This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Late Digests (Round 1)
PEOPLE V FRANCISCO
78 SCRA 696
HILADO; July 16, 1947
- Defendant, who had been previously arrested on
charges of robbery requested permission from the
chief of police of Mansalay to go home to see his wife
about the procurement of bail for his provisional
release. Permission was granted. He was allowed to
go with sergeant Pimentel.
- Upon reaching the house, the sergeant allowed the
prisoner to see his wife. After a few moments,
Pimentel heard the scream of a woman. Still
moments later, Pimentel saw defendant lying down
with his little son Romeo, aged one year and a half,
on his breast. Pimentel also found defendant to have
a wound in his belly while his child had a wound in
the back. Pimentel found the child dead.
- The prosecution, in recommending the imposition of
the capital penalty upon the accused relies mainly on
the affidavit of the accused, the arraignment of the
defendant upon which he made a plea of guilty, and
the rebuttal testimony of Emilia Taladtad, wife of
ISSUE: (relevant to the topic in the outline)
WON the testimony of Emilia Taladtad, wife
appellant, is admissible
The rule contained in section 26(d) of Rule 123 is an old
one. Courts have assigned as reasons therefor the
following: first, identity of interest; second, the
consequent danger of perjury; third, the policy of the
law which deems it necessary to guard the security and
confidences of private life even at the risk of and
occasional failure of justice, and which rejects such
evidence because its admission would lead to domestic
disunion and unhappiness; and, fourth, because where
a want of domestic tranquility exists, there is danger of
punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony of
the other. However, this rule has its exceptions as well.
In the instant case, the wife did not testify in the direct
evidence for the prosecution. It will be noted that the
wife only testified against her husband after the latter,
testifying in his own defense, imputed upon her the
killing of their little son. By all rules of justice and
reason this gave the prosecution, which had
theretofore refrained from presenting the wife as a
witness against her husband, the right to do so, as it
did in rebuttal; and to the wife herself the right to so
testify, at least, in self-defense, not, of course, against
being subjected to punishment in that case in which
she was not a defendant but against any or all of
various possible consequences which might flow from
Furthermore, by his said act (imputing the crime to his
wife), the husband himself exercising the very right
which he would deny to his wife upon the ground of
their marital relations must be taken to have waived all
objection to the latter’s testimony upon rebuttal, even
considering that such objection would have been
available at the outset. As well settled as this rule of
marital incompetency itself is the other that it may be
LICHAUCO V ATLANTIC
OZAETA; August 23, 1949
- Appelant Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila
is a foreign corporation duly registered and licensed to
do business in the Philippines, with its office and
principal place of business in the City of Manila. Richard
T. Fitzsimmons was the president and one of the
largest stockholders of said company when the Pacific
war broke out on December 8, 1941. He held 1,00
shares of stock, 545 of which was not fully paid. He
executed promissory notes in favor of the company
worth P245,250 (540 per share) for those shares. In
1941 he already paid P64.5k.
- Fitzsimmons had an agreement with the company
that should he die without having paid in full, the
company, at its option, may either reacquire the said
545 shares of stock by returning to his estate the
amount applied thereon, or issue in favor of his estate
the corresponding number of the company's shares of
stock equivalent to the amount paid thereon at P450 a
- On Jan 1942, the Japanese occupied Manila and seized
all assets of the company. Fitzsimmons died on 1944
and special proceeding
resumed business in 1945.
- Atlantic filed a claim on the estate worth P63,868.67
Fitzsimmons owed them. It also wanted to exercise its
option to acquire the 545 shares by returning the
P64.5k Fitzsimmons paid. They requested a set-off.
Lichauco, the administrator, denied any indebtedness.
He expressed conformity however to the refund of
P64.5k. He also interposed a counterclaim worth P90k
for salaries allegedly due.
- Santiago Inacay, chief of the accounting department
of the Atlantic testified that the officers had maintained
personal accounts with the company. Fitzsimmons
maintained one. He testified that at the end of 1941,
the account shows that Fitzsimmons owed 63k to the
company. He said that he specifically knew the balance
of the said account because it would be very
“shameful” on his part if the officers asked him for their
balance and he didn’t know.
- Modesto Flores, the assistant accountant, also
testified that Fitzsimmons had a balance of 63k. He
knew this because as accountant, he made the entries
in the books of the company. He also signed receipts
whenever Fitzsimmons would withdraw funds.
- Mr. Henry J. Belden and Mr. Samuel Garmezy, vicepresident-treasurer and president were also called to
testify but the TC refused to admit them because they
were not only large stockholders and members of the
board of directors but also vice-president-treasurer and
president, respectively, of the claimant company.
However, if allowed to testify, they said that they would
also say that they had personal knowledge that
Fitzsimmons owed the company 63k.
- The administrator as evidence showed Exhibit 1,
which contains the gross value of assets of the conjugal
partnership of Fitzsimmons and Miguela Malayto. He
testified that he was the attorney in the divorce case
(1943) between them and that Fitzsimmons prepared
Exhibit 1 for the division of assets of the partnership. In
said exhibit, there is no indication of any debt to the
1. WON the officers of a corporation which is a party to
an action against an executor or administrator of a
Prof. V. A. Avena
deceased person are disqualified from testifying as to
any matter of fact occurring before the death of such
deceased person under Rule 123, section 26(c), of the
Rules of Court (now Rule 130.23)
2. WON Exhibit 1 is admissible because it is self-serving
2. WON the deceased Richard T. Fitzsimmons was
entitled to his salary as president of the Atlantic, Gulf &
Pacific Company of Manila from January, 1942, to June
27, 1944, when he died in the Santo Tomas internment
Ratio Rule 123 disqualifies only parties or assignors of
parties. The officers and/or stockholders of a
corporation are not disqualified from testifying, for or
against the corporation which is a party to an action
upon a claim or demand against the estate of a
deceased person, as to any matter of fact occurring
before the death of such deceased person
- This provision was taken from section 383, paragraph
7, of our former Code of Civil Procedure, which in turn
was derived from section 1880 of the Code of Civil
Procedure of California.
- City Savings Bank vs. Enos: To hold that the statute
disqualifies all persons from testifying who are officers
or stockholders of a corporation would be equivalent to
interpretation. Plainly the law disqualifies only "parties
or assignors of parties," and does not apply to persons
who are merely employed by such parties or assignors
- Merriman vs. Wickersman: An examination of the
authorities from other states will disclose that their
decisions rest upon the wordings of their statutes, but
that generally, where interest in the litigation or its
outcome has ceased to disqualify, officers and directors
of corporations are not considered to be parties within
the meaning of the law.
- The trial court erred in not admitting the testimony of
Messrs. Belden and Garmezy. It is not necessary,
however, to remand the case because it would be
merely corroborative, if at all, and in any event what
said witnesses would have testified, if permitted,
already appears in the record as hereinabove set forth,
and we can consider it together with the testimony of
the chief accountant and the assistant accountant who,
according to the appellant itself, were "the only ones in
the best of position to testify on the status of the
personal account" of the deceased Fitzsimmons
Reasoning A self-serving declaration is a statement
favorable to the interest of the declarant. It is not
admissible in evidence as proof of the facts asserted.
On the other hand, a declaration against the interest of
the person making it is admissible in evidence,
notwithstanding its hearsay character, if the declaration
is relevant and the declarant has died, become insane,
or for some other reason is not available as a witness.
- Insofar, at least, as the appellant was concerned,
there was no probable motive on the part of
Fitzsimmons to falsify his inventory Exhibit 1 by not
including therein appellant's present claim of P63,000
among his obligations or liabilities to be deducted from
the assets of the conjugal partnership between him and
his divorced wife. He did not know then that he would
die within one year and that the corporation of which
he was the president and one of the largest
stockholders would present the claim in question
against his estate. Neither did he know that the books
and records of that corporation would be destroyed or
lost. Yet, although he listed in said inventory his
obligations in favor of the Peoples Bank and Trust
Company and the Philippine Bank of Commerce
aggregating more than P30,000, he did not mention at
all any obligation in favor of the corporation of which he
was the president and one of the largest stockholders.
- A possible explanation such conflict between the
company and Fitzsimmons can be seen in Inacay’s
testimony. The latter said that at the end of the year,
the personal accounts would be on the credit side since
the dividend, bonuses and fees would be credited. On
the year 1941, such did not happen because of the war.
Fitzsimmons could have believed that such amount was
credited, therefore, he did not include any obligations
he had to the company in Exhibit 1. However, since the
counsels did not pursue this point, the court cannot rule
on this point. Leaving this foregoing reflection, the
court held that since the testimonies are based only on
memory, and given that human memory, especially
with regard to figures after more than 5 years, is
unreliable, they cannot overturn the TC decision.
ReasoningThere was no resolution either of the
stockholders of the board of directors of the company
authorizing the payment of the salaries of the president
or any other officer or employee of the corporation for
the period of the war when the corporation was forced
completely to suspend its business operations and
when its officers were interned or virtually held
prisoners by the enemy
BABAO VS PEREZ
G.R. No. L-8334
Bautista; December 28, 1957
This is an action to recover one-half of a parcel of land
containing an area of 156 hectares situated in San Juan,
Batangas, plus the value of the produce gathered
thereon from August, 1947 until actual recovery and in
the alternative, to recover the Sum of P47,000
representing reimbursement of the amount of useful
and necessary expenses incurred to the clear and
improve the aforesaid land.
Plaintiff is the judicial administrator of the estate of the
late Santiago Babao while defendant Florencio Perez is
the judicial administrator of the estate of the late
Celestina Perez. The other defendants are purchasers
and actual owners of portions of the land which is
sought to be recovered in the present litigation.
Celestina Perez was the owner of the parcel of land.
Sometime in 1924 when the deceased Santiago Babao
married Maria Cleofe Perez, niece of Celestina Perez,
the latter and the former entered into a verbal
agreement whereby Santiago Babao bound himself to
improve the land by leveling and clearing all the forest
trees standing thereon and planting in lieu there of
coconuts, rice, corn and other crops such as bananas
and bamboo trees, and to act at the same time as
administrator thereof during the lifetime of Celestina
Perez, all expenses for labor, and materials to be at his
cost, in consideration of which Celestina in turn bound
herself to convey to Santiago Babao or, his wife of land,
together with all the improvements thereon upon her
-Due to said verbal agreement, Santiago Babao left his
job as administrator of the Llana Estate in San Juan,
Batangas for which he was receiving a salary of P150 a
month, and started leveling and clearing the land, all of
Prof. V. A. Avena
which having been administered by him from 1924 to
1946; that for clearing and improving the portions of
amounting to P7,400 which added to his salary as
administrator from l924 to 1946 at rate P150 a month
mounting to P39,600, makes a total of P47,000;
-In the violation of the aforesaid verbal agreement,
Celestina Perez, acting through Leovigildo Perez, to
whom she extended a power of Attorney to sell, sold
few days before she died about 127 hectares of the
land in question in consequence of which Santiago
Babao was deprived of the possession and
administration thereof from 1945.
Celestina Perez died on August 24, 1947 as a result of
which intestate proceedings were instituted for the
settlement of her estate and one Florencio Perez was
named as judicial administrator; Santiago Babao died
on January 6, 1948 and as a consequence in estate
proceedings were instituted for the settlement of his
estate and Bienvenido Babao failed to recover the
portion of the lane herein litigated, said estate would
suffer an irreparable damage of not less than P366,700
representing fruits which it has failed to receive during
the last 20 years. Wherefore, plaintiff prayed for the
conveyance of portion of the land in question and for
annulment of the sales of the portion for having been
made fictitiously, and in the alternative, for judgment in
plaintiff's favor for the sum of P47,000 representing the
amount of useful and necessary expenses incurred by
Santiago Babao in improving the land in line with the
Defendants denied plaintiff's claim that a verbal
agreement was entered into between Celestina Perez
Babao relative to the clearing, improving and
administering the land belonging to the former having
an area of 156 hectares, as well as the other claim that
Santiago Babao had actually cleared and improve a
great portion thereof at the cost at around P7,400.
They alleged in 1924 and for many years prior thereto,
the land in question had already been cleared and
cultivated for agricultural purposes with an exception of
a portion of 50 hectares; Said land was cleared and
cultivated due partly to the effort made by Celestinas
husband, Esteban de Villa, her overseers and tenants,
and partly to the "trusco" system employed by them
whereby persons were allowed to clear the land and
plat thereon and from the harvest were compensated
according to a graduated scale of division varying from
year to year; that the coconut trees, banana plants and
bamboo trees now standing thereon were planted not
by Santiago Babao nor at his expenses but by the
tenants of the spouses Esteban de Villa and Celestina
Perez who were dully compensated according to the
"trusco" system; Although Santiago Babao and Maria
Cleofe Perez were married in 1924, the former did not
have anything to do with the land in question to
Esteban de Villa was then still living and actively
managed the same with help of his overseer and
tenants until he died in 1930. It was only in that year
when Santiago Babao began administering the land in
the capacity of a nephew of Celestina until 1935 when
Celestina disgusted with the conduct of Santiago, left
the company of Santiago and his wife and went to live
with her nephew Bernardo Perez until her death in
1947. Since then Celestina Perez prohibited Santiago
from interfering with the administration of the land and
designated another person in his place, and for the
work he did from 1930 to 1935, he was more than
compensated because the proceeds of the harvests
during said years were all given only to him and his
wife and Celestina was given only what was barely
sufficient for her maintenance.
Defendants also alleged that the sales made by
Celestina Perez through her attorney-in-fact Leovigildo
Perez of several portions of the land were not fictitious
but were made with full knowledge and authority of
Celestina who executed in favor of Leovigildo Perez a
power of Attorney under the authority notary public in
the presence of Santiago Babao himself who did not
interpose any objection to the execution of said power
of attorney and, therefore, said sales are real, valid and
genuine, having been executed in accordance with law.
Defendants prayed that the complaint be dismissed
After hearing, the court rendered in favor of the plaintiff
and against the defendants. Defendants in due time
took the case on appeal to the Court of Appeals where
the parties submitted their respective briefs within the
reglementary period, and thereafter the court rendered
judgment reversing in toto the decision appealed from
and dismissing the case without pronouncement as to
While this case was pending in the lower court, counsel
for appellants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground,
amount others, but the alleged verbal agreement
between Santiago Babao and Celestina Perez was
enforceable under the Statute of frauds. The trial court
denied this motion on the ground that it appears from
the complaint "that Santiago fully complied with his
part of the oral contract between the parties and that
this is an action not only specific performance but also
for damages." Consequently, the court held that the
Statute of frauds cannot be invoked for the reason that
"performance by one party of his part of the contract
takes the case out of the statute." And pursuant to such
ruling, when the case was tried on the merits, the court
overruled to the introduction of oral testimony to prove
the alleged verbal agreement.
WON the testimony of plaintiff Bernardo Babao and that
of his mother Cleofe Perez as to what occurred between
Celestina Perez and Santiago Babao, with regard to the
agreement should not be admitted
During the trial of this case, counsel for appellants
objected the admission of the testimony of plaintiff
Bernardo Babao and that of his mother Cleofe Perez as
to what occurred between Celestina Perez and Santiago
Babao, with regard to the agreement on the ground
that their testimony was prohibited by section 26(c) of
Rule 123 of the Rules of Court. This rule prohibits
parties or assignors of parties to a case, or persons in
whose behalf case is prosecuted, against an executor
or administrator of a deceased person upon a claim or
demand against the estate of such deceased person
from testifying as to any matter of fact occurring before
the death of such deceased person. But the court
overruled the opposition saying that said rule did not
apply where the complaint against the estate of a
deceased person alleges fraud, citing the case of Ong
Chua vs. Carr. Here again the court is in error because
if in that case the witness was allowed to testify it was
because the existence of fraud was first established by
sufficient and competent evidence. Here, however, the
alleged fraud is predicated upon the existence of the
agreement itself which violates the rule of petitio
principii. Evidently, the fraud to exist must be
established by evidence aliunde and not by the same
evidence which is to sought to be prevented. The
infringement of the rule is evident.
this privilege was lost when the letter came to the hands of the adverse party and it makes no difference how the defense acquired possession. . the incompetency applies whether the deceased died before or after the commencement of the action against him. Ludvigsen & McCurdy was instituted as a subagent and given the sole selling rights for the bituminous limestone products of Leyte Asphalt for 1 year. It was also stipulated that Leyte Asphalt shall not be required to ship orders of 5. Reasoning . .Baron also had full authority to sell the Lucio mine products for any sum he saw fit in excess of the prices quoted above and such excess in price was to be his extra and additional profit and commission. . It also contained a breakdown of the prices per ton. 1921. Sumatra. USA and Hongkong until May 1.30 in damages from Leyte Asphalt due to breach of contract along with a judicial pronouncement that he was entitled to an extension of the terms of the sales agencies specified in the contract (Exhibit A).000 tons in the year ending October 1. 1921 – Ludvigsen & McCurdy advised Baron of an order of 6.In San Francisco. since the reason for the prohibition.When the letter was offered in evidence by the attorney for the defendant.Baron is given the sole and exclusive sales agency for the bituminous limestone and other asphalt products of the Leyte Asphalt in Australia.Exhibit A.000 tons except on 30 days notice and 10. . the Strait Settlements. . L-21237 STREET. . which is to discourage perjury. but when such a document.Despite Anderson’s response.' Accordingly. the policy of the law is to close the lips of the other. . Saigon. properly or improperly. Disqualification Communication by Reason of Privileged BARTON V LEYTE ASPHALT G.The attorney for the defendant informed the court that he received the letter from the former attorneys of the defendant without explanation of the manner in which the document had come into their possession. Tasmania. ISSUE WON the letter should be excluded HELD NO Ratio When papers are offered in evidence a court will take no notice of how they were obtained. . .Barton sought to recover the sum of $318. and reaches the adversary.February 5.000 from the fourth cause of action. A. . In the said letter. Baron wrote that his profit from the San Francisco contract would have been at the rate of 85 cents per ton. whether legally or illegally.Among the evidence presented was a carbon copy of a letter written by Baron to Atty. .Baron’s lawyer then made an announcement that unless the defendant’s counsel explained how the letter came to the defense’s possession. adequate facilities had not been provided by the company for filling large orders and suggested that Baron had better hold up in the matter of taking orders. comes to the hand of a third party.' Another reason is that `the temptation to falsehood and concealment in such cases is considered too great to allow the surviving party to testify in his own behalf. Siam. China. steamers. Ingersoll. The two met in Manila on March 12 and Baron told Anderson about the San Francisco order.Leyte Asphalt appears to be the owner of the Lucio Mine in Leyte. . . . and any sum charged to any of your customers or buyers in the aforesaid territory in excess of ten pesos (P10) per ton” shall be rebated to Baron. V. nor will it form a collateral issue to try that question.000 tons each 24 hours after March 1. he entered into an agreement with Ludvigsen & McCurdy. wrote a letter to Baron authorizing the latter to sell the products of the Lucio Mine in the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand upon a scale of prices indicated in said letter. his lawyer. Baron wrote a notification to Leyte Asphalt for the company to be prepared to ship five thousand tons of bituminous limestone to San Francisco.R.Even supposing that the letter was within the privilege which protects communications between attorney and client. . . contained the following stipulations (among others): . a valuable deposit of bituminous limestone and other asphalt products. boats or other carriers were to be loaded promptly with not less than 1. the general manager of Leyte Asphalt. 1921 then in that event the price of all shipments made during the above period shall be ten pesos (P10) per ton. . containing admissions of the client.No orders for less than one thousand (1.Leyte Asphalt acknowledged the orders for Australia and San Francisco but stated that no orders would be entertained without a cash deposit. Avena A2010 Evidence . he proposed to object the letter’s admission on the ground that it was a confidential communication between client and lawyer.500 from the first cause of action and $405. . March 22.Baron had also gone to Australia where he instituted Frank Smith as his sales agent. . if at the time the testimony was given he was dead and cannot disprove it. The reason for this rule is that "if death has closed the lips of one party.William Anderson. .563.James Barton is a US citizen residing in Manila while Leyte Asphalt is a Philippine company which has its principal office in Cebu.000 tons except on 60 days notice. exists in both instances. .All ships.Baron entered into subagency agreements in San Francisco and Australia.The CFI absolved Leyte Asphalt from four of the six causes of action. unless there was to be prior notice. Anderson said that.000) tons will be accepted except under special agreement with Leyte Asphalt. owing to lack of capital.The trial judge excluded the letter. . He also made additional orders for Smith in Australia. The CFI allowed Barton to recover $202. 32 .000 tons of bituminous limestone which Baron accepted.Prof. Java. it is admissible in evidence. 1921.If “the sales in the above territory equal or exceed ten 10. India. the counsel for the plaintiff announced that he had no objection to the introduction of this carbon copy in evidence if counsel for the defendant would explain where this copy was secured. 1924 (aida) FACTS . the authorization Baron relies on. New Zealand.Anderson informed Baron that Leyte Asphalt was behind construction so it could not handle big contracts as of the moment. . .The law protects the client from the effect of disclosures made by him to his attorney in the confidence of the legal relation.
. He claimed that Honrada. This was approved and an OCT was issued in his favor. there was no other 33 . . three criminal cases were filed in the graft court. The basic postulate was that. whether with or without the client's knowledge. hence the proceedings were terminated. in conspiracy with Paredes and Sansaet. However. respondent had been charged already by the complainants before the Municipal Circuit Court of San Francisco. . 1988. as counsel.Mansueta Honrada was the Clerk of Court and Acting Stenographer of the First MCTC. sent a letter to the Ombudsman seeking the investigation of the three respondents herein for falsification of public documents. Paredes was represented by Sansaet.Respondents filed their counter-affidavits. July 16. charging Paredes with violation of Sec 3 (a) of RA 3019. 1993 for the discharge of Sansaet as a state witness. a taxpayer who had initiated the perjury and graft charges against Paredes. and transcripts of stenographic notes supposedly taken during the arraignment of Paredes on the perjury charge. Moreover. . ostensibly to forestall any further controversy. . were satisfied insofar as Sansaet was concerned. . . The proposal for the discharge of Sansaet as a state witness was rejected by the Ombudsman on this evaluative legal position: . 1992. the testimony or confession of Atty. saying: . 1990. Sansaet claimed that he did so upon the instigation and inducement of Paredes. directed by the Deputy Minister of Justice to move for the dismissal of the case on the ground inter alia of prescription. went to jail on detention in 1984 under the same set of facts and the same evidence . For that purpose. . . Paredes applied for a free patent over a lot of Rosario Public Land Subd Survey. issued a resolution recommending the criminal prosecution of Paredes.The Ombudsman refused to reconsider that resolution and. These falsified documents were annexed to Paredes' motion for reconsideration of the Tanodbayan resolution for the filing of a graft charge against him.” Disposition Judgment reversed PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYAN (Honrada.According to Wigmore: “Since the means of preserving secrecy of communication are entirely in the client's hands. was ordered dismissed by the court upon recommendation of the Department of Justice. he decided to file separate informations for falsification of public documents against each of the respondents. Sansaet) G. V. thus the filing of this case will be a case of double jeopardy for respondent herein . if presented in the trial. Thus. .a motion was filed by the People on July 27. and since the privilege is a derogation from the general testimonial duty and should be strictly construed. Teofilo Gelacio.R.Prof. . Director of Lands filed an action for the cancellation of Paredes' patent and certificate of title since the land had been designated and reserved as a school site in the subdivision survey. Generoso Sansaet was a practicing attorney who served as counsel for Paredes in several instances pertinent to the criminal charges involved herein. a motion to quash was later granted and the case was dismissed on the ground of prescription. Provincial Fiscal was. These were consolidated for joint trial in the Sandiganbayan. A. and a certification of Presiding Judge Ciriaco Ariño that said perjury case in his court did not reach arraignment since action was suspended pending the review of the case by the DOJ.. by using his former position as Provincial Attorney to influence and induce the Bureau of Lands officials to favorably act on his application for free patent.A criminal case was subsequently filed with Sandiganbayan. . In an Affidavit of Explanations and Rectifications. . then Governor. would be unwittingly induced by another to commit a crime.To evade responsibility for his own participation in the scheme. in order to support his contention that the same would constitute double jeopardy.in 1976.in a resolution dated Feb 24.upon the subsequent complaint of the Sangguniang Bayan. . Sansaet revealed that Paredes contrived to have the graft case under preliminary investigation dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy by making it appear that the perjury case had been dismissed by the trial court after he had been arraigned. Rule 119 ROC. he had violated Sec 3(a) of RA 3019. As counsel for the accused in those criminal cases. is not within the protection of the privilege. Paredes. Taking his explanation. an information for perjury was filed against Paredes in the MCTC. Sansaet was again Paredes' counsel. moved for reconsideration. The same rule ought to apply to one who surreptitiously reads or obtains possession of a document in original or copy. Sansaet. Copy of the dismissal order. the Ombudsman approved the filing of falsification charges against Honrada. The TC nullified the patent and title after finding that Paredes had obtained the same through fraudulent misrepresentations in his application. . . 1997 (kooky) NATURE: Special civil action for certiorari FACTS: . but Sansaet subsequently discarded and repudiated the submissions he had made. but said case after arraignment. One who overhears the communication.Paredes was then haled before the Tanodbayan for PI on the charge that. certificate of arraignment and the recommendation of the Department of Justice are hereto attached for ready reference. Atty. Sansaet served as counsel of Paredes in that civil case. Sansaet had control over the case theory and the evidence which the defense was going to present. simulated and certified as true copies certain documents purporting to be a notice of arraignment. it would be improper to extend its prohibition to third persons who obtain knowledge of the communications. Avena A2010 Evidence . .Gelacio attached to his letter a certification that no notice of arraignment was ever received by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Agusan del Sur in connection with that perjury case. and is at present a Congressman. Paredes and Sansaet. San FranciscoBunawan-Rosario in Agusan del Sur. This was intended to pave the way for his discharge as a government witness. dated July 1. Sansaet falls under the mantle of privileged communication between the lawyer and his client which may be objected to. . it is difficult to believe that a lawyer of his stature. Agusan del Sur. the documents which were later filed by Sansaet in the preliminary investigation were prepared and falsified by his corespondents in the house of Paredes. 1985. . except for the eyewitness testimony of Sansaet.On Aug 29. Ceferino Paredes was successively the Provincial Attorney of Agusan del Sur. It was submitted that all the requisites. however. . .in 1985. as provided in Sec 9. in the absence of deliberate intent to conspire. Nos 115439-41 REGALADO. the Tanodbayan.On Jan 23.
and the rule is that since in a conspiracy the act of one 34 ." It was error for Sandiganbayan to insist that such unlawful communications intended for an illegal purpose contrived by conspirators are nonetheless covered by the so-called mantle of privilege. In view of such relationship. But for the application of the attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege cannot apply in these cases. and this may be expected since Paredes was the accused and Sansaet his counsel. the "prosecution of the honorable relation of attorney and client will not be permitted under the guise of privilege. 2. in confederacy with his co-respondents. The same privileged confidentiality." without distinction or qualification. To prevent a conniving counsel from revealing the genesis of a crime which was later committed pursuant to a conspiracy. Contrarily. later committed. however. as client. Therefore. in view of the purpose for which such falsified documents were prepared. therefore. consulted as such. is barred by the attorney-client privilege 2. and that Sansaet is set to testify on alleged criminal acts of Paredes and Honrada that have already been committed and consummated. or in aid or furtherance thereof. It is significant that the evidentiary rule on this point has always referred to "any communication. as verbal statements by Paredes as to the fact and purpose of such falsification. those communications are outside the pale of the attorney-client privilege. either with the active or passive participation of Sansaet. the acts and words of the parties during the period when the documents were being falsified were necessarily confidential since Paredes would not have invited Sansaet to his house and allowed him to witness the same except under conditions of secrecy and confidence. . and other confidential matter must have been disclosed by accused Paredes. In the American jurisdiction. considering their past and existing relations as counsel and client and. the testimony of Atty. The announced intention of a client to commit a crime is not included within the confidences which his attorney is bound to respect. YES . WON the projected testimony of Sansaet. if not more than. before. and every communication made to an attorney by a client for a criminal purpose is a conspiracy or attempt at a conspiracy which is not only lawful to divulge. It may be assumed that there was a confidential communication made by Paredes to Sansaet in connection with the criminal case for falsification. there is no particular mode by which a confidential communication shall be made by a client to his attorney. Sansaet and Ceferino Paredes. In other words. as a consequence thereof. the facts surrounding the case. to an attorney. however. Furthermore. and future crimes intended to be committed. Respondent court appears. if the client seeks his lawyer's advice with respect to a crime that the former has committed. he is given the protection of a virtual confessional seal which the attorney-client privilege declares cannot be broken by the attorney without the client's consent. the documents which were later filed in the Tanodbayan and culminated in the criminal charges now pending in Sandiganbayan. the unbroken stream of judicial dicta is to the effect that communications between attorney and client having to do with the client's contemplated criminal acts. no word at all passed between Paredes and Sansaet on the subject matter of that criminal act.Sandiganbayan resolved to deny the desired discharge on this ratiocination: From the evidence adduced. Jr. Sansaet on the facts surrounding the offense charged in the information is privileged. a. NO. A. Having been made for purposes of a future offense. The testimony sought to be elicited from Sansaet are the communications made to him by physical acts and/or accompanying words of Parades at the time he and Honrada. The fact that Sansaet was called by Paredes and Honrada to witness the preparation of the falsified documents was as eloquent a communication. because of the objection thereto of his conspiring client. it must be for a lawful purpose or in furtherance of a lawful end. It is well settled that in order that a communication between a lawyer and his client may be privileged. Clearly. Also. are not covered by the cloak of privileges ordinarily existing in reference to communications between attorney and client.Sansaet was a conspirator in the crime of falsification. further. to accused Sansaet. by the client. during and after the period alleged in the information. or in the process of falsifying. as proposed state witness. Statements and communications regarding the commission of a crime already committed. are privileged communications. he is eligible for discharge to testify as a particeps criminis HELD: 1. as his lawyer in his professional capacity. WON. Nor can it be pretended that during the entire process. does not attach with regard to a crime which a client intends to commit thereafter or in the future and for purposes of which he seeks the lawyer's advice. The existence of an unlawful purpose prevents the privilege from attaching. as the facts and actuations of both respondents therein constitute an exception to the rule. insofar as the falsifications to be testified to are concerned. the confidential communications made by Paredes to Sansaet were for purposes of and in reference to the crime of falsification which had not yet been committed in the past by Paredes but which he. Sansaet was himself a conspirator in the commission of that crime of falsification which he. the opposition was able to establish that client and lawyer relationship existed between Atty. would be one of the worst travesties in the rules of evidence and practice in the noble profession of law.Prof. but which the attorney under certain circumstances may be bound to disclose at once in the interest of justice. those crimes were necessarily committed in the past. were about to falsify. ISSUES: 1. It is postulated that a distinction must be made between confidential communications relating to past crimes already committed.. the period to be considered is the date when the privileged communication was made by the client to the attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the past or with respect to a crime intended to be committed in the future. b. c. however. It is true that by now. to believe that it is here dealing with a past crime. Paredes and Honrada concocted and foisted upon the authorities. The privilege is not confined to verbal or written communications made by the client to his attorney but extends as well to information communicated by the client to the attorney by other means. made by a party who committed it. In fact. V. Avena A2010 Evidence direct evidence to prove the confabulated falsification of documents by Honrada and Paredes. The clincher for this conclusion is that the documents were thereafter filed by Sansaet as annexes to the motion for reconsideration in the preliminary investigation of the graft case before the Tanodbayan.
and more than twenty other coconut levy funded corporations.Petitioners were included in the Third Amended Complaint on the strength of the following allegations: Defendants Cojuangco. schemed. as such. Sansaet is the only cooperative eyewitness to the actual commission of the falsification charged in the criminal cases. . ACCRA lawyers acted as nomineesstockholders of the said corporations involved in sequestration proceedings. Cojuangco. et al.4M shareholders. the same penalty shall be imposed on all members of the conspiracy. and the prosecution is faced with the formidable task of establishing the guilt of the two other corespondents who steadfastly deny the charge and stoutly protest their innocence. the members of the law firm delivered to its client documents which substantiate the client's equity holdings.. V. Angara. 0033. The rule of equality in the penalty to be imposed upon conspirators found guilty of a criminal offense is based on the concurrence of criminal intent in their minds and translated into concerted physical action although of varying acts or degrees of depravity. Concepcion.August 20. 1987 before the Sandiganbayan by RP. including the acquisition of San Miguel Corporation shares and its institutionalization through presidential directives of the coconut monopoly. > In the course of rendering professional and legal services to clients. the financial and corporate framework and structures that led to the establishment of UCPB. in the performance of these services. ACCRA. Lazatin. Vinluan. This is an affair of substantive law which should not be equated with the procedural rule on the discharge of particeps criminis. detailed the substance of his projected testimony in his Affidavit of Explanation and Rectifications. and a blank deed of trust or assignment covering said shares. they do not claim any proprietary interest in the said shares of stock. i. Victor P.The matters raised here are an offshoot of the institution of the Complaint on July 31. or simply.e. Avelino V. However. was in furtherance of legitimate lawyering.R. again. defendants became holders of shares of stock in the corporations listed under their respective names as incorporating or acquiring stockholders only and. COCOMARK. The other requisites for the discharge of Sansaet as a state witness are present and should have been favorably appreciated by the Sandiganbayan. COCOLIFE.ACCRA Law Firm performed legal services for its clients. became the holder of approximately 15M shares representing roughly 3. 1996 (eva) NATURE Petition for Certiorari FACTS . the Rules provide for certain qualifying criteria which. September 20. UNICOM. devised. Roco from the complaint in Civil Case No. through the PCGG against Eduardo M.744 shares as of February. with the correlative and incidental services where its members acted as incorporators.0033). . which includes shares of stocks in the named corporations in PCGG Case entitled "RP vs. the members of the law firm acquire information relative to the assets of clients as well as their personal and business circumstances. as one of the principal defendants.Prof.3% of the total outstanding capital stock of UCPB as of March 1987. and herein private respondent Raul S. Hayudini.In their answer ACCRA lawyers alleged that: > Defendants-ACCRA lawyers’ participation in the acts with which their co-defendants are charged. it does not appear that Sansaet has at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude. . Through insidious means and machinations. Eduardo U. warrants the imposition of the same penalty on the consequential theory that the act of one is thereby the act of all.Among the defendants named in the case are herein petitioners Teodoro Regala. Jose C. Respondent PCGG based its exclusion of private respondent Roco as party-defendant on his undertaking that he will reveal the identity of the principal/s for whom he acted as nominee/stockholder in the companies involved in Civil Case No. Angara as holding approximately 3." (Civil Case No. Avena A2010 Evidence is the act of all. and the judicial experience that the candid admission of an accused regarding his participation is a guaranty that he will testify truthfully. Hayudini and Roco of ACCRA plotted. This adjective device is based on other considerations. His testimony can also be substantially corroborated on its material points by reputable witnesses. . 0033 as partydefendant. Concepcion.. ACCRA Investments Corporation. Abello. Escueta. hence there is absolute necessity for the testimony of Sansaet. Regala and Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA Law Firm). Jr. Since the RPC is based on the classical school of thought. Cruz. Moreover. he has long ago transferred any 35 . among others. Concepcion. Angara. conspired and confederated with each other in setting up. which included. Roco. and in keeping with the office practice.As members of the ACCRA Law Firm. the organization and acquisition of business associations and/or organizations. PCGG filed a "Motion to Admit Third Amended Complaint" and "Third Amended Complaint" which excluded private respondent Raul S. therefore. In the course of their dealings with their clients. Escueta and Paraja G. Edgardo J. Regala. A. it is the identity of the mens rea which is considered the predominant consideration and. . Rogelio A. CIC. through the use of the coconut levy funds. 1991. stock certificates endorsed in blank representing the shares registered in the client's name. 0033. Cruz. b. 1984. which was organized for legitimate business purposes not related to the allegations of the expanded Amended Complaint. The query would then be whether an accused who was held guilty by reason of membership in a conspiracy is eligible to be a state witness. being the wholly-owned investment arm. petitioners and respondent Raul Roco admit that they assisted in the organization and acquisition of the companies included in Civil Case No. For those reasons. 105938 KAPUNAN. There is thus no other direct evidence available for the prosecution. corporate books show the name Edgardo J. for the purposes required by the Rules. are based on judicial experience distilled into a judgmental policy. > Defendant Cruz was one of the incorporators in 1976 of Mermaid Marketing Corporation. One of the requirements for a state witness is that he "does not appear to be the most guilty" and not that he must be the least guilty as is so often erroneously framed or submitted. On the other hand. This ranks ACCRA Investments Corporation number 44 among the top 100 biggest stockholders of UCPB which has approximately 1. Disposition Writ of certiorari is granted REGALA VS SANDIGANBAYAN G. as stockholders. who all were then partners of the law firm Angara. More specifically. No. for the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth. such as the need for giving immunity to one of them in order that not all shall escape. He has indicated his conformity thereto and has. Vinluan. Eduardo Cojuangco. .
The statement of the Sandiganbayan in its questioned resolution dated March 18. full disclosure in exchange for exclusion from these proceedings. the existence and identity of the client. Petitioners are being prosecuted solely on the basis of activities and services performed in the course of their duties as lawyers. therefore. 33 (Civil Case No. i. Ratio As a matter of public policy. WON Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in not considering petitioners ACCRA lawyers and Mr. Avena A2010 Evidence material interest therein and therefore denies that the ‘shares’ appearing in his name are his assets. (b) submission of documents substantiating the lawyerclient relationship. > The PCGG is satisfied that Roco has demonstrated his agency and that Roco has apparently identified his principal. B) Even assuming that Mr. WON Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in not holding that.This is what appears to be the cause for which they have been impleaded by the PCGG as defendants herein. . .Hayudini filed a separate petition for certiorari on the same grounds averred by petitioners ACCRA lawyers. Roco had revealed. and Kapunan Law Offices to the PCGG in behalf Roco originally requesting the reinvestigation and/or re-examination of the evidence of the PCGG against Roco in PCGG Case No. 0033). The ACCRA lawyers cannot excuse themselves from the consequences of their acts until they have begun to establish the basis for recognizing the privilege. 33. This in turn has allowed the PCGG to exercise its power both under the rules of Agency and under Section 5 of E. . In the same vein. therefore. nor had he undertaken to reveal the identity of the client for whom he acted as nominee-stockholder. 33. WON Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in subjecting petitioners ACCRA lawyers who undisputably acted as lawyers in serving as nominee-stockholders. which revelation could show the lack of cause against him. This ploy is quite clear from the PCGG’s willingness to cut a deal with petitioners -. 33. or had undertaken to reveal. WHEREFORE. to the strict application of the law of agency. a client’s identity should not be shrouded in mystery. Quite obviously. Roco did not refute petitioners' contention that he did not actually reveal the identity of the client involved in PCGG Case No. namely: (a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients.ACCRA lawyers subsequently filed their "COMMENT AND/OR OPPOSITION" with Counter-Motion that respondent PCGG similarly grant the same treatment to them (exclusion as parties-defendants) as accorded Roco. begrudge the PCGG for keeping them as party defendants.Sandiganbayan promulgated the Resolution.In its "Comment. . the disclosure does not constitute a substantial distinction as would make the classification reasonable under the equal protection clause. The PCGG has apparently offered to the ACCRA lawyers the same conditions availed of by Roco. 0033: (a) Letter to PCGG of the counsel of Roco reiterating a previous request for reinvestigation by the PCGG in PCGG Case No. because they are evidence of nominee status. 2. 3. deserving of equal treatment.during said proceedings. The ACCRA lawyers cannot. Hence. filed a separate answer denying the allegations in the complaint implicating him in the alleged ill-gotten wealth. Roco in violation of the equal protection clause. Clearly. their principal. Reasoning It is quite apparent that petitioners were impleaded by the PCGG as co-defendants to force them to disclose the identity of their clients.e.ACCRA lawyers moved for a reconsideration of the above resolution but the same was denied by the respondent Sandiganbayan. Such being the case. and (c) the submission of the deeds of assignments petitioners executed in favor of its clients covering their respective shareholdings.O. PCGG presented supposed proof to substantiate compliance by Roco of the conditions precedent to warrant the latter's exclusion as partydefendant in Civil Case No. A. Under this premise. . who had separated from ACCRA. The ACCRA lawyers have preferred not to make the disclosures required by the PCGG. . HELD 1. respondent PCGG has no valid cause of action as against petitioners and should exclude them from the Third Amended Complaint. and that will be their choice. YES Ratio It would seem that petitioners are merely standing in for their clients as defendants in the complaint. Bunag. V. . 36 . . . petitioners’ inclusion as co-defendants in the complaint is merely being used as leverage to compel them to name their clients and consequently to enable the PCGG to nail these clients. and (c) Letter of the Roco. the identities of the client(s). (b) Affidavit executed by Roco as Attachment to the letter aforestated.Consequently..Prof. for their refusal to comply with the conditions required by respondent PCGG. But until they do identify their clients. No. considerations of whether or not the privilege claimed by the ACCRA lawyers exists cannot even begin to be debated. alleging that the revelation of the identity of the client is not within the ambit of the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege. 14-A in relation to the Supreme Court's ruling in Republic v.” 2. YES. C) Sandiganbayan sanctioned favoritism and undue preference in favor of Mr. 1992 is explicit: “ACCRA lawyers may take the heroic stance of not revealing the identity of the client for whom they have acted.the names of their clients in exchange for exclusion from the complaint. nor are the documents it required (deeds of assignment) protected. . Sandiganbayan (173 SCRA 72). Roco is DENIED. herein questioned. Roco as similarly situated and.Petitioner Hayudini. Roco had revealed. the general rule in our jurisdiction as well as in the United States is that a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client. or had undertaken to reveal.PCGG refutes petitioners' contention. ISSUES 1. the Counter Motion for the same treatment by the PCGG as accorded to Raul S. the attorney-client privilege prohibits petitioners ACCRA lawyers from revealing the identity of their client(s) and the other information requested by the PCGG. The reasons advanced for the general rule are well established. respondent PCGG is not after petitioners but the “bigger fish” as they say in street parlance. they cannot compel the PCGG to be accorded the same treatment accorded to Roco. A) There is absolutely no evidence that Mr. the identities of the client(s) for whom he acted as nomineestockholder. under the facts of this case. denying the exclusion of petitioners in PCGG Case No. the ACCRA lawyers filed the petition for certiorari." PCGG set the following conditions precedent for the exclusion of petitioners.
among others. while the prosecution may not have a case against the client in the second example and cannot use the attorney client relationship to build up a case against the latter. as well as deeds of assignment petitioners executed in favor of its clients covering their respective shareholdings. The key lies in the three specific conditions laid down by the PCGG which constitutes petitioners’ ticket to non-prosecution should they accede thereto: the disclosure of the identity of its clients. his identity is privileged. the identity of the client has been held to be privileged. It is the link. i. 3) Where the government's lawyers have no case against an attorney's client unless. therefore. A. particularly the third. The reason for the first rule is that it is not within the professional character of a lawyer to give advice on the commission of a crime.. These cases may be readily distinguished. Avena A2010 Evidence First. submission of documents substantiating the lawyer-client relationship. because the privilege. regarding the financial and corporate structure.. Apart from these principal exceptions. it constituted an integral part of their duties as lawyers. Finally. 1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the client's name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer's advice. the general rule is however qualified by some important exceptions. The link between the alleged criminal offense and the legal advice or legal service sought was duly established in the case at bar. information relating to the identity of a client may fall within the ambit of the privilege when the client's name itself has an independent significance. the alleged accumulation of ill-gotten wealth in the aforementioned corporations. ethical conduct and duties that breathe life into it. as a general rule. by revealing the client's name. among those. the said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime. 2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability. the PCGG would exact from petitioners a link “that would inevitably form the chain of testimony necessary to convict the (client) of a crime. there are rules. as in the first example. The reason for the second has been stated in the cases above discussed and are founded on the same policy grounds for which the attorney-client privilege. By compelling petitioners. because the privilege cannot be invoked or used as a shield for an illegal act. seeking advice about how to go around the law for the purpose of committing illegal activities and a case where a client thinks he might have previously committed something illegal and consults his attorney about it. that is required by reason of necessity and public interest based on the hypothesis that abstinence from seeking legal advice in a good cause is an evil which is fatal to the administration of justice. crime.In fine.” LEGAL ETHICS. the fiduciary duty to his client which is of a very delicate. where none otherwise exists. by no less than the PCGG itself. LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. V. exacting and confidential character. information which unavoidably reveals much about the nature of the transaction which may or may not be illegal. ETHICAL CONDUCT AND DUTIES. Petitioners. and the submission of the deeds of assignment petitioners executed in favor of their clients covering their respective shareholdings.. revelation of the client's name would obviously provide the necessary link for the prosecution to build its case. in their capacity as lawyers. Moreover. the content of any client communication to a lawyer lies within the privilege if it is relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on which the client seeks legal assistance. but worse. because the facts of the instant case clearly fall within recognized exceptions to the rule that the client’s name is not privileged information. For example. A lawyer cannot reveal such communication without exposing himself to charges of violating a principle which forms the bulwark of the entire attorney-client relationship.Furthermore. . there exist other situations which could qualify as exceptions to the general rule. know his adversary. where the nature of the attorney-client relationship has been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be confidential. From these conditions. 37 . therefore. “that would inevitably form the chain of testimony necessary to convict the (client) of a. the client's name is privileged. the latter's case should be built upon evidence painstakingly gathered by them from their own sources and not from compelled testimony requiring them to reveal the name of their clients. due process considerations require that the opposing party should. It is also the strict sence of fidelity of a lawyer to his client that distinguishes him from any other professional in society. framework and set-up of the corporations in question. BOUND BY RULES. disclosure of the alleged client's name would lead to establish said client's connection with the very fact in issue of the case. Summarizing these exceptions.An important distinction must be made between a case where a client takes on the services of an attorney for illicit purposes. under the third main exception. Reasoning The circumstances involving the engagement of lawyers in the case at bench. exists. not only to reveal the identity of their clients. . . requiring a very high degree of fidelity and good faith. the privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of the relationship. First. the aforementioned deeds of assignment covering their clients’ shareholdings. which is privileged information. such that disclosure would then reveal client confidences. in the words of Baird. the court has a right to know that the client whose privileged information is sought to be protected is flesh and blood. Notwithstanding these considerations. since such revelation would otherwise result in disclosure and the entire transaction. we can readily deduce that the clients indeed consulted the petitioners.e.Prof. have a legitimate fear that identifying their clients would implicate them in the very activity for which legal advice had been sought. Third. protects the subject matter or the substance (without which there would be no attorney-client relationship). Second. This conception is entrenched and embodies centuries of established and stable tradition.We have no choice but to uphold petitioners' right not to reveal the identity of their clients under pain of the breach of fiduciary duty owing to their clients. to submit to the PCGG documents substantiating the client-lawyer relationship. petitioners gave their professional advice in the form of. More important. the privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-client relationship has been established. clearly reveal that the instant case falls under at least two exceptions to the general rule. RATIONALE: In the creation of lawyer-client relationship. as stated earlier. the crux of petitioners' objections ultimately hinges on their expectation that if the prosecution has a case against their clients. There is no question that the preparation of the aforestated documents was part and parcel of petitioners’ legal service to their clients. The attorney-client privilege does not attach until there is a client. In turn. in general." .
. However. an undertaking which is so material as to have justified PCGG's special treatment exempting the private respondent from prosecution. The condition also constitutes a transgression by respondents Sandiganbayan and PCGG of the equal protection 38 . public respondents must show that there exist other conditions and circumstances which would warrant their treating the private respondent differently from petitioners in the case at bench in order to evade a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Instead. without authority of his client to reveal any communication made by the client to him or his advice given thereon in the course of professional employment.Prof. a statement made in his outof-court settlement with the PCGG. the privilege gives flesh to one of the most sacrosanct rights available to the accused. . 3. and were not the clients which the PCGG wanted disclosed for the alleged questioned transactions.court but also in their Answer to plaintiff's Expanded Amended Complaint. Avena A2010 Evidence Considerations favoring confidentiality in lawyer-client relationships are many and serve several constitutional and policy concerns. Roco was treated as a species apart from the rest of the ACCRA lawyers on the basis of a classification which made substantial distinctions based on real differences. as currently worded provides: Sec. without the consent of the client and his employer.that private respondent actually revealed the identity of his client(s) to the PCGG. V. be examined as to any communication made by the client to him. concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity. much less does it demand of him for any client. as manifested by the PCGG.Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics also demands a lawyer's fidelity to client: The lawyer owes "entire devotion to the interest of the client. Roco and the PCGG. Those who fall within a particular class ought to be treated alike not only as to privileges granted but also as to the liabilities imposed. No fear of judicial disfavor or public popularity should restrain him from the full discharge of his duty.” Being "similarly situated" in this regard. in violation of the equal protection clause. If the price of disclosure is too high. stenographer. In the judicial forum the client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land. It is the duty of an attorney: (e) to maintain inviolate the confidence. In the constitutional sphere.The equal protection clause is a guarantee which provides a wall of protection against uneven application of statutes and regulations. to either opt to stay away from the judicial system or to lose the right to counsel. Section 383 specifically “forbids counsel. These were clients to whom both petitioners and private respondent rendered legal services while all of them were partners at ACCRA.Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states: Sec. warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability. or clerk be examined. this privilege takes off from the old Code of Civil Procedure. legally applied. To justify the dropping of the private respondent from the case or the filing of the suit in the respondent court without him." to the end that nothing be taken or be withheld from him. and to accept no compensation in connection with his client’s business except from him or with his knowledge and approval. without the consent of his client. Since the undertaking happens to be the leitmotif of the entire arrangement between Mr. It necessarily follows that in order to attain effective representation. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. . only three documents were submitted for the purpose. or his advice given thereon in the course of. claiming that their acts were made in furtherance of "legitimate lawyering. violation of law or any manner of fraud or chicanery. save by the rules of law. or if it amounts to self incrimination. . therefore. The threat this represents against another sacrosanct individual right. 20. Reasoning To this end. can an attorney’s secretary.This duty is explicitly mandated in Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that: Canon 17. professional employment. signed by counsel. the lawyer must invoke the privilege not as a matter of option but as a matter of duty and professional responsibility. The office of attorney does not permit. If a client were made to choose between legal representation without effective communication and disclosure and legal representation with all his secrets revealed then he might be compelled. then the flow of information would be curtailed thereby rendering the right practically nugatory. An effective lawyer-client relationship is largely between lawyer and client which in turn requires a situation which encourages a dynamic and fruitful exchange and flow of information.The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases: An attorney cannot. No such substantial distinctions exist from the records of the case at bench.In our jurisdiction. DISPOSITIVE We find that the condition precedent required by the respondent PCGG of the petitioners for their exclusion as parties-defendants in PCGG Case No. or with a view to.Passed on into various provisions of the Rules of Court. public respondents contend that the primary consideration behind their decision to sustain the PCGG's dropping of private respondent as a defendant was his promise to disclose the identities of the clients in question. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. In the broader sense. He must obey his own conscience and not that of his client. respondents failed to show . .” . it is sufficient to state that petitioners have likewise made the same claim not merely out-of. But it is steadfastly to be borne in mind that the great trust of the lawyer is to be performed within and not without the bounds of the law. and at every peril to himself. YES Ratio As to the bare statement that Roco merely acted as a lawyer and nominee. . 33 violates the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege. respondent Sandiganbayan should have required proof of the undertaking more substantial than a "bare assertion" that private respondent did indeed comply with the undertaking. two of which were mere requests for re-investigation and one simply disclosed certain clients which petitioners (ACCRA lawyers) were themselves willing to reveal. in some instances. the guarantee operates against uneven application of legal norms so that all persons under similar circumstances would be accorded the same treatment. A. and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. 24. Encouraging full disclosure to a lawyer by one seeking legal services opens the door to a whole spectrum of legal options which would otherwise be circumscribed by limited information engendered by a fear of disclosure. the right to be presumed innocent is at once self-evident. the attorney-client privilege. to preserve the secrets of his client. the PCGG should conclusively show that Mr. the right to counsel.and absolutely nothing exists in the records of the case at bar .
'The name of the client will be considered 39 .I wish to repeat and underscore the fact that the lawyer-client privilege is not a shield for the commission of a crime or against the prosecution of the lawyer therefor. or that they cannot be compelled to reveal or disclose the identity of their principals. the PCGG’s demand not only touches upon the question of the identity of their clients but also on documents related to the suspected transactions. WHEREFORE. Under our jurisdiction. Koerner. Jr. i. Respondent Sandiganbayan is further ordered to exclude petitioners as parties- defendants in Republic of the Philippines v. all because of the sacred lawyer-client privilege. Eduardo Cojuangco. Secondly. he is questioned as to such confidential communication or advice. however. privilege whenever he conspires with the client in the commission of a crime or a fraud. Id. It is grossly unfair to exempt one similarly situated litigant from prosecution without allowing the same exemption to the others. V. Dissenting Opinion DAVIDE: The rule of confidentiality under the lawyer-client relationship is not a cause to exclude a party. not only in violation of the attorney-client privilege but also of the constitutional right against self-incrimination. when a lawyer is under compulsion to answer as witness.e. The general rule. The Circuits have embraced various "exceptions" to the general rule that the identity of a client is not within the protective ambit of an attorneyclient privilege. Moreover. Rules of Court) and may only be invoked at the appropriate time.Prof. These canons strip a lawyer of the lawyer-client. We do not even have to go beyond our shores for an authority that the lawyer-client privilege cannot be invoked to prevent the disclosure of a client's identity where the lawyer and the client are conspirators in the commission of a crime or a fraud. Petitioners should not be made to suffer the effects of further litigation when it is obvious that their inclusion in the complaint arose from a privileged attorney-client relationship and as a means of coercing them to disclose the identities of their clients. A. letters or other documents containing the same privileged matter.). It is merely a ground for disqualification of a witness (Sec.). the issue of privilege contested therein arose in grand jury proceedings on different States. .Hypothetically admitting the allegations in the complaint in Civil Case No. the privilege is invoked in the court where it was already filed. All such exceptions appear to be firmly grounded in the Ninth Circuit's seminal decision in Baird v. 0033. Canon 19. Here. we will not sanction acts which violate the equal protection guarantee and the right against self-incrimination and subvert the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege. While we are aware of respondent PCGG’s legal mandate to recover ill-gotten wealth. The interests of public justice require that no such shield from merited exposure shall be interposed to protect a person who takes counsel how he can safely commit a crime.. The relation of attorney and client cannot exist for the purpose of counsel in concocting crimes. Rule 130. It should not be allowed to continue a day longer. The majority seeks to expand the scope of the Philippine rule on the lawyer-client privilege by copious citations of American jurisprudence which includes in the privilege the identity of the client under the exceptional situations narrated therein. two facts stand out in bold relief. a proverbial Sword of Damocles over petitioners' heads. and we are not even told what evidentiary rules apply in the said hearings. The cases cited by the majority evidently do not apply to them. From the plethora of cases cited. et al. Communications to an attorney having for their object the commission of a crime "x x x partake the nature of a conspiracy.01. And under the Canons of Professional Ethics. Code of Professional Responsibility) and to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client (Rule 19. They have made their position clear from the very beginning that they are not willing to testify and they cannot be compelled to testify in view of their constitutional right against self-incrimination and of their fundamental legal right to maintain inviolate the privilege of attorney-client confidentiality. a lawyer must steadfastly bear in mind that his great trust is to be performed within and not without the bounds of the law (Canon 15. which are primarily proceedings before the filing of the case in court. Id. Avena A2010 Evidence clause of the Constitution. and more important." . To allow the case to continue with respect to them when this Court could nip the problem in the bud at this early opportunity would be to sanction an unjust situation which we should not here countenance. this is a fishing expedition. I find myself unable to agree with the majority opinion that the petitioners are immune from suit or that they have to be excluded as defendants.As a general rule. The general rule and its exceptions are accurately summarized in In re Grand Jury Investigation. This privilege is well put in Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. the Resolutions of respondent Sandiganbayan are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. that he advances the honor of his profession and the best interest of his client when he renders service or gives advice tending to impress upon the client when he renders service or gives advice tending to impress upon the client and his undertaking exact compliance with the strictest principles of moral law (Canon 32. or is being otherwise judicially coerced to produce. .. having taken the witness stand. In the present case. as when. But petitioners are not mere witnesses. 24. Canon 1. but under certain circumstances it might become the duty of the attorney to do so. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING. The case hangs as a real and palpable threat. lawyers are mandated not to counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system (Rule 1. An argument is advanced that the invocation by petitioners of the privilege of attorney-client confidentiality at this stage of the proceedings is premature and that they should wait until they are called to testify and examine as witnesses as to matters learned in confidence before they can raise their objections. in the cases cited by the majority. admits of welletched exceptions which the Sandiganbayan failed to recognize..02. PUNO: . a free ride at the expense of such rights. It is clear then that the case against petitioners should never be allowed to take its full course in the Sandiganbayan. the counsel themselves are co-defendants duly charged in court as co-conspirators in the offenses charged. Id). Firstly. Whichever way one looks at it. and it is not only lawful to divulge such communications. through subpoena duces tecum or otherwise. They are co-principals in the case for recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth. the lawyers concerned were merely advocating the cause of their clients but were not indicted for the charges against their said clients.The attorney-client privilege can never be used as a shield to commit a crime or a fraud. the attorney-client privilege does not include the right of non-disclosure of client identity.
(5) Adjustment per Annex "C" of Mr. Avena A2010 Evidence privileged matter where the circumstances of the case are such that the name of the client is material only for the purpose of showing an acknowledgment of guilt on the part of such client of the very offenses on account of which the attorney was employed. Another exception.1. MONETARY BOARD. inspected. Valenzuela. it was placed under conservatorship by the Monetary Board. V. is to move the court for an in camera ex-parte hearing. Tiaoqui. and the fact that a member had a personal interest in it. vs. The privilege may be recognized where so much of the actual communication has already been disclosed that identification of the client amounts to disclosure of a confidential communication. do not at all deal with either the administrative proceedings conducted by the respondents or the regularity and impartiality of the CB actions on BF. 1995. said member and must retire from the meeting during the deliberation thereon.' 'A significant exception to this principle of non-confidentiality holds that such information may be privileged when the person invoking the privilege is able to show that a strong possibility exists that disclosure of the information would implicate the client in the very matter for which legal advice was sought in the first case. (9) Documents listed in BF's letter to Mr. Without the proofs adduced in these in camera hearings. to the MB and to Central Bank Governor Jose Fernandez. A. Oct. that in this round Banco Filipino won.R. Basilio Estanislao. IAC. the Court has no factual basis to determine whether petitioners fall within any of the exceptions to the general rule. in the discussion or resolution of any given matter.159. it has been held that "a well-recognized means for an attorney to demonstrate the existence of an exception to the general rule. it does so simply upon the charge that no "hearing" was given BF prior to those actions of no "hearing" was given BF prior to those actions of closure and liquidation. (4) Schedule of recommended valuation of reserves per Mr. directly or indirectly. Mr. (3) Papers showing computations of all the interests and penalties charged by the CB against BF. The Conservator Mr. 1984). Tiaoqui's report dated March 19. and "C" of the joint report of Mr.The documents asked to be produced. (6) Annexes "A". 1984. the court below took the view that the Supreme Court's resolution referring to it the matters relative to the bank's closure does not preclude the petitioner from availing of his mode of discovery as an additional means of preparing for the hearing. In issuing the challenged order. To adequately address the contents of the report.. G. Mr. When these facts can be presented only by revealing the very information sought to be protected by the privilege.R. while simultaneously preserving confidentiality of the identity of his client. − The person claiming the privilege or its exception has the obligation to present the underlying facts demonstrating the existence of the privilege. Now we know. when resolved. (2) Copies of the letter and reports of first conservator. and copied are the following: (1) Copies of tapes and transcripts of the Monetary Board (MB) deliberations on the closure of Banco Filipino (BF) and its meeting on July 27. G. IT CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED AS NOT PRIVILEGED BECAUSE THESE CONSTITUTE OR CONTAIN EVIDENCE MATERIAL TO THE ISSUE INTO BY THE COURT Respondents Monetary Board and Central Bank take exception to the said order and pray in their petition before this Court for the reversal and setting aside of the same. articulated in the Fifth Circuit's en banc decision of In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Pavlick) is recognized when disclosure of the identity of the client would provide the "last link" of evidence. 13. (7) Schedule of devaluation of CB-premises of Paseo de Roxas of same report. TIAOQUI tendered his report dated January 19. − BANCO FILIPINO. 1985. shall be made available to the public. but by independent sources as well] that identification of the client [or of fees paid] amounts to disclosure of a confidential communication. The privilege may be recognized where so much of the actual communication has already been disclosed [not necessarily by the attorney.' Another exception to the general rule that the identity of a client is not privileged arises where disclosure of the identity would be tantamount to disclosing an otherwise protected confidential communication. we had an extensive discussion of Banco Filipino case with Dean Carlota in connection with due process (whether a hearing is required on the Tiaoqui report) and the substantial evidence rule re sufficiency of the Tiaoqui report as substantial evidence. (8) Schedule of BF's assets from P5. 15 SCRA 66. Whenever any member attending a meeting of the Monetary Board has a material personal interest. However. Thus. 1985. To the general rule is an exception.23 B as of January 25.2 2 1 If you recall. Withdrawal of persons having a personal interest. Arca. Aurellano. The hearing can even be in camera and ex-parte. Inc. and Rural Bank of Bato vs. The minutes of the meeting shall note the withdrawal of the member concerned. 65642.909. It opined that the ratiocination of the trial court is wholly in error because the proceedings before it. 70054 (RESOLUTION) July 08. It also argued that the tapes and transcripts of the Monetary Board deliberations are confidential pursuant to Sections 13 and 15 of the Central Bank Act. hehe Sec. 1995. Carlota Valenzuela dated October 25. Tiaoqui's report. 1985.Prof. no such prior hearing had been called as none is required by the law and by the Supreme Court decisions in force to this date (Rural Bank of Lucena. ET AL. 40 . firmly embedded as the rule itself. and Mrs. No. "B". and March 22. the procedure is for the lawyer to move for an inspection of the evidence in and in camera hearing.44 B to P3. The subject matter. 15. 1986 (SJ) NATURE Petition for certiorari FACTS1 It appears that due to the financial troubles of Banco Pilipino. Banco Filipino filed a motion for production of certain papers and records invoking Rule 27. only to lose later. vs.
Gruaz. Gilberto Teodoro. to the bank or to third parties. Responsibility. 1827). are privileged communication that may not be inquired into. or about the operation of the Bank. (As amended by Presidential Decree No. Vol. IS INTENDED NOT FOR THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS BUT FOR THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST (Vogel vs. RATIO The deliberations may be confidential but not necessarily absolute and privileged. Ct. Likewise. The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases: (e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards. Dist. 211). vs. the Bank or third parties. books. p.S. when the court finds that the public interest would suffer by disclosure. 72). 659. when resolved .Prof. respondents cite Section 21." On the other hand. Where there is no public interest that would be prejudiced. even in Section 13 and 15 thereof. Oct. 52 SD 472. The disclosure is here not intended to obtain information for personal gain. cited in Martin Rules of Court of the Philippines. It has been held that "a party is ordinarily entitled to the production of books. Mr. 9 Fed. 45 C. cited in Martin. Regarding copies of the letter and reports of first Conservator. and to the use of such information for personal gain or to the detriment of the Government. objections and exceptions to the Conservator's reports and receiver's reports. Basilio Estanislao. of the Rules of Court. mphasis supplied). Comments on the Rules of Court. REASONING With respect to Items Nos. "The rule that a public officer cannot be examined as to communications made to him in official confidence does not apply when there is nothing to show that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure question. 137. Rules of Court which states: "Section 21. 1985. "any statute declaring in general terms that official records are confidential should be liberally construed. 311 cited in Moran. documents and papers which are material and relevant to the establishment of his cause of action or defense. Superior Court in and for Alameda County. 1944. these could be useful and even necessary to the preparation by petitioner of its comment. "On the ground of public policy. vs. REASONING As to the tapes and transcripts of the Monetary Board deliberations on the closure of Banco Filipino and its meetings on July 27. 1984. There is no specific provision in the Central Bank Act. the rules providing for reproduction and inspection of books and papers do not (As amended by PD No. Significantly. "The test to be applied by the trial judge in determining the relevancy of documents and the sufficiency of their description is one of reasonableness and practicability" (Line Corp. therefore. the courts should be liberal in determining whether or not documents are relevant to the subject matter of action" (Hercules Powder Co. II (SES) Reports submitted to the Central Bank and Monetary Board which were taken into consideration by said respondents in closing petitioner bank. 59 Phil. p. and March 22. 104). 110 U. which prohibits absolutely the courts from conducting an inquiry on said deliberations when these are relevant or material to a matter subject of a suit pending before it. V. Vol. fail to see any proper reason why the annexes thereto should no withheld. "Sec. "In passing on a motion for discovery of documents. U. p. except as required in Section 13 of this Act. We. and March 22. A copy of the SES Reports was furnished to the petitioner. 1). 180). of the Philippines vs. 2. . cited in Moran." (General Electric Co. 2. Vol. it is the bank itself here that is interested in obtaining what it considers as information useful and indispensably needed by it to support its position in the matter being inquired to by the court below. 3 to 9. Moran. Rules of Court. There is no indication that such disclosure would cause detriment to the government. NO. NO. A. Haas Co. 176. The latter and reports could be favorable or adverse to the case of petitioner but whatever the result may be. to the Monetary Board and to Central Bank Governor Fernandez these appear relevant as petitioner has asserted that the above-named Conservator had in fact to resume normal operations of Banco Filipino but then he was thereafter replaced by Mr. Any member of the Monetary Board or officer or employee of the Central Bank who wilfully violates this Act or who is guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties shall be held liable for any loss or injury suffered by the Bank as a result of such violation or negligence. 1984. 143). Rule 130. p. 1980 Ed. Pertinent and relevant. RATIO The motion for the production of the subject documents was filed by petitioner pursuant to Section 1. (Agnew vs. Rules Service. Vol. 15. 41 . Avena A2010 Evidence ISSUES Whether or not the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion when it granted the motion for production of documents. 2. (Item No. that is.". Third Edition. authorize the production or inspection of privileged matter. Rule 27. AS THIS COURT NOTES. these are the annexes to the Supervision and Examination Sector. Comments on the Rules of Court. Whether or not the tapes and transcripts of the Monetary Board deliberations on the closure of Banco Filipino and its meetings on July 27. . 1979 Ed. Similar responsibility shall apply to the disclosure of any information of a confidential nature about the discussion or resolutions of the Monetary Board. . Madison. 26. this invoked rule will not be applicable.S. 3rd edition. 2nd 879. . respondents contend that "it is obvious from the requirement (Sections 13 and 15 of the Central Bank Act) that the subject matter ( of the deliberations). 5. 5. HELD 1." BUT THIS PRIVILEGE. Dept. Agnew. to have an implied exception for disclosure when needed in a court the case of Marbury vs. shall be made available to the public but the deliberations themselves are not open to disclosure but are to be kept in confidence. as to communications made to him in official confidence. 199). 1985. petitioner should be allowed to photocopy the same. Privilege Communications. 102). papers which because of their confidential and privileged character could not be received in evidence" (27) CJS 224). 1 Cr. Petitioner cannot adequately study and properly analyze the report without the corresponding annexes. .
the power of Congress is frustrated. and observing the assailed order. beginning with Washington. Not only the banks and its employees but also its numerous depositors and creditors are entitled to be informed as to whether or not there was a valid and legal justification for the petitioner's bank closure. and may be asserted.R. This is a consolidation of various petitions for certiorari and prohibition challenging the constitutionality of E.-G. 464 allows the executive branch to evade congressional requests for information without the need of clearly asserting a right to do so and/or proffering its reasons therefor. 464 which took effect immediately. their inability to attend due to lack of appropriate clearance from the Pres. the community at large. did not accede to their requests because the requests were sent belatedly and that preparations and arrangements have already been completed. there should be nothing at all that would provoke fear of disclosure. used over and over again inasmuch as these tapes are not required to be kept or stored. 464 and praying for the issuance of a TRO enjoining respondents from implementing. 2005. and March 22. these qualities will be diminished. Citing E. 28.The state secrets privilege invoked by U. etc. On the contrary.C. which had not been granted unto them. SENATE V ERMITA GR 169777 CARPIO-MORALES. Avena A2010 Evidence In the case at bar. 2006. Considering that petitioner bank was already closed as of January 25. 1986 issued by the court below in S. a distinguished delegate to the U. on the ground that the information is of such nature that its disclosure would subvert crucial military or diplomatic objectives. 816 cited in Words and Phrases. pursuant to E. On Sept. 1984. it means something ion which the public. 464. for purposes of economy. it has been recognized that the head of government may keep certain information confidential in pursuit of the public interest. the courts. in the context of either judicial or legislative investigations.. 35. prayed for dismissal of petitions for lack of merit. and in proportion as the number is increased. ISSUES 1. By mere expedient of invoking provisions of E. A." Rozell-"the right of the President and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress. Crocket. 42 ." 1. 206. Respondent Executive Secretary Ermita et al. the order to produce documents dated February 17. to the fact that the power to withhold information lends itself to abuse. 28. however. any disclosure of the aforementioned letters. Resort to any means by which officials of the executive branch could refuse to divulge information cannot be presumed to be valid. Neither will it trigger any bank run nor compromise state secrets. however. is hereby affirmed. − Although the executive Dept. and the Congress."the power of the Government to withhold information from the public. 1985 and its meeting on July 27. Congress nonetheless has the right to know why the executive dept. Pres.O. more time to prepare a more comprehensive report. reports. hence. 464 issued Sept.Prof." it may be more accurate to speak of executive privileges "since presidential refusals to furnish information may be actuated by any of at least three distinct kinds of considerations. 70054. 229). the courts. and ultimately the public. 2005. Arroyo issued E. and transcripts at this time pose no danger or peril to our economy. NO. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING. V. Respondent's reason for their resistance to the order of production are tenuous and specious.while it is customary to employ the phrase "executive privilege. 464. 1985. If the respondents public officials acted rightfully and prudently in the performance of their duties. the respondents have not established that public interest would suffer by the disclosure of the papers and documents sought by petitioner. Drilon. Even in the early history of republican thought. officials subject to Senate investigations claimed that they were not allowed to appear before any Senate or Congressional hearings without consent (written approval) from the President. various Senate Investigation Committees issued invitations to various officials of the Executive Dept.April 20. 464. Ratio It is impermissible to allow the executive branch to withhold information sought by the Congress in aid of legislation.O.S.History has been witness. including the AFP and PNP for them to appear in public hearings on inquiries concerning mainly: (A) The alleged overpricing in the NorthRail Project (B) the Wire-Tapping activity (C) the Fertilizer scam (D) the Venable contract The respective officials of the Executive Dept. enjoys the power of executive privilege.Between Sept. has some pecuniary interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected" (State vs. and without stating reasons therefor. secrecy. except as to the copies of the tapes relative to the Monetary Board deliberations on the closure of Banco Filipino on January 25.O. public interests will be served by the disclosure of the documents. and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man. no. 2006 (da) FACTS A transparent government is one of the hallmarks of a truly republican state.O.S. in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number.O. considers requested information privileged. several cases were filed challenging E. Constitutional Convention said: "Decision. activity. without it asserting a right to do so. the necessity to guard it zealously. enforcing. It will be well to consider that "Public interest means more than a mere curiosity. with differing degrees of success. Sen. Thereafter.O.O. p. Explaining the reason for vesting executive power in only one magistrate. Presidents. E. of 2005 to Feb. − Reasoning Executive Privilege: Schwartz . 1985 and only if such tapes are actually no longer available taking into account respondent Monetary Board's manifestations that the tape recording of the deliberations of that Board are. filed requests for postponement of hearings for varying reasons such as existence of urgent operational matters. the Executive Dept. however. WON the officials of the executive department may evade the congressional inquiry by virtue of EO 464 (WON EO 464 is valid) HELD 1." Tribe. Vol. p.
exempts the executive from disclosure requirements applicable to the ordinary citizen or organization where such exemption is necessary to the discharge of highly important executive responsibilities involved in maintaining governmental operations. in substance if not in name. regarding the nature and scope of executive privilege. the right of the people to information. PCGG. Notably. the question that must be asked is not only whether the requested information falls within one of the traditional privileges. It may be construed as a mere expression of opinion by the Pres. is the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid. is recognized only in relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character. like the claim of confidentiality of judicial deliberations. Nixon:In issue in that case was the validity of President Nixon's claim of executive privilege against a subpoena issued by a district court requiring the production of certain tapes and documents relating to the Watergate investigations. a claim thereof may be valid or not depending on the ground invoked to justify it and the context in which it is made. executive officials have claimed a variety of privileges to resist disclosure of information the confidentiality of which they felt was crucial to fulfillment of the unique role and responsibilities of the executive branch of our government. The courts have also granted the executive a right to withhold the identity of government informers in some circumstances and a qualified right to withhold information related to pending investigations. Noticeably absent is any recognition that executive officials are exempt from the duty to disclose information by the mere fact of being executive officials. Validity of Specific EO 464 provisions .Informer's privilege. based on the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. that executive privilege may be claimed against citizens demands for information. . Vasquez. It did not involve. For in determining the validity of a claim of privilege. A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. In re Sealed Case:Since the beginnings of our nation. in Chavez v. V." by which the Court meant Presidential conversations.Almonte used the term in reference to the same privilege subject of Nixon. U. heads and to appearances in the question hour (because of its specific reference to sec. as expressly stated in the decision. or the privilege of the Government not to disclose the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with the enforcement of that law. for example. nonetheless. however. objective. correspondences. 2 (b) of E. It quoted the following portion of the Nixon decision which explains the basis for the privilege: "The expectation of a President to the confidentiality of his conversations and correspondences. Avena A2010 Evidence 2.S. has all the values to which we accord deference for the privacy of all citizens and.O. ruling that the privilege must be balanced against the public interest in the fair administration of criminal justice. Nonetheless. Courts ruled early that the executive had a right to withhold documents that might reveal military or state secrets. limited only to executive dept. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications. 464 Its requirement to secure presidential consent. and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decision-making. rejected the President's claim of privilege. That a type of information is recognized as privileged does not.Prof. While executive privilege is a constitutional concept.S. In this jurisdiction. added to those values. thus acknowledging. A. the extraordinary character of the exemptions indicates that the presumption inclines heavily against executive secrecy and in favor of disclosure. It also held that information on military and diplomatic secrets and those affecting national security. . The Court. 3. the courts. on what is covered by the executive privilege. it is constitutionally based to the extent that it relates to the effective discharge of a President's powers.A generic privilege for internal deliberations has been said to attach to intragovernmental documents reflecting advisory opinions. Similarly. but also whether that privilege should be honored in a given procedural setting. It does not purport to be conclusive on the other branches of government. the Court was careful to clarify that it was not there addressing the issue of claims of privilege in a civil litigation or against congressional demands for information. v. whether asserted against Congress. those documents reflecting the frank expression necessary in intra-governmental advisory and deliberative communications. 464 It merely provides guidelines binding only on the heads of office mentioned in section 2(b).Sec. Constitution. recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated. 1 of E." The same case held that closed-door Cabinet meetings are also a recognized limitation on the right to information. 464 43 .Sec. In Chavez v. 2 (a) of E. Public Estates Authority the Court ruled that the right to information does not extend to matters recognized as "privileged information under the separation of powers. The privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution x x x " Almonte involved a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Ombudsman against the therein petitioners. Indeed. the Court recognized that there are certain types of information which the government may withhold from the public.O. x x x" -This privilege. and extends not only to military and diplomatic secrets but also to documents integral to an appropriate exercise of the executive domestic decisional and policy making functions. Executive privilege.Sec. The U. The claim of privilege was based on the President's general interest in the confidentiality of his conversations and correspondence. or the public.the Court held that this jurisdiction recognizes the common law holding that there is a "governmental privilege against public disclosure with respect to state secrets regarding military. 22 of art VI) makes it valid on its face. necessarily mean that it would be considered privileged in all instances. diplomatic and other national security matters. the doctrine of executive privilege was recognized by this Court in Almonte v. that is. and discussions in closed-door Cabinet meetings. and information on investigations of crimes by law enforcement agencies before the prosecution of the accused were exempted from the right to information.S. Court held that while there is no explicit reference to a privilege of confidentiality in the U.O.
In so far as it does not assert but merely implies the claim of executive privilege. it is true that a party’s interest may to some extent affect his credibility as a witness. from P15 to P25.O. . Decision Petitions are PARTLY GRANTED. 464 coupled with an announcement that the President has not given her consent. the husband of Irene. is the sense in which petitioners are using it now. .” perhaps owing to its descriptive formulation. Now. ISSUE/S: 1.Both the original parties died thereafter and were succeeded by their respective heirs. They no longer dispute Irene’s ownership of the property. In contrast.R. that Gregorio’s testimony was inaccurate or untrue. Pedro alleged that the land was his by purchase and that it was in his exclusive possession. and such presumptive authorization is contrary to the exceptional nature of the privilege. Nonetheless. . a party’s testimony in court is sworn and subject to crossexamination by the other party. CA also ordered Heirs of Pedro to pay heirs of Irene P118k in damages as compensation for having been deprived of possession and the owner’s share in the harvest. refers only to acts or declarations made by a party in his own interest at some place and time out of court. is woefully insufficient for Congress to determine whether the withholding of information is justified under the circumstances of each case. RTC reversed and said that both parties failed to prove their respective claims of ownership and ruled that the land still belonged to the original owner Pedro Clemena y Conde. lack of opportunity for cross-examination by the adverse party and on the consideration that its admission would open the door to fraud and fabrication. the Pres. WON the heirs of Pedro should not be ordered to pay the damages awarded by CA for the reason that: a. Such power must be wielded only by the highest official in the executive hierarchy. V. Sections 2(b) and 3 of E. Mere invocation of E. it seems. testimony of Gregorio was self-serving. implicit in petitioners’ argument.RTC: Irene owned the land. It is invalid per se. the findings of which SC should not disturb 1.Heirs of Pedro now assail the judgment of CA ordering them to pay compensation for deprivation of possession and the owner’s share in the harvest. proceeding as it did from one of the heirs of Irene. both of them claiming that they acquired the property through purchase (its actually through a series of purchases tracing back to the original owner. Avena A2010 Evidence Provides that once the head of office determines that a certain info. and that the price of palay had gone up after the war. but in the MFR. Pedro Clemena y Conde). -further. thus an improper basis for the award HELD: 1. in the exercise of its discretion and because of strong reasons to support its stand. However. 3 of E. A. severely frustrating its power of inquiry.Evidence of this sort (self-serving) is excluded on the same ground as any hearsay evidence. .b. 2006 (maia) NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 FACTS: This case involves a land dispute between Pedro Clemena and Irene Bien. 464 are declared void while sections 1 and 2(a) are VALID.O.CA: reversed resolution of RTC and ruled that Irene was the rightful owner. that is. only to the express pronouncement of the Pres. It does not provide precise and certain reasons for the claim. The heirs of pedro. In his answer. may not authorize its subordinates to exercise it. such determination is presumed to bear the President’s authority and has the effect of prohibiting the official from appearing before Congress. that it is allowing the appearance of such official. To insist otherwise would be the height of naiveté. Irene filed a complaint to recover the property. thus not an improper basis for the award of damages) Ratio: “Self-serving evidence” is not to be taken literally to mean any evidence that serves its proponent’s interest. petitioners never alleged. That. . not susceptible to an objection on the ground that it is selfserving. being a plaintiff. is privileged. It allows the Pres. to authorize claims of privilege by mere silence. . . was a witness interested in the outcome of the case. Reasoning: “Self-serving evidence. The term.O. Admissions and Confessions HEIRS OF PEDRO CLEMENA Y ZURBANO V HEIRS OF IRENE BIEN G. CA based the award on the testimony of Gregorio Clemena. and it does not include testimony that he gives as a witness in court. and therefore. that the Pedro (or his heirs upon his death) were the ones who received the owner’s share. was self-serving and therefore could not have been a proper basis for such award. 464 Requires all public officials enumerated in section 2(b) to secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either house of Congress. if used with any legal sense. they claim they cannot be held liable to the heirs of Irene for the harvest because (1) they never took possession of the property and (2) the evidence the CA relied on to determine the amount of damages. the Court cannot subscribe to the view. the question of possession is a question of fact. are bound by the admissions made by pedro himself. they never took possession of the property b. Not infrequently. a. nor tried to show. as mere substituting defendants. Petitioners’ objection is founded solely on the mere fact that he.At any rate. Due to the fact that executive privilege is of extraordinary power. NO (testimony was not self-serving. The enumeration is broad.Sec. Such took on the character of a judicial admission which cannot be contracted except through showing that it was made through palpable mistake or no such admission was made. 155508 CORONA.Prof. which essentially declared that the average share of the owner in the harvest was 50 cavans of palay. The exception is found only in those rare instances when the trial court. may relieve a party from the consequences of his admission Reasoning: Pedro himself alleged in his answer that the land was in his exclusive possession. September 11. that a party’s testimony favorable to himself must be disregarded on account solely of his interest in the 44 . He cannot thereafter contradict it. is a concept much misunderstood. which was in possession of Pedro. the term is employed as a weapon to devalue and discredit a party’s testimony favorable to his cause. NO (heirs of pedro should pay) Ratio: A judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it.
none of these documents categorically stated that the perpetrators were members of the CPP/NPA.. Torres and SFO III Rochas ISSUES 1. do not satisfactorily prove that the author of the burning were members of the NPA. insurrection.00 plus 12% legal interest from March 2.Prof. or warlike operations (whether war be declared or not).DBP assails: factual finding of both RTC and CA that its evidence failed to support its allegation that the loss was caused by an excepted risk. Torres. is admissible (Admission & Confessions) 4. No.Radio Mindanao Network.040. he was presented as an ordinary witness only and not an expert witness. fixture and other transmitter facilities for P5. . and the armed men suspected to be members of the CPP/NPA were the ones responsible …” . filed a civil case against DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance Companies (DBP) and Provident Insurance Corporation (PROVIDENT) for recovery of insurance benefits. After that. military or usurped power. CA decision affirmed. Torres is admissible 3.00 under a Fire Insurance Policy. revolution.00 under a Fire Insurance Policy. namely: (c) War. civil war. with the modification that the applicable interest rate reduced to 6% per annum. being an admission of person which is not a party to the present action. . (RADIO). V. while DBP covered RADIO’s transmitter. DISPOSITION: Petition denied. (d) Mutiny. they went out shouting “Mabuhay ang NPA”. Torres and SPO3 Rochar. the certification issued by the Integrated National Police of Bacolod City and the fire investigation report prepared by SFO III Rochas is deemed sufficient (Entry in Official Records) 2. Col.883. Note that when Lt. though his testimony is persuasive. 2. 45 . which includes a letter released by the NPA merely mentions some dissatisfaction with the activities of some people in the media in Bacolod. This insurance does not cover any loss or damage occasioned by or through or in consequence. -National Dev’t Company v. The insurance companies denied the claims by maintaining that the evidence showed that the fire was caused by members of CPP/NPA.The only person who seems to be so sure that that the CPP-NPA had a hand in the burning of DYHB was Lt.000. (members of the CPP/NPA) RTC + testimony of witnesses Lt.” > certification from the Bacolod Police station: “… some 20 or more armed men believed to be members of the New People’s Army NPA.00 plus 12% legal interest from March 2. 147039 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ. WON police blotter of the burning of DYHB. who were admittedly not present when the fire occurred. Torres was presented as witness. nevertheless. Col. WON the testimony of Lt. WON the reports of witnesses Lt. Avena A2010 Evidence case. Hence. But suspicion alone is not sufficient. MFR denied. Col. PROVIDENT to pay P450. RADIO’s station in Bacolod City was razed by fire causing damage in the amount of P1. PROVIDENT covered RADIO’s transmitter equipment and generating set for P13. January 27. . WON the excepted risk was not proven by DBP 5.The documentary evidence may be considered exceptions to the hearsay rule. -obiter in other cases: interest of a witness does not ipso facto deprive his testimony of probative force or require it to be disregarded. A. was limited to the fact that an investigation was conducted and in the course of the investigation they were informed by bystanders that “heavily armed men entered the transmitter house.All these documents show that indeed. hostilities. act of foreign enemy. + persons whom they investigated and actually saw the burning of the station were not presented as witnesses + documentary evidence. it cannot be admit as conclusive proof that the CPP-NPA was really involved in the incident considering that he admitted that he did not personally see the armed men even as he tried to pursue them. 1988 evening. being entries in official records.CA: affirmed the decision.600.RTC Makati: in favor of RADIO. the “suspected” executor of the fire were believed to be members of the CPP/NPA. Inc. CA + police blotter of the burning of DYHB + certification of the Negros Occidental Integrated National Police. poured gasoline in it and then lit it. Bacolod City regarding the incident + letter of alleged NPA members Magsilang claiming responsibility for the burning of DYHB + fire investigation report dated July 29.550.650. DBP POOL OF ACCREDITED INSURANCE COMPANIES V RADIO MINDANAO NETWORK. riot. Col Torres and SFO II Rochar that the bystanders they interviewed claimed that the perpetrators were members of the CPP/NPA is an exception to the hearsay rule as part of res gestae (Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence) HELD 1. WON the letter of Magsilang.R. who claims to be a member of NPA-NIROC. invasion.July 27. 1990 the date of the filing of the Complaint. rebellion.000. 6 (c) and (d) 6. 2006 (owen) NATURE Petition for certiorari under Rule 45 RoC seeking the review of the CA Decision affirming RTC Makati Decision reducing interest rate to 6% per annum FACTS .00.044. However. of any of the following consequences.” > fire investigation report: “(I)t is therefore believed by this Investigating Team that the cause of the fire is intentional. DBP to pay P602. NO .INC G. Our justice system will not survive such a rule for obdurate cynicism on the part of a court is just as odious to the administration of justice as utter gullibility. > police blotter: “a group of persons accompanied by one (1) woman all believed to be CPP/NPA … more or less 20 persons suspected to be CPP/NPA. 1990. directly or indirectly. and the trier of facts is entitled to accept as much of the witness’ testimony as he finds credible and to reject the rest. furniture. Col. WCC: interest alone is not a ground for disregarding a party’s testimony. the civil case. NO . who owns several broadcasting stations all over the country. 1988 + testimonies of Lt. military or popular rising. . Col. preponderance of evidence being the quantum of proof. RADIO sought recovery under the two insurance policies but the claims were denied on the ground that the cause of loss was an excepted risk excluded under condition no.
Lt.Even assuming that the declaration of the bystanders that it was the members of the CPP/NPA who caused the fire may be admitted as evidence. A witness may not testify as to what he merely learned from others either because he was told or read or heard the same. he grabbed his wife and ran. when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. . or from a cause which limits its liability. It cannot therefore be ascertained whether these utterances were the products of truth. talk to one another and exchange information. . the attackers being Huk members. while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.Six people testified for the prosecution. If a proof is made of a loss apparently within a contract of insurance.Consequently. Gervasio Due and one Peping and carrying pistols. his opinion on the identity or membership of the armed men with the CPP-NPA is not admissible in evidence. . Martinez testified that in the investigation conducted by Quintans. it does not follow that such declarations are sufficient proof. Col. which means those facts which are derived from his perception.Res gestae.April 19.Under Section 22. Eusebio Perez. . It is only when petitioner has sufficiently proven that the damage or loss was caused by an excepted risk does the burden of evidence shift back to respondent who is then under a duty of producing evidence to show why such excepted risk does not release petitioner from any liability 5. In this case. . the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to DBP to controvert RADIO’S prima facie case. and from this it follows that an insurer seeking to defeat a claim because of an exception or limitation in the policy has the burden of proving that the loss comes within the purview of the exception or limitation set up. Admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence. approached Nery. it is sufficient for RADIO to prove the fact of damage or loss. Severino Austria. and (3) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending circumstances. Pedro Reyes. Gervasio Due and Marcelo Due were charged in two separate cases with the deaths of Benjamin Nery and Alfredo Laguitan. or someone identified in legal interest with him.The motive for the killing was the conflict between the MPs and the Huks. Good Friday in Cacutud. The hearsay rule is based upon serious concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability of hearsay evidence inasmuch as such evidence are not given under oath or solemn affirmation and. the burden is upon the insurer to prove that the loss arose from a cause of loss which is excepted or for which it is not liable. refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the participants. more importantly. veracity and articulateness of the out-of-court declarant or actor upon whose reliability on which the worth of the out-of-court statement depends.A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge. he saw Gatchalian run carrying his child and then the latter lay in a pile of palay. Laguitan and Orsino who were members of the military police. . during. where a risk is excepted by the terms of a policy which insures against other perils or hazards. Perez did not mention Gatchalian. or spectators to a crime immediately before.The three MPs were sitting on one corner. Nery and Laguitan were killed instantly while Orsino fractured a leg which took 6 months to heal. the appellants. .Eusebio Perez said he was attending the pabasa and when he heard gunshots. YES . or after the commission of the crime.Segundo Guevara saw Gatchalian during the pabasa and when gunshots were heard. The rule in res gestae applies when the declarant himself did not testify and provided that the testimony of the witness who heard the declarant complies with the following requisites: (1) that the principal act. loss from such a risk constitutes a defense which the insurer may urge. Arayat. This was corroborated by a testimony by Evaristo Paras. January 18. then the burden of evidence shifted to DBP to prove such exception. Pampanga – While the “pabasa” was being performed. as is the usual experience in disquieting situations where hysteria is likely to take place. (2) the statements were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood. No.Witnesses for the defense gave their own testimonies. NO . they were accused of causing physical injuries to Francisco Orsino. including Reyes. Gatchalian stated that each of them approached an MP and fired at them and that he was sure they would die.Vicente Gatchalian. Disposition Petition is DISMISSED. . memory. . NO . not to mention theories and speculations. In another case. Once RADIO makes out a prima facie case in its favor. have not been subjected to crossexamination by opposing counsel to test the perception. Avena A2010 Evidence Hence. 1948 (aida) NATURE Appeal from judgment of CFI Pampanga FACTS . the res gestae. the three MPs were driven to the road and when they were about ten meters away from where the “pabasa” was being done. be a startling occurrence. . is a party to the action. PEOPLE V REYES G. . and are admissible not as to the veracity thereof but to the fact that they had been thus uttered. assisted by Marcelo Due. These declarations should be calibrated vis-à-vis the other evidence on record. 1946. At gunpoint. A. L-1846-48 BENGZON. they were shot from behind.R. That the utterances may be mere idle talk is not remote.Admissibility of evidence should not be equated with its weight and sufficiency. Gatchalian remained in Guevara’s house the whole night. since DBP alleged an excepted risk.Prof. At best. V. . . 46 . victims. as an exception to the hearsay rule. the bystanders already had enough time and opportunity to mill around. 4.In insurance cases. Rule 130 RoC. Torres that these statements were made may be considered as independently relevant statements gathered in the course of their investigation. 3. Such testimony is considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned. The next day he saw three of the assailants including Maximo Austria and they said they were going into hiding because they had taken part in the shooting the night before.It is reasonable to assume that when these statements were noted down. watching the proceedings. since it has not assumed that risk. An admission is competent only when the declarant. the testimonies of SFO III Rochar and Lt.
Samuel Garmezy. He also interposed a counterclaim worth P90k for salaries allegedly due. He said that he specifically knew the balance of the said account because it would be very “shameful” on his part if the officers asked him for their balance and he didn’t know. . including the assailants. . appellants told him that they wanted to hide because of their participation in the shooting the previous night. ISSUE WON the judgment appealed from should be reversed HELD NO Reasoning . . He expressed conformity however to the refund of P64.The testimonies of Fidel Martinez and Segundino S. Fitzsimmons died on 1944 and special proceeding was instituted.Appelant Atlantic. may either reacquire the said 545 shares of stock by returning to his estate the amount applied thereon.Santiago Inacay. He denied that he had taken part in the killing and that he was merely threatened to be killed lest he reenact the crime as shown in the photograph. the company. They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua and indemnity for the deaths of Nery and Laguitan.868. He knew this because as accountant. but because it is inherently unbelievable that the authors of the shooting could have been so reckless enough to make comments on the results of the shooting in the field. V. not only because it comes from a polluted source. vicepresident-treasurer and president were also called to testify but the TC refused to admit them because they were not only large stockholders and members of the 47 . Not one of those many had witnessed the shooting was called by the prosecution to testify as to who did the shooting and how it took place. Lts. He alleged that he was maltreated and even showed his supposed injuries in court. Belden and Mr. they are entitled to acquittal. .250 (540 per share) for those shares. also testified that Fitzsimmons had a balance of 63k. .Modesto Flores. Richard T. Later on.5k. Fitzsimmons was the president and one of the largest stockholders of said company when the Pacific war broke out on December 8. are completely valueless because of the uncontradicted testimonies of the two appellants to the effect that they were maltreated. Disposition Judgment affirmed SEPARATE OPINION PERFECTO [dissent] .Their defense of alibi is weak and untenable. Fitzsimmons maintained one. He testified that at the end of 1941. Atlantic resumed business in 1945.On Jan 1942.Mr. it is incomprehensible that they should start by admitting to Eusebio Perez that they took part in the shooting affray and then confiding to him their intention to hide. 1949 (monch) FACTS . . . . or issue in favor of his estate the corresponding number of the company's shares of stock equivalent to the amount paid thereon at P450 a share. If appellants had wanted to hide. he saw and heard Gervacio saying that the MP he shot would surely die and Gatchalian assuring him that the MO would indeed die.The fiscal filed a motion for the dismissal of the case against Eusebio Perez for insufficiency of evidence.00 shares of stock.The picture of the reenactment of the crime is convincing enough to show the guilty participation of the appellants. According to the latter. He also signed receipts whenever Fitzsimmons would withdraw funds. A. he heard gunshots and when he ran to the ricefield. Lichauco.Reyes did become a state witness but he did not confirm every statement he had previously made at the fiscal's investigation. Quintans also testified that Austria had voluntarily signed the confession. the Japanese occupied Manila and seized all assets of the company. Avena A2010 Evidence .Lt. . Henry J. .5k Fitzsimmons paid. 1946.Appellants' guilt not having been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. . . Martinez and Quintans declared under oath that Gatchalian admitted to them during the investigation that he had shot one of the MPs. August 23. chief of the accounting department of the Atlantic testified that the officers had maintained personal accounts with the company. Quintans as to the supposed oral admission of Vicente Gatchalian and the written statement signed by Severino Austria.The CFI judge found the accused Maximino Austria alias Severino Australia alias Big Boy and Vicente Gatchalian alias Magallanes guilty of the offenses set forth in the different informations. LICHAUCO V ATLANTIC GR NO. They requested a set-off.67 Fitzsimmons owed them.5k. This was also granted. at its option. 1941. ran away afield. denied any indebtedness. . but it is unbelievable that the assailants should stop in their flight just to make comments and seemingly should to afford Pedro Reyes the opportunity to overhear their conversation. Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila is a foreign corporation duly registered and licensed to do business in the Philippines. . He held 1.Fitzsimmons had an agreement with the company that should he die without having paid in full. the account shows that Fitzsimmons owed 63k to the company.Gatchalian denies that he made a confession before Lt. near the scene.Orsino testified that the shooting took place in front of the place where the pabasa was being held in the presence of many people. Quintans. he made the entries in the books of the company.L-27434 OZAETA. It also wanted to exercise its option to acquire the 545 shares by returning the P64.Orsino narrated a similar incident but could not identify the assailants except Austria. tortured and threatened to be killed.The testimony of Pedro Reyes cannot be taken seriously. is absolutely incredible. Gatchalian even demonstrated how he shot the victim whih was captured in a photograph. everybody.The testimony of Eusebio Perez to the effect that on April 20. with its office and principal place of business in the City of Manila.Prof. .Atlantic filed a claim on the estate worth P63. 545 of which was not fully paid. He also asked that the accused Pedro Reyes be discharged so that the latter may be used as prosecution witness. with the single exception of Orsino. The Solicitor General's brief substantially proves conspiracy between them and their other co-accused who are still at large. and at the hearing distance of Pedro Reyes. the assistant accountant. He executed promissory notes in favor of the company worth P245. Gervacio had asked him to talk to the MPs but he refused. . In 1941 he already paid P64. He testified that before the crime was committed. the administrator. This was granted.
already appears in the record as hereinabove set forth. NO Ratio Rule 123 disqualifies only parties or assignors of parties. went to the councilman of the barrio and made complaint. He testified that he was the attorney in the divorce case (1943) between them and that Fitzsimmons prepared Exhibit 1 for the division of assets of the partnership. notwithstanding its hearsay character. It is not admissible in evidence as proof of the facts asserted. respectively. Gulf & Pacific Company of Manila from January. picked her up. No ReasoningThere was no resolution either of the stockholders of the board of directors of the company authorizing the payment of the salaries of the president or any other officer or employee of the corporation for the period of the war when the corporation was forced completely to suspend its business operations and when its officers were interned or virtually held prisoners by the enemy PEOPLE VS YATCO (giulia) UNITED STATES vs BAY CARSON. therefore. officers and directors of corporations are not considered to be parties within the meaning of the law. there is no indication of any debt to the company ISSUE/S 1. 1944. especially with regard to figures after more than 5 years. to remand the case because it would be merely corroborative. and carried her to the edge of some thickets. He did not know then that he would die within one year and that the corporation of which he was the president and one of the largest stockholders would present the claim in question against his estate. On the year 1941.This provision was taken from section 383. the court cannot rule on this point. although he listed in said inventory his obligations in favor of the Peoples Bank and Trust Company and the Philippine Bank of Commerce aggregating more than P30. On the other hand.Prof. where interest in the litigation or its outcome has ceased to disqualify. The accused. caught hold her.23) 2. The latter said that at the end of the year. 1942. It is not necessary. A. where he threw her on the ground and attempted to have carnal intercourse with her. according to the appellant itself. of the Rules of Court (now Rule 130. . Leaving this foregoing reflection. the personal accounts would be on the credit side since the dividend. and in any event what said witnesses would have testified. 1914 (athe) FACTS Servando Bay was charged of rape of Florentina Alcones. when he died in the Santo Tomas internment camp HELD 1. .A possible explanation such conflict between the company and Fitzsimmons can be seen in Inacay’s testimony. having been brought before the councilman 48 . to June 27. . One of the parties stepped ashore. asked "What's this?” The accused made no explanation of his conduct or his presence there. Fitzsimmons was entitled to his salary as president of the Atlantic." and does not apply to persons who are merely employed by such parties or assignors of parties . he did not mention at all any obligation in favor of the corporation of which he was the president and one of the largest stockholders.000. In said exhibit. for or against the corporation which is a party to an action upon a claim or demand against the estate of a deceased person. if the declaration is relevant and the declarant has died. Aug 14. Wickersman: An examination of the authorities from other states will disclose that their decisions rest upon the wordings of their statutes. Avena A2010 Evidence board of directors but also vice-president-treasurer and president. which contains the gross value of assets of the conjugal partnership of Fitzsimmons and Miguela Malayto. there was no probable motive on the part of Fitzsimmons to falsify his inventory Exhibit 1 by not including therein appellant's present claim of P63. The officers and/or stockholders of a corporation are not disqualified from testifying.City Savings Bank vs.The trial court erred in not admitting the testimony of Messrs. they cannot overturn the TC decision. they said that they would also say that they had personal knowledge that Fitzsimmons owed the company 63k. he did not include any obligations he had to the company in Exhibit 1. as the appellant was concerned. and we can consider it together with the testimony of the chief accountant and the assistant accountant who.000 among his obligations or liabilities to be deducted from the assets of the conjugal partnership between him and his divorced wife. and given that human memory. However. WON the deceased Richard T. of the claimant company. such did not happen because of the war. since the counsels did not pursue this point. WON Exhibit 1 is admissible because it is self-serving 2. Fitzsimmons could have believed that such amount was credited.Insofar. as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person Reasoning . Yet. a party who were passing near the place where the crime was committed heard her cries. but that generally. Plainly the law disqualifies only "parties or assignors of parties. become insane. WON the officers of a corporation which is a party to an action against an executor or administrator of a deceased person are disqualified from testifying as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person under Rule 123. were "the only ones in the best of position to testify on the status of the personal account" of the deceased Fitzsimmons 2.The administrator as evidence showed Exhibit 1. is unreliable.Merriman vs. of our former Code of Civil Procedure. if at all. NO Reasoning A self-serving declaration is a statement favorable to the interest of the declarant. if permitted. at least. Belden and Garmezy. 3. Immediately thereafter the woman. However. or for some other reason is not available as a witness. bonuses and fees would be credited. paragraph 7. The accused met Alcones walking along the beach. Enos: To hold that the statute disqualifies all persons from testifying who are officers or stockholders of a corporation would be equivalent to materially amending the statute by judicial interpretation. which in turn was derived from section 1880 of the Code of Civil Procedure of California. Neither did he know that the books and records of that corporation would be destroyed or lost. a declaration against the interest of the person making it is admissible in evidence. and seeing the accused get up from the place where the woman claims the crime was committed. However. . however. . section 26(c). the court held that since the testimonies are based only on memory. accompanied by some of the party from the boat. if allowed to testify. and left the place forthwith. V.
acting on information furnished by the victim's father. Davao City. Cause of death was attributed to hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab wounds. Under such circumstances. ISSUES 1. who held him for trial. The bloodstained T-shirt. wholly at variance with that which might fairly be expected from him. 1980 in Saypon. Since the execution of the extrajudicial statement was admittedly made in the absence of counsel. There were no eyewitnesses to the bizarre killing.Equally inadmissible is the kitchen knife recovered from Aballe after his capture and after the police had started to question him. The postmortem report disclosed that Jennie sustained a total of 32 stab wounds. Avena A2010 Evidence and asked had he committed the crime of which he was charged. suddenly broke down and knelt before 49 . Nov. . to the minds of the Court. Notwithstanding the repudiation of his earlier confession. Aballe also made an extrajudicial confession admitting his guilt in killing Jennie while under the influence of liquor and marijuana. 17 years old. . There can be no possible doubt that he was present when the party on board the boat was attracted to the place where the victim raised her outcry charging him with the assault. A. Toril.7. however. . ABALLE v PEOPLE FERNAN. The accused was convicted. upon being picked up in the morning of Nov. Sgt. Upon their return at around 8:30 that same night. leaving his 12-year-old daughter Jennie alone in their house. and the waiver of counsel was not made with the assistance of counsel as mandated by the provisions of Section 20. his conduct at that time was. ISSUE WON finding the accused guilty has basis HELD YES. see original copy re sworn affidavit) Thereafter. whether de oficio or de parte. Thereafter the accused was sent to the justice of the peace. explaining how he came to be there present with the woman. and attempt there and then to establish his innocence. 8. At his arraignment on Apr. No. a school dropout (he finished second year high school) and next door neighbor of the victim. YES Aballe's extrajudicial admission should have been disregarded by the lower court for having been obtained in violation of Aballe's constitutional rights. . said confession should have been discarded by the lower court. brought the police to his house and pointed to them the pot at the "bangera" where he had concealed the death weapon which was a 4-inch kitchen knife. 1981. 2. YES It is well to note that even before the taking of the extrajudicial confession. Quirino found Jennie in the sala." 2. and the conditions under which she had made the false charge. 8. Indeed. granting the truth of his testimony and that of the other witnesses for the defense. Together with the extrajudicial confession. . bathed in her own blood with multiple wounds on different parts of her body. the accused without anyone asking him. The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction is that "an officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested any money or property found upon his person which was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner with the means of committing violence or escaping. orally admitted that he killed Jennie Banguis. Aballe. Marante. He brought along his wife and other children. They found him just as he was coming out of the communal bathroom in Saypon and wearing what appeared to be a bloodstained T-shirt. the accused's parents and relatives were almost always around but at no stage of the entire proceedings was it shown that the youthful offender was ever represented by counsel. yet there is not the slightest indication in the evidence that there was on the part of the accused any such indignant denials and protests as would be expected from an innocent man suddenly confronted with such a charge under such circumstances. the accused. a 42-year old driver. the fatal weapon is but a fruit of a constitutionally infirmed interrogation and must consequently be disallowed. 13.While under custodial investigation. an information was filed against Aballe. DISPOSITION Judgment affirmed. Marante subsequently brought him to the Toril police station for interrogation. being in the nature of an evidence in plain view which an arresting officer may take and introduce in evidence. V. Throughout the custodial interrogation. is admissible. attended a birthday party at the residence of his neighbor Aguilles Mora. Quirino Banguis. WON the trial court erred in giving full weight to Aballe’s extrajudicial confession taken during custodial investigation and in imposing a penalty which was not in accordance with law. ( Pls. or which may be used in evidence in the trial of the cause. Upon seeing Sgt. finding petitioner Peter Paul Aballe guilty of homicide. a police team headed by Sgt Marante sought the accused for questioning. He also disavowed his extrajudicial confession on the ground that it was obtained through coercion and in the absence of counsel. and that he was present later on when the victim presented her complaint to the councilman of the barrio. 64086 (jojo) NATURE Direct appeal from the decision of the CFI of Davao City.Prof. admitted that he had.At daybreak of the following day. March 15. lying prostrate. Also taken from Aballe was the bloodstained red and white striped T-shirt which he claimed he wore during the commission of the crime. Aballe was convicted of the crime of homicide. 1980 as he was coming out of the communal bathroom and wearing a T-shirt covered with bloodstains which he tried to cover with his hands. WON the guilt of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt HELD 1. he pleaded not guilty. we are convinced that an innocent man would instantly and indignantly repudiate such a charge. FACTS At around 7PM of Nov. 1990 G.R. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. charging him with homicide penalized under Article 249 of the RPC.
Josue Molas. I was able to grab the weapon on my waist and stabbed Solidad hitting her first on the breast.” The said confession was signed before Judge Tayrosa of the MTC fo Valencia after it was translated to Cebuano. my wife-tobe and no other means to prevent Solidad. Bernardo carried Abelardo into their house. though unsubstantiated. and Soledad. a dying declaration must: (1) concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death. after being informed of his Constitutional rights. -next morning. WON his extrajudicial admission was validly admitted by the court HELD 1. The rule is that any person. Barangay Dobdob. Bernardo then looked for Dulcesima. * this Soledad Resonable lighted a gas lamp in their store and said. is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood all of it. Dulcisima's younger brother at my back holding and boxing my buttock. . He informed his mother regarding what happened. There. -dawn of Feb 3." [It's good that you have arrived. In essence. He shouted for help then suddenly a voice from behind the store said “Don’t shout. but on my intervention. Because I was hurt on the part of Dulcisima. Hearing such words. The following are contained in Molas’ sworn statement: In our arrival to their house at sitio Inas. Abelardo's statement that it was Josue Molas who inflicted his injuries and also stabbed his mother and sister was given to his father. who he found dead in a dried carabao mud pool 3-arms length from the house. from Kabangogan. "papatay ka diay kanako. Bernardo arrived at their house and found 8-y. that Patrolman Quitoy manhandled him. Bernardo ran to the barangay captain and sought help from authorities. -for the defense. Abelardo at the doorway of their house bathed in his own blood. who heard the confession. no one can stop me if I kill my own daughter] at the same time went near Dulcesima. He also saw Abelardo under a table with a hunting knife in his back which he pulled from Abelardo. Compliance with the constitutional procedures on custodial investigation is not applicable to a spontaneous statement. The testimony of Sgt.o. People vs. at about 6:00 pm after farm work. I stopped Solidad by holding her hands to prevent her boxing Dulcesima. kill me also so we'll all die together]. he testified that at about 6 pm on Feb 2. Soledad boxed me hitting my head and arms. 31. He denied knowing the contents of the affidavit because it was written in English and was not translated to him. "maayo kay naabot na ta walay makaboot nako ug patyon nako ang akong anak. who he found near the bench by the door of the house. Patrolman Vallega then lodged Molas in jail. he saw his fiancé lifeless beside the dried mud pool 3 fathoms away from the store/house. While he was being investigated. WON the court erred in giving credence to Abelardo’s dying declaration 2. and (d) that his declaration is offered in evidence in a criminal case for homicide. 1983. but given in an ordinary manner. I stabbed him on the breast and followed again at the back causing him to fall down on the ground. Correct in giving credence to it as a dying declaration. the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death. Eventually. if you don’t want to die!” 3 unidentified men started chasing him afterwards. the daughter and the boy”. whereby the accused orally admitted having slain the victim. (c) that he was a competent witness. I followed her and slashed her neck and stabbed her stomach and immediately ran home. When I saw Solidad her mother walking towards the seat of their store and sat down. To be admissible. as taken down by Patrolman Fetalvero. 1993 (cha) NATURE Appeal FACTS -Josue Molas (accused-appellant) and Dulcesima Resonable (Dulcesima. ( Pls see orig copy re testimony) The declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offenses charged may be given in evidence against him. Abelardo was brought to the Provincial hospital but died the next day. not elicited through questioning. leaving therein the weapon I used causing incised wound on my right little finger and ran away but Dulcisima stopped me by holding my left hand and said. -3 separate information for murder were filed against Molas. I responded. Marante on Aballe's oral confession is competent evidence to positively link the accused to the aforesaid killing. and the sister of Nicolas and Abelardo Resonable -on Feb 2. to which he pleaded not guilty. He signed the document willingly. patya lamang ko ug layhan ka mag onong ta sa kamatayon. and with his blood-stained clothes. only Molas was presented. MOLAS G. NO. victim) were sweethearts and were engaged to be married. with blood-stained clothes. her daughter and grabbed her hair and boxed her to the different parts of her body. Nos. A. During the said flight he stumbled. Patrolman Vallaga arrived and informed Patrolman Renzal that Abelardo tagged him as the killer. Ratio. Molas freely and voluntarily related the “whole story”. 69 SCRA 427). Abelardo informed his father that Josue Molas was the person who not only inflicted his injuries but also stabbed Dulcesima and Soledad." [How could you do this to my parent. he saw Soledad wounded in the neck and bathed with blood. causing the injury in his hands. but in such case it must be given in its substance. Rules of Court. murder or parricide in which the declarant is the victim (Sec. Reasoning." [You'll kill me after all?] I went back where Abelardo was and pulled the penetrated weapon and stabbed Dulcisima who at that time was following me hitting her breast and caused her life to end. Molas was transferred to Valencia Police Station later. (b) that at the time it was made. Saliling. Rule 130. Due to blocks I made she was tired and again went back to Dulcesima and again boxed her to the different parts of her body.Prof. Marante and confessed that he killed Jennie Banguis. he proceeded to the police station. He also alleged. "puslang nabuhat sa akong ginikanan. -RTC: GUILTY ISSUES 1. otherwise competent as a witness. Because of faith and sympathy. February 5. refused to give any statement to the police.Inappropriateness of penalty discussed PEOPLE V. Avena A2010 Evidence Sgt. then on the back after which I saw Abelardo. Bay. while he 50 . surrendered to Patrolman Geronimo Vallega. 97437-39 GRIÑO-AQUINO. together with the “hunting knife I used in killing the mother. Dulcesima was the daughter of Bernardo and Soledad Resonable. An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim. V. He hugged Dulcesima but she was dead so he ran to the store. Molas did not object to any of the contents of his affidavit as translated.R.
his blood-stained clothing at the time of the surrender only hours after the killings. and Julieta Villanueva and thus disregarded their testimonies on this matter. .000. March 22. WHEREFORE. Patrolman Paquito Fetalvero. testified that she started her business only on 30 August 1991 and thus it was impossible for her to have hired Maqueda on 5 July 1991. it decreed a conviction "based on the confession and the proof of corpus delicti" as well as on circumstantial evidence. Prosecutor Zarate told Maqueda that he would oppose the motion for bail since he. Maqueda filed a Motion to Grant Bail. The trial court. Castrence. Muntinlupa. Norie Dacara. Before Maj. Rosely. Fontanosa. taken during custodial investigation. it could be treated as a verbal admission of the accused established through the testimonies of the persons who heard it or who conducted the investigation of the accused (People vs. 20 SCRA 249). He stated therein that "he is willing and volunteering to be a State witness in the above entitled case. His act of giving himself up to the police of Pamplona with the murder weapon. Disposition.00 for each case. Even if that confession were disregard.In the meantime. RTC Decision . Abelardo's dying declaration. 112983 DAVIDE. Since voluntariness is presumed. which observed his deportment on the witness stand. supports his extrajudicial confession taken at the police station. Carido. it appearing that he is the least guilty among the accused in this case.the trial court did not rely solely on the extrajudicial confession of the accused. People vs. as a result of which he expired a few hours later. Maqueda narrated to Salvosa this version of the story as well. was the only accused on trial. Maj. The trial court admitted the Sinumpaang Salaysay of accused Maqueda although it was taken without the assistance of counsel because it was of the opinion that since an information had already benefited in court against him and he was arrested pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the court. A. JR. while he was under detention. Tuba. One of such circumstances is that His Motion to Grant Bail contains this statement that he is willing and volunteering to be State witness.Maqueda was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide and serious physical Injuries and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim. He stated that he was at the polvoron factory owned by Minda Castrense located at Sukat. 2. Quezon and was brought by Maj. found him credible. 1984. Reasoning. Barker in the amount of P50T for the death of William Horace Barker. the owner of the polvoron factory where Maqueda worked. Quezon. there was more that enough evidence to support his conviction. Soledad Resonable and Abelardo Resonable and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of said murders is AFFIRMED.After a substantial period of time. Maqueda. Quezon.. 167 SCRA 462. He accompanied an officemate. 1995 (rach) FACTS . All of the circumstances required were present when Abelardo made his dying declaration. The Valencia Police Station investigator.He was then brought to the Guinyangan municipal jail. Benguet. V. Maria. Virgilio F. headquarters of the 235th PNP Mobile Force Company at Sta.As to the admissions made by Maqueda to Prosecutor Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa. Article III of the Constitution. He was also told that if he would point to accused Salvamante.Although the trial court had doubts on the identification of Maqueda by prosecution witnesses Teresita Mendoza Barker. testifying before the trial court on October 16. ." Prosecutor Zarate then had a talk with Maqueda regarding such statement and asked him if he was in the company of Salvamante on 27 August 1991 in entering the house of the Barkers. It was indubitably a dying declaration. PEOPLE V MAQUEDA G. Maqueda was finally arrested in Guinyangan. and the testimonies of the policemen in the police stations in Pamplona and Valencia to whom he admitted his guilt constitute an unbroken chain proving beyond reasonable doubt that it was he who murdered Abelardo. * The prosecution rebutted the testimony of Hector Maqueda by presenting Fredesminda Castience and SP03 Armando Molleno.Under Section 3 of Rule 133. bleeding from stab wounds in his colon and spinal cord. therefore. which he failed to do. Teresita M. Avena A2010 Evidence (Abelardo) lay at death's door. YES Ratio. This is the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Maqueda taken by SP02 Molleno immediately after Maqueda was arrested.Accused Hector Maqueda put up the defense of denial and alibi. . While it is true that the appellant's extrajudicial confession was made without the advice and assistance of counsel. People vs. Maqueda thereafter signed a Sinumpaang Salaysay wherein he narrated his participation in the crime at the Barker house on 27 August 1991.On 9 April 1992. And then he was already arrested by members of the CAGFU. he informed Maqueda of his rights under the Constitution.R. . the Sinumpaang Salaysay was not.Prof. Feliciano. The trial court then held that the admissibility of the Sinumpaang Salaysay should not be tested under Sec 12(1). . He and his 8 co-employees all sleep inside the factory. quoted the admissions of the accused. directed SP03 Armando Molleno to get Maqueda's statement. This in effect. Maqueda had the burden of proving otherwise. the appealed judgment convicting Josue Molas for the murders of Dulcesima Resonable. with modification of the death indemnity which is hereby increased to P50. Maqueda had been taken to the. . Dulcesima and Soledad Resonable. . but on the voluntariness of its execution. inadmissible as evidence. then to the Tuba Police Station. he would be freed and he could also become a state witness: He told them that he could attest to the fact that he accompanied accused Salvamante in selling the cassette recorder. the trial court admitted their testimony thereon only to prove the tenor of their conversation but not to prove the truth of the 51 . 58 SCRA 383. Rendon. He did so and according to him. Anagaran who then brought Maqueda to the Benguet Provincial Jail. Accused’s Version . There he was told to cooperate with the police in arresting Salvamante so he would not stay long in the Province of Benguet. After he received an affirmative answer. He was employed as a caretaker. Calauag. No. SP03 Molleno declared that he informed Maqueda of his constitutional rights before Maqueda was investigated and that Maqueda voluntarily and freely gave his Sinumpaang Salaysay. home to Guinyangan. Its commanding officer. Anagaran's arrival at Guinyangan. hence. SO ORDERED. an extrajudicial confession made by the accused is not sufficient for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. Ray Dean Salvosa arrived at the Office of Prosecutor Zarate and obtained permission from the latter to talk to Maqueda.
and Julieta Villanueva as one of two persons who committed the crime. an admission is something less than a confession. Norie Dacara. in connection with proof of other facts. if any. (3) He and co-accused Rene Salvamante are friends. of his guilt of the crime charged. Avena A2010 Evidence admission because such testimony was objected to as hearsay. Such uncounselled Sinumpaang Salaysay is wholly inadmissible pursuant to paragraph 3.” . . Barker. it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest.A perusal of the Sinumpaang Salaysay shows that is only an extrajudicial admission. WON the extrajudicial admissions are admissible 2. by a party in a criminal case.To be added to Maqueda's extrajudicial admission is his Urgent Motion for Bail wherein he explicitly . whether exculpatory or inculpatory. (4) He and Rene Salvamante were together in Guinyangan.The exercise of the rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under Section 12(1). Article III of the Constitution are not confined to that period prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or information but are available at that stage when a person is "under investigation for the commission of an offense. was positively identified by Mrs. WON Maqueda is guilty beyond reasonable doubt HELD 1. People: The declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be given in evidence against him and any person. but in the general principle that keeps alive in the public mind the doctrine that governmental power is not unlimited. Maqueda's participation in the commission of the crime charged was established beyond moral certainty.Prof. Quezon. These are not governed by the exclusionary rules under the Bill of Rights. Maqueda was not even told of any of his constitutional rights under the said section. and that any statement he might make could be used against him. or restriction on the power of government found "not in the particular specific types of action prohibited. The trial court based his conviction on his extrajudicial confession and the proof of corpus delicti. The provisions of the Bill of Rights are primarily limitations on government. Rule 130 of the ROC: . it was given to a private person." 3. Reasoning The accused's arguments which stress the incredibility of the testimonies of Mrs. 26 and 33. otherwise competent to testify as a witness. direct or implied. NO Ratio Morales vs. As disclosed by a reading thereof. and both left the place sometime in September 1991. established beyond doubt by circumstantial evidence. Enrile: At the time a person is arrested. that may not be taken away by government and that government has the duty to protect. on 4 March 1992. . it suffices if he gives its substance. . YES Ratio In the light of his admissions (to Prosecutor Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa) and his willingness to be a state witness. Section 12. . and as to the other admission. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. YES Ratio Aballe vs. is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard and understood it.The Sinumpaang Salaysay of Maqueda taken by SP02 Molleno after the former's arrest was taken in palpable violation of his rights under Section 12(1). as correctly ruled by the trial court. of facts pertinent to the issue and tending. who is still at large. that rule applies to oral extrajudicial admissions.stated that "he is willing and volunteering to be a state witness. his guilt was.The following circumstances were duly proved in this case: (1) He and a companion were seen a kilometer away from the Barker house an hour after the crime in question was committed there. as well as on circumstantial evidence which he did not elaborate upon on his appeal. a relative. who heard the confession. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. V. or anyone he chooses by the most expedient mean by telephone if possible or by letter or messenger. There is a distinction between a confession and an admission as clearly shown in Sec. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer. there is an acknowledgment of guilt. Even if we disregard his extrajudicial admissions to Prosecutor Zarate and Salvosa. PEOPLE V DOMANTAY 52 . The said witness need not repeat verbatim the oral confession. The term admission is usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused which do not directly involve an acknowledgment of his guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is charged. ISSUE 1. In other words. declaring the rights that exist without governmental grant. Article III of the Constitution.In a confession." 2.Wharton distinguishes a confession from an admission as follows: A confession is an acknowledgment in express terms. Disposition Appeal is DISMISSED. shall be inadmissible in evidence. Article III of the Constitution. The statement was also taken in the absence of counsel. Reasoning The extrajudicial admissions of Maqueda to Prosecutor Zarate and to Ray Dean Salvosa stand on a different footing. but in connection with Maqueda's plea to be utilized as a state witness. and (6) He freely and voluntarily offered to be a state witness stating that "he is the least guilty. (2) Rene Salvamante. EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION v EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION . Quezon. Maqueda voluntarily and freely made them to Prosecutor Zarate not in the course of an investigation. (5) He was arrested in Guinyangan. Barker and the househelps identifying Maqueda are misdirected because the trial court had ruled that they were not able to positively identify Magueda. he also admitted his participation. in whole or in part. to prove his guilt. His defense of alibi was futile because by his own admission he was not only at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance which in itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction and which tends only to establish the ultimate fact of guilt. while an admission is a statement by the accused. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down. A. By analogy. WON Maqueda’s Sinumpaang Salaysay is admissible 2.
III. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. an AM station based in Dagupan City. -The medical examination conducted by Dr. Neither was accusedappellant's confession reduced in writing. The child's body bore several stab wounds. -On cross-examination." and when asked why. hence. in English. therefore. performed an autopsy on the body of Jennifer. "when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect. 1996. although the vaginal canal easily admitted the little finger with minimal resistance. 1996. 7438 has extended the constitutional guarantee to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been "invited" for questioning. SPO1 Espinoza and 2. 1996. he apprised accused-appellant of his constitutional right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel." -The accused-appellant's confession to the radio reporter. the prosecution. -According to Manuel. -He was. this appeal ISSUE WON the extrajudicial admissions made by the accused to: 1. Celso Manuel. at around 4 o'clock. this Court said: Confessions to the newsmen are not covered by Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution. V. -According to SPO1 Espinoza. filed a criminal complaint for murder against accused-appellant before the MTC -On October 25. It governs the 53 . the PNP chief investigator at Malasiqui. showed that Jennifer died of multiple organ failure and hypovolemic shock secondary to 38 stab wounds at the back. he was already a suspect. Pangasinan. and he used that little girl in his revenge. -In People v Andan. the accused answered "yes. (3) it must be express. The Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the relation between a private individual and another individual. A. Section 12(1) of the Constitution applied to him. during the trial. being. is admissible. he presented himself as a media practitioner with the tape recorder in his hand. No. Art. the defense objected to the admission of Manuel's testimony." R. -Accused-appellant denied the allegations against him. he must be provided with one. SPO1 Espinoza and another policeman took accused-appellant to Bayambang and recovered the bayonet from a tricycle belonging to the Casingal spouses. but the lower court allowed it. in fact the only one. which was later translated into Pangasinense. on separate occasions. -Although the accused waived the assistance of counsel. a bayonet. it must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must be voluntary. his aunt and uncle respectively. the body of six-year old Jennifer Domantay was found sprawled amidst a bamboo grove in Guilig. in the brutal slaying of Jennifer Domantay. III. Celso Manuel are admissible in evidence HELD No to 1. -On the basis of the post-mortem findings of Dr. the waiver is invalid and his confession is inadmissible. yes to 2. 130612 MENDOZA. to Elsa and Jorge Casingal. the waiver was neither put in writing nor made in the presence of counsel. Avena A2010 Evidence G. presented SPO1 Antonio Espinoza and Celso Manuel who testified that. -SPO1 Espinoza's testimony on the alleged confession of accused-appellant should have been excluded by the trial court. 1999 (apple) NATURE Appeal from a decision of the RTC FACTS -On the afternoon of October 17. -As in the case of the testimony of SPO1 Espinoza. -SPO1 Espinoza testified that he investigated accusedappellant after the latter had been brought to the Malasiqui police station in the evening of October 17. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. Accused-appellant also disclosed the location of the bayonet he used in killing the victim. Macaranas. xxx xxx xxx (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this section or section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence. -This provision applies to the stage of custodial investigation. Dr. 1996.R. SPO4 Carpizo amended the criminal complaint against accused-appellant to rape with homicide. -Espinoza's testimony was admitted by the trial court over the objection of the defense. -In addition to several other witnesses. the rural health physician of Malasiqui. -Decisions of this Court hold that for an extrajudicial confession to be admissible. the "fruit of the poisonous tree. Based on this finding. when accused-appellant was brought to the Malasiqui police station in the evening of October 17. Espinoza admitted that at no time during the course of his questioning was accusedappellant assisted by counsel. upon questioning by SPO1 Antonio Espinoza. The result of his examination of the victim's genitalia indicated that the child's hymen had been completely lacerated on the right side.A. accused-appellant agreed to answer the questions of the investigator even in the absence of counsel and admitted killing the victim. medico-legal expert of the NBI. and (4) it must be in writing. -The investigation by the Malasiqui police pointed to accused-appellant Bernardino Domantay. SPO4 Juan Carpizo. No. Malasiqui. Macaranas found no lacerations or signs of inflammation of the outer and inner labia and the vaginal walls of the victim's genitalia. as it were. already under custodial investigation and the rights guaranteed in Art. as the lone suspect. a cousin of the victim's grandfather. He likewise disclosed that he had given the fatal weapon used. (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. Bandonill. So is the bayonet inadmissible in evidence. Section 12 of the Constitution in part provides: (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. The next day. 1996. Manuel went to Malasiqui to interview accused-appellant who was then detained in the municipal jail. On October 23. for his part. -The trial court found accused-appellant guilty as charged. May 11. testified that he is a radio reporter of station DWPR. -Celso Manuel. For this reason. police officers of the Malasiqui PNP picked up accusedappellant at the Malasiqui public market and took him to the police station where accused-appellant. accused-appellant had confessed to the brutal killing of Jennifer Domantay. -In the case at bar. Dr. that is. Before he commenced his questioning.Prof. confessed to killing Jennifer Domantay. When asked if he committed the crime. Macaranas. -At around 6:30 in the evening of that day. the accused said that it was about the boundary dispute.
From there. Disposition Judgment rendered finding accused-appellant guilty of homicide PEOPLE v. is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard. She sent another employee. Mary Ann opened the store through the back door. Clippings of these reports and pictures of the press conference were presented as evidence by the prosecution during trial. and brought him with them. The Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement. He was able to escape when they all stepped out of the getaway car to smoke some cigarettes near the pier. -Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides: Sec 3. He got suspicious and proceeded to the store. who was the one who had the keys to the store. each with a bullet to the head. not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. Mantung wrote in Filipino that he killed Maribel and Renjie because they gave him pork which his Moslem religion prohibited him from eating. Extrajudicial confession. Not finding him there. his affirmation of Mantung's incriminating statements is admissible as evidence against the latter. He was convicted and sentenced to death. otherwise competent to testify as a witness who heard the confession. The police looked for Mantung in his rented room in Paranaque. to go get duplicate keys from Magallanes. he answered in the affirmative and said that he killed them because the victims had induced him to eat pork. Seeing his opportunity. When Myrna got to the store with the duplicate. The total cash taken was P62k and the jewelries were worth P5. The rights under Section 12 are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state as would lead the accused to admit something false. the court found that the fact that accusedappellant also committed rape was not established beyond reasonable doubt. another manager. -However. On the messy counter. claiming that he needed money. They first saw the safe room of the pawnshop in disarray and the cash drawer was empty. and that the security guard Mantung was also not there. Maribel and Renjie did not go home the previous Saturday. the fact of death of Jennifer Domantay. Since Ricardo's testimony was based on his own personal knowledge about the proceedings during the press conference. He peeped inside and saw nothing unsual. he boarded the ship bound for Cebu. He likewise admitted taking the cash and jewelry inside the vault. (Obvious bang hindi pinaniwalaan ng court?!)* ISSUE WON Mantung's admission during the press con can be used to support his conviction. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. News reports about Mantung's admission to the killings appeared in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Manila Bulletin the day following the press conference. followed by the victim. He was brought back to Paranaque. July 20. namely. she found Maribel's mom and Renjie's husband waiting outside. He also observed that the aircon and the lights inside and outside the store were on. Mantung's defense Three armed men robbed the bank. The SC upheld the trial court's rejection of the objection of defense to admit Mantung's extrajudicial statements as evidence. Mary Ann. Myrna. but given in an ordinary manner whereby appellant orally admitted having committed the crime. Mantung was charged with robbery with homicide. -Accused-appellant's extrajudicial confession is corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. on the way to work. The prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the State and its agents. At the said conference. RULING YES. Worth reiterating is the rule that the declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be given in evidence against him and any person. some jewelry from the store were recovered from him. not elicited through questioning by the authorities. they went to Novaliches on a tip. not sufficient ground for conviction. The jewelries kept in the safe were gone. when Mayor Marquez asked Mantung if he was the one who killed the two pawnshop employees. When they arrested him. got information at 930am that the store wasn't open yet. accusedappellant voluntarily made the statements in response to Mayor Marquez' question as to whether he killed the pawnshop employees. the manager of Cebuana Lhuiller Pawnshop in Maywood. Mantung answered in the affirmative and even proceeded to explain that he 54 . Later. he was seen standing near the bamboo grove where the child's body was found. Although the clippings of the news articles reporting Mantung's confession are indeed hearsay evidence as the writers of the same were not presented to affirm the veracity of the reports. Avena A2010 Evidence relationship between the individual and the State. He noticed that the Maribel and Renjie were nowhere in sight. Cotabato. shall not be sufficient ground for conviction. Mantung's admission during the press conference that he killed the victims because the latter made him eat pork is competent evidence that lends support to his conviction.3M. Never was it raised during the trial that Mantung's admission during the press conference was coerced or made under duress. She tried to contact Maribel. BF Paranaque. When she got to the store. A. she got suspicious and called the police. the prosecution nevertheless presented Ricardo who was at the press conference. ROMERO (Ina) FACTS One Monday morning.Prof. he went home to Cotabato. received information that 2 employees. where Mayor Joey Marquez held a press con. MANTUNG GR 130372. -In addition. as rebuttal witness to prove that Mantung indeed claimed responsibility for the killings. Ricardo. They finally caught him in Sultan Kudarat. 1990. He was seen walking toward the bamboo grove. the circumstantial evidence furnished by the other prosecution witnesses dovetails in material points with his confession. unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. V. As the records show. An extrajudicial confession made by an accused. Meanwhile. there was a letter which appears to have been written by Mantung addressed to her. When Mary Ann saw that only 2 of the 4 locks on the door were actually locked and that the aircon was still running. when it should've been opened at 830am. The bodies of Maribel and Renjie were found in the vault. but smelled a foul odor from the office. killed the ladies with his gun. but couldn't reach her. where he found Mary Ann waiting outside with the police.
in its primary sense. in essence. accused-appellant sealed his own fate. It underscored the admission made by the defense as to the authorship. and Caridad saw the lifeless body of Francisco lying in the middle of the road and being examined by [SPO2] Percival A. and his extrajudicial confession during the press conference clearly establish Mantung's guilt. in fact. this Court has unequivocally declared that a defendant on trial or under preliminary investigation is not under custodial interrogation. A preliminary investigation is an inquiry or a proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed. there is an acknowledgment of guilt.Prof. the rights enumerated in the constitutional provision "exist only in custodial interrogations. — The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged. may be used as evidence against him. Gabinete.R. Their respective testimonies. and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.3 of the RoC prescribes that an extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction. -Accused Ladiana filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence claiming. accused Ladiana had given himself up to the police authorities. many people were milling around. -After the presentation of Cortez. "5. but not the identity of the person who caused said death. it opted not to file any. coupled with the extrajudicial confession of the accused established beyond reasonable doubt that Mantung committed the crime. the defense counsel made an admission as to the authorship. his disappearance after the incident and failure to report the crime. not during the custodial investigation. already inflicted a stab wound on the arm of accused Ladiana." -In a confession. RELEVANT ISSUE: (1) WON the Counter-Affidavit Ladiana executed during the PI of this case is admissible proof showing his complicity in the crime RULING: Admissibility of Counter-Affidavit -It is well-settled that the foregoing legal formalities required by the fundamental law of the land apply only to extra-judicial confessions or admissions obtained during custodial investigations. refers to the fact that a crime has actually been committed. LADIANA v. this Petition. These circumstances hardly indicate that Mantung felt compelled to own up to the crime. Court denied demurrer to evidence. As held in People vs. MARIO TALAVERA CORTEZ (hereinafter. there is merely a statement of fact not directly involving an acknowledgment of guilt or of the 55 . Sections 26 and 33 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence distinguish one from the other as follows: "SEC. unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. Caridad testified that Francisco was the Barangay Captain of Barangay Salac. a person undergoing preliminary investigation before the public prosecutor cannot be considered as being under custodial investigation. -SC. may be given in evidence against him. It is only an admission. 26. the concatenation of circumstantial evidence. it was proven that a robbery with homicide was committed at the Maywood Branch of the Cebuana Lhuiller Pawnshop on August 10. thus. and voluntariness of the execution of the counteraffidavit of accused Ladiana. the corpus delicti was convincingly established by the prosecution. the recovery of part of the loot from his possession at the time of his arrest. the authenticity and the voluntariness of the execution of the Counter-Affidavit. In said counter-affidavit. As for the prosecution. among others. Evidently. that the prosecution was allegedly merely able to prove the fact of death of the victim. J (Chrislao) Facts: In their Memoranda. Second. the victim in the case at bar. December 4. the prosecution filed its formal offer of evidence and rested its case. as pointed out by the Solicitor General. In fact. he argues that the right to competent and independent counsel also applies during preliminary investigations. -The Sandiganbayan ruled that the prosecution had been able to establish the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. both the prosecution and the defense substantially relied upon the Sandiganbayan's narration of the facts as follows: "The prosecution presented 5 witnesses but I figured that 2 of the testimonies are already sufficient. accused Ladiana allegedly admitted to making the fatal shots on Francisco. Besides. he could have chosen to remain silent or to do deny altogether any participation in the robbery and killings but he did not. which was subscribed and sworn to before Cortez. As applied to a particular offense. in an admission. a confession constitutes evidence of high order since it is supported by the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and his conscience. CARIDAD MARGALLO SAN JUAN (hereinafter. accused Ladiana allegedly did so in self-defense as Francisco was then purportedly attacking accused Ladiana and had. declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. 2002. — The act. Avena A2010 Evidence killed the victims because they made him eat pork. 33. 'Cortez') declared that he is a retired Assistant Prosecutor of Laguna. or of any offense necessarily included therein. Laguna. until he was shot and killed by accused Ladiana. However. 1996. "SEC. V. Court thereafter received by mail the Memorandum for the defense. or in-custody interrogation of accused persons. The court a quo held that his Counter-Affidavit. PANGANIBAN. much less describe the alleged malefactors who committed the crime. 144293. Confession. Moreover. petitioner admits that the questioned statements were made during the preliminary investigation. Admissions of a party. DISAGREES with the Sandiganbayan's characterization of petitioner's Counter-Affidavit as an extrajudicial confession. In this case. however. "Caridad maintained that she was aware that her husband was killed by accused Ladiana because this was what the woman actually told her." -In the present case. it means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. When she reached the scene. who happens to be also a distant relative of the decedent. 'Caridad') declared that she is the wife of Francisco San Juan (hereinafter 'Francisco'). The Court issued a resolution admitting all the documentary evidence submitted by the prosecution. -Hence. Indeed. Lumban. However. First. PEOPLE [G. are as follows: "1. "Prior to the conduct of the examination-in-chief on Cortez. A. Rule 133. *His failure to identify. "Caridad recounted that she was in her house when an unidentified woman came and told her that her husband was killed by accused Ladiana. Montiero. authenticity. -SC disagrees. in which he had admitted to having fired the fatal shots that caused the victim's death. No. Corpus delicti has been defined as the body or substance of the crime and.
he pleaded guilty. 1980 (jaja) FACTS Aling declared in the Chavacano dialect (his declaration was translated into English) that he killed his wife (whom he married according to Muslim rites because e he was informed in prison by his relatives that his wife was living with another man and fooling around with other men. The case was elevated to this Court for automatic review of the death penalty. When he arrived at his home. a Muslim. In answer to the question of the fiscal. August 24. his wife ran and he pursued her. 2). A. stabbed her but she was able to parry the blow. 1972. I saw Nori Mohamad but I had no time to talk to her because immediately after seeing me. He killed his wife because while he was in prison. I was already running away from the authorities because I am an escapee from San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm. by agreement of the parties. in the case at bar. took paIns to follow the rule that in case a plea of guilty is entered in a capital case. Thus. His confession and the affidavit of the policemen who investigated him were presented in evidence. Disposition Judgment affirmed with the modification that. affirmed that Airol admitted to Sergeant Antonio Macrohon in their presence that he stabbed his wife because she had been going with many men (Exh. He declared that after he was informed by his counsel that the penalty for parricide is death or life imprisonment. Sulu that particular day. He admitted that he was a prisoner in the penal colony. In addition. then to April 5. the accused said that he understood that by pleading guilty he could be sentenced to death or reclusion perpetua because he was an escaped convict. (Exh. the arraignment was postponed three times in order to enable his counsel to confer with him and explain to him the consequences of his plea of guilty. He agreed that his father-in-law could have the custody of his children. When he went to his house on January 28. L-31912. Armed with the bolo which I had been carrying with me. 1979). That was a grievous offense under Muslim customs. a statement by the accused admitting the commission of the act charged against him but denying that it was done with criminal intent is an admission. Avena A2010 Evidence criminal intent to commit the offense with which one is charged. 1972. 1974. 1974. At that time. He had information that his wife was guilty of infidelity or had a "kabit". as in the case at bar. He was a Muslim belonging to the Samal tribe of Siasi Sulu. Nori ran away. the information was translated into the Tausug dialect which is spoken by the accused. On that last date. V. He overtook her. whether categorized as a confession or as an admission. he. and when -she fell on the ground. When I saw Nori fell down on the street badly wounded. I chased after Nori and I catch up with her at the street where I started stabbing her with the bolo. hitting her on the different parts of the body. On that date. evidence should be received in order to leave no room for reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and that he had full knowledge of the meaning and consequences of his plea of guilty (People vs. The case was first called for arraignment on March 15. I was at the seashore of Calarian relaxing since I have just arrived from Jolo. 1972. In this case. PEOPLE V ALING AQUINO. The trial judge. On April 19. he claims he did it in self-defense. are evidence of great weight against the declarant. B or 2). Duaban. Then. nevertheless. admitted the killing of his wife because that was the truth. He admitted that he killed his wife. she did not visit him and she neglected their four children. The accused testified. With the assistance of his counsel. admissions made under oath. It noted that he pleaded guilty with full knowledge of the meaning and consequences of his plea. ISSUE WON the accused did not understand fully he nature and effect of Ms plea of guilty HELD NO. Upon reaching the house. Nevertheless. In general. it is admissible in evidence against him.Prof. going to the direction of the street. Airol Aling was charged with parricide in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City. He Identified his signature in his confession which was sworn to before the clerk of court (Exh. Later on. the arraignment was transferred to March 29. the accused is sentenced to reclusion perpetua 56 . instead of waiting for him. 1). MARCH 12. He described the confrontation with his wife. He recounted the killing in this manner to the police: At or about one o'clock in the afternoon of January 28. The trial court sentenced Airol Aling to death and to pay an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos to the heirs of Norija Mohamad. for lack of one vote. -SC does not doubt the voluntariness of the CounterAffidavit. It was alleged in the information that Airol was a convict serving sentence at the penal colony for robbery with frustrated homicide. The trial court granted counsel's motion to transfer the arraignment to March 18. He said that he was not coerced nor cajoled into entering a plea of guilty. she ran away. He was able to leave the penal colony because he was a "living-out-prisoner". not a confession. A counsel de oficio was appointed for him. admissions may be rebutted by confessing their untruth or by showing they were made by mistake. Petitioner left the admissions unrebutted. I proceeded to my father's house which is just near the seashore. 1972. The accused signified his willingness to plead guilty although he had no lawyer. and later to April 30. They throw on him the burden of showing a mistake. the accused was placed on the witness stand and examined by his counsel. I hurriedly left the place and ran towards the far end of Calarian. In fact. -Petitioner admits shooting the victim in his CounterAffidavit — which eventually led to the latter's death — but denies having done it with any criminal intent. he repeatedly stabbed her in the abdomen. Two policemen in their affidavit of March 24. his purpose was to be reconciled with his wife but when she saw him.
near the balcony. . tasted the poisoned bread and would have died as a consequence were it not for the timely medical assistance given her.The two minor children. Upon their arrival.There was nothing in the testimonies pointing to Lucila Valero as the source of the poisoned bread. there is no showing that Pipe made the extrajudicial revelation spontaneously when he was still under the influence of a startling occurrence.R. Imelda.Pipe could not have said that his sister handed over the poisoned bread to the children because the evidence of the prosecution shows that Pipe himself. Michael and Annabel. According to the testimony of the defendant. intelligence. a deaf-mute brother of the defendant Lucila Valero. memory. for delivery to the minor children. He uses an insecticide called Polidol to spray the vegetable and uses the same insecticide to kill rats. a commercial insecticide. . the ability of 57 . A. -To give weight to the testimonies of Federico Jaime and Ceferino Velasco. and. it seems that Pipe pointed to the defendant who was standing nearby. father of the victims. and under the balcony.It is not denied that Ceferino Velasco has a vegetable garden in his yard. and Annabel. and that it was Lucila Valero who gave the bread to Pipe for delivery to the minor children. Arturo Ventuso both of the Police Department of San Rafael. Pipe made his extrajudicial revelation not spontaneously but after an interview through the complicated process of sign language. March 19. another minor child of Ceferino.On the same morning at about the same time that the three minor children partook of the poisoned bread. What Jaime asked from Pipe was "Who gave the bread to the children?" The evidence of the prosecution already shows that Pipe gave the bread to the children. . . ISSUE: WON the prosecution was able to establish Valero’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt HELD: NO. which was never rebutted by Ceferino Velasco. Likewise. Bucot and Pat. Ceferino Velasco. L-45283-84 ERICTA. But admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence. a poisonous insecticide. died of poisoning after eating bread containing endrin. 1982 (edel) NATURE: Automatic Review FACTS: -In the morning of February 22. three (3) puppies of Ceferino Velasco under the balcony also died of poisoning. and in this particular case. It is clear that Pipe did not understand the sign language of Jaime and viceversa. . Samples of the blood and internal organs of both Michael and Annabel were also examined by a chemist and it was found that they contained endrin. ON ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS: . aged 9 months. aged 1 year and 9 months. when they partook of the poisoned bread. They also saw several pieces of sliced pan scattered in the sala of the house. Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative value. Investigations were conducted by Cpl. Nobody was yet poisoned.Prof. there was no startling Occurrence yet. The evidence for the defense tends to show that the Velasco children might have eaten one of the sliced poisoned bread used by their father in poisoning rats in his garden.With reference to the testimony of Jaime. the only effective means to test the truthfulness.What is evident is nothing but confusion. When Pipe allegedly revealed to Ceferino Velasco that the source of the poisoned bread was the defendant. REASONING: -Rodolfo Quilang. declaration. . LUCILA VALERO y VARILLA G. except for the testimony of Federico Jaime and Ceferino Velasco. were also autopsied and the necropsy reports showed that both children died of poisoning by endrin. and Ceferino Velasco were presented to prove that the defendant Lucila Valero gave the poisoned bread to her deaf-mute brother Pipe with the alleged instruction to deliver the bread to the Velasco children. V. Earlier that same morning at about 6:00 o'clock. The presentation of such evidence likewise violates the principle of res inter alios acta. In reply. Ceferino also planted vegetables in the yard of the defendant whose house is just across the street from the house of Ceferino Velasco. Pipe was never presented as a witness. Stated otherwise. They picked up some pieces of sliced bread under the balcony. 1969 between 7 and 9 o'clock of Saturday. there is nothing in the record showing that Pipe communicated to the prosecution witnesses by comprehensible sign language that his sister was the source of the poisoned bread.With particular reference to the testimony of Ceferino Velasco. All these three minor children were in the balcony of their house at San Rafael. was seen throwing poisoned rats into a river near his house. The lack of objection may make any incompetent evidence admissible. It was found that the bread contained endrin. No. the defendant Lucila Valero denies that she ever gave bread to her deaf-mute brother.The failure of the defense counsel to object to the presentation of incompetent evidence. On the other hand. . She further testified that Ceferino dipped sliced bread into an insecticide called endrin.The Court examined the entire transcript of the stenographic notes. wrapped them in a piece of paper and submitted them to a chemist for examination. Bulacan. Michael. like hearsay evidence or evidence that violates the rule of res inter alios acta. or omission of another. . The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act. or his failure to ask for the striking out of the same does not give such evidence any probative value. Bulacan. whether considered as hearsay evidence or as part of res gestae and make the same the basis for the imposition of the death penalty gravely violates the constitutional right of the defendant to meet the witnesses face to face and to subject Pipe to the rigid test of cross-examination. gave the bread to the children. the children had not eaten or tasted it. . both of whom are the children of Ceferino Velasco. Avena A2010 Evidence PEOPLE v. dried them up and later used the poisoned bread as a bait to kill rats in the yard located by the side of his house. they saw the dead bodies of Michael and Annabel in the house of Ceferino Velasco and the dead puppies under the balcony. its admission cannot be justified by claiming that it is a part of the res gestae. The testimonies of the witnesses Jaime and Velasco were said to be hearsay for they were called to merely convey what Pipe told them through sign language. Pipe. The evidence of the prosecution shows that the poisoned bread was given to the children by Alfonso Valero alias Pipe. -The evidence of the prosecution and the defense conflict as to the source of the poisoned bread. Federico Jaime.
Sandiganbayan issued resolution denying his motion. Avena A2010 Evidence the deaf-mute. He did not confront Lucila Valero.Evidence for prosec: a. albeit unintentionally.SC: Obviously. b.He filed motion to quash contending (1) lack of Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over offense & person of accused (2) double jeopardy .Information charging petitioner for violating Art 217 of RPC was filed. RTC shld continue. After the audit. creating Sandiganbayan and conferring on it orig & excl jurisdiction over crimes committed by public officers. if based on that she intended to kill. the trial Judge conjured up something as the probable cause that might have impelled the defendant to commit the crime.Even prosecution witnesses Ceferino Velasco and Federico Jaime admitted on cross-examination that their interpretations of the sign language of Pipe were only guess work. Ceferino Velasco admitted that even when Pipe was only a small boy. Special Prosecutor opined that since he had already been arraigned.Valero. made a new cash account. -The surprising finding of the Judge relates not only to the credibility of a witness but to the sanity of the defendant. d. he kept quiet. he might have become violent. like a Chameleon changes color. Espino sealed the vault of Navallo. When the children were dying because of the poison. -Realizing that there is completely no motive for the defendant to commit the heinous crime. the latter frequented his house to visit his children. He pleaded not guilty when arraigned by RTC. In fact. she loves the kids!) However.Navallo was arraigned. Warrant of arrest was issued. does not inspire confidence. Other considerations which negate the guilt of Valero: . According to the observation of the Judge. the Court cannot accept either statements as proof. the source of the vital information for the prosecution. to communicate with the outside world. . Navallo couldn’t be found. In conflict between a provision of the constitution giving the defendant a substantive right and mere technical rules of evidence. . he gave irresponsive and evasive answers. even Ceferino said that the matter was just a trivial one (ergo not enough to justify killing the kids.There was no motive for Pipe and Lucila Valero to poison the three children. that his natural reaction is to escape from it by throwing the blame to someone else not only to appease his own conscience but also to avoid embarrassment before his relatives. The rats. in her testimony not rebutted by the prosecution. -Three puppies died of poisoning under the balcony. . He examined the cashbook but didn’t examine the official receipts reflected. . V. all the proceedings against him were beyond his comprehension".New order for his arrest was issued by Sandiganbayan. c. made a Report of Examination.RTC transferred records to Sandiganbayan.The prosecution even tried to show that there was a quarrel bet.) FACTS . Ceferino Velasco is a lying witness. who was her tenant. opened the vault. his first suspicion was that his children were "nausog" (victim of witchcraft). (See. might have caused the death of his two children and the near death of a third child. Pipe alternately fanned Michael and Annabel.Ombudsman held otherwise. Provincial Auditor Espino made preliminary audit exam and found Navallo to be short of P16K+. she would not have killed the kids as her quarrel was with the mom. . would have shown clearly his incompetence as a witness. and wrote Navallo a letter demanding restitution. . we have no choice but to give effect to the constitution. not knowing the danger of the poison. . and the children.Prof. Dulguime was directed by Espino to complete the exam and conduct final audit. or maybe even his minor children must have found the poisoned slices of bread somewhere in the barn or in the house. Both Pipe and Lucila Valero loved the children. the wife of Ceferino and Valero when the latter defended the children from their mother when they were being scolded by the her. Surprisingly. Ceferino Velasco. A. dipped sliced pieces of bread in endrin dried them up and used them as bait in his barn. friends and neighbors.PD 1606 took effect. who was then the co-accused of Lucila Valero. SANDIGANBAYAN 234 SCRA 175 VITUG. the Municipal Court dismissed the murder and frustrated murder cases against Alfonsito Valero. himself. . 58 . Its aim is not only to weigh the testimony of the witness but to establish a motive for the crime charged. "on the ground that he (Pipe) is a deaf-mute and.When a witness makes two sworn statements and these two statements incur in the gravest contradictions. July 18. . Disposition: Valero acquitted. So galling to a father is the thought that he. NAVALLO V.Also. alias Pipe. If Ceferino Velasco really learned from Pipe that Lucila Valero poisoned his three children. -The thought that he might have poisoned his own children must have caused Ceferino Velasco some kind of trauma.When further repeatedly asked by the defense counsel why Ceferino did not state in his affidavit that he learned that Lucila was the source of the poisoned bread. . A witness who changes his name and statements. During the preliminary investigation in the Municipal Court. -As a result of the testimonies and the report made by the aforementioned experts. he pleaded not guilty. therefore. He was released on provisional liberty. He broke the seal.) . followed by 2 alias warrants of arrest. . . scattered them. . He confirmed Navallo’s shortage. experts on deaf-mutes examined Alfonsito Valero alias Pipe and reported to the Municipal Court that "questions addressed to him (Alfonso Valero) and answers given by him cannot be accurately interpreted". he had cashbook deposited w/ same ofc. Auditor then was merely able to prepare cash count sheet since he still had to proceed to other municipalities. This procedure of the trial Judge practically denies the accused the right to due process. Besides. -The cross-examination of Pipe.Navallo was arrested. . 1994 (chris c. Valero was suffering from some kind of psychiatric abnormality or mental disorder that can make her violent. Alfonso Valero alias Pipe. the dogs. neither did Ceferino Valero confront Lucila Valero upon allegedly learning that the latter poisoned his children. ate them.
While the case was pending. XEI turned over its selling operations to OBM. other records were lost / damaged due to typhoon. . Boston Bank filed a MR. .Such rights are invocable only when accused is under custodial investigation (questioning inititated by law enforcement officers after person has been taken into Res Inter Alios Acta BOSTON BANK (BANK OF COMMERCE) V MANALO G. c.During the trial.Subsequently. the spouses may introduce improvements subject to the rules and regulations imposed by XEI in the subdivision.Manalo proposed to purchase two lots in the Xavierville subdivision. which the CA denied. The law is clear: Case under jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan shall be transferred to it so long as accused has not as yet been properly arraigned elsewhere. .) . 2006 (joey) NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the CA they had not yet received the notice of resumption of XEI’s selling operations. the plaintiffs adduced in evidence the separate Contracts of Conditional Sale executed between XEI and 3 other buyers to prove that XEI continued selling residential lots in the subdivision as agent of OBM after the latter had acquired the said lots. Ramos confirmed the reservation of Manalo’s lots.R. XEI Pres. . through XEI. CBM moved to withdraw its complaint. Further. but if the selling operations of XEI resumed after that date. Failure of public officer to have public funds / prop w/ w/c he’s chargeable. No. relying on Macasemo’s assurance that he would settle the matter. . However.In any case. preparation of vouchers for salaries. they demanded that a deed of conditional sale over the two lots be transmitted to them for their signatures. Avena A2010 Evidence e. d. Navallo signed only because he was pressured by Macasemo.Plaintiffs again proposed an amicable settlement based on the current market value of the lots. to purchase the property. which the spouses rejected. Navallo was in Manila when case was filed. upon demand by officer. . the latter filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against the bank before the RTC. She promised to send CBM the documents. his duties include collection of tuition. 1972. In the meantime. . . . 2.PD 1606 took effect 12/10/78. but not pressured to sign auditor’s report.Prof. February 9.Subsequently. XEI continued selling the lots as agent of OBM. the balance of the downpayment would fall due then. .CBM filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the spouses. Register of Deeds issued the TCTs for Manalo’s lots in favor of OBM. . ISSUE 1.In a letter. He didn’t see the actual counting of money and no actual audit was made by Espino. He didn’t exert effort to have Macasemo appear in PI.A person under normal audit is not under custodial investigation. 158149 CALLEJO. WON Navallo should be held liable FACTS .There’s no double jeopardy bec RTC was devoid of jurisdiction when it conducted an arraignment. Navallo may have been persuaded. The receipts. . the spouses Manalo offered an amicable settlement. remittance of collections. CBM proposed a higher price. .Commercial Bank of Manila acquired the Xavierville Estate from OBM. Navallo neither complied nor offered any explanation. and the execution of the corresponding contract of conditional sale. and that there had been no arrangement on the payment of interests. When he was summoned. the safe used by him and Macasemo was already open and the cash was placed on top of a table. V. they did not pay the balance because Ramos failed to prepare a contract of conditional sale and transmit the same to them. NO.CBM requested Perla Manalo to stop any on-going construction on the property since it was the owner of the lot. through Ramos.Defendant presented in evidence the letters where XEI proposed to sell the two lots subject to two suspensive conditions: the payment of the balance of the downpayment of the property. Navallo said charge was motivated by personal grudge on part of Espino. − Sandiganbayan declared Navallo guilty. After CBM filed its complaint against the spouses Manalo. In a letter.CA affirmed RTC. . The defendant still insisted on a higher price. promising to abide by the purchase price. He pegged the price and scheduled the giving of downpayment and signing of the Contract of Conditional Sale on or before Dec. . 3. XEI twice furnished the spouses with a statement of their account. A. 31. Art III of Consti 3. shall be prima facie evidence that has put missing funds or prop to personal use. However. YES . WON Navallo can invoke right under Sec 12. . neither did the case there terminate w/ conviction or acquittal nor was it dismissed.RTC rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. e. there was no formal turnover of accountability fr Macasemo to Navallo. they should not be charged with interest on the balance of the downpayment on the property. . Moreover. she failed to do so. custody or deprived of his freedom in any significant way. b. hence. .The law he contravened creates a presumption of evidence. She informed them that her husband had a contract with OBM. NO. ISSUES 59 .Evidence for defense: a. . . Inc (vendor) and Overseas Bank of Manila (vendee) executed a "Deed of Sale of Real Estate" over some lots in Xavierville Estate Subdivision. per agreement with XEI. Navallo & Macasemo both used the vault. cashbook.Navallo’s arraignment before RTC on 7/18/85 is years away fr 1978.The spouses Manalo were notified of XEI’s resumption of selling operations. Navallo testified. The jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan had become effective. WON there’s double jeopardy in this case 2.Xavierville Estate.CBM was renamed the Boston Bank of the Philippines. . his having been “pressured” to sign is belied by his own testimony. Manalo stated − HELD 1. and the spouses would sign the contract within 5 days from receipt of the notice of resumption of selling operations.
on one hand.The bare fact that other lot buyers were allowed to pay the balance of the purchase price of lots purchased by them in 120 or 180 monthly installments does not constitute evidence that XEI also agreed to give the respondents the same mode and timeline of payment. respondents adduced in evidence the three contracts of conditional sale executed by XEI and other lot buyers merely to prove that XEI continued to sell lots in the subdivision as sales agent of OBM after it acquired said lots.00 had yet to be agreed upon on or before December 31. or even afterwards. XEI granted all lot buyers the right to pay the balance of the purchase price in installments of 120 months of fixed amounts with pre-computed interests. Mere similarity of contracts does not present the kind of sufficiently similar circumstances to outweigh the danger of prejudice and confusion. NO Ratio In a contract to sell property by installments. such payment cannot be considered as sufficient proof of the perfection of any purchase and sale between the parties. the determination of the terms of payment of the P278. 1972 letters to respondents. the Court may base its decision upon some other points. it is not enough that the parties agree on the price as well as the amount of downpayment. (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners’ main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents. It is only when examples offered to establish pattern of conduct or habit are numerous enough to lose an inference of systematic conduct that examples are admissible. pattern of conduct or the intent of the parties. .Habit. The agreement as to the manner of payment goes into the price. of the schedule of payment of the balance of the purchase price on the property amounting to P278. such that a disagreement on the manner of payment is tantamount to a failure to agree on the price.CA ruling is contrary to law and is not supported by evidence. which the trial court or appellate court ignored or erroneously decided in favor of a party. as well as the antecedental proceedings constrains us to hold that petitioner is not barred from asserting that XEI or OBM. Courts should not undertake to make a contract for the parties. WON the factual issues raised by the petitioner are proper 2. . . Under Section 34.448. respondents were obliged to pay the balance with pre-computed interest of 12% p. Reasoning .Prof.Under Article 1469 of the New Civil Code. as affirmed on appeal by the CA. absurd or impossible. The examples offered in evidence to prove habit.So long as an essential element entering into the proposed obligation of either of the parties remains to be determined by an agreement which they are to make. (3) where there is a grave abuse of discretion. (6) when the Court of Appeals. in 120-month installments. or if the contract contains express or implied provisions by which it may 60 . (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court. custom. based on the terms of payment of the balance of the purchase price of the lots under the contracts of conditional sale executed by XEI and the other lot buyers. (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. conduct that is semi-automatic in nature. A careful examination of the factual backdrop. as a matter of business usage. usage. . . although such evidence may be received to prove habit. . in making its findings went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee. and (10) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. in the records. on the other. or pattern of evidence must be numerous enough to base on inference of systematic conduct. not to prove usage. surmises and conjectures. the terms of which are in doubt. The offering party must allege and prove specific. 1972. 1972 and August 22. Based on Ramos’ February 8. when the parties sign the contract of conditional sale. (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting. . failed to forge a perfected contract to sell the subject lots. (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based. A. Indeed. V. repetitive conduct that might constitute evidence of habit.The Court may consider an issue not raised during the trial when there is plain error. or when an issue is closely related to an issue raised in the trial court and the CA and is necessary for a just and complete resolution of the case. are conclusive on the SC unless the case falls under any of the following exceptions: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations. the price of the property sold may be considered certain if it be so with reference to another thing certain. The offering party must establish the degree of specificity and frequency of uniform response that ensures more than a mere tendency to act in a given manner but rather. It further failed to prove that the trial court admitted the said deeds as part of the testimony of respondent Manalo. habit or pattern of conduct on the part of XEI to require all lot buyers in the subdivision to pay the balance of the purchase price of said lots in 120 months. usage or pattern of conduct must be proved like any other facts. The parties must.00. the contract is incomplete and unenforceable. Avena A2010 Evidence 1. WON there was a perfected contract to sell the property HELD 1. and the respondents. evidence that one did a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did the same or similar thing at another time. It is sufficient if it can be determined by the stipulations of the contract made by the parties thereto or by reference to an agreement incorporated in the contract of sale or contract to sell or if it is capable of being ascertained with certainty in said contract. habit or pattern of conduct.a. Reasoning . Even if the buyer makes a downpayment or portion thereof. YES Ratio The findings of facts of the trial court. . Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. 2. Such issue may still be considered and resolved by the Court in the interest of substantial justice. (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken. likewise.There is no factual and legal basis for the CA ruling that.Respondents failed to allege and prove that.448.There is no showing. nor can it enforce one. When the trial court decides a case in favor of a party on certain grounds. and sufficiently regular. the key criteria are adequacy of sampling and uniformity of response. and that XEI and the respondents had intended to adopt such terms of payment relative to the sale of the two lots in question.A contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and the price.In determining whether the examples are numerous enough. agree on the manner of payment of the balance of the purchase price and on the other terms and conditions relative to the sale. . if it finds that to do so is necessary to arrive at a just decision.
or if it provides some method or criterion by which it can be definitely ascertained. Avena A2010 Evidence be rendered certain.Prof. 61 . RTC is ordered to dismiss the complaint. V. Such is not the case here. CA Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Dispositive Petition is GRANTED. A.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.