Lising y Canlas, Enrico Dizon, Robin
Rodolfo Jimenez manifested on January 18, 1991: Manga y Quimzon, being then members of the Integrated National
Police with Presidential waiver, and Rodolfo Manalili, Felimon Garcia
that he met LISING through FELIMON GARCIA whom he and Ligaya Fausto, private individuals and several Does, conspiring
requested to look for some police officers who could help in together, confederating with and mutually helping one another,
the arrest of ROBERTO HERRERA, the accused in the killing of with intent to gain, and without the knowledge and consent of the
his brother DELFIN MANALILI. owner thereof, by means of violence and intimidation against
persons, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
He met LISING together with a certain Pat. ENRICO DIZON of take, rob and carry away one G.T. Lancer, with Plate No. PER 942 in
the Guagua police and another police officer in Dau, Pampanga on an undetermined value and belonging to Ernesto Bernabe II, to the
April 22, 1990, and gave them a sketch of HERRERA. On April 24, damage and prejudice of the offended party in such amount as may
1990, he told GARCIA to postpone their plan against HERRERA be awarded under the provisions of the Civil Code. 6
due to his forthcoming travel to Germany on April 25. However, at
about 10:00 p.m. of April 25, GARCIA came to his office at No. 71 Criminal Case No. Q-90-15240
Mapangakit, Diliman, Quezon City and informed that they have
already arrested HERRERA with a lady companion and that he was For: Kidnapping with Double Murder 7
instructed to go to Pampanga, which he did. He was accompanied in
his car by GARCIA and VICTOR LISBOA. That on or about the 25th day of April, 1990, in Quezon City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
They proceeded to Valle Verde Hotel in San Fernando, Pampanga, accused, P/Pfc. Roberto "Rambo" Lising y Canlas, Enrico Dizon, Roberto
and brought him to Room 213 where he saw a man slumped on the (sic) Manga y Quimzon, being then members of the Integrated National
floor with his eyes and mouth covered with tape. The lady Police with Presidential waiver, and Rodolfo Manalili, Felimon Garcia,
companion sitting on the bed had her eyes also taped. He told both private individuals, and several Does, Conspiring together,
LISING that the man is not HERRERA. He was forced to peek (sic) confederating with and mutually helping one another, did, then and
inside the room anew, and this time recognized the woman to be there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and for the purpose of
BEEBOM CASTAÑOS. He pleaded to LISING and his companions detaining Ernesto Bernabe II y Blanco @ 'Cochise' and Ana Lourdes
to release them and would give them whatever amount he promised Castaños y Jis de Ortega @ 'Beebom,' kidnap or in any manner deprive
them. them of their liberty and thereafter, pursuant to their Conspiracy,
After he was told that BEEBOM and COCHISE would be released took them to San Fernando, Pampanga, and with intent to kill, with
he instructed GARCIA to stay behind and see to it that his treachery, evident premeditation and cruelty, did, then and there stab
instructions were complied with. Then, he returned with VICTOR them several times in the chest and slit open their necks, augmenting
LISBOA. The following day, at about 8:00 a.m., LISING and their sufferings which were the direct and immediate cause of their
GARCIA came to his house and told him that the man and BEEBOM deaths and thereafter burying them to prevent discovery, and Ligaya
were already released and in turn gave them a Far East Bank check Fausto, also a private individual, knowing the criminal intent of, the
in the amount of P40,000.00. above-named principal accused cooperated in the execution of the
On April 26, he left for Germany and returned on May 28, 1990. crime by supplying material and/or moral aid, to the damage and
While still in Germany his wife and househelps have been prejudice of the Heirs of said victims in such amounts as may be
receiving threatening telephone calls and on the first week of awarded to them under the provisions of the New Civil Code. 8
June he received a call from GARCIA who gave the telephone to
LISING who asked for P60,000.00, otherwise he will kill him or
implicate him in the crime. Upon arraignment, all the accused pleaded not guilty.

On June 21, 1990 he left for Hongkong then to Melbourne for In building up their case, the prosecution presented two vital
fear of his life and that of his family. witnesses: Froilan Olimpia, who witnessed the abduction of the young
couple at Dayrit's Ham and Burger House; and Raul Morales,

Page 209 of 233

the pahinante who testified on the killing of Cochise. Felimon Garcia got a spade from the back compartment of the car
and went out of the warehouse. Lising and Dizon then removed the
On May 27, 1991, Froilan Olimpia testified in court and stated that handcuffs of Cochise, tied his hands with the wire and
he was 31 years old and was formerly a security guard of blindfolded him with a tape and torn cloth.
Nationwide Security and Investigation Agency. He was assigned at
the Rotonda Wine Station, the establishment beside Dayrit's Ham Morales further testified that it was Lising who closed the gate
and Burger House along Timog Circle, Quezon City. His tour of but left it ajar. In a little while, he noticed another man enter the
duty on April 25, 1990 was from 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight. gate and walked towards Beebom. He heard the woman plead:
"Uncle, maawa po kayo sa amin," while Manga was tying Beebom's
At about 7:00 to 7:30 in the evening, Olimpia was at his post in front hands with the wire. Garcia, after going inside the warehouse, was
of the Wine Station. There was a green box type Lancer car which handed a knife by Lising which he used to stab Cochise on the
parked in front of the Dayrit's Ham and Burger House carrying a man chest. Lising then retrieved his knife from Garcia and continued to
and a woman. Then a black car with no license plate parked behind the stab Cochise. When Cochise was already dead, the four men,
green car and two men alighted from it carrying guns. They announced namely, Lising, Garcia, Dizon and Manga carried Cochise out of the
that they were policemen, one was carrying a warehouse. They were away for about half an hour and when they
.45 caliber firearm in his holster and the other was carrying a long came back, the four men directly went to the well and washed
firearm. These men went towards the green box type Lancer car their hands. The four walked towards Manalili and talked with
and handcuffed its driver. He only heard the man being each other. He could not hear the conversation but saw that they
handcuffed retort "Bakit?" When asked about the female grouped themselves together.
companion, he said that his attention was more focused on the
handcuffing incident and just later noticed that the woman was Before leaving, Lising called on Morales and told him to close the
already seated at the back of the car. He did not even see the gate and keep the shoes of Cochise. Lising boarded the green box
other man driving the black car. type Lancer car with Garcia and the woman. He noticed Rudy
Manalili walk out of the gate.
Olimpia further explained that the security guard of Dayrit's
Ham and Burger House, Anastacio dela Cruz, was not really able to On April 26, 1991, the court conducted an ocular inspection of
witness the whole incident since he was busy buying a cigarette the scene of the crime. Witness Morales pointed to the court
stick from a nearby vendor. Just when the latter was returning to how the events transpired from where he was seated.
his post, the cars were already backing up ready to leave.
He did not tell anyone about the incident nor bothered to report On the basis of the testimonies of the above witnesses, plus the
to the authorities since he was aware that the perpetrators were confessions made in the extrajudicial statements executed by
policemen. He came to know about the identities of the man and Roberto Lising, Felimon Garcia, and Rodolfo Manalili, the
woman and their disappearance when two female persons were prosecution presented their version of the incident as quoted
making inquiries about them on April 27, 1990. The next time, from the trial court's decision, to wit:
another group of people asked him about what he witnessed until
he was picked up by the NBI for further questioning about the The conspiracy to abduct and subsequently kill Ernesto
whole incident. "Cochise" Bernabe II and Ana Lourdes "Beebom" Castaños was
hatched sometime in March 1990 when accused Rodolfo Manalili
Raul Morales was presented in court on April 7, 1991. He stated secured the services of accused Felimon Garcia to look for men
that since March 1988, he had been working for Ligaya Fausto and who would be willing to commit the dastardly deed for a fee.
Roberto Lising as a pahinante or truck helper of Crown Gas (Exhibits "HH" and "MM")
Commercial, a dealer of LPG, located in Valle Victoria Village, San
Fernando, Pampanga. He knew Roberto Lising to be a policeman Accused Garcia then set about on his task and contacted accused
and is known by the name "Rambo" Lising. He works as a policeman Roberto Lising and Enrico Dizon for the "job." (Ibid.)
in the morning and when he returns home after work, helps in
delivering gas. During his testimony, Morales was given a clean At a meeting arranged by Garcia on 22 April 1990,
sheet of paper and a pen where he was asked to make a sketch of accused Manalili talked with Lising and Dizon at Mabalacat,
his place of work. Pampanga about the details of the conspiracy. (Ibid.)

At about 2:00 in the morning of April 26, 1990, he was awakened by a Accused Manalili promised Lising, Dizon and their
knock at the gate of the warehouse. When he opened the gate, two companions the amount of P50,000.00 for the "job." (Ibid.)
cars came in: a green box-type Lancer car driven by Lising, with
Felimon Garcia seated in front, a man and a woman at the back seat Lising and Dizon readily accepted Manalili's using a total of P
of the car; and a black car with Dizon and Manga. After the two cars 10,000.00 as downpayment, the balance of P40,000.00 payable
entered the premises, he saw Lising go behind their sleeping quarters after the victims have been kidnapped and killed. (Ibid.)
and get a wire. Lising and Dizon then brought Cochise to an area in
the middle of the warehouse while Manga led Beebom to another end. Accused Lising and Dizon then recruited accused Robin
After alighting from the car, Manga to help implement the orders of Manalili. (Ibid.)

Page 210 of 233

 Manalili then proceeded to San Fernando, Pampanga on
On 25 April 1990, at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, board his gray Mercedes Benz. (Ibid.)
accused Lising, Dizon, Garcia and Manga, on board Manga's black
car, went to the vicinity of the Camelot Hotel at Quezon City. At around 2:00 o'clock in the morning of 26 April 1990,
They positioned themselves about 60 meters away from the accused Lising, Dizon, Garcia and Manga brought Cochise and
Castaños residence and waited for the victims. (Exhibit "MM") Beebom to a bodega in San Fernando, Pampanga owned by
accused Ligaya Fausto. (T.S.N., 18 April 1991, p. 6)
At around 6:30 o'clock in the evening of the same day,
Cochise and Beebom went out of the Castaños residence, boarded At this time, Lising was driving the green Lancer with Garcia
Cochise's green colored 1985 Lancer car with plate No. PER 942. at the front seat. At the rear of the car were Cochise and
(Ibid.) This Lancer car is owned by, and registered under the Beebom. (Id., at 8).
name of Cochise's father, Fiscal Ernesto Bernabe. (Exhibit "DD")
Manga, on the other hand, was driving the black car, with
Cochise and Beebom then proceeded toward Dayrit's Ham & Dizon beside him. (Id., at 8).
Burger House at Timog Avenue, Quezon City. (Ibid.)
After the green Lancer and the black car were parked inside
Accused Lising, Dizon, Garcia and Manga immediately boarded the bodega, Cochise, blind-folded, handcuffed and gagged with
Manga's black car and tailed the green Lancer. (Ibid.) several strips of masking tape, was dragged out of the green
Lancer by Lising and Dizon towards an area near the toilet. (Id.,
Upon reaching Dayrit's Hamburger House, Cochise parked the at 9-10; T.S.N., 26 April 1991 p. 3).
green Lancer in front of the restaurant. (T.S.N., 7 May 1991, p. 6)
Beebom, on the other hand, was taken by Manga to
Immediately thereafter, Manga's black car was parked another area of the bodega where she could not see Cochise
behind the green Lancer. (Ibid.) or hear what was being done to him. (Ibid.)

Accused Dizon, armed with a .45 caliber pistol, and accused At this point in time, Manalili arrived, parked the car on the
Manga, carrying a long firearm, alighted from the black car, road outside the bodega and walked inside towards Beebom.
proceeded towards the green Lancer and announced that they are (T.S.N., 18 April 1991, p. 11).
policemen. (Id., at 7)
Beebom, seeing Manalili, pleaded, "Uncle, parang awa mo na.
While Cochise and Beebom were alighting from the green Lancer, Wala kaming kasalanan." (Ibid.)
Dizon approached, pointed the .45 caliber pistol at Cochise and
handcuffed Cochise's hands behind his back. (Id., at 8) Manalili simply ignored Beebom's plea for mercy. (Ibid.)

Cochise, visibly surprised and confused, asked Dizon, Meanwhile, Garcia went to the back of the green Lancer, got
"Bakit?" (Id., at 14) a spade from the truck compartment, and went out of the bodega
(Ibid.). Garcia walked towards the back of the bodega and there,
Accused Dizon ignored the question and rudely pushed Cochise dug a shallow grave. (Exhibit "HH")
into the back seat of the green Lancer. (Id., at 7-9)
Lising went to the clothesline area of the bodega, got a
Similarly, accused Manga approached Beebom at the other length of a laundry wire and some clothes which he tore apart and
side of the green Lancer, and pushed her into the other back seat made into makeshift ropes. (T.S.N., 18 April 1991, p. 12)
of the green Lancer. (Ibid.)
33. Garcia then returned to the bodega with the spade still in
Accused Dizon and Manga then boarded the front of the green his hands and approached Cochise. (Id., at 14)
Lancer, backed the car out of the parking area of Dayrit's Ham &
Burger House and drove away towards EDSA. (Id., at 11) Lising handed a knife to Garcia, who then stabbed
Cochise in the chest. (Ibid.)
Accused Lising and Garcia, on board Manga's black car,
immediately followed. (Ibid.). Lising, appearing dissatisfied, grabbed the knife from Garcia
and stabbed Cochise several times in the chest and stomach area,
After the forcible abduction of Cochise and Beebom, Garcia as if telling Garcia how to do it. All this time, Dizon was holding
informed Manalili of the success of the operation. Garcia further told Cochise. (Id., at 14-15)
Manalili to go to a designated place in San Fernando, Pampanga, where
Cochise and Beebom will be taken. (Exhibit "MM") Cochise then fell to the ground, mortally wounded. (Ibid.)

Thereupon, Dizon motioned to Manga to help carry the body of

Cochise. Manalili then was left to keep watch over Beebom.

Page 211 of 233

(Id., at 16) After the Lancer car was repainted to light gray, Fausto's
helpers in the bodega, namely, Jun Medrano, Raul Morales, Rudy,
Lising, Dizon, Garcia and Manga brought Cochise to the back Bebot and Arnold, upon Fausto's instructions, pushed the Lancer
of the bodega, into the shallow grave dug by Garcia. The four car for about fifteen minutes to have its engine started.
then covered Cochise with soil. (T.S.N., 26 April 1991, p. 6; Thereafter, the Lancer car was driven to Fausto's bodega. (T.S.N.,
Exhibit "MM") 18 April 1991, pp. 28-29)

They then reported to Manalili for final instructions. The order Lising and Fausto thereafter started using the Lancer car
was for all of them to leave. (T.S.N., 26 April 1991, p. 18) in going to the bank and other places in San Fernando,
Pampanga. (Ibid.)
Beebom inquired about Cochise, Lising and Dizon answered
that they had released Cochise, and that they would likewise The Lancer car was subsequently recovered by the
release her. (T.S.N., 18 April 1991, p. 18; Exhibit "MM") PC/CAPCOM and turned over to the custody of Fiscal
Ernesto Bernabe. (Exhibits "CC", "CC-1" to "CC-6" and "EE")
Thus, the five accused left the bodega, Dizon and Manga on
board the black car, Manalili in his own car, and Lising, Garcia and On 25 June 1990, after two months of frantic and exhaustive
Beebom in the green Lancer (T.S.N., 18 April 1991, p. 18) search made by the Bernabe family, the body of Cochise was
found and exhumed from the grave where Cochise was buried by
Later, upon the instructions of Lising, Dizon and Manga took Lising, Garcia, Dizon and Manga at the back of Fausto's bodega in
Beebom with them on the black car. (Exhibit "MM") This was the San Fernando, Pampanga. It was determined during an autopsy
last time that Beebom was seen alive. that Cochise died to multiple stab wounds in his chest and upper
stomach. (T.S.N., 10 April 1991, p. 33; Exhibits "D", ''D-1","E" and
At around 5:00 o'clock in the morning of the same day, "E-1")
Fausto arrived at her bodega and waited for Lising to arrive.
(T.S.N., 18 April 1991, p. 20) The next day, also after two months of frantic and
exhaustive search made by the Castaños family, the body of
About an hour later, Lising arrived on board the Lancer car Beebom was found and exhumed from a shallow grave about two
taken from Cochise. Lising alighted from the Lancer car, kilometers from the bodega of Fausto. It was determined during
proceeded to one of the huts in the bodega where Fausto was the autopsy that Beebom died of severe hemorrhage, secondary to
staying, and informed Fausto about the taking of the Lancer car. two stab wounds in the chest. (T.S.N., 10 April 1991, p. 40;
(Id., at 2). Exhibits "1" and "J")

After a few minutes, Fausto emerged from the hut and Cochise was 26 years old and Beebom was 22 years old when
instructed a certain Jun Medrano, one of Fausto's helpers in the their lives were untimely ended by the accused. Cochise had just
bodega, to drive the Lancer car to her house in Maligaya Village, finished his Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of the
San Fernando, Pampanga, and hide it there. (Id., at 22) Philippines and was then reviewing for his bar examinations when
he was abducted on 25 April 1990. Beebom, on the other hand, was
Pursuant to Fausto's instruction, Jun Medrano, together with a graduating Mass Communication student of the University of the
two other helpers of Fausto, Raul Morales, and a Certain Nonoy, Philippines when she was abducted on 25 April 1990. Both Cochise
drove the Lancer Car to Fausto's house and hid it in the and Beebom excelled in academic and extra-curricular activities,
"barbelan" area of the house. (Id., at 23-24; Exhibit "Y") their written works having been published in periodicals and other
publications. Cochise and Beebom were in the best of their youth
Meanwhile, satisfied that his orders had been fully and health at the time of their untimely death. (T.S.N., 9 August
implemented, Manalili paid Lising the P40,000.00 balance of the 1991, pp. 4-7; T.S.N., 23 July 1991, pp. 24-26; Exhibit "II")
"contract", by issuing a Far East Bank check for the said amount to
Lising at around 8:00 o'clock in the morning of 26 April 1990. The Bernabe family, in their attempt to locate Cochise spent
(Exhibits "K" and "H") a total of P380,000.00. In laying Cochise to his final rest, the
Bernabe family spent a total of P632,222.00 for funeral and
Lising immediately encashed the check and distributed the other expenses. (T.S.N., 9 August 1991, p. 12; Exhibits "LL", "LL-
proceeds among himself and the other accused, Exhibits "K-2" 1" to "LL-3")
and "MM")
The Castaños family, on the other hand, spent a total of
The Lancer car taken from Cochise, on the other hand, P350,000.00 for the funeral services for Beebom. (T.S.N., 23
remained hidden for sometime at the residence of Fausto in July 1991, p. 39) 9
Maligaya Village where it was repainted to a light gray color
upon the instruction of Fausto. (T.S.N., 18 April 1991, pp. 26-27; In their defense, the accused policemen claimed that there was
Exhibits "CC", "CC-1" to "CC-6") insufficient evidence to sustain their conviction. At the same time,

Page 212 of 233

each one had an alibi.
Accused RODOLFO MANALILI, ROBERTO LISING, ENRICO
Roberto Lising asserted that on April 25, 1990, he took a leave DIZON, ROBIN MANGA and FELIMON GARCIA are given full
of absence from the office to be able to celebrate his father's credit of their respective periods of detention in the service
birthday in Arayat, Pampanga and stayed there for the night. His of their respective sentences in this case.
father was presented to corroborate his assertion.
Admission by a conspirator
Enrico Dizon testified that April 25, 1990 was an ordinary working day
conspirator
for him. He left the office at 5:00 p.m. and headed for home at No.
[1999V731] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
107 Kamia St., Bgy. Sindalen, San Fernando, Pampanga. In fact, two of
LEONILO CUI y BALADJAY, BEVERLY CUI y CANTUBA,
his neighbors recounted in court the verbal exchange they had when
EDUARDO BASINGAN y SABELLO, WILFREDO GARCIA, alias
they saw each other in their neighborhood.
"TOTO", JOSELITO GARCIA, alias "TATA GARCIA", EMMANUEL
GARCIA, alias "MAWI", a certain SADAM, BIENVENIDO
Roberto Manga, meanwhile, averred that it was impossible for
NACARIO y PARDILLO, alias "REY NACARIO", a certain EDGAR,
him to participate in the commission of the crime since he was
a certain BENJIE, LUIS OBESO, alias "LEOS", HILARIA SARTE,
still nursing his gunshot wounds sustained in an encounter with
alias "LARING", and YUL ALVAREZ, accused.
lawless elements for about a year already.
***
LEONILO CUI y BALADJAY, BEVERLY CUI y CANTUBA, LUIS
Garcia and Manalili did not take the witness stand. They opted to
OBESO, alias "LEOS", HILARIA SARTE, alias "LARING", accused-
rely on their extrajudicial statements executed the previous
appellant.1999 September 101st DivisionG.R. No. 121982D E C I S
days manifesting the absence of criminal intent.
ION

On July 1, 1992, the trial court rendered a decision with

the following dispositive portion:
In the evening of December 5, 1990, some ten (10) armed robbers
raided the compound of Johnny and Rose Lim on Edison Street,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused
Lahug, Cebu City. The Lims, their three (3) children, and the
RODOLFO MANALILI, ROBERTO LISING y CANLAS, FELIMON
employees of the family-owned business, William's Educational
GARCIA, ROBIN MANGA y QUIMZON and ENRICO DIZON y
Supply; were able to see the faces of the leader Wilfredo alias
ESCARIO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
"Toto" Garcia and two of his men, Mawe Garcia and a certain Edgar.
Double Murder qualified with treachery and aggravated by
The other robbers could not be identified as they had flour sacks
evident premeditation and abuse of public position by Lising,
over their heads.
Manga and Dizon, and hereby sentences each one of them to
suffer a penalty of double Reclusion Perpetua with all its
The robbers carted away cash and jewelries worth twenty
accessory penalties provided by law (the death penalty having
thousand pesos (P20,000.00). They also blindfolded and forcibly
been abolished by the 1987 Constitution); to pay jointly and
abducted seventeen (17) year old Stephanie, the youngest
severally the heirs of Ernesto Bernabe II; daughter of the Lims. They demanded a ransom of one million
pesos (P1,000,000.00) for her release.
P1,000,000.00 as funeral and other expenses;
P50,000.00 as compensatory damages;
Johnny Lim turned over to Toto Garcia the ransom amount in the
P500,000.00 as moral damages; afternoon of the next day at an arranged meeting place.
Stephanie, in turn, was released to her father.
P2,000,000.00 for Cochise's loss of earnings capacity; the
heirs of Ana Lourdes Castaños:
Initially, the Lims kept the crime a secret. But on the third day,
P350,000.00 for funeral and other expenses;
they reported the kidnapping to the Philippine National Police Cebu
P50,000.00 as compensatory damages;
Metropolitan District Command (Cebu Metrodiscom) at Camp
P500,000.00 as moral damages;
Sotero, Cabahug, Cebu City. The Metrodiscom Intelligence
Security Team (MIST)1 [Composed of 1Lt. John P. Campos, 2Lt.
The Court also finds accused Roberto Lising, Enrico Dizon and
Michael Ray B. Aquino, Sgt. Narciso L. Ouano, Jr., Tsgt. Felipe
Robin Manga GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Honoridez, Sgt. Armando Ballon, Sgt. Firmo Condia, Msgt. Oscar
Slight Illegal Detention aggravated by use of a motor vehicle and
Dadula, Cpl. Jeremias Canares and Sgt. Catalino Ybanez.]
hereby sentences each one of them to suffer the maximum
conducted an investigation and Johnny Lim was shown photographs
penalty of Reclusion Temporal with imprisonment from Seventeen
of criminal elements to identify the suspects. From around ninety
(17) years, Four (4) months and one (1) day to Twenty years, and to
(90) photographs, Lim picked that of Toto Garcia.
pay the cost.

The identification of Toto Garcia gave the MIST a valuable lead. Toto
Accused LIGAYA FAUSTO who is charged as an accessory after
Garcia was known as the leader of a group of armed robbers called the
the fact (not accomplice as alleged by the Prosecution), is
Baong Gang. The gang's base of operation was pinpointed at Quiot,
hereby acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.
Pardo, Cebu. When the police learned from Lim that his

Page 213 of 233

house guard, Eduardo Basingan hailed from Quiot, Pardo, Cebu On April 1, 1991, Basingan executed a second sworn statement12
City, they decided to interrogate him. [Exhibit "C", Folder of Exhibits, pp. 4-10.] reiterating his first.
In addition he detailed the role of the Cuis in the planning of the
Basingan's interrogation broke the case wide open. He identified crime at bar.
Toto Garcia, Mawe Garcia and Edgar as the three (3) who did not
wear masks, Sadam and Rey as the two (2) who held him and the After preliminary investigation, Prosecutor Manuel J. Adlawan
Lims at gunpoint, and Tata Garcia, Yul Alvarez, a certain Benjie, a found that the participation of the Cuis was only that of
certain Leos and a certain Laring as the look-outs who stayed accomplices. Thus, on May 13, 1991, an Amended Information was
outside the Lims compound. He named Toto Garcia as the chief filed downgrading the charge against the Cuia as mere accomplices
plotter of the crime at bar, and revealed that his neighbors and in the kidnapping with ransom of Stephanie Lim. It reads:
close family friends, the spouses Leonilo and Beverly Cui,
participated in the plan. Basingan said he was asked to join the "That on or about the 5th day of December, 1990, at about 9:00
plot and was assured that he would not be under suspicion because P.M. more or less and for sometime subsequent thereto, in the
he would be placed at gun point together with the other members City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
of the Lim household when the crime is committed. However, he Honorable Court, the said accused, all private individuals, conniving
refused to join the plot during the December 2, 1990 meeting of and confederating together, and mutually helping with one
the group at the residence of the Cuis in Quiot,. Pardo, Cebu City. another, armed with unlicensed firearms, with deliberate intent,
Leonilo Cui even invoked their close ties as godfathers of each with intent of gain, enter the dwelling house of spouses Johnny
other's children but he was unmoved. At the meeting were Toto and Rose Lim and while inside therein with violence and
Garcia, Mawi Garcia, Edgar, Rey, Sadam and the Cuis. intimidation, take and carry away cash and jewelries in the amount
of P20,000.00 from the possession of and belonging to spouses
On December 18, 1990, Basingan executed a sworn statement2 Johnny and Rose Lim and that on the occasion thereof, and in
[Exhibit "C", Folder of Exhibits, pp. 4-10.] reiterating these connection therewith and for the purpose of extorting ransom
revelations in writing. Johnny and Rose Lim then formalized their from said spouses Johnny and Rose Lim, herein accused, in
complaint by executing a Joint Affidavit.3 [Original Records, p. 3.] pursuance of their superior strength did then and there kidnap
The members of the Metrodiscom Intelligence Security Team also and detain Stephanie Lim 17 years old [sic] daughter of spouses
executed a Joint Affidavit4 [Id., pp. 17-18.] relating their Johnny and Rose Lim and while Stephanie Lim was under detention
investigation. With these as bases, Assistant Prosecutor in the place other than the latter's dwelling place, the said
Bienvenido N. Mabanto, Jr. filed an Information5 [Id., pp. 1-2.] accused demanded the amount of P1,000,000.00 for the release of
for Kidnapping with Ransom against Basingan, the Cuis, and the Stephanie Lim to which demands and for fear of the latter's life
members of the group of Toto Garcia as identified by Basingan in spouses Johnny and Rose Lim delivered and caused to be delivered
his sworn statement. the amount of P1,000,000.00 to said accused; and accused-

On the same day, December 18, 1990, Basingan and Leonilo Cui were "(1) Leonilo Cui y Baldjay and
arrested.6 [Order for Detention during Pendency of the Case dated "(2) Beverly Cui y Cantuba
December 18, 1990 signed by Vice-Executive Judge Bernardo Ll. Salas,
Original Records, p. 21.] Beverly Cui was also taken into custody on who are hereby charged for the same offense as accomplices
January 17, 1991.7 [Return dated January 17, 1991 signed by Lt. Colonel cooperate in its execution by previous acts and subsequently
Panfilo M. Lacson, Original Records, p. profiting in the effects of the crime by receiving the amount of
29.] The Cuis, however, were later granted bail and their plea for P10,000.00 from the principal accused as their share of the loot,
preliminary investigation was given due course.8 [Original to the damage and prejudice of Johnny, Rose and Stephanie Lim
Records, pp. 22-28.] in the total amount of P1,020,000.00.

On March 14, 1991, Joselito "Tata" Garcia, Hilaria Sarte and her "CONTRARY TO LAW."13 [Original Records, pp. 52-54.]
live-in partner, Luis Obeso, referred to by Basingan as "Laring"
and "Leos", respectively, were arrested in the neighboring Negros On May 15, 1991, Basingan, the Cuis, Obeso and Sarte were arraigned
Island. The next day, however, Tata Garcia died due to and they all pleaded not guilty.14 [Order dated May 15, 1991, Original
"hemorrhage, severe, secondary to gunshot wounds".9 Records, p. 55.] On June 27, 1991, Basingan escaped from prison.15
[Certification of Death issued by Dr. Tomas P. Refe, Medico-Legal [Incident Report Re Escape of Detained Prisoner, Eduardo Basingan,
Officer III, NBI-Cebu City, Original Records, p. 91.] Upon marked as Exhibit "J", Original Records, p. 97.]
presentation of his death certificate, the trial court ordered his
name deleted from the information. Trial on the merit ensued against the Cuis, Obeso and Sarte.
Basingan was tried in absentia.
On March 22, 1991, Obeso and Sarte filed their own motions for
preliminary investigation.10 [Original Records, pp. 44-45.] Their On February 13, 1992, Bienvenido Nacario, alias "Rey Nacario",
motions were granted in an Order dated April 2, 1991.11 [Id., p. was arrested. On arraignment on April 13, 1992, he pleaded not
46.] guilty. However, on May 5, 1992, he, too, escaped from detention
and remains at large to this date.

Page 214 of 233

 Basingan, Bienvenido Nacario y Pardillo @ "Rey Nacario," Luis Obeso,
On August 18, 1992, the prosecuting fiscal manifested before @ "Leos", Hilaria Sarte, @ "Laring", as principals for the crime of
the trial court that, per newpaper report, Toto Garcia had been KIDNAPPING WITH RANSOM and shall suffer the penalty of
killed in Davao. reclusion perpetua and the accused Leonilo Cui and Beverly Cui being
accomplices, to suffer an imprisonment of eight
On December 6, 1993, the trial court convicted the Cuis, years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen
Obeso, Sarte, Basingan and Nacario.16 [In a Decision penned by years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal,
Judge Galicano O. Arriesgodo, Rollo, pp. 23-50.] It held: as maximum. They are further ordered to jointly restitute to the
victim the ransom money less the amount recovered. Accused
"In the light of the totality of the evidence adduced in the case Hilaria Sarte and Luis Obeso, being detention prisoners are
at bar and the law and aforementioned jurisprudence, the Court is credited in full during the whole period of their detention provided
convinced that a conspiracy was hatched by all the accused in that they signify in writing that they will abide with the rules and
perpetrating the crime charged. For instance, as borne out by the regulations of the penitentiary.
testimony of Sgt. Narciso Ouano, Jr., police investigator of the
Cebu Metrodiscim [sic], accused Eduardo Basingan declared during "x x x
his investigation that the plan was indeed carried out and he knew "SO ORDERED."18 [Decision, supra, pp. 27-28, rollo, pp. 49-50.]
all the persons who participated in that robbery, naming Toto
Garcia, Tata Garcia, Mawi Garcia, Rey, Edgar, Sadam, Yul Alvarez, Obeso and Sarte filed their Notice of Appeal19 [Rollo, p. 51.] on
Benjie, Leo and Laring. When the named robbers entered the May 19, 1994. The Cuis filed theirs20 [Id., p. 53.] on May 31, 1994.
residence of his master Johnny Lim, the robbers were wearing
masks except Toto Garcia, Mawi Garcia and Edgar. The others, In their Brief dated April 21, 1997, Obeso and Sarte prayed
Rey, Sadam, Laring, Leo, Benjie and Yul Alvarez were wearing for their acquittal on the following grounds:
masks but Basingan was still able to identify them in spite of the
fact that they were wearing masks because these persons were "I
familiar to him already as they used to frequent the house of "THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
Leonilo and Beverly Cui. At the time of the robbery, only Toto ACCUSED-APPELLANTS ON THE BASIS OF THE EXTRA-
Garcia, Mawi Garcia, Edgar, Rey and Sadam went inside the house JUDICIAL STATEMENT MADE BY EDUARDO BASINGAN AND
of his master while Yul Alvarez, Benjie, Leos and Laring were THE TESTIMONY OF SGT. NARCISO OUANO JR. THEREON,
guarding outside the building. On December 7, 1990, two days WHICH ARE HEARSAY EVIDENCE.
after the robbery, he was called by his Comadre Beverly Cui and
the latter handed to him the amount of P40,000.00 in her house, "II
saying that Toto Garcia left the said amount to be given to him. "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE TWO ACCUSED-
During their talk, Basingan verbally told them about the incident APPELLANTS AS PRINCIPALS BY CONSPIRACY DESPITE THE
relative to the kidnapping and his having received P40,000.00 ABSENCE OF ANY COMPETENT AND CONVINCING PROOF OF
from Toto Garcia as his share of the ransom. A formal THEIR CULPABILITY."21 [Brief for Accused-Appellants Luis
investigation was conducted by Sgt. Armando Ballon in the Obeso and Hilaria Sarte dated April 21, 1997, p.6, Rollo, p. 96.]
presence of Atty. Elias Espinosa who assisted Eduardo Basingan.
On June 25, 1997, the Cuis also filed their Brief. They contended:
"x x x The denial of accused Luis Obeso and Hilaria Sarte as to their
participation in the commission of the crime does not hold water for "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE
they were duly identified even during the initial phase of the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF APPELLANTS-SPOUSES
commission of the crime. They were the renters of the house where LEONILO CUI AND BEVERLY CUI TO REMAIN SILENT, TO
Stephanie, the kidnapped victim, was placed. Stephanie had identified COUNSEL AND AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION HAD BEEN
the house. The flight of these two accused to Bacong, Dumaguete City GROSSLY VIOLATED DURING THEIR CUSTODIAL
is indicative of their guilt. x x x INVESTIGATION.

"The prosecution has indeed established the guilt of the accused "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT EXCLUDING
beyond reasonable doubt as against accused Eduardo Basingan, HEARSAY EVIDENCE OFFERED TO PROVE ALLEGED
Bienvenido Nacario y Pardillo, @ "Rey Nacario," Luis Obeso, @ "Leos", CONSPIRACY AND PARTICIPATION OF APPELLANTS-
Hilaria Sarte, @ "Laring", Leonilo Cui y Baladjay and Beverly Cui y SPOUSES LEONILO CUI AND BEVERLY CUI, AS
Cantuba, the latter two are only as accomplices, to the crime of ACCOMPLICES IN THE CRIME CHARGED."22 [Brief for
kidnapping with ransom. x x x".17 [Decision of the Regional Trial Court Appellants dated May 28, 1997, p. 1, Rollo, p. 138.]
dated December 6, 1993, pp. 24-25, Rollo, pp. 46-47.]
On August 13, 1998, the Office of the Solicitor General filed, in
They were sentenced to suffer the following penalties: lieu of an Appellee's Brief, a Manifestation23 [Dated August 3,
1998, Rollo, pp. 223-243.] recommending the acquittal of the Cuis,
"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, Obeso and Sarte on the ground that the prosecution failed to
JUDGMENT is hereby rendered convicting the accused Eduardo present adequate proof of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It

Page 215 of 233

was postulated:
"ATTY. GONZALEZ:
"It is clear that the only piece of evidence that would link
appellants directly to the kidnapping of Stephanie Lim is the "We move to strike out the answer of this witness. It is hearsey
Sworn Statement executed by Eduardo Basingan (Exhibit "C") [sic]. The answer['s] premise [is] according to.
implicating appellants and describing their participation in detail.
Basingan's extra-judicial confession, however, is inadmissible for "FISCAL ADLAWAN:
being hearsay as he was not presented by the prosecution as its "That independence are relevant question which took action [sic].
witness, he having escaped after arraignment. Hence, appellants
were not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine him. Cross- "COURT:
examination is an indispensable instrument of criminal justice to "Overruled.
give substance and meaning to the constitutional right of the
accused to confront the witnesses against him and to show that "x x x
the presumption of innocence has remained steadfast and firm x x "FISCAL ADLAWAN:
x. It was intended to prevent the conviction of the accused upon "Q Was there any inquiries [sic] made by you on Eduardo Basingan
depositions or ex-parte affidavits, and particularly to preserve the how did he happen to know this group of Toto Garcia?
right of the accused to test the recollection of the witness in the
exercise of his right of cross-examination x x x. "ATTY. GONZALEZ:
"We object. I understand there are two investigations.
"Perhaps realizing the futility of relying solely on Basingan's extra- He conducted his own investigation.
juridical (sic) confession in order to secure appellants' conviction,
the prosecution presented Sgt. [O]uano who testified on the "ATTY. GONZALEZ: (Con't)
informal investigation he conducted on Basingan. Part of his "Which investigation is he referring to.
testimony was the same extra-judicial confession made by Basingan
which was strongly objected to by appellants. It cannot be "COURT:
overemphasized that Sgt. [O]uano's testimony is not based on his "As preliminary investigation.
own personal knowledge but on other evidence. He has no personal
knowledge of the participation of the appellants in the kidnapping "ATTY. GONZALEZ:
of the victim. Hence, his testimony is purely hearsay evidence and "Before the formal investigation he conducted his own
has no probative value, whether objected to or not x x x."24 investigation?
[Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Consolidated Appellees' Brief
dated August 3, 1998, p. 11, Rollo, p. 233.] "COURT:
"Answer.
There is no question that Basingan escaped and never testified in "A Yes, I did inquire from him and that he told me Toto Garcia is
court to affirm his accusation against the Cuis, Obeso and Sarte. frequently in the house of Leonilo and Beverly Cui and that he was
Thus, the trial court committed reversible error in admitting and introduced by the couple to Toto Garcia in one of those visits of
giving wieght to the sworn statements of Basingan. In the same Toto Garcia in the house and that subsequently thereafter he
vein, the testimony of Sgt. Ouano confirming the content of knew of the persons of [sic] Toto Garcia is associating [sic] with
Basingan's sworn statements is not proof of its truth and by itself because Toto Garcia went to the house of Leonilo Cui.
cannot justify the conviction of appellants. Both the extrajudicial
sworn statements of Basingan and the testimony of Sgt. Ouano are "ATTY. GONZALEZ:
clear hearsay. Indeed, the records show that the trial court itself "May we move to strike out from the records for being that he
admitted Basingan's statements merely as part of the has no personal knowledge as to that information.
investigation of Sgt. Ouano, thus:
"COURT:
"Q What else did Mr. Basingan tell you? "Objection overruled.
"A That it was the group of Toto Garcia who barged into the
residence of Mr. Lim and that it was that group of Toto Garcia "ATTY. GONZALEZ:
who kidnapped the daughter of Mr. Lim and also it was that group "In that case, your Honor may we make it of record that I am
that gave him P40,000.00 out of the ransom money. interposing a continuing objection as to the series of
questioning considering that we strongly belive [sic] that what
"COURT: was given by this witness is hearsay.

"x x x "COURT:
"Q Were you able to determine who composed that group? "The objection is noted. The witness is only testifying regarding
"A According to Basingan the group was composed of Wilfredo his investigation."25 [TSN dated September 11, 1991, pp. 16-18.]
Garcia as the leader, Joselito Tata Garcia, Mawi Garcia, Edgar,
a certain Rey, a certain Leon and a certain Laring. Despite its ruling, the trial court used the statements of Basingan,

Page 216 of 233

as testified to by Sgt. Ouano, as proofs of the guilt of the Cuis,
Obeso and Sarte. Undeniably, they are hearsay for any oral or For this provision to apply, the following requisites must
documentary evidence is hearsay by nature if its probative value be satisfied:
is not based on the personal knowledge of the witnesses but on
the knowledge of some other person who was never presented on "a. That the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than
the witness stand.26 [People v. MeloSantos, 245 SCRA 569, 575- the admission itself;
577 (1995).]
"b. that the admission relates to the common objects; and
Conviction cannot be based on hearsay evidence. In the 1996
case of People v. Raquel,27 [265 SCRA 248 (1996).] we squarely "c. that it has been made while the declarant was engaged in
addressed the issue of whether or not the extra-judicial carrying out the conspiracy."29 [People v. Surigawan, 228 SCRA
statements of an escaped accused implicating his co-accused may 458, 465 (1993) citing Apostol, Essentials of Evidence, 1986 ed., p.
be utilized against the latter. There we ordered an acquittal and 163; Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vol.
held: VII, Part I, 1990 ed., pp. 349-356.]

"A thorough review of the records of this case readily revealed The general rule is that extra-judicial declarations of a co-
that the identification of herein appellants as the culprits was conspirator made before the formation of the conspiracy or
based chiefly on the extrajudicial statement of accused Amado after the accomplishment of its object are inadmissible in
Ponce pointing to them as his co-perpetrators of the crime. As evidence as against the other co-conspirators, on the ground that
earlier stated, the said accused escaped from jail before he could the accused in a criminal case has the constitutional right to be
testify in court and he has been at large since then. confronted with the witnesses against him and to cross- examine
them.30 [People v. Badilla, 48 Phil. 718, 725 (1926).]
"The extra-judicial statements of an accused implicating a co-
accused may not be utilized against the latter, unless these are In the case at bar, the alleged conspiracy among the accused was
repeated in open court. If the accused never had the opportunity not priorly established by independent evidence. Nor was it shown
to cross-examine his co-accused on the latter's extra-judicial that the extra-judicial statements of Basingan were made while
statements, it is elementary that the same are hearsay as against they were engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. In truth, the
said accused. That is exactly the situation, and the disadvantaged statements were made after the conspiracy has ended and after
plight of appellants, in the case at bar. the consummation of the crime. They were not acts or declarations
made during the conspiracy's existence. Since the extra-judicial
"Extreme caution should be exercised by the courts in dealing admissions were made after the supposed conspiracy, they are
with the confession of an accused which implicates his co-accused. binding only upon the confessant and are not admissible against his
A distinction, obviously, should be made between extra-judicial co-accused; as against the latter, the confession is hearsay.31
and judicial confessions. The former deprives the other accused [People v. Bernardo Quidato, Jr., G.R. No. 117401, October 1, 1998;
of the opportunity to cross-examine the confessant, while in the Peole v. Surigawan, supra; People v. Ferry, 66 Phil. 310, 321 (1938).]
latter his confession is thrown wide open for cross-examination In fine, the extra-judicial statements of Basingan cannot be used
and rebuttal. against the Cuis, Obeso and Sarte without doing violence against
their constitutional right to confront Basingan and to cross-
"The res inter alios rule ordains that the rights of a party cannot examine him.32 [People v. Surigawan, supra; People v. Badilla, supra;
be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. An People v. Ferry, supra.]
extra-judicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is
not admissible against his co-accused. The reason for the rule is Be that as it may, we hold that on the basis of other evidence
that, on a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man's on record, the Cuis are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of being
own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. accessories, not accomplices as held by the trial court, in the
So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be kidnapping of Stephanie Lim.
rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should
be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code, a amended, penalizes as
party ought not to be bound by the acts of astrangers, neither accomplices those persons who cooperate in the execution of the
ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him."28 offense by previous or simultaneous acts not indispensable to the
[Id., pp. 255-259.] consummation of the offense. Accomplices cooperate in the
execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts, by means
The res inter alios has exceptions. Thus, Section 30 of Rule of which they aid, facilitate or protect the execution of the
130 provides: crime, without, however, taking any direct part in such execution,
or forcing or inducing others to execute it, or contributing to its
"The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the accomplishment by any indispensable act.33 [Aquino, Ramon C., The
conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence Revised Penal Code, Volume One, 1987 Edition, p. 531.] Had
against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by Basingan been able to testify on his affidavit detailing the role of
evidence other than such act or declaration." this Cuis in the planning of the robbery of the Lim household, the

Page 217 of 233

trial court would have had sufficient basis to convict them Limbagan and the members of the Metrodiscom Intelligence
as accomplices therein. As discussed above, however, Security Team, the Cuis jointly executed a Supplement Counter-
Basingan escaped before taking the witness stand. Affidavit37 [Original Records, p. 156.] dated April 24, 1991 this
time denying that they profited in any way from the kidnapping of
This Court, however, holds that the Cuis profited from the Stephanie Lim. They explained that they turned over the sum of
kidnapping of Stephanie Lim and are liable as accessories. P10,000.00 to Lt. Michael Ray Aquino not as their share in the
ransom money but as a "bribe" to prevent the members of the
Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, penalizes as Metrodiscom Intelligence Security Team from further inflicting
accessories to the crime those who, subsequent to its commission, take physical harm on the person of Leonilo Cui. In her testimony in
part therein by profiting themselves or assisting the offenders to open court, Beverly Cui claimed that she and her husband were
profit by the effects of the crime, without having participated therein, arrested on December 14, 1990 at their residence in Pardo, Cebu
either as principals or accomplices. Conviction of an accused as an City but that she was later released by the members of the
accessory requires the following elements: (1) that he has knowledge of Metrodiscom Intelligence Security Team so that she could
the commission of the crime; and (2) that he took part in it subsequent withdraw money from the bank to pay to them in exchange for
to its commission by any of the three modes enumerated in Article 19 her husband's freedom.
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.34 [People v. Maluenda, 288
SCRA 225, 253 (1998) citing People v. Cordova, 224 SCRA 319, 338 Two of the members of the Metrodiscom Intelligence Security
(1993); People v. Verzola, 80 SCRA 600, 608 (1977); and People v. Team, Sgt. Narciso Ouano and Sgt. Catalino Ybanez, testified
Amajul, 1 SCRA 682, 689-690 (1961).] These twin elements are present rebutting the claim of Beverly Cui. Sgt. Ouano testified as follows:
in the case of the Cuis, and indubitable proof thereof is extant in the
records of the case. "FISCAL ADLAWAN:

The members of the Metrodiscom Intelligence Security Team "x x x

(MIST), namely, Lt. John P. Campos, Lt. Michael Ray B. Aquino, "Q How about this P10,000.00 which according to you
Sgt. Narciso L. Ouano, Jr., Sgt. Felipe Honoridez, Sgt. Armando was recovered from the accused Cui couple?
Ballon, Sgt. Oscar Dadula, Cpl. Jeremias Canares, and Sgt. Catalino
Ybanez, executed a Joint Affidavit dated December 18, 1990, "x x x
stating, among other things, that "the couple Leonilo and Beverly "Q How did you come into possession which according to you
Cui, although denying knowledge of the kidnapping revealed that came from the Cui couple?
Toto Garcia is their Compadre" and that "they also turned over to "A The P10,000.00 was turned over to us by Beverly Cui.
us the amount of P10,000.00 representing that given to them by
Toto Garcia out of the ransom money."35 [Par. 7 of the Joint "Q Did Beverly Cui say anything when this P10,000.00 was
Affidavit dated December 18, 1990, Original Records, p. 17.] handed to you?
"A She told us that the P10,000.00 represents the money given to
This statement charging the Cuis with having partaken of the her and her husband by Toto Garcia.
ransom money was not denied either in the Counter-Affidavit of
Leonilo Cui dated February 15, 1991 or in the Counter-Affidavit of "Q And did you inquire from Beverly Cui why did Toto Garcia
Beverly Cui of the same date. In his Counter-Affidavit, Leonilo Cui gave [sic] them P10,000.00?
even admitted that he knew that Toto Garcia and Basingan had "A They told us that Toto Garcia gave it to them sometime
held secret meetings in his house and that he had already become on December 7 and that was the share from the loot in the
suspicious of their acts, but he did not confront them because kidnapping.
they treated each other as special friends, they being godfather
of each other's children. "COURT:
"Q Was it given to them?
In their defense, the Cuis submitted an Affidavit dated February "A The couple told us it was given by Toto Garcia as their share of the
15, 1991 executed by Myrna M. Limbagan, a niece of Beverly Cui ransom money as a result of the kidnapping of Stephanie Lim.
who lived with them in their house in Pardo, Cebu City. But instead
of exonerating the Cuis, this Affidavit inculpates them as it "x x x
states in paragraph 10 that "on December 7, 1990, Toto Garcia, "FISCAL ADLAWAN:
Eduardo Basingan and other persons visited the residence of the
Spouse[s] Cui[s] and handed some amounts of money to the "Q Was Beverly Cui already under arrest when she gave you this
couple".36 [Affidavit dated February 15, 1991 marked as Exh. "E", information?
p. 2, Original Records, p. 81.] Significantly, it is Limbagan, a "A No, Sir. It was her husband who was held then. She was
witness for the defense, who corroborates the incriminating free."38 [TSN dated November 7, 1991, pp. 13-17.]
statements made by the members of the Metrodiscom
Intelligence Security Team in their Joint Affidavit. For his part, Sgt. Catalino B. Ybanez testified in the
following manner:
Realizing the aggravation caused them by the affidavits of

Page 218 of 233

"COURT: Are you familiar with the P10,000.00? during the raid, unfortunately, Toto Garcia was not in their house.
"A - Yes, sir.
"Q - Who guided you to the house of Toto Garcia?
"COURT: You mean the money given? "A - The money was turned "A - Beverly Cui, sir.
over by Beverly Cui to Lt. Aquino, sir. "Q - Where is this house located?
"A - Basak, sir.
"COURT: In your presence?
"A - Yes, sir. "Q - Was this the same house where those articles were raided and
confiscated or recovered including the firearm owned by the
"COURT: What did she tell Lt. Aquino? complaining witness Johnny Lim already marked as Exhbit "A", a
"A - She told Lt. Aquino that the money was for the ransom .22 caliber for the prosecution, is this the house?
money which was given to him by Toto Garcia. "A - Yes, sir.
"Q - Had it nor been for Beverly Cui, you would not be able
"COURT: Now, what was the remark of Lt. Aquino? to locate the house of Toto Garcia?
"A - He accepted the money, sir. He accepted the money and "A - No, sir.
he told the couple if he could execute an affidavit regarding
their participation in the involvement of the kidnapping. "Q - Now, did Beverly Cui show to you any bank book?
"A - Yes, sir.
"COURT: What was the answer?
"A - Actually, the couple denied the involvement, sir, but he "Q - How many bank books were shown?
was given the money. "A - At first about 5 bank books, sir.

"COURT: What was the answer of Beverly Cui to Lt. Aquino when "x x x
it was mentioned that the P10,000.00 was a part of the stolen "COURT: You stated that this P10,000.00 received by Cui was a
money? The answer of Beverly Cui to Lt. Aquino, what else did part of the ransom money lifted only from the admission of the
Beverly Cui say, did he tell Lt. Aquino? Cuis or the Cuis plus other parties?
"A - The money was given to her. "A - By the Cuis, sir.

"Q - Was he made to execute an affidavit? "COURT: No proof that the Cuis are beneficiaries of Lt.
"A - Actually he denied the involvement. Aquino? "A - Only the couple, your Honor.

"COURT: But as you said, now, why did Lt. Aquino ask Beverly Cui "COURT: In other words, you learned the P10,000.00 only when
to execute an affidavit that the P10,000.00 was a part of the the money was returned by Beverly Cui?
ransom money? "A - During the confrontation the couple admitted that they
"A - Lt. Aquino told the couple go execute an affidavit. have that other passbook, the P10,000.00, sir.

"COURT: What was the answer of Beverly Cui? "COURT: I'm referring of (sic) the admission that the P10,000.00
"A - They denied the[ir] involvement. was a part of the ransom money?
"x x x "A - Yes, sir.
"COURT: What is the remark of Beverly Cui?
"A - According to Beverly Cui and Leonilo B. Cui, that they were "COURT: When did you learn that it was a ransom-money? At
not involved in the kidnapping, sir. the time the money was returned or before the return?
"x x x "A - At the time when there was a confrontation, sir.
"FISCAL ADLAWAN:
"x x x "COURT: What do you mean by confrontation?
"Q - Now, Beverly Cui and Leonilo Cui testified in court "A - When we confronted the accused, sir.
that Beverly Cui was released on the same evening that she
was arrested by your team, what do you say to this? "COURT: The Cuis?
"A - Yes, and she admitted she has with her in the bank, the
"COURT: Was she released? P10,000.00.
"A - She was released, your Honor.
"x x x
"COURT: Beverly Cui? "COURT: You mean an interrogation not a confrontation by
"A - On assurance that she will help in looking [for] the group you? "A - Not by me, but by the investigator, sir.
of Toto Garcia, your Honor.
"COURT: Who was doing the interrogation?
"Q - What was the result, or was she able to locate the group? "A "A - Ouano, sir.
- She pointed to us to the house of the wife of Toto Garcia, but "COURT: You mean Ouano interrogating the Cuis? Then you were

Page 219 of 233

listening? "A - That is correct, sir. They brought me to another place.
"A - Yes, sir.
"COURT: You heard the Cuis that they were given money by "Q - By what means.
Toto Garcia and the money is in the bank. "A - Our Fiera, sir.
"A - Yes, sir."39 [TSN dated August 11, 1992, pp. 2-5.]
"Q - You owned the vehicle?
Significantly, it is again the Cuis themselves, in their Motion for "A - Yes, sir.
Reconsideration dated December 2, 1993, who corroborated Sgt.
Ybanez's claim that Beverly Cui was temporarily released for the "Q - While you were brought to (sic) outside, were you able
particular purpose of accompanying the police to the hideout of to recognize one of them?
Toto Garcia and his men. Thus, in par. 5 of their Motion for "A - No, sir, because I was blindfolded.
Reconsideration, they allege that "x x x Beverly Cui was
temporarily released from custody in order for her to lead the "Q - Was there an instance when your blindfold was taken
police to the hideouts of the other suspects of the crime".40 off? "A - When I was placed in a room.
[Motion for Reconsideration dated December 2, 1993, p. 3,
Original Records, p. 247.] "x x x
"Q - And how long did you stay in that house where you
As accessories to the consummated crime of kidnapping for were brought by those persons known as Toto Garcia and
ransom, the penalty imposable upon Leonilo and Beverly Cui is two others? "A - From dawn until afternoon.
degrees lower than that prescribed by law.41 [Art. 53, Revised
Penal Code, as amended.] Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal "x x x
Code, as amended, the penalty shall be death where the kidnapping
was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom. However, "COURT: What happened when you were brought back to
when the crime was perpetrated in December 1990, the death your house?
penalty has been suspended by the 1987 Constitution and "A - Few days after I was asked to identify the house and
commuted to reclusion perpetua. Since no modifying circumstance the room where I stayed.
is appreciated for or against the Cuis, the imposable penalty
should be in the medium period of the indeterminate sentence "Q - You were brought to that place [a] few days after?
applicable under Republic Act no. 4103, as amended.42 [People v. "A - Yes, sir.
Maluenda, 288 SCRA 225, 253 (1998).]
"Q - Who were with you when you were brought to that
Finally, while we affirm the conviction of the Cui spouses, we place? "A - Members of the Metro Discom, sir.
acquit Obeso and Sarte.
"Q - When you were brought to the place again [a] few days
The only evidence linking Obeso and Sarte to the kidnapping of after you were released, did you come to know who occupied that
Stephanie is Basingan's sworn statements that a certain Leos and room? "ATTY. GONZALES: Hearsay, your Honor, she has no
a certain Laring were among the lookouts who stood as guards personal knowledge, whatever information given to her that's not
outside the house of the Lims while Toto Garcia and his group were of her own, your Honor.
inside. Basingan's sworn statements are hearsay, hence,
inadmissible in evidence against his co-accused because he escaped "COURT: Let us find out, if she knows.
before he could take the witness stand. "A - Laring, sir.
"x x x
Except for Basingan who could not even give the real names of "COURT: Cross?
Obeso and Sarte and just referred to them as the Leos and "CROSS BY ATTY. GONZALES
Laring, respectively, no one really knew them. And significantly, no "x x x
prosecution witness identified them, not even Stephanie Lim. She
never saw any of them during the robbery or in the house where "Q - And you mentioned of a certain Laring, you agree with me
she was detained. Her testimony runs, viz.: that this Laring was identified to you by people of the Metro
Discom? "A - Yes, sir.
"DIRECT EX. BY FISCAL ADLAWAN
"Q - And the people at the Metro Discom meaning the police
"xxx officers, told you that it was Laring who occupied the place
"Q - What else took place? where you were allegedly brought, right?
"A - They blindfolded me and handcuffed me and brought me "A - Yes, sir.
out, sir. "COURT: I cannot hear.
"WITNESS: Yes, sir. occupied by Laring.
"Q - What do you mean when you said you were brought out, out "Q - You have not seen Laring?
of your residence? "A - Yes, sir.

Page 220 of 233

"Q - You have not seen Laring, you mean no? inserted into her private part, was found lying prostrate with
"A - Yes, sir. several hack and stab wounds. She was identified as Mercedes
M. Dulay.
"x x x
"Q - Now, you mention, no. Now, in your house where this incident Having received a report on the killing, the police at Manaoag,
allegedly took place, you only saw Toto Garcia? Pangasinan immediately went to the irrigation canal where the body
"A - Yes, sir. of Mercedes was found. A few hours later, Leonardo Flores was
"Q - You could not identify anybody there? apprehended. He was taken to the Manaoag police station where he
"A - No, sir. was investigated. He revealed his companions in the commission of
the crime as Ernesto Sarsoza alias Ramon, Alex King Cruz alias Boy
x x x".43 [TSN dated May 18, 1992, pp. 3-6.] and Servillano Pariñas alias Anong. The four were later charged
with rape with homicide and robbery in the Regional Trial Court at
Obeso and Sarte interposed the defense of alibi. They Lingayen, Pangasinan in an information which reads:
asseverated that in late November, 1990, they left the house they
were renting in Linao, Minglanilla, Cebu and went to Banilad, "That on or about September 21, 1984, in the evening, in barangay
Bacong, Dumaguete City where the parents of Sarte reside. It was Inamotan, municipality of Manaoag, province of Pangasinan, Philippines,
there, in March 1991, that they were arrested. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused conspiring, confederating, mutually helping one another, with
The prosecution never rebutted the claim of live-in partners abuse of superior strength and taking advantage of nighttime, did then
Obeso and Sarte that they were in Bacong, Dumaguete City as and there, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and with lewd designs,
early as November, 1990. No direct evidence has been proffered forcibly took turns in having sexual intercourse with Mercedes Dulay
by the prosecution to place Obeso and Sarte at the scene of the against her will, after which, and by reason of such rape accused with
crime. Their alibi has to be given credence. intent to kill, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
strike and stab Mercedes Dulay on different parts of her body
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu inflicting mortal wounds which caused her death and, thereafter,
City, Branch 18, dated December 6, 1993, in Criminal Case No. accused got a piece of ipil-ipil wood about 1 1/4 centimeter in diameter
CBU-20464, is MODIFIED. Appellants Leonilo and Beverly Cui are and inserted it in her vaginal canal, and on the occasion thereof
CONVICTED as ACCESSORIES and are ORDERED to serve the accused with intent to gain, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
indeterminate sentence of two (2) years, four (4) months and one feloniously take and carry away a gold graduation ring valued at One
day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos, lady Seiko wrist watch valued at Eight
day of prision mayor, as maximum. Appellants LUIS OBESO, alias Hundred (P800.00) Pesos and cash money amounting to One Hundred
"LEOS", and HILARIA SARTE, alias "LARING" are ACQUITTED
and if presently detained, they are ordered immediately released (100.00) Pesos all belonging to said Mercedes Dulay, to the
from detention unless other legal reasons exists to detain them. damage and prejudice of her heirs.
The Director of Prisons is ordered to inform this Court within ten
days from receipt of this Decision his compliance. No costs. "That the commission of this offense was attended by the
aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, use of
SO ORDERED. superior strength, nighttime which was purposely sought by the
accused to facilitate and insure its commission and circumstances
Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur. brought about which added ignominy to the natural effects of
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), on official leave. the crime.

"Contrary to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by

Independent Evidence of Conspiracy Rep. Act No. 2632 & Rep Act No. 4111." 1
[1991V204] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
LEONARDO FLORES, ALEX KING CRUZ, SERVILLANO At the arraignment, Alex King Cruz, Servillano Pariñas and Ernesto
PARIÑAS and ERNESTO SARSOZA, defendants-appellants. Sarsoza, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge.
Leonardo Flores initially pleaded guilty but the court prudently
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. deemed it wise to defer action on his plea to give him time to
Francisco E. Antonio for defendants-appellants.1991 March engage the services of a counsel of his choice. The court
183rd DivisionG.R. No. 71980D E C I S I O N forthwith recorded a plea of not guilty for Leonardo Flores. 2

Quietly traversing the barrio road on her way home, unaware of On December 19, 1984, Leonardo Flores was rearraigned. He
the danger that lurked in the night, the victim, a registered nurse, reiterated his plea of guilty. Hence, the court admonished him once
did not have the slightest idea that she would fall into the abyss of more of the meaning, extent and effect of his plea. Since Flores
death on that fateful night of September 21, 1984. She was insisted on entering a plea of guilty, the court ordered the
mercilessly raped and killed by four men. withdrawal of his recorded plea of not guilty and entered that of
guilty. The court, however, deferred its judgment until such time
The morning after, her naked body with a branch of ipil-ipil

Page 221 of 233

when the prosecution had fully presented its evidence. 3 Before
the presentation of such evidence, Flores volunteered to testify Thereafter, Sarsoza stabbed her breast with his own bayonet as
for the government "to tell all the truth about the case." 4 Mercedes begged, "Have mercy on me. Do not kill me." But Cruz
According to Flores the following transpired: slashed her neck nonetheless and she was forever silenced. 14

At about 6:00 o'clock in the evening of September 21, 1984, Flores and Sarzosa dumped her in a canal about a meter away
Flores was in the house of a friend named Jose Cacayan. He was from the road where they raped and killed her so that nobody
with Cruz, Pariñas and Sarsoza. They drank one bottle of White could see her right away while Cruz and Pariñas watched. Sarsoza
Castle. They also had five sticks of marijuana and each one smoked took a branch of a nearby ipil-ipil tree with his bolo, gave the 14-
a stick. They passed around the fifth stick. 5 inch long branch to Flores and ordered him to insert it into the
vagina of Mercedes with a warning that should he fail to do so, he
About an hour later, the group parted ways. Flores went home to would kill Flores. 15
take his supper. All four of them, however, returned to the house
of Jose Cacayan at around 7:30 p.m. 6 Cruz told them to proceed After accomplishing the dastardly act, Flores accidentally
to the east to wait for Mercedes "to get her money, kill her and touched Mercedes' college ring with "Baguio General Hospital"
rape her." The three of them agreed to Cruz's proposal and engraved on it. He got the ring which also bore Mercedes' name.
Sarsoza even said, "I am going to rape and kill her." 7 From the canal, Flores saw the shoulder bag of Mercedes, got it,
took the money amounting to one hundred pesos and threw away
The group proceeded to the Samiley irrigation site which was the bag in the nearby forested area. Cruz also took the wrist
around fifty meters from the house of Cacayan. It took them watch from Mercedes' arm. Thereafter, they went their separate
five minutes to reach the place. Along the way, Flores heard the ways Flores proceeded to the east while the three went towards
three remarked that "something (was) already wrong" with their the west. 16
minds. 8
At home, Flores went to bed and awoke around 6:00 o'clock the
They waited for Mercedes for around thirty minutes in a forested following morning. He took Mercedes' ring and erased her engraved
area about five electric posts away from the national road. 9 As name on it. He went to the field to plant rice and stayed there until
proposed by the three, when Mercedes was some five meters noontime when he went home for lunch.
from them, Flores caught her by placing his left arm around her
neck. Cruz pulled her dress by her neckline and Pariñas stuck her In the afternoon, he changed clothes to go to town to watch a
head twice with a stone. Sarsoza held her by her legs. Then they movie. On the way, he met motorcycle-riding policemen who
forced her to lie down on the barrio road. Mercedes cried, "Take invited him for investigation.
everything you want (from) me but please do not kill me." 10 Having learned that the investigation was about the crimes
committed against Mercedes, Flores fled. The policemen fired a
warning shot but still Flores ran thereby attracting the barrio
Cruz insisted that they should kill her. Out of pity, Flores asked people who also pursued him. When they saw him crawling on the
them not to kill her but Pariñas retorted that they better kill ricefield, the people stoned Flores hitting him on the left leg. As
her so that she could not report the incident to the authorities. they mauled him, Flores revealed the identity of his companions.
Sarsoza also believed that they should kill her. 17 A police officer retrieved a blood-stained bayonet from Flores'
waist and Mercedes' graduation ring from his pocket. 18
Mercedes was lying down when Cruz tore her dress from the
neckline to the hemline with a one-foot long bayonet and in the At the Manaoag police station, Flores executed a sworn statement.
process also tore her bra and half-slip. Flores was holding her Asked if he needed the assistance of counsel, Flores replied that
hands while the two others were holding her legs when Cruz with or without counsel, he wanted to give a statement voluntarily
ripped apart her panty also with his bayonet. 11 Cruz then lowered and freely. He declared in the statement that they were drinking
his pants and briefs to his knees, went on top of Mercedes, because it was his birthday, named Pariñas, Cruz and Sarsoza as
mashed her breast and nipples and then "took her womanhood." his companions, and related how they perpetrated the crime which
Mercedes once more pleaded, "Please get everything from me but they had been planning for four days. 19
please do not kill me." 12
Meanwhile, pictures were taken of the body of Mercedes at
While Cruz was on top of Mercedes, Flores was holding her hands, the crime scene.
Pariñas her left leg and Sarzosa her right leg. After about a
minute, Pariñas took his turn in having sexual intercourse with 20 She was autopsied by the rural health unit physician in Manaoag
Mercedes. Flores still held her hands while Cruz took Pariñas at 9:30 a.m. of September 22, 1984. The postmortem report
place in holding her left leg. About a minute later, Sarzosa took reveals that Mercedes, who was 29 years old when she died,
his turn in ravishing Mercedes while Pariñas grabbed and held her sustained the following injuries:
leg. Flores was the last to have intercourse with Mercedes while
Sarsoza "Lacerated wound and hematoma, right posterior parietal region
held her hands and the two others her legs. 13 of the head

Page 222 of 233

1 cm. in length with the family. For her 13-day wake, the family spent P400 for
Post auricular right side 1 in. incised wound food. They also spent P10,000 for the coffin and funeral services
Left side of the neck zigzag, hacking wound, longest 4 in. 31 and a total of P300 for the traditional commemoration of the
shortest 3/4 in. 9th and 40th day from her death. 32 While Mercedes was lying in
Anterior part of the neck, near the vocal chord stab wound, 1 in. state, the family received a telegram dated September 24, 1984
in width, depth 1 1/4 in. addressed to her directing her to report for a final interview for
a job at the King Fahd Armed Forces Hospital at Jeddah, Saudi
Stab wound on the chest right side 2 inches above right nipple, Arabia. 33
1 1/2 in width with 6 in depth
According to Emilio Dulay, in reporting for work, his daughter used
Lateral right part at the back posteriorly near the axila, 7 1/4 to walk a kilometer from their home to the irrigation site where
in. deep, with 11 1/2 in. stab wound she would take a tricycle to Urdaneta. From there, Mercedes
would take a bus for Dagupan City. She usually goes home between
Right hand incised wound between right thumb and index finger, 1 6:00 and 8:00 o'clock in the evening. 34 He used to send someone
in posterior, anterior 1/4 in. to fetch her at the irrigation site but on that fateful night
Hacking wound on index finger, right hand Mercedes was alone. 35
Hacking wound between index and middle finger
Hacking wound on the center of middle finger Defendants Cruz, Sarsoza and Pariñas denied having anything to do
2 hacking wounds on the left right finger (center) with the crimes. They interposed alibi as a defense and related in
hacking wound on palm - near the root of left small finger, 1 1/2 in. court that between 6:00 and 7:30 o'clock in the evening of
in length." September 21, 1984, the three of them, together with Flores,
Jose Cacayan and five other persons were drinking Tanduay Rhum
The examining physician also found, after an internal examination, near the irrigation canal opposite the house of Cacayan it being the
that the "introitus" admitted 1 1/2 fingers easily, that there was birthday of Flores. 36 At around 7:15 p.m. their companions,
about 3 cc. of clear fluid coming out of the vaginal opening and Wilfredo Lacambra, Alfonso Cruz and Salvador Sarsoza left for
that there were abrasions on the mucuosa of the vaginal canal. She home. Fifteen minutes later, the rest of the group broke up Flores
also indicated in the postmortem report that a piece of ipil-ipil went east heading for his residence at barangay Lelemaan while
wood, 1 1/4 inches in diameter was found inserted in the victim's Jose Cacayan, Bernabe Cacayan, Henry Sarsoza, Cruz, Sarsoza and
vaginal canal. She attributed the cause of death to "massive Pariñas went west. 37
hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds and hacking wounds." 21
The death certificate also shows that Mercedes died between Sarsoza went home to have supper. Immediately thereafter, he
8:00 and 9:00 p.m. of September 21, 1984. 22 went to the house of his uncle Maximo Sarsoza to watch the
television program "Bagong Kampeon." He joined therein Cruz and
Upon the request of Carmen Molintas Dulay, the victim's mother, Pariñas. When the program was over, Sarsoza, Cruz and Pariñas
23 the National Bureau of Investigation, through Dr. Arturo G. transferred to the house of Ernesto Uy for another television
Llavore, performed another autopsy on the victim on September program, "Beast Master." They watched the program through a
30, 1984. Dr. Llavore indicated in Autopsy Report No. NO-84-33-P wide window of the Uy residence together with Brigida Sabado
that Mercedes died because of "hemorrhage, severe, secondary to and her son, Dante.
multiple stabbed and hacked wounds." He also arrived at the
conclusion that the genital findings on the victim were "compatible Before the program was over, Sarsoza and Dante Sabado left for
with sexual intercourse with man and consistent with alleged date home to sleep while Cruz, Pariñas and Brigida stayed to finish the
of commission." 24 He also presented in court photographs of the show at around 10:30 p.m. Thereafter, they all went home. 38
victim taken during the autopsy. 25
In its 62-page decision of July 30, 1985, the lower court 39 held
Carolyn Custodio, a supervising chemist at the NBI, testified that that Flores' detailed recital of facts at the trial together with his
the tests for blood on the bayonet yielded negative results but extrajudicial confession pointed to no other conclusion than that
she found human blood belonging to group B on the panty. 26 She the four accused "carried their plot to rape, kill and rob the victim
found no spermatozoa and seminal stains on the ipil-ipil branch 27 in concert and pursuant to their previous agreement." 40 It
but a comparative examination of the head and pubic hair appreciated the aggravating circumstances of evident
specimens taken from the crime scene revealed that there were premeditation, treachery, nighttime, uninhabited place, abuse of
not similar as they varied in color, length, presence of medulla tips, superior strength and ignominy. It noted "other wrongs
diameter, medullary index and hair characteristics. 28 Custodio committed" which were not necessary for the commission of the
concluded that the hair samples belonged to several persons. 29 crimes like the insertion of the ipil-ipil branch on the victim's
vagina, the fact that the accused acted under the influence of
Emilio Dulay, the victim's father, testified that Mercedes was a dangerous drugs and the asportation of Mercedes' belongings
registered nurse who worked at the Villaflor Clinic in Dagupan City. after she had been raped and killed.
Her monthly earnings therein consisted of P1,000 as salary and P500
as assistant's fee. 30 She shared one-half of her earnings Taking into consideration however, the provision of Article 63 of

Page 223 of 233

the Revised Penal Code that "in all cases in which the law prescribes voluntary plea of guilty but also voluntarily testified against his co-
a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts accused in favor of the state to the extent of incriminating
regardless of any mitigating circumstances that may have attended himself and finding the same founded on legal and meritorious
the commission of the deed;" the provision of Article grounds, this Court has deemed it wise to indorse said
335 of the same Code which imposes the death penalty when by reason recommendation for the consideration by the Honorable members
or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, and the fact of the Supreme Court, subject of course, upon the outcome of the
that conspiracy had been established beyond reasonable doubt, the automatic review.
lower court imposed four death penalties on each of the four accused.
The dispositive portion of the decision states: "SO ORDERED."

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding all the The case was thus elevated to this Court for automatic review.
accused Leonardo Flores alias "Leony', Alex King Cruz alias "Boy", During its pendency, the 1987 Constitution took effect. In view of
Servillano Pariñas alias "Anong" and Ernesto Sarsoza alias "Ramon" the abolition of the death penalty and the consequent elimination
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, of the special complex crime of of automatic review by the Court of decisions imposing the death
MULTIPLE RAPE WITH HOMICIDE, on four (4) counts and as penalty, we required the appellants to file a personally signed
consequence thereof, each of them is hereby sentenced to suffer written statement, with the assistance of counsel or in the
four (4) death penalties in view of the existence of conspiracy presence of prison authorities, on whether they wished to
among the accused and the nature and number of crimes continue with the appeal. 41
committed without appreciating the presence of aggravating
circumstances, by electrocution, in the manner prescribed by law, Leonardo Flores informed the Court that he was willing to accept
with the accessories of the law, and each to pay one-fourth (1/4) reclusion perpetua as his penalty. 42 In compliance with the
of the costs. They should, jointly and severally, pay the heirs of Court's order, his counsel de oficio 43 conferred with Flores and
the victim, Mercedes Dulay, the amount of P30,000 by way of confirmed his voluntary withdrawal of appeal. 44 Accordingly, the
indemnification and the amount of P120,000.00 by way of moral Court resolved to dismiss the appeal of Flores 45 and entry of
damage pursuant to the provisions of Article 2219 of the New judgment was made on June 15, 1989. 46
Civil Code without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
and to pay the amount of P11,250.00 representing the expenses On the other hand, appellants Cruz, Pariñas and Sarsoza, in the
for coffin, funeral, church, burial, 11-day vigil, 9th day prayer, presence of prison authorities, expressed their desire to pursue
40th day death celebration including operating room and Doctor's their appeal. 47 In their brief, said appellants contend that the
assistance fees'; the fair and reasonable value of the lady seiko lower court erred in: (a) basing its decision of conviction solely on
wrist watch (P800.00); and cash money of P100.00 taken from the the confession of Flores; (b) attributing conspiracy in the
bag of the victim. The amount of P1,000.00 is excluded from the commission of the crime; (c) disbelieving their testimonies which
actual damage claimed since the gold graduation ring was were corroborated by other witnesses, and (d) convicting them
recovered. "inspite of clear and convincing evidence" that Flores was "the only
one guilty of the crime."
"The Court further directs all the accused, jointly and severally,
to pay the heirs of the victim Mercedes Dulay in the amount of Appellants' principal objection to the judgment of conviction is
P612,000.00 pursuant to the legal formula: 2/3 (80-29) equals 51 that it is based primarily on the confession of their co-
years, the normal life expectancy of victim at the age of 29. defendant, Flores, who was the prosecution's sole eyewitness to
Hence, 2/3 of 51 is 34 years x P18,000.00 yearly salary of victim the crimes. Their apprehension is understandable because, as is
gives a total loss of earning capacity in the amount of P612,000.00, usual with human nature, a culprit who confesses to a crime is
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency (People vs. likely to put the blame as far as possible on others rather than on
Daniel, L-66551, 25 April 1985, Gutierrez, J.) himself. 48 On the other hand, confessions, both extrajudicial
and judicial, cannot be taken lightly as they are usually not self-
"Let the records of this case be forwarded to the Honorable serving declarations but admissions against interest. 49
Supreme Court for automatic review. All the accused who are
presently under detention in the Provincial Jail of Lingayen Thus, extreme caution should be exercised by the courts in
Pangasinan, are immediately ordered to be transferred to the dealing with the confession of an accused which implicates his co-
National Penitentiary and shall, in the meantime, remain in defendants. A distinction, however, should be made between
confinement thereat pending review by the Supreme Court. They extrajudicial and judicial confessions. The former deprives the
should remain in the National Penitentiary until further order other accused of the opportunity to cross-examine the confessant
from this Court. while in the latter, his confession is thrown wide open for cross-
examination and rebuttal. In People vs. Encipido, 50 the Court
"Regarding the recommendation of the Provincial Fiscal in his held:
manifestation dated July 10, 1985 to the effect that accused
Leonardo Flores be extended commutation of the death penalty "The general rule that the confession of an accused may be given in
imposed upon him to life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua) evidence against him but that it is not competent evidence against his
premised on the ground that said accused did not only enter a co-accused, admits of exceptions. Thus, this Court has held

Page 224 of 233

that where several accused are tried together for the same victim without the assistance of other persons. The same
complaint, the testimony lawfully given by one during the trial conclusion may be arrived at even in the absence of the physical
implicating the others is competent evidence against the latter evidence consisting of the different kinds of human hair found
(People vs. Gumaling, 61 Phil. 165 [1935]; U.S. vs. Macamay, 36 Phil. on the body of Mercedes. Indeed, only the pervert and, in this
893 [1917]; People vs. Borromeo, 60 Phil. 691 [1934]). 'The case, the drugged mind, could conceive of the heinousness done
extrajudicial admission or confession of a co-conspirator out of on the victim.
court is different from the testimony given by a co-accused
during trial. The first is admissible against the declarant alone, The defense of alibi cannot save the appellants from conviction.
but the second is perfectly admissible against his co-accused' They have not established by clear and convincing evidence that
(People vs. Mabassa, 65 Phil. 538 [1938]) who had the right and they were at some other place and for such a period of time as to
opportunity to cross-examine the declarant." negate their presence at the time when and the place where the
crimes were committed. 59 It was not physically impossible for
In this case, the extrajudicial confession of Flores is inadmissible them to have gone to the Samiley irrigation area at the time of
because he was not assisted by counsel. 51 Moreover, his the commission of the crime because it was a mere 500 meters
extrajudicial confession may not even be accorded probative away from the house of Ernesto Uy where they were allegedly
value in view of his admission of the crime in open court. 52 That watching a television show. 60 The house of Maximo Sarsoza
being the case, only his judicial confession should be weighed and where they watched an earlier television show was only 25 meters
considered. from Ernesto Uy's house. 61 It therefore does not defy one's
imagination to believe that the appellants were at the scene of the
We hold that inspite of minor inaccuracies like the number of crimes when they occurred. As to the matter of time, the lower
persons who participated in the drinking party prior to the court aptly observed that as furnished by the appellants, time was
commission of the crime, Flores' testimonial confession, although based on calculations and hence, unreliable.
uncorroborated, suffices to support the conviction of the herein
appellants because it is positive and credible. 53 The matter of his The appellants attempted to solidify their defense by presenting
credibility, which is basically addressed to the sound discretion of corroborative witnesses on their whereabouts. Unfortunately,
the lower court, has been settled by its observation that Flores however, said witnesses were all related to the appellants: Maximo
was "frank, candid and straightforward" on the witness stand. The Sarsoza is the second cousin of appellant Sarsoza's father; 62 a
court noted, on the other hand, that the appellants herein were Brigida Sabado is an aunt of all three appellants; 63 Dante Sabado,
"nervous, quivering and hesitant." 54 Brigida's son, is a cousin of the appellants, 64 and Leoncio King
Cruz is the brother of appellant Cruz. 65 Although the appellants
Conspiracy, which was established through the judicial confession of claimed that there were several other persons who saw them
Flores, has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. It should be watch the television shows, no one of these alleged viewers was
remembered that the rule that the statement of a conspirator presented in court to shore up the apparently biased testimonies
relating to the conspiracy is not admissible in evidence unless the of the appellants' relatives. The defense of alibi may not prosper
conspiracy is first shown by other independent evidence, applies only if it is established mainly by the accused themselves and their
to an admission in an extrajudicial confession or declaration. It does relatives and not by credible persons. 66
not apply to a testimony given directly in court where the defendants
have the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. 55 Provided it The lower court correctly considered the crime committed in this
is sincere in itself, given unhesitatingly and in a straightforward case as the special complex crime of rape with homicide. The
manner, and full of details which by their nature could not have been information, which is captioned "rape with homicide and robbery"
the result of deliberate afterthought, the testimony of a co- and which alleges the elements of said crimes, charges the accused
conspirator, of having violated specifically the last paragraph of Article 335 of
even if uncorroborated, is sufficient. 56 the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act Nos. 2632 and
4111. It should be noted that the defense did not object to the
Furthermore, the manner by which the appellants acted in concert information inspite of its imperfection.
pursuant to the same objective indicates a conspiracy among
them. 57 They performed specific acts in the commission of the The evidence presented and proved at the trial point to the
crime with such closeness and coordination that would indicate a fact that although robbery was also charged against the
common purpose and design. 58 Thus, while Flores grabbed accused, the manner by which the crimes were committed shows
Mercedes by her neck, two others held her limbs while another that the appellants were primordially impelled by an intent to
tore her garments with a bayonet. The same manner of commit a crime against chastity rather than against property.
cooperation was demonstrated when they took turns in raping her. Thus, while Flores testified that Cruz broached the plan "to get
(Mercedes') money, kill her and rape her, "evidence on the actual
In this connection, the Court notes that the manner by which the execution of the crime reveal that all thoughts of depriving
crimes were committed rules out the probability that they were Mercedes of her valuables were relegated to the background
perpetrated by one person. Flores, who, like his co-accused, was when the appellants' prurient desires surfaced and were satisfied.
in his early twenties when the incident happened, could not have
committed by himself the atrocities on the person of the hapless Hence, the accused did not take any interest on Mercedes'

Page 225 of 233

belongings notwithstanding her pleas for the appellants to take
them in exchange for her life. They persisted in satisfying their Distinctions between admission and confession
lust and even helped each other in their bestial acts. If not for
JOSUE R. LADIANA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
the accidental touching of Mercedes' ring, the accused's intent to
PHILIPPINES, respondent.2002 December 43rd DivisionG.R.
rob would have been totally forgotten as the culprits had dumped
No. 144293DECISION
her body to hide their crime from immediate discovery. Indeed,
the taking of Mercedes' ring, watch and money turned out to be
The Constitution bars the admission in evidence of any statement
afterthought. The force employed on her having no bearing on such
extracted by the police from the accused without the assistance
illegal taking, the crime committed is the separate one of theft.
of competent and independent counsel during a custodial
67
investigation. However, a counter-affidavit voluntarily presented
by the accused during the preliminary investigation, even if made
For the rape with homicide, the lower court correctly imposed the without the assistance of counsel, may be used as evidence
single indivisible penalty of death, which, under Article 63 of the against the affiant.
Revised Penal Code, may be imposed regardless of any mitigating
or aggravating circumstances which may have attended the
The Case
commission of the crime. However, by reason of the constitutional
prohibition on the imposition of the death penalty, instead of four
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
death penalties, the appellants shall suffer four penalties of
Court, assailing the April 10, 2000 Decision[1] and August 4, 2000
reclusion perpetua. The four penalties for each of the appellants
Resolution[2] of the Sandiganbayan (First Division) in Criminal
is ordained by the fact that conspiracy has been established
Case No. 16988. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision
beyond reasonable doubt. 68
reads as follows:

For the theft of Mercedes' belongings, the total value of the

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
wrist watch (P800) and the money (P100) determines the penalty
JOSUE R. LADIANA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
imposable on the appellants the ring having been recovered. Under
crime of homicide and, in the absence of any modifying
Article 309(3) of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty should be circumstance, sentencing the said accused to: (a) suffer an
prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. Taking into indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of ten (10) years of
account that no mitigating or aggravating circumstances have been prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4)
proven, the penalty should be the medium period of said penalty. months of reclusion temporal, as maximum[;] (b) suffer all the
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law 69 appellants should be appropriate accessory penalties consequent thereto; (c) indemnify
meted the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months and one (1) the heirs of the victim, Francisco San Juan, in the total amount
day of arresto mayor maximum to two (2) years and ten (10) of Fifty Six Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P56,500.00); and (d)
months of prision correccional medium. pay the costs. [3]

The prosecution evidence on the expected income of Mercedes The assailed Resolution denied petitioner‘s Motion
had her life not been snuffed out needlessly by the appellants as for Reconsideration.
well as the expenses appertaining to her wake and funeral not
having been rebutted by the defense, the Court upholds the lower Petitioner was originally charged with murder before the
court's order that appellants should pay them. Sandiganbayan in an Information[4] dated August 5, 1991.
However, the anti-graft court issued an Order[5] dated October
WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is hereby affirmed 14, 1991, noting that "besides the allegation that the crime was
subject to the modifications that four penalties of reclusion allegedly committed by the accused while he was ‗taking
perpetua instead of four death penalties shall be imposed on advantage of his official position,‘ nothing else is in the
appellants Alex King Cruz, Servillano Pariñas and Ernesto Sarsoza Information to indicate this fact so that, as the Information
for the crime of rape with homicide, and, in addition thereto, they stands, nothing except a conclusion of fact exists to vest
shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months and one jurisdiction [in] this Court over the accused and over the crime
day of arresto mayor maximum as minimum to two (2) years for which he is charged."
and ten (10) months of prision correccional medium as maximum.
Instead of the P30,000 imposed on appellants as indemnity to the Further, the Order gave the government sufficient time to amend
heirs of Mercedes Dulay, they shall pay jointly and severally the the Information to show adequate facts to vest the Sandiganbayan
amount of P50,000. These penalties shall be served in accordance with jurisdiction over the case. Subsequently, an Amended
with the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. Information,[6] still charging petitioner with murder, was filed on
April 1, 1992. The accusatory portion reads as follows:
SO ORDERED.
That on or about the 29th day of December 1989, in the
Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur. Municipality of Lumban, Laguna, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a
public officer, being then a member of the Integrated National

Page 226 of 233

Police (INP now PNP) assigned at the Lumban Police Station, at the police station, where she gave her written statement
Lumban, Laguna, acting in relation to his duty which is primarily to before police investigator PFC Virgilio Halili (hereinafter, ‗Halili‘).
enforce peace and order within his jurisdiction, taking advantage
of his official position confronted Francisco San Juan why the ―Additionally, Caridad presented the Death Certificate of her
latter was removing the steel pipes which were previously placed husband and testified that he was eventually buried at the
to serve as barricade to prevent the entry of vehicles along P. Lumban Cemetery. She declared that she had incurred about
Jacinto Street, Barangay Salac, Lumban, Laguna, purposely to Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) for the funeral, burial and
insure the safety of persons passing along the said street and other incidental expenses by reason of the death of Francisco.
when Francisco San Juan told the accused that the latter has no
business in stopping him, said accused who was armed with a ―On cross-examination, Caridad testified that, on December 29,
firearm, with intent to kill and with treachery, did then and there 1989, she was in her house and that she did not hear any gunshot
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and sho[o]t Francisco between 10:30 and 11:00 o‘clock a.m. Caridad also admitted she did
San Juan with the firearm hitting Francisco San Juan at his head not witness the killing of her husband.
and neck inflicting upon him fatal wounds thereby causing the
death of Francisco San Juan. [7] ―On questions propounded by the Court, Caridad narrated that
her husband suffered two gunshot wounds - one on the upper
During his arraignment on May 8, 1992, petitioner, assisted by right temple and the other on the left cheek. However, Caridad
his counsel de parte,[8] pled not guilty.[9] After due trial, the stated that she was told that the wounds were the entry and the
Sandiganbayan found him guilty of homicide, not murder. exit points. She also told the Court that her husband was wearing
short pants at the time of his death and that she found some
The Facts bruises on his knees.
In their Memoranda, both the prosecution and the defense
substantially relied upon the Sandiganbayan‘s narration of ―Finally, Caridad recalled that, on the date of the incident, her
the facts as follows: husband was with his close friend, a certain Rodolfo Cabrera, and
some other persons, and that they went to Jacinto Street to repair
The prosecution presented five (5) witnesses, namely: Caridad M. the steel humps which were used to block the street during school
San Juan, PO2 Leopoldo Cacalda, Dr. Rogelio M. Javan, SPO2 days for the protection and safety of the school children.
Percival A. Gabinete, and Maria T. Cortez. Their respective
testimonies, in essence are as follows, to wit: ―2. PO2 LEOPOLDO DE RAMOS CACALDA, JR. (hereinafter,
‗CACALDA‘) declared that he is a policeman assigned at the
CARIDAD MARGALLO SAN JUAN (hereinafter, ‗Caridad‘) Lumban Police Station in Lumban, Laguna. He has been designated
declared that she is the wife of Francisco San Juan (hereinafter as the radio operator of the station since 1989.
‗Francisco‘), the victim in the case at bar. Caridad testified that
Francisco was the Barangay Captain of Barangay Salac, Lumban, ―Cacalda recounted that, on December 29, 1989, at around 11:00
Laguna, until he was shot and killed by accused Ladiana, who o‘clock a.m., somebody, whose name he could no longer recall,
happens to be also a distant relative of the decedent. reported to him about an existing trouble along Jacinto Street in
Barangay Salac Cacalda responded by going to the scene, where
Caridad recounted that, on December 29, 1989, she was in her he was accompanied by Alberto Mercado, a member of the
house when an unidentified woman came and told her that her CAGFIL. Thereat, Cacalda saw the lifeless body of Francisco lying
husband was killed by accused Ladiana. She immediately called up face up on the road. Cacalda did not examine the body of
her sister-in-law before rushing to Jacinto Street where the Francisco. He left the place of the incident when [SPO2] Percival
gruesome incident allegedly transpired. Thereat, many people were A. Gabinete and other policemen subsequently arrived.
milling around, and Caridad saw the lifeless body of Francisco lying
in the middle of the road and being examined by [SPO2] Percival A. ―Cacalda had gathered from the people milling around the body
Gabinete. of Francisco that it was accused Ladiana who shot and killed
Francisco. Cacalda immediately left to look for accused Ladiana.
Caridad recalled that it was around 11:00 o‘clock a.m. when she However, he eventually saw accused Ladiana already inside the jail
reached the place of the subject incident. At that point in time, of the police station and thereafter learned that said accused
she was not even allowed by the police to touch, much less get had surrendered to the police authority.
near to, the cadaver of Francisco. Caridad, expectedly, was crying
and one of her aunts advised her to go home. ―Cacalda recalled that he was later on investigated by Halili
because he was the responding policeman who went to the scene
―Caridad maintained that she was aware that her husband was of the incident. Consequently, Cacalda executed a written
killed by accused Ladiana because this was what the woman statement in relation to the subject incident.
actually told her. Moreover, accused Ladiana had given himself up
to the police authorities. ―On cross-examination, Cacalda testified that he was a radio
operator and not an investigator of the police station. He also
―Caridad went on to narrate that, on December 30, 1989, she was testified that he did not witness the incident subject matter of

Page 227 of 233

the case at bar. policemen who proceeded to the place of the subject incident
and that he found the body of Francisco lying along the road.
―Cacalda went on to testify that the people milling around the Additionally, the defense admitted the existence of the receipt
place of the incident told him that accused Ladiana had already issued by Funeraria de Mesa dated January 3, 1990 in the sum of
left. Because of this development, Cacalda proceeded to accused Six Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P6,500.00).
Ladiana‘a house but was told that he had already gone to the police
station. Cacalda accordingly went to the police station where he ―5. MARIO TALAVERA CORTEZ (hereinafter, ‗Cortez‘) declared
saw accused Ladiana already locked inside the jail. He also saw a that he is a retired Assistant Prosecutor of Laguna.
stab wound on accused Ladiana‘s right bicep but he did not
anymore ask him how he sustained the said injury. ―Prior to the conduct of the examination-in-chief on Cortez, the
defense counsel made an admission as to the authorship,
―3. DR. ROGELIO JAVAN y MAGRACIA (hereinafter, ‗Javan‘) authenticity, and voluntariness of the execution of the counter-
declared that he is a physician and the Municipal Health Officer of affidavit of accused Ladiana, which was subscribed and sworn to
Lumban, Laguna. before Cortez. In said counter-affidavit, accused Ladiana
allegedly admitted to making the fatal shots on Francisco.
―Javan recounted that he was the one who performed the necropsy on However, accused Ladiana allegedly did so in self-defense as
the cadaver of Francisco and that he had prepared the corresponding Francisco was then purportedly attacking accused Ladiana and
reports and/or documents relating thereto. Javan made a sketch had, in fact, already inflicted a stab wound on the arm of accused
representing the anterior and posterior views of the body of Francisco, Ladiana.
and labeled and placed red markings on the gunshot wounds found on
the said cadaver. The marking ‗Gunshot wound A‘ is the point of entry, ―However, Cortez emphasized that he was not the one who
which is one (1) centimeter in diameter and situated two (2) inches conducted the preliminary investigation of the complaint which led
behind the left ear. The marking ‗Gunshot wound B‘ is the point of exit to the filing of the subject case. Additionally, Cortez testified
of ‗Gunshot wound A‘, which is two (2) centimeters in diameter and that he would not be able to anymore recognize the face of the
found above the right cheekbone and one (1) inch below the right eye. affiant in the said counter-affidavit, but maintained that there
Javan also testified that there is another gunshot wound and the point was a person who appeared and identified himself as Josue Ladiana
of entry and exit are labeled as ‗Gunshot wound C‘ and ‗Gunshot before he affixed his signature on the counter-affidavit.
wound D‘, respectively. ‗Gunshot wound D‘ is one and one-half (1-1/2)
centimeters in diameter and located at the left cheek, three and one- ―After the presentation of Cortez, the prosecution filed its
half (3-1/2) centimeters below the left eye, while ‗Gunshot wound C‘ is formal offer of evidence and rested its case.
one (1) centimeter in diameter and found at the right lateral aspect of
the neck, at the level of the adam‘s apple. ―On May 31, 1995, this Court issued a resolution admitting all
the documentary evidence submitted by the prosecution.

―According to Javan, the assailant must be behind the victim ―On August 20, 1996, accused Ladiana filed a Motion for Leave of
when he inflicted ‗Gunshot wound A‘. As regards ‗Gunshot wound Court to File Demurrer to Evidence dated August 16, 1995,
C‘, the assailant likewise must be behind the victim, at a distance claiming that: (i) a review of the documentary and testimonial
of more than twenty-four (24) inches away. evidence adduced by the prosecution allegedly failed to show that
the accused is guilty of the offense charged; (ii) at best, the
―Lastly, Javan testified that he was not able to retrieve any evidence submitted by the prosecution are allegedly hearsay in
bullet during the examination. However, judging from the size of character, considering that the supposed eyewitness in the person
the wound and the point of entry, Javan opined that the firearm of Rodolfo Cabrera was never presented in court; and (iii) the
used was probably a caliber 38. prosecution was allegedly merely able to prove the fact of death of
the victim, but not the identity of the person who caused said
―On questions propounded by the Court, Javan testified that death.
‗Gunshot wound A‘ could have been fired first because the
trajectory is on the same level so much so that the assailant ―On August 23, 1996, this Court issued an Order of even date
and the victim could have been both standing. Javan inferred holding that the filing of a demurrer to evidence is no longer
that ‗Gunshot wound C‘ could have been inflicted while the appropriate considering that accused Ladiana received a copy of
victim was already falling down. Javan then stressed that both this Court‘s resolution dated May 31, 1995 on the admission of the
wounds are fatal in nature. prosecution‘s documentary exhibits as early as May 25, 1995.

―4. SPO2 PERCIVAL AMBROSIO GABINETE (hereinafter, ―On September 2, 1996, in view of his perception that the evidence
‗Gabinete‘) declared that he is a police officer and a resident submitted by the prosecution is allegedly inadequate to sustain a
of No. 4055 Villa Josefina Subdivision, Sta. Cruz, Laguna. conviction, accused Ladiana, through counsel, waived his right to
present controverting evidence. Instead, he asked for time to file a
―The testimony of Gabinete was subsequently dispensed with, upon written memorandum. Thus, both parties were given time within which
the admission of the defense that he was part of the group of to do so, after which the case shall be deemed submitted

Page 228 of 233

for resolution. the guilt of the accused.‖[16]

―Thereafter, this Court received on October 25, 1996 by mail the In short, petitioner raises the following questions in this appeal:
Memorandum for the defense. As for the prosecution, it opted not (1) whether the Counter-Affidavit he executed during the
to file any.‖[10] (Citations omitted) preliminary investigation of this case is admissible proof showing
his complicity in the crime, (2) whether the Sandiganbayan erred
Ruling of the Sandiganbayan in denying his Motion for Leave to File a Demurrer to Evidence,
and (3) whether he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
The Sandiganbayan ruled that the prosecution had been able to voluntary surrender.
establish the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The
court a quo held that his Counter-Affidavit,[11] in which he had This Court‘s Ruling
admitted to having fired the fatal shots that caused the victim‘s
death,[12] may be used as evidence against him. It underscored The Petition is not meritorious.
the admission made by the defense as to the authorship, the
authenticity and the voluntariness of the execution of the First Issue:
Counter-Affidavit.[13] In short, it ruled that the document had
sufficiently established his responsibility for the death of the Admissibility of Counter-Affidavit
victim. However, it found no evidence of treachery; thus, it
convicted him of homicide only.[14] Undeniably, the resolution of this case hinges mainly on the
admissibility of the Counter-Affidavit[17] submitted by petitioner
Hence, this Petition.[15] during the preliminary investigation. He argues that no counsel was
present when the Affidavit was executed. In support of his
Issues argument, he cites the Constitution thus:

In his Memorandum, petitioner raises the following issues for this ―SEC. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of
Court‘s consideration: an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
―I. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan may convict the accused- preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
petitioner beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide even services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
in the absence of any eyewitness who personally saw the sho[o]ting cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
of the victim by the accused, basing it only on the testimony of
the prosecutor who had administered the oath on the Counter- xxx xxx xxx
affidavit filed by petitioner-accused.
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this
―II. Whether or not the prosecution has presented proof or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against
beyond reasonable doubt to overcome the constitutional him.‖[18]
presumption of innocence of the accused and his right against
self-incrimination on the basis of the Counter-affidavit whose It is well-settled that the foregoing legal formalities required by
execution was admitted by the counsel of the petitioner, but not the fundamental law of the land apply only to extra-judicial
by the accused personally. confessions or admissions obtained during custodial
investigations.[19] Indeed, the rights enumerated in the
―III. Whether or not the Counter-affidavit of the accused- constitutional provision ―exist only in custodial interrogations, or in-
petitioner which was considered by the Sandiganbayan in its custody interrogation of accused persons.‖[20]
decision as similar to an extrajudicial confession may [be]
admitted against him as evidenc[e] of guilt beyond reasonable Custodial interrogation is the questioning initiated by law
doubt even if he was not assi[s]ted then by counsel and while he enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody
was under custodial investigation. or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant
way.[21]
―IV. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan is constitutionally
and legally correct in issuing the Order of August 23, 1996 denying In the present case, petitioner admits that the questioned
the Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence dated statements were made during the preliminary investigation, not
August 16, 1995 filed by the accused in accordance with Sec. 15 of during the custodial investigation. However, he argues that the
Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure in relation to Rule right to competent and independent counsel also applies during
XXI of the Revised Rules of Sandiganbayan. preliminary investigations.

―V. Whether or not accused is entitled to the We disagree. A preliminary investigation is an inquiry or a proceeding
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender which fact was to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
admitted by the prosecution as it even used the same as proof of founded belief that a crime has been committed,

Page 229 of 233

and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should of the act charged against him but denying that it was done
be held for trial.[22] with criminal intent is an admission, not a confession.[27]

Evidently, a person undergoing preliminary investigation before the The Counter-Affidavit in question contains an admission that
public prosecutor cannot be considered as being under custodial petitioner actually shot the victim when the latter was
investigation. In fact, this Court has unequivocally declared that a attacking him. We quote the pertinent portion:
defendant on trial or under preliminary investigation is not under
custodial interrogation.[23] It explained as follows: ―[K]aya itong si Kapitan San Juan ay sumugod at hinawakan ako
sa may leeg ng aking suot na T-shirt upang ako ay muling saksakin;
―His [accused] interrogation by the police, if any there had been sa dahilang hindi ako makatakbo o makaiwas sa kabila ng aking
would already have been ended at the time of the filing of the pananalag hanggang magpaputok ako ng pasumala sa kanya; sa bilis
criminal case in court (or the public prosecutor‘s office). Hence, with ng pangyayari ay hindi ko alam na siya ay tinamaan;‖[28]
respect to a defendant in a criminal case already pending in court
(or the public prosecutor‘s office), there is no occasion to speak of his Through the above statement, petitioner admits shooting the
right while under ‗custodial interrogation‘ laid down by the second victim -- which eventually led to the latter‘s death -- but denies
and subsequent sentences of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 having done it with any criminal intent. In fact, he claims he did it
Constitution [now Section 12, Article III of the 1987 in self-defense. Nevertheless, whether categorized as a
Constitution], for the obvious reason that he is no longer under confession or as an admission, it is admissible in evidence against
‗custodial interrogation.‘‖[24] him.

There is no question that even in the absence of counsel, the Further, we do not doubt the voluntariness of the Counter-
admissions made by petitioner in his Counter-Affidavit are not violative Affidavit. Petitioner himself submitted it to the public prosecutor
of his constitutional rights. It is clear from the undisputed facts that to justify his actions in relation to the charges hurled against him.
it was not exacted by the police while he was under custody or It escapes this Court how he can cavalierly deny a document that
interrogation. Hence, the constitutional rights of a person under he has voluntarily submitted and originally relied upon in his
custodial investigation as embodied in Article III, Section 12 of the defense.
1987 Constitution, are not at issue in this case.
In general, admissions may be rebutted by confessing their
However, the accused -- whether in court or undergoing untruth or by showing they were made by mistake. The party may
preliminary investigation before the public prosecutor -- also establish that the response that formed the admission was
unquestionably possess rights that must be safeguarded. These made in a jocular, not a serious, manner; or that the admission was
include: 1) the right to refuse to be made witnesses; 2) the right made in ignorance of the true state of facts.[29] Yet, petitioner
not to have any prejudice whatsoever imputed to them by such never offered any rationalization why such admissions had been
refusal; 3) the right to testify on their own behalf, subject to made, thus, leaving them unrebutted. In addition, admissions made
cross-examination by the prosecution; and 4) while testifying, the under oath, as in the case at bar, are evidence of great weight
right to refuse to answer a specific question that tends to against the declarant. They throw on him the burden of showing a
incriminate them for some crime other than that for which they mistake.[30]
are being prosecuted.[25]
Petitioner contends that nowhere in the transcripts of this
We do not, however, agree with the Sandiganbayan‘s case can it be found that he has admitted to the authorship,
characterization of petitioner‘s Counter-Affidavit as an the authenticity or the voluntariness of the Counter-Affidavit.
extrajudicial confession. It is only an admission. Sections 26 and We quote verbatim the proceedings in the Sandiganbayan:
33 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence distinguish one
from the other as follows: ―PJ GARCHITORENA

―SEC. 26. Admissions of a party. – The act, declaration or Well, he will identify the person who took the oath before him.
omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence Will you deny that it was your client who took the oath before
against him. the Fiscal at the preliminary investigation?

―SEC. 33. Confession. – The declaration of an accused ATTY. ILAGAN

acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense
necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him.‖ We will admit that, your Honor.

In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt; in an admission,

PJ GARCHITORENA
there is merely a statement of fact not directly involving an
acknowledgment of guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the
So in that case we will have no question about the authorship,
offense with which one is charged.[26] Thus, in the case at bar, a
authenticity and the voluntariness of the execution of the counter-
statement by the accused admitting the commission
affidavit dated July 31, 1990? Companiero?

Page 230 of 233

ATTY ILAGAN By itself, the Counter-Affidavit miserably fails to establish the
requisites of self-defense enumerated in the law.[42] Had
Admitted, your Honor.‖[31] petitioner been more vigilant in protecting his rights, he could have
presented clear and cogent evidence to prove those elements. But,
The admissions of petitioner made through his counsel cannot be as found by the court a quo, he not only failed to discharge the
any clearer. To be sure, the unbroken stream of judicial dicta is burden of proving the existence of the justifying circumstance of
that, in the conduct of their case, clients are bound by the actions self-defense; he did not even bother to present any evidence at
of their counsels, save when the latter‘s negligence is so gross, all.[43] So, we do not see how the Sandiganbayan could have been
reckless and inexcusable that the former are deprived of their selective in its treatment of his Counter-Affidavit.
day in court.[32] Also, clients, being bound by the actions of their
counsels, cannot complain that the result of the litigation might Verily, if the accused fails to discharge the burden of proving the
have been different had their lawyers proceeded differently.[33] existence of self-defense or of any other circumstance that
A counsel may err as to the competency of witnesses, the eliminates criminal liability, his conviction shall of necessity follow,
sufficiency and the relevance of evidence, the proper defense, the on the basis of his admission of the killing.[44] Upholding this
burden of proof, the introduction or the withholding of witnesses principle does not in any way violate his right to be presumed
or pieces of evidence, or the manner of arguing the case. This innocent until proven guilty. When he admitted to having killed the
Court, however, has ruled several times that those are not even victim, the burden of proving his innocence fell on him. It became
proper grounds for a new trial, unless the counsel‘s incompetence is
his duty to establish by clear and convincing evidence the lawful
so gross that the clients are prevented from fairly presenting
justification for the killing.
their case.[34]

Therefore, petitioner can no longer invoke his constitutional right

Having admitted that he had fatally shot the victim, petitioner
to be presumed innocent of the crime charged.[45] As far as he
had the duty of showing that the killing was justified, and that the
is concerned, homicide has already been established. The fact of
latter incurred no criminal liability therefor.[35] Petitioner should
death and its cause were established by his admissions coupled
have relied on the strength of his own evidence and not on the
with the other prosecution evidence including the Certificate of
weakness of that for the prosecution. Even if his evidence be
Death,[46] the Certificate of Post-Mortem Examination[47] and
weak, it cannot be disbelieved after the accused has admitted the
the Medico-Legal Findings.[48] The intent to kill is likewise
killing.[36]
presumed from the fact of death.[49]

Petitioner argues that it was the prosecution that indirectly

Second Issue:
raised the issue of self-defense. Hence, he could not be bound by
it. This argument deserves scant consideration. As discussed
Denial of Motion for Leave to File Demurrer
earlier, the declarations contained in his Counter-Affidavit are
admissions that may be used as evidence against him.[37] The
Petitioner then argues that the Sandiganbayan erred in not giving
Sandiganbayan did not unfairly presume that he had indeed raised
due course to his Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence. He
the theory of self-defense, because this argument had already
brands this denial as legally and constitutionally wrong.[50]
been laid out in his Counter-Affidavit. No presumption was
necessary, because the admission was clear and unequivocal.
We disagree. Prior leave to file a demurrer to evidence is
discretionary upon the trial court.[51] And, unless there is grave
Neither do we believe petitioner‘s claim that the anti-graft court
abuse amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in its denial,
―miserably failed to give equal effect or treatment to all the
the trial court‘s resolution may not be disturbed.[52]
allegations found therein (Counter-Affidavit) choosing
deliberately and without reasonable basis the parts which are
Final Issue:
incriminating in character, and ignoring without sufficient legal
basis the exculpatory assertions of the accused.‖[38]
Voluntary Surrender

The unsubstantiated and uncorroborated statements of petitioner

After vigorously arguing against his own Counter-Affidavit,
in his Counter-Affidavit are utterly insufficient to discharge his
petitioner, in a surprising change of tenor, implores this Court to
burden of proving that the act of killing was justified. It is
consider his voluntary surrender to the police authorities as a
hornbook doctrine that self-defense must be proved with
mitigating circumstance. He argues that two of the prosecution
certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that
witnesses testified that he had surrendered to the police
excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the
authorities after the shooting incident.[53] To buttress his
person invoking it.[39] It cannot be entertained if it is argument, he contends that the ―main reason for his voluntary
uncorroborated by any separate and competent evidence, and it is surrender is that he sincerely believe[d] that he was legally
also doubtful.[40] The question whether the accused acted in self- justified in defending himself as a policeman when he fought the
defense is essentially a question of fact properly evaluated by the victim after he was attacked by the latter.‖[54] It goes without saying
lower court; in this case, the Sandiganbayan.[41] that this statement only reaffirms the admissions contained

Page 231 of 233

in his Counter-Affidavit, which he so vehemently tried to discredit.

For voluntary surrender to mitigate criminal liability, the following

elements must concur: 1) the offender has not been actually
arrested, 2) the offender surrenders himself to a person in
authority or to the latter‘s agent, and 3) the surrender is
voluntary.[55] To be sufficient, the surrender must be spontaneous
and made in a manner clearly indicating the intent of the accused
to surrender unconditionally, either because they acknowledge
their guilt or wish to save the authorities the trouble and the
expense that will necessarily be incurred in searching for and
capturing them.[56]

The only pieces of evidence in support of the plea of voluntary

surrender made by petitioner are statements made by two (2)
prosecution witnesses that they were allegedly told by other
people that he had already gone to the police station. There is no
showing that he was not actually arrested; or that when he went to
the police station, he surrendered himself to a person in authority.
Neither is there any finding that he has evinced a desire to own to
any complicity in the killing.

We have ruled in the past that the accused who had gone to the
police headquarters merely to report the shooting incident did not
evince any desire to admit responsibility for the killing. Thus, he
could not be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered.[57] In the
absence of sufficient and convincing proof showing the existence
of indispensable circumstances, we cannot appreciate voluntary
surrender to mitigate petitioner‘s penalty.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision

and Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.

Puno, (Chairman), J., abroad on official business.

Page 232 of 233

Page 233 of 233