JURISPRUDENCE 2001 1

Where the credibility of a witness is an to appellant, Antonio claimed said

issue, the established rule is that great affidavit was given under duress. 4
respect is accorded to the evaluation of
the credibility of witnesses by the trial oOo
court. It is in the best position to
determine the issue of credibility of a A dying declaration is the statement
witness, having heard his testimony and which refers to the cause and
observed his deportment and manner of surrounding circumstances of the
testifying.1 But, where there is a showing declarant’s death, made under the
that the trial court overlooked material consciousness of an impending death." 5
and relevant facts, which could affect the It is admissible in evidence as an
outcome of a case, 2 the Court will not exception to the hearsay rule66 " SEC.
hesitate to set aside the lower court’s 36. Testimony generally confined to
findings and assessments regarding the personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. "
credibility of witnesses. A witness can testify only to those facts
which he knows of his personal
oOo knowledge; that is, which are derived
from his own perception except as
As a rule, an eyewitness testimony otherwise provided in these rules." 66
cannot be disregarded on account of the because of necessity and
delay in reporting the event, so long as trustworthiness. Necessity, because the
the delay is justified. 3 declarant’s death makes it impossible for
him to take the witness stand 6 and
oOo trustworthiness, for when a person is at
the point of death, every motive for
The declaration of a dying person, made falsehood is silenced and the mind is
under the consciousness of an impending induced by the most powerful
death, may be received in any case consideration to speak the truth. 7 The
wherein his death is the subject of requisites for the admissibility of a dying
inquiry, as evidence of the cause and declaration are: (1) the death is
surrounding circumstances of such imminent and the declarant is conscious
death. 62 nor part of the res gestae of that fact; (2) the declaration refers to
under Rule 130, Section 4263 - SEC. 42. the cause and surrounding
Part of the res gestae. Statements circumstances of such death; (3) the
made a person while a startling declaration relates to facts which the
occurrence is taking place or victim is competent to testify; (4) the
immediately prior or subsequent thereto declarant thereafter dies; and (5) the
with respect to the circumstances declaration is offered in a criminal case
thereof may be given in evidence as part wherein the declarant’s death is the
of the res gestae. So, also, statements subject of inquiry. 8
accompanying an equivocal act material
to the issue, and giving it a legal oOo
significance may be received as part of
the res gestae. 63 of the Rules of Court. But was the purported ante-mortem
It is inadmissible for being hearsay. statement part of the res gestae? Where
Furthermore, he avers it was error for a victim’s statement may not be
the trial court to give weight to the first
affidavit of Antonio,64 Records, Criminal 4
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
Case No. 1887, pp. 16-18.64 since ANGEL PRECIADOS (At Large), ARTURO ENAD,
Antonio repudiated the same, stating EMIGDIO VILLAMOR, LEONCIO ALGABRE and
FLORIANO ALGABRE @ "LOLOY", accused. / ARTURO
that its contents were false. According ENAD, accused-appellant., G.R. No. 122934, 2001 Jan
5, 2nd Division
5
1
People v. Castillo, et al., G.R. No. 130188, April 27, F. B. Moreno, Phil. Law Dictionary (3rd Ed. 1988) 300,
2000, p. 11 citing People v. Lapay, 298 SCRA 62 (1998); citing People v. Lugtu, 108 SCRA 89 (1981)
6
People v. Pantorilla and Dahan, G.R. No. 122739, People v. Bautista, 278 SCRA 613, 623 (1997); People
January 19, 2000, p. 7; People v. Magpantay, 284 SCRA v. Sion, 277 SCRA 127 (1997)
7
96 (1998); and People v. Erese, 281 SCRA 316 (1997) People v. Amaca, 277 SCRA 215, 223 (1997)
2
People v. Tanoy, G.R. No. 115692, May 12, 2000, p. 6 8
People v. Bergante, 286 SCRA 629, 638 (1998); People
3
People v. Lusa, 288 SCRA 296, 305 (1998); People v. v. Viovicente, supra; People v. Bautista, 278 SCRA 613
Viovicente, 286 SCRA 1, 8 (1998); People v. Villamor, (1997); People v. Amaca, 277 SCRA 215 (1997); People
284 SCRA 184, 193 (1998) v. Padao, 267 SCRA 64 (1997)
 JURISPRUDENCE 2001 2

admissible as an ante mortem oOo

declaration, it may nonetheless be
considered as part of the res gestae, if Unless an affiant himself takes the
made immediately after a startling witness stand to affirm the averments in
occurrence in relation to the his affidavit, the affidavit must be
circumstances thereof and when the excluded from the judicial proceeding for
victim did not have time to contrive a being inadmissible hearsay. 16
falsehood. 9 For res gestae to be allowed
as an exception to the hearsay rule, the oOo
following requisites must be satisfied:
(1) that the principal act or res gestae Appellant’s defense of denial in the
be a startling occurrence; (2) the present case is inherently weak.17 Denial,
statement is spontaneous or was made if unsubstantiated by clear and
before the declarant had time to contrive convincing evidence, is a negative and
or devise, and the statement is made self-serving evidence undeserving of any
during the occurrence or immediately weight in law. 18 But such weakness does
prior or subsequent thereto; and (3) the not excuse the prosecution from
statement made must concern the presenting the adequate quantum of
occurrence in question and its proof of the crime charged. The guilt of
10
immediately attending circumstances. the accused must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. And the prosecution’s
oOo evidence must stand or fall on its own
weight. It cannot rely on the weakness
As a rule, retractions are generally of the defense. In the instant case, the
unreliable and are looked upon with prosecution failed to prove the guilt of
considerable disfavor by the courts 11 appellant with moral certainty. The
because of the probability that testimony of its single purported
recantation may later on be itself eyewitness, while positive, was less than
repudiated. 12 Furthermore, retractions credible. It did not meet the test such
can easily be obtained from witnesses testimony of a lone witness to sustain a
through intimidation or for monetary judgment of conviction, must be both
consideration, 13 and a mere retraction positive and credible. 19 In our view, the
does not necessarily negate an earlier burden of proof required for conviction of
declaration. 14 When faced with a appellant has not been adequately
situation where a witness recants an discharged by the prosecution.
earlier statement, courts do not
automatically exclude the original oOo
testimony. The original declaration is
compared with the new statement, to Basic in statutory construction is the rule
determine which should be believed. 15 that the enactment of a later legislation
which is a general law cannot be
9
construed to have repealed a special law
People v. Bocatcat, Sr., 188 SCRA 175, 185 (1990)
10
People v. Cariquez and Franco, 315 SCRA 247, 261
unless expressly so stated. Well-settled
(1999); People v. Queliza, 279 SCRA 145 (1997); People in this jurisdiction is the doctrine that a
v. Esquilona, 248 SCRA 139 (1995); People v. Peralta, "special statute, provided for a particular
237 SCRA 218 (1994); People v. Tolentino, 218 SCRA case or class of cases, is not repealed by
337 (1993); People v. Sanchez, 213 SCRA 70 (1992)
11
People v. Junio, 237 SCRA 826, 834 (1994); People v.
a subsequent statute, general in its
Logronio, 214 SCRA 519, 531 (1992) citing People v. del terms, provisions and applications,
Pilar, 188 SCRA 37 (1990), People v. Aldaguer, 184 unless the intent to repeal or alter is
SCRa 1 (1990); People v. Navasca, 76 SCRA 70 (1977), manifest, although the terms of the
and People v. Domenden, 6 SCRA 343 (1962)
12
People v. Navarro, supra, at 348, citing People v. general law are broad enough to include
Soria, 262 SCRA 739 (1996), People v. De Leon, 245
SCRA 538 (1995), and People v. Liwag, 225 SCRA 46
(1993)
16
13
People v. Bibat, 290 SCRA 27, 39 (1998) citing People People v. Crispin, G.R. No. 128360, March 2, 2000, p.
v. de Leon, 245 SCRA 538 (1995) 10 citing People v. Silvestre, 307 SCRA 68 (1999);
14
People v. Ballabare, 264 SCRA 350, 361 (1996) People v. Manhayod, Jr., 290 SCRA 257 (1998)
17
15
People v. Peralta, 237 SCRA 218, 224 (1994); People People v. Juan and Juan, G.R. Nos. 100718-19,
v. Mindac, 216 SCRA 558 (1992); People v. Clamor, 198 January 20, 2000, p. 19
18
SCRA 642 (1991); Reano v. Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA People v. Fajardo, et al., 315 SCRA 283, 293 (1999)
19
525 (1988) People v. Reñola, 308 SCRA 145, 152 (1998)
 JURISPRUDENCE 2001 3

the cases embraced in the special law." the corporate secretary to record his
20
alleged ownership of such shares on the
basis merely of the contract of pledge.
oOo Similarly, the SEC does not acquire
jurisdiction over a dispute when a party's
Even assuming for the sake of argument claim to being a shareholder is, on the
that Section 4 should be deemed face of the complaint, invalid or
superseded, we have held that where a inadequate or is otherwise negated by
contract is entered into by the parties on the very allegations of such complaint.
the basis of the law then obtaining, the Mandamus will not issue to establish a
repeal or amendment of said law will not right, but only to enforce one that is
affect the terms of the contract, nor already established." 24
impair the right of the parties
21
thereunder. This rule applies even if oOo
one of the contracting parties is the
government. 22 The stipulations in In addition, even if Ting Ping Lay were
Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 5 being not a stockholder, he is nonetheless a
integral parts of the original contract member of the public whose investment
between Arboleda and the Land Tenure in the corporation the law seeks to
Administration, the five-year redemption protect and encourage, as his purchase
period in Section 4, R.A. 1597 becomes of the shares of stock has been
all the more pertinent and decisive of the established. 25 After all, the principal
controversy in the present case. function of the SEC is the supervision
and control of corporations, partnerships
In the light of Section 4 of R.A. 1597, we and associations with the end in view
hold that the respondent court that investments in these entities may
committed no reversible error when it be encouraged and protected, and their
affirmed the trial court’s judgment. activities pursued for the protection of
Petitioners’ repurchase of the subject lot economic development. 26 In other
within the five-year redemption period of words, the jurisdiction of the SEC should
Section 4 of R.A. No. 1597 is within the be construed in relation to its power of
purview of a redemption by a co-owner control and supervision over all
which inures to the benefit of all other corporations to encourage active public
co-owners of the property. participation in the affairs of private
corporations by way of investments. 27
oOo
Petitioners are also barred from
The determination of whether or not a questioning the jurisdiction of the SEC.
shareholder is entitled to exercise the While it is a rule that a jurisdictional
rights of a stockholder is within the question may be raised at any time, this,
jurisdiction of the SEC. 23 As held by the however, admits of an exception where,
Court, thru Justice A. Panganiban in Lim as in this case, estoppel has supervened.
28
Tay: This Court has time and again frowned
upon the undesirable practice of a party
"The duty of a corporate secretary to submitting his case for decision and then
record transfers of stocks is ministerial. accepting the judgment, only if
However, he cannot be compelled to do favorable, and attacking it for lack of
so when the transferee's title to said jurisdiction when adverse. 29 Instead of
shares has no prima facie validity or is opposing the exercise of jurisdiction by
uncertain. More specifically, a pledgor, 24
Id. at 639
prior to foreclosure and sale, does not 25
Tolentino vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 226, 234
acquire ownership rights over the (1997)
pledged shares and thus cannot compel
26
Lozano vs. De los Santos, 274 SCRA 452, 458 (1997)
27
Rivilla vs. IAC, 175 SCRA 773, 778 (1989)
20
Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. Court of 28
Suarez vs. Court of Appeals, 186 SCRA 339, 342
Appeals, 251 SCRA 42, 56 (1995) (1990)
21
Insular Government vs. Frank, 13 Phil. 236, 239 29
Korean Airlines, Co., Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, 247
(1909); Aisporna vs. Court of Appeals, 108 SCRA 481, SCRA 599, 603 (1995); Sesbreño vs. Court of Appeals,
494-495 (1981) 240 SCRA 606, 612 (1995); Bañaga vs. Commission on
22
Insular Government vs. Frank, 13 Phil. 236, 239 (1909) the Settlement of Land Problems, 181 SCRA 599, 608
23
293 SCRA 634, 648 (1998) (1990); Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29, 36 (1968)
 JURISPRUDENCE 2001 4

SEC seasonably, petitioners invoked said rendered by a magistrate or tribunal

jurisdiction by participating in the believed to be less than impartial and
proceedings before it. Petitioners cannot honest.
now be allowed to adopt an inconsistent
posture on this score. oOo

oOo Verily, a judge must promote public

confidence in the integrity and
No less than the Code of Judicial Conduct impartiality of the judiciary. These
mandates that a judge should be the stringent standards are intended to
embodiment of competence, integrity, assure parties of just and equitable
and independence. 30 Indeed, in every decisions and of a judiciary that is
case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to capable of dispensing impartial justice in
ascertain the facts and applicable laws every issue in every trial. 34
unswayed by partisan interests, public
opinion, or fear of criticism. 31 Thus, this oOo
Court has continually reminded members
of the bench that: He did not observe the dictum that a
judge, like Cesar’s wife, must not only
The Judge should always be imbued with be pure but beyond suspicion. 35 He
a high sense of duty and responsibility in violated the Code of Judicial Conduct
the discharge of his obligation to ordaining that a judge "should uphold
promptly and properly administer the integrity and independence of the
justice. He must view himself as a priest judiciary" and "should avoid impropriety
for the administration of justice is akin to and the appearance of impropriety in all
a religious crusade. Thus, exerting the activities" 36. He has demonstrated that
same devotion as a priest "in the he cannot be a model of uprightness,
performance of the most sacred fairness and honesty. 37
ceremonies of religious liturgy", the
judge must render service with The people’s confidence in the judicial
impartiality commensurate with public system is founded not only on the
trust and confidence reposed in him". 32 magnitude of legal knowledge and the
diligence of the members of the bench,
oOo but also on the highest standard of
integrity and moral uprightness they are
On this score, we find pertinent our expected to possess. 38
ruling in the recent case of Evelyn oOo
Agpalasin vs. Judge Ernesto M. Agcaoili,
33
that: A judge should personify judicial
integrity and exemplify honest public
A judge should, in pending or service. The personal behavior of a
prospective litigation before him, be judge, both in the performance of official
scrupulously careful to avoid such action duties and in private life should be above
as may reasonably tend to weaken the suspicion. 39
suspicion that his social or business
relations or friendships constitute an This Court has often stated that a judge,
element in determining his judicial being the visible representation of the
course. He must not only render a just, law and the embodiment of the people’s
correct and impartial decision but should sense of justice, must adhere to the
do so in such a manner as to be free highest tenets of judicial conduct and he
from any suspicion as to his fairness, should constantly keep away from any
impartiality and integrity. A decision
which correctly applies the law and 34
Abundo vs. Manio, Jr., 312 SCRA 1 [1999]
jurisprudence will nevertheless be 35
Palang v. Zosa, 58 SCRA 776
subject to questions of impropriety when 36
Canon 1 and 2
37
Rural Bank of Barotac Nuevo v. Cartagena, 84 SCRA
30
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 128
31
Rule 3.02, Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct 38
Dawa v. De Asa, 292 SCRA 703, 724-725 [1998]
32
Dimatulac vs. Villon, 297 SCRA 679 [1998] 39
See also Junio v. Rivera, Jr., 225 SCRA 688 [1993];
33
A.M. No. RTJ-95-1308, April 12, 2000 Imbing v. Tiongson, 229 SCRA 690 [1994]
 JURISPRUDENCE 2001 5

act of impropriety, 40 not only in the actual commission of the crime, in

performance of his official duties but also lending moral assistance to his co-
his everyday actuations 41 for no other conspirators by being present at the
position exacts a greater demand on scene of the crime, or exerting moral
moral righteousness and uprightness of ascendancy. 47
an individual than perhaps a seat in the
judiciary. 42 A judge should always be a It is evident from the above
symbol of rectitude and propriety, circumstances that all the accused acted
comporting himself in a manner that will collectively and individually with a
raise no doubt whatsoever about his common design towards the
honesty. 43 accomplishment of the same unlawful
purpose. Not even one of the accused
oOo tried to stop the assault on all the
victims (People vs. Carino, 233 SCRA
In People v. Ayo 44, reiterating what had 687; People vs. Leonor Tamang, G.R.
been said in other cases, we held that No. 99868, August 19, 1994). They
when a woman claims that she was were all “together in the execution of
raped, she says in effect all that is their criminal design.” 48
necessary to show that rape has been
committed and that if her testimony We agree with the trial court that there
meets the test of credibility, the accused was implied conspiracy among the
can be convicted on the basis thereof. appellants in the commission of all the
Unless she is motivated by truth, no crimes charged. When Panong called
woman, much less an eight-year old girl, Lucita Loveres who went out of the
would subject herself to the rigors of a house to respond to his call, appellants
public trial, describing before total were among those with him armed with
strangers the shameful, humiliating and weapons. Danilo Pablo held a knife,
degrading experience of the sexual Nicolas Compra held a bolo, Edwin
assault. Trabuncon held a piece of wood. 49 When
Panong shot Lucita, there was no
oOo evidence that appellants were surprised,
nor did they protest or attempt to help
Indeed, as held in People v. Lim 45, the the victim. Instead, they appeared
date of the commission of rape is not an united in the execution of a common
essential element of the crime. criminal design. The presence of the
appellants as a group, each of them
oOo armed, undeniably gave encouragement
and sense of security and purpose
It is a settled rule that conspiracy need among themselves. 50 Where conspiracy
not be proved by direct evidence of prior is established, the act of one is the act of
agreement on the commission of the all. 51 All the conspirators are liable as
crime as the same can be inferred from co-principals. 52
the conduct of the accused before,
during, and after the commission of the Hence, the trial court correctly held
crime, showing that they acted in unison appellants liable for the murder of
with each other, evincing a common Lucita Loveres. The act of Renato Danao
purpose or design. 46 An overt act in in suddenly shooting Lucita Loveres
furtherance of the conspiracy may while they were conversing qualified the
consist in actively participating in the crime with alevosia. 53 However, there is
no factual basis for the trial court’s
40
Marces, Sr. v. Arcangel, 258 SCRA 502, 517 [1996]
47
41
Panganiban v. Guerrero, Jr., 242 SCRA 11, 15 [1995] People vs. Casey, G.R. No. L-30146, February 24,
42
Legaspi v. Garrete, 242 SCRA 679, 701 [1995] 1981, 103 SCRA 21, 36
48
43
Office of the Court Administrator v. Barron, 297 SCRA Decision, pp. 30-31, Rollo, pp. 218-219
49
376 [1998], citing Yuson v. Noel, 227 SCRA 1 [1993] TSN, August 25, 1992, pp. 37-38
50
44
305 SCRA 543 (1999) People vs. Sotes, 260 SCRA 353, 365 [1996] citing
45
312 SCRA 550 (1999) Arceno vs. People, G.R. No. 116098, April 26, 1996
51
46
People vs. Sotes, 260 SCRA 353, 365 [1996] citing Id.
52
George Arceno vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. People vs. Peralta, 25 SCRA 759, 776-777 [1968]
53
116098, April 26, 1996; People v. Zafra, 237 SCRA 669 People vs. Magno et al., G. R. No. 134535, January
[1994] 19, 2000
 JURISPRUDENCE 2001 6

finding that the crime was committed Further, appellants faulted the trial court
with evident premeditation as the in holding that the attempted murder of
prosecution failed to prove the following Edgar Loveres was committed with the
requisites: (1) the time when the aggravating circumstance of superior
offender determined to commit the strength and evident premeditation.
crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating They asserted that Edgar was stabbed
that the culprit has clung to his by Inggo only once, and hit by Edwin
determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse Trabuncon with a piece of wood only
of time between the determination and once before he ran away. There was no
execution, to allow him to reflect upon evidence that the accused were
the consequences of his act. 54 physically stronger and abused such
superiority.
oOo
We agree. When Edgar Loveres tried to
In the aggravating circumstance of lift his mother after she was shot, Inggo
superiority in strength, superiority in Pablo stabbed him, and Edwin Trabuncon
number does not necessarily mean hit him with a piece of wood on his left
superiority in strength; it is necessary to forearm, so Edgar Loveres ran inside
show that the aggressors cooperated in their house. It appears that the attack
such a way as to secure advantage from was made on him alternately and not
their superiority in strength. 55 There simultaneously. Use of superior strength
must be proof of the relative physical should not be considered when the
strength of the aggressors and the attack was made on the victim
assaulted party or proof that the accused alternately, one after the other. 60 It was
simultaneously assaulted the deceased. not shown that Inggo Pablo and Edwin
56
Trabuncon cooperated in such a way as
to secure advantage from their combined
The rule is that under normal conditions, or superior strength in attacking Edgar
when the conspiracy is directly Loveres. 61
established with proof of the attendant
deliberation and selection of the method, oOo
time and means of executing the crimes,
the existence of evident premeditation Rule 122, §1 of the Revised Rules on
may be taken for granted. 57 In case of Criminal Procedure provides that "(a)ny
implied conspiracy, however, there must party may appeal from a judgment or
be proof as to how and when the plan final order, unless the accused will be
was hatched and the time that elapsed placed in double jeopardy." It has been
before it was carried out, so it can be held that the word "party" in the
determined if the accused had sufficient provision in question includes not only
time between its inception and its the government and the accused but
fulfillment to dispassionately consider other persons as well, such as the
the commission of the crime and its complainant who may be affected by the
consequences. 58 judgment rendered in the criminal
proceedings. The complainant has an
Hence, the trial court correctly convicted interest in the civil liability arising from
appellants of the crime of murder of the crime, unless of course he has
Domingo and Robert Loveres, qualified reserved to bring a separate civil action
by treachery, which absorbed the to recover the civil liability.62 Hence, in
aggravating circumstance of abuse of the prosecution of the offense, the
superior strength. 59 complainant's role is that of a witness for
the prosecution.63 Ordinarily, the appeal
54
of criminal cases involves as parties only
Id. the accused, as appellants, and the
55
People v. Casey, see note 63, supra at 34 [1981]
60
citing People v. Elizaga, 86 Phil. 365 People vs. Narciso, 23 SCRA 844, 865-866, (1968)
56
Id., citing People v. Bustos, et al., 51 Phil. 385; People 61
People v. Casey, 103 SCRA 21, 34 [1981] citing
vs. Rubia, et al., 52 Phil. 172, 176 [1928] People v. Trumata and Baligasa, 49 Phil 192
57
People vs. Rojas, 147 SCRA 169, 179 [1987] citing 62
Mosquera v. Panganiban, 258 SCRA 473 (1996);
People vs. Cornejo, 28 Phil. 457 People v. Guido, 57 Phil. 52 (1932)
58
Id., citing People vs. Custodia, 97 Phil. 698 63
Soriano v. Angeles, G.R. No. 109920, Aug. 31, 2000;
59
People vs. Lopez, G. R. No. 132168, October 10, 2000 People v. Santiago, 174 SCRA 143 (1989)
 JURISPRUDENCE 2001 7

State, represented by the Office of the receipts, showing the expenses incurred
Solicitor General, as the appellee. The during the wake and burial of the
participation of the private offended deceased. 67
party would be a mere surplusage, if the
State were simply to seek the On the other hand, in line with our
affirmation of a judgment of conviction. rulings in several cases, 68 the heirs of
However, where the Office of the the victim should be paid the amount of
Solicitor General takes a contrary P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. Unlike the
position and recommends, as in this award of actual damages, the award of
case, the acquittal of the accused, the civil indemnity need no proof other than
complainant's right to be heard on the the death of the victim. In addition,
question of award of indemnity and while the heirs of the victim are entitled
damages arises. In the interest of justice to moral damages, the award must not
and equity and to provide perspective for exceed P50,000.00 as fixed by our
this appeal, therefore, the Court hereby recent rulings. 69 The purpose of making
allows in this case the memorandum such award is not to enrich the heirs of
filed by complainant which is hereby the victim but to compensate them for
admitted as part of the records of this injuries to their feelings. 70
appeal.
oOo
The essence of treachery is the sudden
and unexpected attack without the It is a fundamental rule that, in the
slightest provocation on the part of the determination of the nature of an action
person attacked. 64 or proceeding, the averments 71 and the
character of the relief sought 72 in the
The inconsistencies, improbabilities, and complaint, or petition, as in the case at
uncertainties in Mercy's testimony are bar, shall be controlling.
many, and they relate to material points.
The suspicion cannot be helped that she The fact of death of the decedent and of
was a rehearsed witness.65 It cannot be his residence within the country are
too often repeated that for evidence to foundation facts upon which all the
be believed, it must not only proceed subsequent proceedings in the
from the mouth of a credible witness but administration of the estate rest.[17]
must itself be credible. The evidence
must be what the common experience It is our view that herein petitioners may
and observation of mankind would not be allowed to defeat the purpose of
approve of as probable under the the essentially valid petition for the
circumstances. settlement of the estate of the late
Troadio Manalo by raising matters that
oOo are irrelevant and immaterial to the said
petition. It must be emphasized that the
The rule is settled that where there is trial court, sitting, as a probate court,
nothing to indicate that a witness was has limited and special jurisdiction 73 and
actuated by improper motive his positive
67
and categorical declarations on the People v. Vital, G.R. No. 130785, September 29, 2000;
People v. Gallo, 318 SCRA 157 (1999); People v.
stand, made under solemn oath, should Lachica, 316 SCRA 443 (1999); People v. Apelado, 316
be given full faith and credence. 66 SCRA 422 (1999)
68
E.g., People v. Samolde, G.R. No. 128551, July 31,
The award of damages should be 2000; People v. Suplito, supra; People v. Bautista, 312
SCRA 475 (1999); People v. Panida, 310 SCRA 66
modified. The award of P20,000.00 as (1999)
actual damages and expenses must be 69
People v. Ladit, G.R. No. 127571, May 11, 2000;
deleted for lack of evidence presented to People v. Orillo, G.R. No. 125896, May 11, 2000; People
support it. Under Art. 2199 of the Civil v. Suplito, supra; People v. Espanola, 271 SCRA 689
(1997)
Code, for such an award to be made, 70
People v. Verde, 302 SCRA 690 (1999)
there must be competent proof, such as 71
De Tavera vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc. 112
SCRA 243, 248 (1982)
64
People v. Domingo, 312 SCRA 487 (1999) 72
Movers-Baseco Integrated Port Services, Inc. vs.
65
People v. Milan, 311 SCRA 461 (1999) Cyborg Leasing Corporation, 317 SCRA 327, 335 (1999)
66 73
People v. Suplito, 314 SCRA 493 (1999); People v. Guzman vs. Anog, 37 Phil. 61, 62 (1917); Borja vs.
Payot, 308 SCRA 43 (1999) Borja, et al., 101 Phil 911, 925 (1957) cited in the
 JURISPRUDENCE 2001 8

cannot hear and dispose of collateral

matters and issues which may be The above-quoted provision of the law is
properly threshed out only in an ordinary applicable only to ordinary civil actions.
civil action. In addition, the rule has This is clear from the term "suit" that it
always been to the effect that the refers to an action by one person or
jurisdiction of a court, as well as the persons against another or others in a
concomitant nature of an action, is court of justice in which the plaintiff
determined by the averments in the pursues the remedy which the law
complaint and not by the defenses affords him for the redress of an injury
contained in the answer. If it were or the enforcement of a right, whether at
otherwise, it would not be too difficult to law or in equity. 76 A civil action is thus
have a case either thrown out of court or an action filed in a court of justice,
its proceedings unduly delayed by simple whereby a party sues another for the
strategem.74 So it should be in the enforcement of a right, or the prevention
instant petition for settlement of estate. or redress of a wrong. 77 Besides, an
excerpt from the Report of the Code
Herein petitioners argue that even if the Commission unmistakably reveals the
petition in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626 were intention of the Code Commission to
to be considered as a special proceeding make that legal provision applicable only
for the settlement of estate of a to civil actions which are essentially
deceased person, Rule 16, Section 1(j) adversarial and involve members of the
of the Rules of Court vis-a-vis Article 222 same family, thus:
of the Civil Code of the Philippines would
nevertheless apply as a ground for the It is difficult to imagine a sadder and
dismissal of the same by virtue of Rule more tragic spectacle than a litigation
1, Section 2 of the Rules of Court which between members of the same family. It
provides that the "rules shall be liberally is necessary that every effort should be
construed in order to promote their made toward a compromise before a
object and to assist the parties in litigation is allowed to breed hate and
obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive passion in the family. It is known that
determination of every action and lawsuit between close relatives
proceeding." Petitioners contend that the generates deeper bitterness than
term "proceeding" is so broad that it strangers. 78
must necessarily include special
proceedings. It must be emphasized that the
oppositors (herein petitioners) are not
The argument is misplaced. Herein being sued in SP. PROC. No. 92-63626
petitioners may not validly take refuge for any cause of action as in fact no
under the provisions of Rule 1, Section defendant was impleaded therein. The
2, of the Rules of Court to justify the Petition for Issuance of Letters of
invocation of Article 222 of the Civil Code Administration, Settlement and
of the Philippines for the dismissal of the Distribution of Estate in SP. PROC. No.
petition for settlement of the estate of 92-63626 is a special proceeding and, as
the deceased Troadio Manalo inasmuch such, it is a remedy whereby the
as the latter provision is clear enough, to
wit: Art. 151. No suit between members of the same family
shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified
complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a
Art. 222. No suit shall be filed or compromise have been made, but that the same have
maintained between members of the failed. If it is shown that no such efforts were in fact
same family unless it should appear that made, the case must be dismissed.
This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the
earnest efforts toward a compromise subject of compromise under the Civil Code.
have been made, but that the same 76
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., 1990, citing Kohl v.
have failed, subject to the limitations in U.S., 91 U.S. 367, 375, 23 L.Ed. 449; Weston v.
Article 2035 underscoring supplied). 75 Charleston, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 449, 464, 7 L.Ed. 481;
Syracuse Plaster Co. v. Agostini Bros. Bldg. Corporation,
169 Misc. 564, 7 N.Y. S.2d 897
Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Volume V-A 77
Rule 1, Section 3(a) of the Rules of Court
Part I, 1970 Ed. By Vicente J. Francisco 78
74 Report of the Code of Commission, p. 18 cited in the
Chico vs. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 33, 36 (1998)
75 Civil Code of the Philippines, Commentaries and
Article 151 of the Family Code of the Philippines now jurisprudence, Vol. 1, 1995 Ed. By Arturo M. Tolentino, p.
reads: 505
 JURISPRUDENCE 2001 9

petitioners therein seek to establish a While the service of summons by

status, a right, or a particular fact. 79 The publication may have been done with the
petitioners therein (private respondents approval of the trial court, it does not
herein) merely seek to establish the fact cure the fatal defect that the
of death of their father and subsequently "Metropolitan Newsweek" is not a
to be duly recognized as among the heirs newspaper of general circulation in
of the said deceased so that they can Quezon City. The Rules strictly require
validly exercise their right to participate that publication must be "in a newspaper
in the settlement and liquidation of the of general circulation and in such places
estate of the decedent consistent with and for such time as the court may
the limited and special jurisdiction of the order." 83 The court orders relied upon by
probate court. petitioners did not specify the place and
the length of time that the summons
oOo was to be published. In the absence of
such specification, publication in just any
The case before the Court of Appeals periodical does not satisfy the strict
was one for annulment of judgment, requirements of the rules. The
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. In incomplete directive of the court a quo
resolving the same, the Court of Appeals coupled with the defective publication of
need not retry the facts. An action for the summons rendered the service by
annulment of judgment is grounded only publication ineffective. The modes of
on two justifications: (1) extrinsic fraud; service of summons should be strictly
and (2) lack of jurisdiction or denial of followed in order that the court may
due process. 80 All that herein private acquire jurisdiction over the
respondents had to prove was that the respondents, 84 and failure to strictly
trial court had no jurisdiction; that they comply with the requirements of the
were prevented from having a trial or rules regarding the order of its
presenting their case to the trial court by publication is a fatal defect in the service
some act or conduct of petitioners; 81 or of summons. 85
It cannot be
that they had been denied due process overemphasized that the statutory
of law. Thus, the Court of Appeals need requirements of service of summons,
only to resolve the issues of lack of whether personally, by substituted
jurisdiction, existence of extrinsic fraud, service, or by publication, must be
and denial of due process of law. followed strictly, faithfully and fully, and
any mode of service other than that
The action for annulment of judgment prescribed by the statute is considered
86
cannot and was not a substitute for the ineffective.
lost remedy of appeal. The very purpose
of the action for annulment of judgment Petitioners failed to show that they were
was to have the final and executory the aggrieved parties. If ever there was
judgment set aside so that there will be denial of due process, it was private
a renewal of litigation. 82 Whether or not respondents who suffered therefrom.
the assailed Partial Decision based solely Whether by petitioners’ failure to
on facts and evidence presented by the effectively serve summons or by
petitioners is meritorious is irrelevant omitting to name private respondents as
and immaterial. Thus, the Court of respondents, the trial court’s Partial
Appeals did not err, nor did it violate the Decision declaring private respondents’
petitioners’ right to due process of law, titles null and void was clearly violative
when it refused to consider all the of the due process requirement of the
factual issues raised by petitioners. Constitution. It is elementary that before
a person can be deprived of his right or
property he should first be informed of
79 the claim against him and the theory on
Rule 1, Section 3 of the Rules of Court
80
Strait Times, Inc. v. CA, 294 SCRA 714 (1998);
Salonga v. CA, 269 SCRA 534 (1997)
83
81
Ybanez v. CA, 253 SCRA 540 (1997) Rules of Court, Rule 14, Section 14
84
82
I Moran, Rules of Court, 1950 ed., p. 697, citing Anuran Gan Hock v. CA, 197 SCRA 223 (1991)
85
v. Aquino, 38 Phil. 29; Banco-Español-Filipino v. Sahagun v. CA, 198 SCRA 44 (1991)
86
Palanca, 37 Phil. 921; Santiago v. Ceniza, 5 SCRA 494 Paluwagan ng Bayan Savings Bank v. King, 172 SCRA
(1962) 60 (1989)
 JURISPRUDENCE 2001 10

which such claim is premised. 87 The

courts will not countenance a denial of In the instant case, we note that
the fundamental right to due process, petitioner fails to point out any matter
which is a cornerstone of our legal which may have been overlooked or
system. 88 misconstrued by the trial court and the
appellate court in their respective
The Partial Decision was a judgment by assessments of Miraflor Salvero’s
default, which is generally looked upon testimony. Petitioner’s main contention
with disfavor,89 for it cannot pretend to that she was biased against him is
be based on the merits of the merely grounded on her common law
controversy.90 As in this case, the relationship to the brother of the
judgment by default may amount to a deceased. Petitioner presented no
positive and considerable injustice to concrete proof to show her testimony
private respondents. Hence, justice and was biased. We have held that the
equity demand that this case be litigated witness’ relationship to the victim does
anew.91 It is evident that the reopening not automatically affect the veracity of
of the case would not amount to an his or her testimony.96 No legal provision
exercise in futility nor is it intended to disqualifies relatives of the victim of a
further delay the final resolution of this crime from testifying if they are
controversy. The court a quo should give competent. Relationship alone is not
all the necessary parties every chance to reason enough to discredit and label
fight their case fairly and in the open, Miraflor Salvero’s testimony as biased
without resort to technicalities.92 and unworthy of credence. This Court
has taken cognizance of the fact that in
oOo many instances, crimes are committed
with just the victim’s kinfolk as
Where the bone of contention is the witnesses.97 Note further that the
credibility of a witness, settled is the rule records are bare of any showing that
that the trial court’s assessment of a Miraflor Salvero was motivated by any ill
witness’ credibility is accorded great motive to testify falsely against
weight by appellate courts absent any petitioner. Where there is no evidence to
showing that the trial court overlooked show any dubious reason or improper
certain matters which, if taken into motive for a prosecution witness to bear
consideration, would have materially false testimony against the accused or
affected the outcome of the case. 93 And falsely implicate him in a crime, his or
where the trial court’s findings have her testimony should be given full faith
been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and credit.98 We find no reason
these are generally binding and therefore, to disturb the findings of the
conclusive upon this Court.94 The trial court in which respondent court
determination of the credibility of concurred, respecting the credibility of
witnesses is best left to the trial court prosecution eyewitness Miraflor Salvero.
judge because of his unique opportunity
to observe their deportment and On the second issue, petitioner faults
demeanor on the witness stand, a respondent court for not appreciating his
vantage point denied appellate claim of incomplete self-defense and
tribunals.95 defense of a relative, it having been
established during the trial that his
87
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 266 SCRA 515 (1997) brother was the subject of an attack by
88
Fabella v. CA, 282 SCRA 256 (1997)
89 Eliseo, Sandra, Paciana, Estela and Roy,
Trajano v. Cruz, 80 SCRA 712 (1977)
90
Lesaca v. Ca, 215 SCRA 17 (1992); Coombs v.
all surnamed Diaz, who were armed with
Santos, 24 Phil. 446 (1913) bolos and a wooden club. Furthermore,
91
Sps. Rudy Ameloquio, Sr. and Laguimas Obnamia v. petitioner alleges that the court a quo
CA, G.R. No. 124243, June 15, 2000
92
Gerales v. CA, 218 SCRA 638 (1993); Goldloop 119595, January 25, 2000
96
Properties, Inc. v. CA, 212 SCRA 504 (1992) People v. Virtucio, Jr., G.R. No. 130667, February 22,
93
People v. Rimorin, et al., G.R. No. 124309, May 16, 2000, p. 5.
97
2000, p. 7, citing People v. Batidor, 303 SCRA 335 People v. Virtucio, Jr., supra, at 6, citing People v.
(1999) and People v. Sabalones, 294 SCRA 751 (1998) Ronato, 316 SCRA 433 (1999)
94
Boneng v. People, 304 SCRA 252, 257 (1999) 98
People v. Conde, G.R. No. 133647, April 12, 2000, p.
95
People v. Orio and Orio, G.R. No. 128821, April 12, 6, citing People v. Cristobal, 252 SCRA 507 (1996),
2000, p. 6, citing People v. Barona, et al., G.R. No. People v. Villanueva, 302 SCRA 380 (1999)
 JURISPRUDENCE 2001 11

erred when it did not give credence to victim’s part is indispensable.102 If there
his claim of incomplete self-defense, is no unlawful aggression, there is
since he was clubbed by the deceased, nothing to prevent or repel.103
whom he had to stab with a knife he
picked up from the ground, so as to The records show that petitioner sought
protect himself. Petitioner points out that to prove the element of unlawful
the victim was a drug addict and an ex- aggression on the victim’s part by
convict, notorious in the neighborhood pointing to the injuries which said victim
for violent behavior. had allegedly inflicted upon him. To
support this claim, petitioner presented a
The Solicitor General notes that medico-legal report prepared by the
petitioner’s stance is not supported by Assistant City Health Officer of
the records. The prosecution clearly Dumaguete City, who examined him on
proved that petitioner stabbed the victim August 2, 1989, as well as the testimony
while the latter was running towards his of said examining physician to the effect
house. Thus, unlawful aggression was that:
absent on the part of the victim, and this
negated petitioner’s theory of incomplete "(Petitioner was) found to be suffering
self-defense and/or defense of a relative. from (1) superficial laceration located
just above the left elbow at the back side
In invoking the justifying circumstance with a U-shape(d) opening facing
of self-defense, complete or incomplete, upward (2) contusion at the same area
the onus probandi is shifted to accused (3) superficial laceration on the left
to prove by clear and convincing forearm (4) contusion located at the
evidence all the elements of self- right side above the head a little above
defense, namely: (a) unlawful the earline. All the injuries were
aggression on the part of the victim; (b) classified as slight physical injuries, and
the reasonable necessity of the means it (sic) may have been caused by the
employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) skin (being) hit with a hard object on
lack of sufficient provocation on the part (sic) several blows" 104
of the person defending himself.99 The
accused must rely on the strength of his The fact that petitioner sustained these
own evidence and not on the weakness injuries does not signify that he was a
of the prosecution’s evidence since he victim of unlawful aggression. Unlawful
admits the commission of the alleged aggression is "an assault or attack, or a
criminal act.100 threat thereof in an imminent and
immediate manner, which places the
For defense of a relative to be defendant’s life in actual peril."[21] In
appreciated, the following requisites this case, the superficiality of the injuries
must concur: (1) unlawful aggression by allegedly sustained by petitioner at the
the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of hands of the victim is no indication that
the means employed to prevent or repel his life and limb were in actual peril at
it; and (3) in case the provocation was the time of the killing. Note that the
given by the person attacked, that the examining physician characterized the
person making the defense took no part injuries suffered by petitioner as "slight
therein.101 physical injuries." This clearly shows that
petitioner’s life could not have been in
Note that for self-defense or defense of a danger at the time of the killing.
relative, whether complete or Moreover, petitioner failed to present
incomplete, to be appreciated, the any other witness to corroborate his
requisite of unlawful aggression on the
102
De Luna v. Court of Appeals, 244 SCRA 758, 763
(1995) citing People v. Agapinay, 186 SCRA 812 (1990),
99
People v. Gadin, Jr., G.R. No. 130658, May 4, 2000, p. People v. Delgado, 182 SCRA 343 (1990), People v.
6, citing People v. De la Cruz, 313 SCRA 189 (1999), Cañete, 175 SCRA 111 (1989), and US v. Carrero, 9
People v. Bitoon, 309 SCRA 209 (1999), and People v. Phil. 544 (1908)
103
Villamor, 292 SCRA 384 (1998) People v. Ignacio, 270 SCRA 445, 451 (1997)
100
People v. Caverte and Caverte, G.R. No. 123112, 104
F.B. MORENO, PHILIPPINE LAW DICTIONARY (3rd
March 30, 2000, p. 19, citing People v. Obzunar, 265 Ed. 1988) p. 980. See also Jayme v. People, 314 SCRA
SCRA 547 (1996) 117, 121 (1999), citing People v. Galapin, 293 SCRA 474
101
People v. Bausing, 199 SCRA 355, 361 (1991) (1998)
 JURISPRUDENCE 2001 12

claim that Oliver Diaz was the unlawful For the mitigating circumstance of
aggressor. On the contrary, the positive voluntary surrender to be appreciated,
testimony of eyewitness Miraflor Salvero the accused must satisfactorily comply
points to petitioner as the one who with three requisites: (1) he has not
stabbed the deceased unexpectedly and been actually arrested; (2) he
without provocation. surrendered himself to a person in
authority or the latter’s agent; and (3)
With respect to petitioner’s claim of the surrender is voluntary.105 There must
defense of a relative, we quote with be a showing of spontaneity and an
approval, the following findings of the intent to surrender unconditionally to the
trial court: authorities, either because the accused
acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to
"[B]oth prosecution and defense are spare them the trouble and expense
jointly in accord that both the victim concomitant to his capture. 106
Oliver and accused Lucibar Roca were
not part of the initial neighborhood In this case, the Court of Appeals
quarrel, but came from separate affirmed the trial court’s findings that
directions after the start of the said petitioner fled to Bais City and only
quarrel. decided to have the police fetch him,
four days after the incident, for fear that
The foregoing findings show that the the victim’s relatives might avenge his
victim was not one of the assailants of death. Hence, we agree that there was
petitioner’s brother during the affray, no voluntary surrender on his part. We
which immediately preceded the find no reversible error committed by the
stabbing incident. The mere fact that the appellate court in refusing to credit
deceased was a drug addict and ex- petitioner’s claim of voluntary surrender.
convict given to violent behavior does The records show that he had several
not justify killing him. The victim may opportunities to surrender to the
have been a character in their authorities or to their agents. He could
community, but he was not one of those have given himself up right after the
responsible for attacking petitioner’s incident by not fleeing the scene of the
brother with a deadly weapon. In view of crime. He could have surrendered to
the absence of unlawful aggression on P/Cpl. Ralph Rabina, a member of the
the part of Oliver Diaz against Intelligence Unit of the Dumaguete City
petitioner’s brother, petitioner could not police force, who was a relative of his
claim defense of a relative when he wife and who made the request for his
mortally wounded Oliver. Petitioner’s medico-legal examination by the City
attempt to exonerate himself from the Health Officer. Petitioner could have
consequences of his act must fail in the given himself up to the authorities right
absence of the first element of defense after his medico-legal examination
of a relative, namely unlawful aggression considering that the office of the City
on Oliver’s part. Health Officer was close to the City Hall
where authorities or their agents were
On the third issue, petitioner charges the likely to be present. We find that
appellate court with reversible error for spontaneity and an intent to surrender
failing to consider the mitigating are absent where, as in this case,
circumstance of voluntary surrender in petitioner only decided to give up for
his favor. He contends that he gave fear of a possible vendetta.
himself up to the police before a warrant
for his arrest could be issued and his act The fourth issue involves the correctness
should therefore be considered as a of the penalty imposed upon petitioner.
voluntary surrender. Petitioner insists that the penalty should
be lowered so as to entitle him to
The Solicitor General argues that probation. The issue is premised on the
respondent court was correct in refusing
to credit petitioner with voluntary 105
People v. Ignacio, G.R. No. 134568, February 10,
surrender since he did not in fact do so, 2000, p. 12, citing People v. Deopante, 263 SCRA 691
but instead he fled to Bais City, where (1996)
106
People v. Salas, G.R. No. 115192, March 7, 2000, p.
he waited for the police to fetch him. 10.
 JURISPRUDENCE 2001 13

consideration that the mitigating To hold otherwise would be to render

circumstances of incomplete self- practically of no effect the ordinary
defense, voluntary surrender, and plea actions, and the enforcement of
of guilt would entitle him to a reduction judgment in such action. If a
of the penalty imposed. As earlier complainant could secure relief by
discussed, however, the respondent injunction in every case where the
court did not err in refusing to give defendant is doing or threatens or is
credence to petitioner’s claims of about to do, or is procuring or suffering
incomplete self-defense and/or defense to be done, some act probably in
of a relative, as well as his allegation of violation of the plaintiff’s rights and
voluntary surrender. We agree with the could enforce the judgment granting the
observation of the Solicitor General that injunction by the summary contempt
the only mitigating circumstance in proceedings x x x x he would seldom
petitioner’s favor is his offer to plead elect to enforce his rights in such cases
guilty to homicide at the pre-trial. This by the ordinary remedies, involving as
offer was duly considered by the trial they do the difficulty and oftentimes
court in determining the imposable fruitless labor of enforcing jugments
penalty and by the appellate court in obtained therein by execution.
affirming his sentence. Petitioner’s
prayer to this Court that he be
sentenced to an indeterminate term of
"four (4) months of arresto mayor as
minimum, to two (2) years, four (4)
months and one (1) day of prision
correcional as maximum" lacks basis and
must be denied.

oOo

The well-settled principle, buttressed by

a long line of cases[9] is that
injunctions, as a rule, will not be granted
to take property out of the possession or
control of one party and place it into that
of another whose title has not been
clearly established by law. In Angela
Estate, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[10] we
held -

Injunctions, like other equitable

remedies, will issue only at the instance
of a suitor who has sufficient interest or
title in the right or property sought to be
protected x x x x It is always a ground
for denying injunction that the party
seeking it has insufficient title or interest
to sustain it, and no claim to the
ultimate relief sought in other words,
that he shows no equity x x x x The
complainant’s right or title, moreover,
must be clear and unquestioned, for
equity, as a rule, will not lend its
preventive aid by injunction where the
complainant’s title or right is doubtful or
disputed.

The rationale for the rule as enunciated

in Devesa v. Arbes[11] is -